Home » Intelligent Design » The video that proves Intelligent Design

The video that proves Intelligent Design

Seeing is believing, and they say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Over at Creation.com, Brian Thomas has posted a fascinating article entitled, ATP synthase: majestic molecular machine made by a mastermind. ATP synthase is an enzyme that synthesizes an energy-rich compound, ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which is used by almost every biochemical process in the body. ATP synthase is also the world’s tiniest rotary motor, and it operates at near 100% efficiency, which is far greater than that of any man-made motor. In his article, Brian Thomas does an excellent job of describing the workings of this enzyme and of exposing the inadequacies of proposed evolutionary explanations for its origin.

But don’t take my word for it. Have a look at this video by Creation.com, and you’ll see at once that ATP synthase is the product of design. It’ll only take 86 seconds of your valuable time.

As Jonathan Sarfati explains in another video, entitled Evolution Vs ATP Synthase – Molecular Machine:

You couldn’t have life unless you had this motor to produce the energy currency, so it looks like this motor must have been there right from the beginning, and I’d say that because this motor is so much better, so much tinier and more efficient than anything we can design, … the Designer of the motor is far more intelligent than any motor designer we have today too.

My sentiments exactly. Judge for yourself. You might like to have a look at these links here and here, on Uncommon Descent, where ATP synthase has been highlighted previously, as evidence for Intelligent Design.

I’d like to thank Bornagain77, a regular contributor to Uncommon Descent, for bringing this video to my attention, and also Ashby Camp of True.Origin.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

8 Responses to The video that proves Intelligent Design

  1. That is an amazing video. I love how the little protons march like soldiers up the side of the motor.

  2. From Wikipedia:

    “Human ATP synthase

    The following is a list of humans genes that encode components of ATP synthases:
    ATP5A1, ATP5AL1
    ATP5B, ATP5BL1
    ATP5C2, ATP5D, ATP5E, ATP5F1, ATP5G1, ATP5G2, ATP5G3, ATP5H, ATP5HP1, ATP5I, ATP5J, ATP5J2, ATP5L, ATP5L2, ATP5O, ATP5S
    ATP6, ATP6AP1, ATP6AP2
    ATPSBL1, ATPSBL2
    MT-ATP6, MT-ATP8″

    “Evolution of ATP synthase

    The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution, where two subunits with their own functions have become associated and gained new functionality.[6][7] This coupling must have occurred early in the evolution of life as evidenced by essentially the same structure and processes of ATP synthase enzymes conserved in all kingdoms of life.”

    IOWs, another of the thousands of fundamental proteins which were already present in LUCA, or probably at OOL itself. And which have kept their function for billions of years.

  3. DaveScot is on record as saying that the ATP synthase is one of teh best evidences for ID…

  4. gpuccio, if you are around, you should love this paper as it deals with LUCA:

    Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome – Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten – 2008
    Excerpt: We have found >139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered.
    http://www.paulyu.org/wp-conte.....genome.pdf

    ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson
    http://www.vimeo.com/17132544

  5. gpuccio, here is a short version:

    ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video
    http://www.vimeo.com/17135166

  6. Once again, I am astonished that anyone who understands the nature of the ATP synthase machine (which includes all cell biochemists, presumably) could possibly believe that it arose through undirected natural processes, particularly since it adds to the chicken and egg conundrums of the cell. It is amazing that they all have not reacted the way that Behe and Axe did when confronted by this information, namely to ask themselves, “Could this possibly have arisen by random mutation and natural selection?”, and to see that the answer is clearly, “No.”

    I believe that their failure to see the blindingly obvious points to a characteristic of human thinking, namely that most of us will simply reject any evidence that contradicts our most deeply held paradigms. This is obviously not a function of intelligence, since very smart people fall into this trap, but applies to humanity across the board. Those who are exceptions are rare. One example who comes to mind is the late Antony Flew, who in his eighties reversed a life long commitment to atheism because the scientific evidence no longer supported it.

    The ugly truth is that for most of us, our commitment to our world view is stronger than our commitment to the truth, and lest we be too smug, I suspect that many of us in the ID movement are just as committed to our own world views as the methodological naturalists are to theirs.

  7. Bruce David

    You make an interesting point in the last paragraph, although I would add that ID is falsifiable in its assertion that intelligence is the only adequate explanation for FCSI, as JonathanM pointed out in his post at http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-argument/ .

  8. Dr. Torley,

    In that paragraph, I had in mind more that just a belief in ID. When I speak of one’s “world view”, I am referring to one’s fundamental metaphysical “truth’s”, for example, a belief in the existence of a Creator, belief in the truth of scripture (whether it be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.), and a particular interpretation of that scripture, belief in the reality of the material world, belief in the reality of a non-material world, etc. It has been my observation that once a system of paradigms at this level of belief have been adopted by an individual (which usually but not always occurs at a relatively young age), it is rare for said individual to seriously consider any evidence that contradicts those beliefs during the remainder of his or her life.

Leave a Reply