Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Why God made tag clouds.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - VoxRat

1
But the goat IS a machine.
No. It's not.
Quote any recognized (by anyone other than yourself) definition of "machine" that a goat meets.
See?
You can't.

But even if a goat were a "machine", wtf is your point?

:dunno:



I forget.
::)    Well, let us know if it comes back to you.

Meanwhile, hopefully your confusion about Bruce Alberts - his views on what is (and is not) a "machine"; how he differs (or does not) from other "Darwinists" -  has been cleared up.
2
But the goat IS a machine.
No. It's not.
Quote any recognized (by anyone other than yourself) definition of "machine" that a goat meets.
See?
You can't.

But even if a goat were a "machine", wtf is your point?

:dunno:


3
but in asserting this I am not asserting that "therefore they necessarily were designed by intelligent entity."  they might have been, and I happen to believe they were, but simply "being actual  really for really real machines" does not in and of itself require this.
So back in 2008, it was: Alberts called enzymes* "machines", therefore they ARE machines, with all the attributes of ALL machines, therefore Goddidit.
This time 'round, it's:  Alberts called (something biogical) "machines", therefore ... well ... er ... Reductionism!!1!... or...
Hey! What's that shiny thing? Over there!

* not organisms; the difference between an enzyme and an organism is quite a bit more than a "quibble".  Except maybe to an extreme Dunning-Kruger case, to whom they might be "words you hear in a biology class... whatever".
4
  I'm saying that goats - like humans - have more functions (purposes) than reproducing.
When Alberts referred to enzymes as "machines", he was talking about how they have an intricate array of coordinated moving parts that are organized such that they accomplish a particular function.
That's why (preposterously) extending the word "machine" to anything and everything that contains enzymes* doesn't work.
Neither goats nor humans are "designed" (or evolved) to perform some one specific "machine-like" function.  That's why applying the word "machine" to them (in anything like the sense that Alberts used, referring to enzymes) is either stupid, disingenuous, or both.



* And dishonestly attributing that extension to Alberts.
5
From 2008:
Quote from: Pingu
By "machines" I mean things that turn energy into work. And by work, in this context, I mean expenditure of energy that serves some function. Notice I do not say purpose here - something can have a function, but no purpose. So a bacterial flagellum is a machine, by my definition, because it turns energy into motility for the bacterium. That doesn't mean that the bacterium harbours anything one might call a purpose to move. Purpose (or intention) requires a brain (IMO).
Quote from: Dave Hawkins
I agree with your "machine" definition I don't know why many posters here have a problem with this.

Oh lord.

I had a feeling we'd been here before.
Yep.

:grandpa:
6
that's about as insensitive and incurious as me saying that humans have no purpose other than  to produce more humans.
Everyone knows the purpose of goats is to provide food and maybe clothing for humans.
7
From 2008:
Quote from: Pingu
By "machines" I mean things that turn energy into work. And by work, in this context, I mean expenditure of energy that serves some function. Notice I do not say purpose here - something can have a function, but no purpose. So a bacterial flagellum is a machine, by my definition, because it turns energy into motility for the bacterium. That doesn't mean that the bacterium harbours anything one might call a purpose to move. Purpose (or intention) requires a brain (IMO).
Quote from: Dave Hawkins
I agree with your "machine" definition I don't know why many posters here have a problem with this.
9
oh good God you're quibbling that maybe proteins are real machines but organisms are not? Give me a freaking break.
That is hardly a "quibble", you idiot.
You really think organisms can be reduced to nothing but proteins enzymes* and this is somehow an argument against reductionism ?

One more time: there is no daylight between Alberts' views and my own, either on enzymes or organisms.

* Alberts never called organisms "machines".
He never called cells "machines".
He called some proteins - specifically enzymes - "machines".
For exactly the same reasons I do.
But, alas, these distinctions are lost on the Dunning-Kruger poster child.
10
but in asserting this I am not asserting that "therefore they necessarily were designed by intelligent entity."  they might have been, and I happen to believe they were, but simply "being actual  really for really real machines" does not in and of itself require this.
Nor does it have anything to do with anything else being discussed heretofore in this thread.
11
they are not LIKE machines.

 they are not  ANALOGOUS TO machines.

 they ARE machines.

 LITERALLY.
Where  the conveniently elided antecedent to the pronoun, "they" is:  _______________________ .

(fill in the blank).
12
All of you are full of shit ... 
no u
Quote
here's Alberts own words ...

""We have always underestimated cells . . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts (Alberts, Bruce. 1998. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the NextGeneration of Molecular Biologists. Cell 92 (8 February): 291-94)."
Again: I, too, have referred to enzymes as "machines", in teaching about them.
Nothing in that quote  supports your assertion that Alberts regards organisms as "machines".

Mammals are composed of cells.
That doesn't mean mammals are cells.
Cells contain enzymes.
That doesn't mean cells are enzymes.

Hawkinzing fails again.

