a . “Life implies movement. Most forms of movement in the living world are powered by tiny protein machines known as molecular motors.” Manfred Schliwa and Günther Woehlke, “Molecular Motors,” Nature, Vol. 422, 17 April 2003, p. 759.
b . “We would see [in cells] that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology.
“What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle.” Denton, p. 329.
c . “Ounce for ounce, watt for watt, it [the bat] is millions of times more efficient and more sensitive than the radars and sonars contrived by man.” Pitman, p. 219.
d . For years, Dr. Duane Gish told a humorous story about the bombardier beetle (BB). It defends itself by shooting hot (212°F.) irritating gases out of twin combustion tubes in its tail. Each tube carries a different chemical: hydrogen peroxide in one and hydroquinone in the other. When they combine—after exiting the tubes and just before striking the face of BB’s enemy—they explode. How then did this evolve inside that poor beetle without killing him? Even if BB figured out the chemistry before a predator killed him, BB’s defensive system wouldn’t work until (1) the tubes were designed to avoid the corrosive chemicals, (2) the muscles in BB’s body could quickly rotate his “guns” up to 360° (3) his eyes and brain worked well enough to accurately aim his “guns,” and (4) his muscles “could pull the trigger.
Some who have never had to design anything, might think that with billions of years and thousands of mutations, a normal beetle might become BB. However, when so many components are involved, nothing works until every component works—simultaneously. With each failure, the whole evolutionary process must begin again. [See Duane T. Gish, “The Amazing Story of Creation,” (El Cajon, CA, Institute for Creation Research, 1990), pp. 96–101.]
Scientists have recently learned that BB can survive even if a predator swallows him. BB survives “being eaten by squirting a boiling-hot chemical over predator’s innards, causing the predator to vomit” and expel BB. [See ‘Beetles Cause Indigestion,” Nature, Vol. 554, 15 February 2018, p. 279.]
I once ordered a dramatic picture, for use in this book. It showed BB shooting his “guns at a menacing toad. After offering to pay the dealer his asking price, the dealer asked if I was a creationist. I said I was. He then said he was not allowed to sell that picture to any creationists. Can you guess why?
u Robert E. Kofahl and Kelly L. Segraves, The Creation Explanation (Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975), pp. 2–9.
u Thomas Eisner and Daniel J. Aneshansley, “Spray Aiming in Bombardier Beetles: Jet Deflection by the Coanda Effect,” Science, Vol. 215, 1 January 1982, pp. 83–85.
u Behe, pp. 31–36.
e . Jason A. Etheredge et al., “Monarch Butterflies (Danaus plexippus L.) Use a Magnetic Compass for Navigation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 96, 23 November 1999, pp. 13845–13846.
f . David H. Freedman, “Exploiting the Nanotechnology of Life,” Science, Vol. 254, 29 November 1991, pp. 1308–1310.
u Tom Koppel, “Learning How Bacteria Swim Could Set New Gears in Motion,” Scientific American, Vol. 265, September 1991, pp. 168–169.
u Howard C. Berg, “How Bacteria Swim,” Scientific American, Vol. 233, August 1975, pp. 36–44.
g . Y. Magariyama et al., “Very Fast Flagellar Rotation,” Nature, Vol. 371, 27 October 1994, p. 752.
h . Could a conventional electrical motor be scaled down to propel a bacterium through a liquid? No. Friction would overcome almost all movement, because the ratio of inertial-to-viscous forces is proportional to scale. In effect, the liquid becomes stickier the smaller you get. Therefore, the efficiency of the bacterial motor itself, which approaches 100% at slow speeds, is remarkable and currently unexplainable.
i . C. Wu, “Protein Switch Curls Bacterial Propellers,” Science News, Vol. 153, 7 February 1998, p. 86.
j . Yes, you read this correctly. The molecular motors are 25 nanometers in diameter while an average human hair is about 75 microns in diameter.
k . “Bacteria can organize into groups, they can communicate. ... How could this have evolved?” E. Peter Greenberg, “Tiny Teamwork,” Nature, Vol. 424, 10 July 2003, p. 134.
u Bonnie L. Bassler, “How Bacteria Talk to Each Other: Regulation of Gene Expression by Quorum Sensing,” Current Opinion in Microbiology, Vol. 2, 1 December 1999, pp. 582–587.
l . “... the smallest rotary motors in biology. The flow of protons propels the rotation ...” Holger Seelert et al., “Proton-Powered Turbine of a Plant Motor,” Nature, Vol. 405, 25 May 2000, pp. 418–419.
u “The ATP synthase [motor] not only lays claim to being nature’s smallest rotary motor, but also has an extremely important role in providing most of the chemical energy that aerobic and photosynthetic organisms need to stay alive.” Richard L. Cross, “Turning the ATP Motor,” Nature, Vol. 427, 29 January 2004, pp. 407–408.