Evolution in the nanoworld
October 30, 2007
Nanometer scale organization of molecular components on a copper surface, demonstrating sorting of two sizes of molecules through molecular self-selection. The spacing between molecular rows is about 1 nanometer. Credit: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe und Max-Planck-Institut
The automatic molecular assembly and selection steps exhibited by the molecules, which start as random mixtures, demonstrates a fundamental step in the evolution of life. The organization is activated by instructions which are built-in to the molecules. During assembly, molecules exhibit active selection: those in incorrect positions move to make room for others which fit properly.
The molecular-level observation of such self-selection gives, for the first time, direct insight into fundamental steps of the biological evolution from inanimate molecules to living entities. The resulting nanostructures also hold great promise as an efficient avenue to new catalysts, nanotechnologies, and surface applications.
In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists from the research groups of Klaus Kern at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart (MPI) and of Mario Ruben at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) explain that this observation of molecular organization at surfaces may lead to further insight of how simple, inanimate molecules can build up biological entities of increasing structural and functional complexity, such as membranes, cells, leaves, trees, etc.
"The ability of molecules to selectively sort themselves in highly organized structures is a fundamental requirement for all molecular based systems, including biological organisms," explains Prof. Dr. Klaus Kern, director of the Nanoscale Science Department at the MPI.
Dr. Mario Ruben's research team at KIT is responsible for designing molecules with built-in instructions, which when read out activate the self-selection process. He comments: "Spontaneous ordering from random mixtures only occurs when built-in instructions are carefully designed and sufficiently strong to initiate successful self-selection."
Scientists at the MPI directly observe the basic step of self-selection by imaging grid-like assemblies of molecules, which have sorted themselves by size. The features of the grid pattern are about one nanometer in size (0.000 000 001 meters), so small that they can only be imaged using state-of-the-art, ultra sensitive microscopy techniques. "Creating such miniscule architectures with features 50 000 times smaller than a hair is not a simple task," according to Dr. Steven Tait of the MPI. "Carving these nanometer structures with current technology would be inefficient and extremely expensive. Our strategy is to utilize instructed building blocks which can arrange themselves into desired structures."
The molecules are placed on ultra-clean metal surfaces and heated gently to enable motion, sorting, and organization. "The molecule movement on the copper surface is restricted to two-dimensions, but is still efficient enough to allow mixing of the molecules. By placing the molecules on a surface, we have the enormous advantage of being able to use specialized microscopes to ‚see’ the nanometer scale structures of the molecular assemblies," explains Alexander Langner, a graduate student at the MPI and first author of the study.
The study was conducted by Alexander Langner, Dr. Steven Tait, Dr. Nian Lin, and Prof. Dr. Klaus Kern of the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research and Dr. Chandrasekar Rajadurai and Dr. Mario Ruben of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT).
Professor Kern is the director of the Nanoscale Science Department at the MPI and leads a large research team conducting a wide range of studies related to the electronic, optical, and chemical properties of novel materials at the nanometer scale. Dr. Ruben is the leader of the research group "Functional Molecular Nanostructures" at the Institute of Nanotechnology in Karlsruhe and has a long-standing competence in the design and synthesis of instructed molecular components.
Source: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Nov 12, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
One of the biggest problems creationists have in understanding how evolution can produce complexity in reasonable rather than ludicrous timescales is that they insist on clinging to the implications of the word "random" and avoiding the implications of the word "selection".
By beginning to describe how the selection works - without intelligence - at the molecular level, we may begin to fill in the gaps in creationist comprehension.
what, you mean evolution *isn't* random? But my biology textbook ('Of Pandas and People') says evolution IS random! Oh my, who am I to believe now?...
seriously though, I hate how anyone who criticises evolutionary theory doesn't have the slightest understanding of it (same as people who criticise Relativity on this site...). Even their top "scientists", like Michael Behe--whom one might have expected to know better--makes numerous simple mistakes that an elementary biology student could find if they thought about it hard enough.