:fail:

13
Google tells me he gave a talk on "The DNA Enzymology of Protein Machines" at the opening of the 1984 Cold Spring Harbor Symposium. So he did use the word. That's enough for Dave.
Yep. I, too, have referred to enzymes as "machines", in teaching about them.
For exactly the same, perfectly good, reasons that Alberts did.
But organisms are not enzymes.
There is no daylight that I am aware of between Alberts's take on enzymes, or organisms, and my own.
So upon what Hawkins bases his praise of Alberts, and insults to other "Darwinists",  is anyone's guess.
This is the kind of incoherent sketchy "understanding" of a subject that comes from "Hawkinzing".
14
I am so disappointed in my generation.
:sadyes:  Me too.
I remember when I was in college, and Nixon ended the draft, my then gf said "Watch now:  our progressive, anti-war, anti-establishment generation is going to go back to God, Country and Capitalism" (or words to that effect).
 I really didn't believe it at the time, but ... damn.
I just hope  those younger voters really do "keep this vision alive" - and it's not just an age thing, where every generation leans further and further right as they senesce.
15
SFW? Because Voxrat seems to be objecting to my observation that Bruce Alberts regarded living organisms as "machines."

He objected to you saying that Bruce Alberts referred to living organisms as "machines" without quoting anything that Bruce Alberts has written that so described them.

If he did ...
He did not.
Hawkins is simply making shit up here.

And I still have no idea wtf this particular shit has to do with anything being discussed in this thread. :dunno:
If we can reduce organisms to being "machines", then somehow we're being "holistic"- as opposed to "reductionist" ?
16
If not any longer, then great!
SFW? Because Voxrat seems to be objecting to my observation that Bruce Alberts regarded living organisms as "machines."
maybe it's because you really don't understand the true nature of biological entities.  most Darwinists don't seem to.
Who better to judge others' understanding of "the true nature of biological entities" than the Dunning-Kruger poster child who's never cracked an introductory textbook on the subject? 
Quote
Bruce Alberts is a rare exception.
::)  What books - or even research papers - by Alberts have you read?

Such a poser.

While it's true that you cannot support your assertion that Alberts did or does think that - and that there is no reason to suppose that he does - as of the quoted post, you hadn't even specified wtf it was about Alberts' alleged take on "the true nature of organisms" you were referring to, let alone wtf it has to do with anything anyone is talking about here.
17
what was omarosa's job anyway?
flak:
Quote
flak (spokesperson) 

Definition: a slick spokesperson who can turn any criticism to the advantage of their employer
18
"My conclusion: both are machines, one far more complicated and sophisticated than the other.

Yes indeed."

Thank you.

Bows.
Yes?

And... ?

So.
Fucking.
What?


It looks like Hawkins is gearing up to :grandpasimpson:  back to this dumb argument he flailed on and on about 9 years ago.

:grandpa:
19
.  Evolution is in general a very effective designer.  It has two drawbacks; it takes a lot of time and resources, because it tests a heck of a lot of prototypes; and it can't easily move solutions to one problem to a different lineage.  It can only tinker with the current prototype - it can't import solutions from other design-lines.
Well, among eukaryotes, anyway.
Bacteria have no respect for intellectual property rights, and pirate blueprints to an extent Beijing can only dream about!
20
My conclusion: both are machines, one far more complicated and sophisticated than the other.
OK.
So you have an idiosyncratic davinition of "machine".

So what?
If so, then Bruce Alberts'  definition is idiosyncratic also.
Nope.
Quote anywhere that Bruce Alberts referred to organisms as "machines".
See that?
You can't.

But even if Alberts DID agree with you on that...

So. Fucking. What ?

What would it have to do with anything anyone is talking about here?
21
For instance, putting fluoride in water is a very simple lever that has transformed dental health for millions. 

I bet  you think that's "reductionist" though.  The WAPF does.

It is.  It's similar to placing tiny elves inside the wings to help control the ailerons better.
(1) Even if it were "similar to placing tiny elves inside the wings to help control the ailerons better" - that has absolutely nothing to do with any definition of "reductionism" outside your own addled pate.

(2) Working within your definition (whatever it is) of "reductionism", what's the essential difference between putting fluoride in drinking water, and putting a robot-pen around goats? 
22
My conclusion: both are machines, one far more complicated and sophisticated than the other.
OK.
So you have an idiosyncratic davinition of "machine".

So what?
23
did someone else post this already? because it's awesome.


I love the look on Tapper's face!
:rofl:
24
I'll give you a few minutes to take it back and then we won't mention it again. Surely not even you are capable of quite such an own goal. Or will I explain why this is the case?
Don't hold your breath.

Hawkins is doing a lot of question-dodging today.
Maybe even more than normal.
I maintain that Bruce Alberts is one of the few Darwinists I've read who actually understands the true nature of organisms. 
dafuq does your unstated  (mis)understanding of Alberts' understanding of "the true nature of organisms" have to do with anything anyone's talking about here?  :dunno:
^^^^^ Dave?
Quote
Denton is another one.
And, presumably, Weston Price?
And James Shapiro?
And Allan Savory?
And Mark Shepard?
etc. etc. etc.

And how, pray tell, do any of these Darwinists' understanding of "the true nature of organisms" differ from other Darwinists?
^^^^^  Dave?
Unless we are a typical Darwinist ... in which case, our intuition is mostly blocked)
Like Weston Price?
James Shapiro?
Allan Savory?
Mark Shepard?
etc. etc. etc.

Seriously.
Name one of your "Authorities" on anything related to ecology, or biology, or anything else in this discussion, who is not a "Darwinist".
^^^^^ Dave?
25
...  so there is no way to test if your idea about this is right, you just observe the world and intuitively know it was created?
Let me answer your question with a question. 

<  clip bullshit evasion  >


you are dodging my question

Dave Hawkins, the hypocrite's hypocrite!  :notworthy: