Toolbox
- size +

Evolution in the nanoworld

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 un ...
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
» Next Article in Nanotechnology - Physics: Video shows buckyballs form by 'shrink wrapping'

would you recommend this story?

 

User Rating

4.1 out of 5 after 24 total votes
  • not at all
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • highly

Leave a Comment or

Rank filter

Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.
Posted by SDMike 11/03/07 12:30
Rank: 3/5 after 1 vote
So, life is an inherent, inevitable, consequence of the physics defining our universe. Thus, life is universal. We should find life everywhere we look. Mars, Venus, Washington D.C.
Posted by Harry Stottle 11/13/07 07:56
Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote
This could be of particular relevance in educating the "Intelligent Design" brigade.

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.
Posted by fredrick 11/13/07 09:02
Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote
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".


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.
Posted by Mong H Tan, PhD 11/13/07 10:09
Not rated yet.
So, life is an inherent, inevitable, consequence of the physics defining our universe. Thus, life is universal. We should find life everywhere we look. Mars, Venus, Washington D.C.


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:

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.


Furthermore,

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.


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!
Posted by Harry Stottle 11/13/07 18:54
Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote
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...
Posted by Mong H Tan, PhD 11/14/07 17:08
Not rated yet.
I genuinely still cannot make up my mind...


I thought you already reached your correct conclusion as follows:

The fact that creationist arguments do not even attempt to conform to the rules of empiricism (by, for example, proposing ways in which their hypotheses could be either verified or falsified) and thus have little or no scientific merit, is invisible or incomprehensible to the watching public.

So when the creationists continue to lose their struggle to have Intelligent Design given equal treatment in schools, they begin to look like underdogs being oppressed by the system for no apparently good reason. In fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or biologist) to puncture many of their arguments.


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!
Posted by Harry Stottle 11/14/07 17:38
Rank: 5/5 after 2 votes
Mong, it looks like we're on the same wavelength with regard to evolution at least(see
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?
Posted by fredrick 11/14/07 20:34
Rank: 5/5 after 1 vote
Someone once told me of a Christian guy, who, when he went to a museum, simply refused to acknowledge the existence of the dinosaur bones that were right in front of him. One might think he was being ignorant or stubborn, but the guy who told me seemed to think that he didn't even see it - like his preconceptions simply blotted it out of existence. Its so hard to tell sometimes whether someone is just being retarded, or they are lying - or if their mind is playing tricks on them.

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.
Posted by Harry Stottle 11/15/07 20:22
Rank: 5/5 after 2 votes
Obviously I agree with Fredrick.

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...
Posted by fredrick 11/15/07 22:17
Rank: 5/5 after 2 votes
yeah, I was thinking just that. Dembski has his 'Design Inference' algorithm thingy, which, when he first published, he said could not possibly produce a 'false-positive' conclusion for design. In a later essay, he all but explicitly says that it *could* produce a 'false-positive', even outlining certain situations in which it might arise. THEN, in an even later essay, he goes back to claiming that it cannot produce 'false-positives'. His work, in particular, is rife with this sort of stuff - he claims his design inference is falsifiable, then later acknowledges that he was equivocating "falsifiability" and using it in a non-standard way, then later continues to preach that his inference is falsifiable (in a context implying that he meant the Popperian definition of falsifiability, not his own "special" definition). He also constantly claims to have done rigorous calculations using his method, but has failed to produce any of these calculations even upon being asked repeatedly to do so.

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.
Posted by Mong H Tan, PhD 11/17/07 15:40
Rank: 4/5 after 2 votes
Mong, it looks like we're on the same wavelength with regard to evolution at least (see
http://www.fullmo...id=c07_1 )

but not quite so tuned on this question!


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.

I, personally, have NO doubts about the principle tenets of modern cosmology including the principles of evolution and natural selection.


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)!

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?


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!

Someone once told me of a Christian guy, who, when he went to a museum, simply refused to acknowledge the existence of the dinosaur bones that were right in front of him. One might think he was being ignorant or stubborn, but the guy who told me seemed to think that he didn't even see it - like his preconceptions simply blotted it out of existence. Its so hard to tell sometimes whether someone is just being retarded, or they are lying - or if their mind is playing tricks on them.


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!

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 criticized all that strongly. It happens to everyone - single-mindedness and our preconceptions lead us to stop being self-critical, and become overconfident of our results.


5] Exactly, see my observations in 2] and 3] above.

He *should* have known better, because he is trained as a scientist... that is, he is trained to be properly self-critical, to analyze 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 realize 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...)


6] Exactly, see my analyses in 2], 3] and 4] above.

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.


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.

Obviously I agree with Fredrick.

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%u2026


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:

So while I don't think he [Dembski] 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-holey.


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!