On the topic of the story itself - excellent, and I'll be finding that article as soon as I get the chance.
Very funny! Here is what I just discussed about the inter-reactivity of elemental properties at the quantum (or molecular) levels:
http://www.physor...870.html
Or, as the article above exactly summarizes as follows:
Furthermore,
Exactly, Behe is a pseudo-scientist par excellence! In fact, I'm working on a book (entitled Decoding Scientism) on the neo-Creationism (Behe of the Intelligent Design) vs neo-Darwinism (Richard Dawkins of Evolutionism, et cetera). Thank you all!
I'll be interested to read that. I'd be interested in your answer (and Fredrick's) to this question: http://www.fullmo..._2#lying
I genuinely still cannot make up my mind...
I thought you already reached your correct conclusion as follows:
If you're still in doubt, you might want to read my 2006 seminal book "Gods, Genes, Conscience" as I explained to the interested PhysOrg.com readers here (August 2, 2007):
http://forum.phys...ic=16357&view=findpost&p=243832
If you're still in doubt, I would suggest you follow the arguments from the side of scientific empiricism or Realism (as opposed to Creationism or Thoughts that you created in your Mind).
As to your (not so simple) query: Are they Lying, Stupid or Blind? You might want to read Chapter 15: The Universal Theory of Mind, in "Gods, Genes, Conscience" to get your own answers that might be fully rationalized in your Mind! Thank you all!
http://www.fullmo...id=c07_1 )
but not quite so tuned on this question!
I, personally, have NO doubts about the principle tenets of modern cosmology including the principles of evolution and natural selection. My genuine reservations concern the internal state of creationists like Duane Gish or Michael Behe; i.e. the scientifically literate creationists who "ought to know better" and certainly ought to be able to understand the implications of things like the Second Law of Thermodynamics somewhat better than they appear to.
The question is: is that faulty comprehension real? (And if so, how is that even possible in somehow judged worthy of a PhD in science?) or is it some form of attempted self and social deception made necessary in order to sustain their theistic fantasies?
Behe made quite a few errors, but they were fairly subtle... like incorrectly defining 'information' and using equations which assumed equal probabilities in cases when the probabilities were not equal. He obviously has it in his mind that he wants to prove Creationism correct - so anything that confirms the conclusion he has already made isn't going to be criticised all that strongly. It happens to everyone - singlemindedness and our preconceptions lead us to stop being self-critical, and become overconfident of our results.
He *should* have known better, because he is trained as a scientist... that is, he is trained to be properly self-critical, to analyse things properly, to attempt to *falsify* his hypotheses. But I don't think he was lying or deliberately making mistakes... surely, at least, he would realise that his credibility as a scientist would be severely damaged if he went about publishing simple mistakes as fact. And I doubt very much that he knew those mistakes were in there, but he didn't think anyone would find them - his was a book designed to be contentious, of course there were going to be people going through it combing for errors (not that you had to look hard...)
Of course I can't ever know what was going on in his head and his reasons for publishing, but he's too smart to be stupid, and deliberately lying with simple errors just seems to defeat the purpose in the end (although I still count this as a possibility, especially after reading the 'Wedge memo'). Most likely, then, I think he was blind... my main reason being all the times that my preconceptions have caused me to become un-self-critical, and make simple errors.
The only point where I suspect your analogy fails is that I'm damn sure if you personally were "corrected" - not just once but repeatedly - on a scientific goof you wouldn't be emotionally or intellectually capable of refusing to acknowledge the error. If you seriously believed it was not an error, you would at least explain your scientific reasons for continuing to maintain your challenged position.
It's that extra step they take which puts them into a very strange mental state which I still cannot quite fathom...
