Nifty Virus Nano-Motor Discovered

Thanks to Michael Behe, everyone knows about flagellar motors, but how about VIRUS motors. Whoa. Virus motors? Enjoy …

Clockwork That Drives Powerful Virus Nanomotor Discovered

ScienceDaily — Dec. 31, 2008 — Peering at structures only atoms across, researchers have identified the clockwork that drives a powerful virus nanomotor.

Because of the motor’s strength–to scale, twice that of an automobile–the new findings could inspire engineers designing sophisticated nanomachines. In addition, because a number of virus types may possess a similar motor, including the virus that causes herpes, the results may also assist pharmaceutical companies developing methods to sabotage virus machinery.

Researchers from Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., and the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., collaborated on the study that appears in the Dec. 26, 2008, issue of the journal Cell.

3 Responses to “Nifty Virus Nano-Motor Discovered”

  1. lordkalvan says:

    You seem to be implying that use of terms like ‘motor’ and ‘clockwork’ convincingly support the idea that the biological mechanisms this article is referring to (and that Behe refers to) must be the result of the work of some sort of designer. I suggest you consider the possible use of analogy as a descriptive tool to enhance understanding before you leap to the conclusion that it in some way stands in a one-to-one correspondence with reality.

    • Borne says:

      It isn’t an analogy. Such things are literally motors and machines.

      Being organic doesn’t make these terms an analogy. When something has a rotor, stator, power source, propeller etc. and is used exactly as a motor – it is no analogy. Btw, that argument is old and untenable.

      Moreover the same analogy excuse is often applied to the genetic CODE and is also wrong. H. Yockey proved that DNA code is mathematically identical to language and human designed codes.

  2. lordkalvan says:

    Borne, ‘literally’ a motor or a machine is a device, i.e. an artificial (non-natural) mechanical contrivance constructed by someone. That a naturally-occurring biological construct works in ways analogous to machines or motors does not make them machines or motors in this sense; it was this sleight-of-hand argument that I was objecting to. That x is mathematically identical to y does not mean that x is just the same as y in all respects: just because written language has an intelligent cause does not mean that DNA also has an intelligent cause. You are attempting to draw a conclusion about DNA based on its apparent mathematical identity with written language when there is no justification for making such an inference.