So while I don't think he was lying in the first instance, he reeks of intellectual dishonesty after being called-out on many of his mistakes. Again, I can't know why he does it or if he knows he is doing it, and you do have to admit that it is very hard (as a matter of pride) to admit one's error, especially considering the self-glorifying claims of revolutionary ideas that these guys have... but admitting, in plain words, to an error, then continuing to make that error elsewhere as though nothing had happened... could be outright blindness again; or just plain old ass-holery.
1] I would agree; however, I thought you're more in tuned with %u201Csociopolitical%u201D Philosophy, whilst I'm more inclined to %u201Cnatural%u201D (sociopolitical neutral) Philosophy and Biology, because I'm a retired biologist-oncologist turned-independent philosopher of Mind and Emotion, including natural Ethics and Morality in Science and Religion, globally.
2] By modern definition, "natural selection" (NS) may not be used to describe Cosmology anymore without further clarification: as all matters have intrinsic properties; and all matters do evolve by the inter-reactivity of their physicochemical properties on Earth, and elsewhere in the Universe above and beyond. This is a 20th-century, elemental, cosmological, quantum phenomenon that was not observed or fathomed by Charles Darwin before in the 19th century!
Besides, like %u201Cintelligent design%u201D (ID), NS may also imply that %u201Cthere might be someone who is doing the selection!?%u201D As such, by rhetorically applying NS to the molecular and quantum levels, such as in Genetics and Biogenesis, Richard Dawkins has had in effects turned the 19th-century Darwinism into Dawkinsian Evolutionism or Dawkinsism, a 20th-century Scientism that Dawkins has been propagating since 1976 with the publication of his first controversial book %u201CThe Selfish Gene.%u201D
In the 1990s, Dawkinsian Evolutionism further revitalized the creationist anti-Darwinism campaign, under their renewed guise of ID, in the hope that no one would ask %u201Cwho is the intelligent designer?%u201D since no one has ever asked %u201Cwho is doing the NS?%u201D
All these pseudo-scientific queries have had culminated in the faulty debate today: neo-Darwinism or Evolutionism (in which NS=Gene; a specialized field of Genetics and Biochemistry that Dawkins has no training in) vs. neo-Creationism (in which ID=God; a natural Biology and Philosophy that Behe lacks in his expertise in Biochemistry)!
3] Well, both Gish and Behe have a PhD in Biochemistry, a very specialized field that came into existence since the 1950s or so, so as to investigate the matters of Life (including DNA, protein, etc) using the physicochemical methods. Their PhDs would mean that they both have had trained in such an advanced level of Technology and comprehension in Biochemistry only, a neutral Science and Technology that would not negate their personal (or internal) belief in Creationism.
Furthermore, since they both hadn't trained in a modern global natural Biology and Philosophy thereof, their then superficial observations of the biochemical ID challenges to Darwinism, simply could not stand (see Behe's 1996 first ID book %u201CDarwin's Black Box%u201D); this is because the creationists have had picked on the wrong target of attack: as Darwinism (Evolution) is not Dawkinsism (Evolutionism), as explained in 2] above!
4] This is called a religious conviction; literally and psychologically, a faulty faith could make believers blind and submissive, to their incapability of processing any new information or knowledge beyond their own belief system!
5] Exactly, see my observations in 2] and 3] above.
6] Exactly, see my analyses in 2], 3] and 4] above.
7] Well analyzed; and also see my observations in 2], 3] and 4] above. I think the Wedge memo was developed in the early 1990s, in response to Dawkinsian Evolutionism, as explained in 2] above.
8] Well, I hope that after reading all my points 1] - 7] above, you would be able to rationalize all these %u201CDecoding Scientism%u201D analyses in your own Mind! And last, but not least:
9] This is called arguments in circularity; that's why ID by mathematical inference (Dembski's theory) or by biochemical challenges to Darwinism or Evolution (Behe's unscientific uncritical theory) could not stand as a Science theory, as explained in 2] and 3] above, scientifically, philosophically, as well as epistemologically! Thank you all for your interests in Decoding Scientism into the 21st century!