Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: all dead and empty except for a few baboons braying among the ruins

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 - Dave Hawkins

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.
2
Just a simple question, Dave.



How would you switch off your "bio-machine"?

Just about every real (human designed) machine can be switched off.  Can your "bio-machines"? And if so. how?


With rabbits, I break their necks.  My sons "switch off" deer by putting a bullet (or an arrow) through their heart. 


And after doing this, how do you switch them back on?  Most real human derived machines that I am aware of can be switched back on after they are switched off.  How are your "bio-machines" switched back on?  Even after having their necks wrung or an arrow through the heart?


They're not.  I suppose sleeping would be more comparable to a man made on-off switch.
3
oh good God you're quibbling that maybe proteins are real machines but organisms are not? Give me a freaking break.

It's not a quibble at all.  If you'd actually read my goat post you'd see the difference.

A goat is not a machine for doing anything except making more goats.  It doesn't serve the purposes of some other entity.  It doesn't do the goat any good to make more goats.  It's a goat-making machine that makes more goats.

However you could argue that the proteins involved in the goat's metabolism are serving the purposes of another entity - the goat.  So you could say the goat uses its enzymes as a machine to help it make more goats.

That is very different from saying the goat is a machine.
But the goat IS a machine.  It's not only a machine for making new baby goats ... it's a machine for converting grass and brush and tree leaves into meat and / or milk.  It's also a machine for producing fertilizer which exits the back end and is happily utilized by soil organisms.  It's also a machine for producing carbon dioxide which plants intake.  It's also a machine for entertaining my kids.  And so on.
4
Just a simple question, Dave.

How would you switch off your "bio-machine"?

Just about every real (human designed) machine can be switched off.  Can your "bio-machines"? And if so. how?


With rabbits, I break their necks.  My sons "switch off" deer by putting a bullet (or an arrow) through their heart. 
5
that's about as insensitive and incurious as me saying that humans have no purpose other than  to produce more humans.

Yeah, well, you totally missed the point.

Like these christians who pity atheists for thinking they have no "purpose" in life.  Of course humans have purposes - their own.  And they are complex and fascinating and interesting, and one of them is trying to find out things - curiosity itself.  We just don't think we were brought into existence to fulfill somebody ELSE'S purpose.

The idea that an atheist must feel purposeless is a bit like the idea that a wild goat must feel purposeless.  YOUR purpose in causing your goats to exist (or providing a market for goat breeders anyway) is to drink their milk.  But the fact that you have them for YOUR purpose has nothing to do with THEIR purposes.  Which are probably a bit limited, but wild goats have all kinds of nefarious purposes.

They don't need to serve somebody else's to have a purpose.

The function of "machines" in cells is to help the organism survive long enough to reproduce.  That's the function they are optimized to serve.  If they stop doing that - for instance the organisms that have them no longer live in an environment in which they serve that purpose, then they rapidly become redundant and non-functional.  If they do do that, then any that don't work are rapidly lost from the system.



No YOU missed the point.  I'm saying that goats - like humans - have more functions (purposes) than reproducing.

And I agreed!

So not only did you miss the point, you even missed the point of the point!
only after I corrected you.
6
that's about as insensitive and incurious as me saying that humans have no purpose other than  to produce more humans.

Yeah, well, you totally missed the point.

Like these christians who pity atheists for thinking they have no "purpose" in life.  Of course humans have purposes - their own.  And they are complex and fascinating and interesting, and one of them is trying to find out things - curiosity itself.  We just don't think we were brought into existence to fulfill somebody ELSE'S purpose.

The idea that an atheist must feel purposeless is a bit like the idea that a wild goat must feel purposeless.  YOUR purpose in causing your goats to exist (or providing a market for goat breeders anyway) is to drink their milk.  But the fact that you have them for YOUR purpose has nothing to do with THEIR purposes.  Which are probably a bit limited, but wild goats have all kinds of nefarious purposes.

They don't need to serve somebody else's to have a purpose.

The function of "machines" in cells is to help the organism survive long enough to reproduce.  That's the function they are optimized to serve.  If they stop doing that - for instance the organisms that have them no longer live in an environment in which they serve that purpose, then they rapidly become redundant and non-functional.  If they do do that, then any that don't work are rapidly lost from the system.



No YOU missed the point.  I'm saying that goats - like humans - have more functions (purposes) than reproducing.
7
 that's about as insensitive and incurious as me saying that humans have no purpose other than  to produce more humans.
8
"A goat is not a machine for doing anything except making more goats."

 bullshit.
9
All of you are full of shit ...  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)."

And are you ever going to address the part of my post you ignored because it was the part you disagreed with? Because this is a discussion board, and if you don't actually engage with other people's arguments and simply mine them for confirmatory nuggets, you might as well just use google and CTRL-F.
no because it's evangelistic preaching. I prefer to stick with science.  you know evidence... Hypotheses... Etc.
10
 oh good God you're quibbling that maybe proteins are real machines but organisms are not? Give me a freaking break.
11
 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.
12
 they are not LIKE machines.

 they are not  ANALOGOUS TO machines.

 they ARE machines.

 LITERALLY.
13
All of you are full of shit ...  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)."
14
 if you didn't mean "yes indeed"  in the straightforward Queens English sense, then what did you mean?
15
 no I did not skip it. I just disagree with it so I didn't quote it. I simply quoted the part I agree with.
17
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.

18
"My conclusion: both are machines, one far more complicated and sophisticated than the other.

Yes indeed."

Thank you.

Bows.
19
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.
20
My conclusion: both are machines, one far more complicated and sophisticated than the other.
22
maybe it's because you really don't understand the true nature of biological entities.  most Darwinists don't seem to. Bruce Alberts is a rare exception.

...And this understanding of yours goes roughly like this: You feel each animal is designed, and that there is an over-arching design that it has a specific function or functions in. You feel Humans play a central role in this design. You feel that anything in this design that makes it seem less than ideal from a human perspective is caused by humans upsetting this design. Broad strokes, I know, but it seems to describe your position fairly accurately.

You never really question this belief. Not only that, but there is no kind of outcome of any test imaginable that would make you change your mind about it. Maybe a signed affidavit from God would do the trick, which basically means that the only thing that would make you believe in a nature without a supernatural element is a supernatural element.

This is your starting-point, and you work backwards from there, looking for whatever is compatible with this belief and giving that strong emphasis, and ignoring or explaining away anything that does not fit. And why not? You already know it works that way. For you it is just a matter of working out the practical details.

Agreeing with this approach is what you call "understanding the true nature of biological entities".

The rest of us call it confirmation bias.
It's not a "feel" ... it's observation.

Then tell me this: what result of what test would convince you otherwise?
It's not a "test" ... anymore than observing something like an automobile or a washing machine or a coffee maker is a "test" ... we simply observe it in action and we intuitively know what it is ... a machine. (Unless we are a typical Darwinist ... in which case, our intuition is mostly blocked)

Right - 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.  Consider the object  pictured below...



I suspect your 10-year-old son - if you have one -- has never seen one of these. What test would you suggest to him for determining whether (a)  it qualifies under the definition of "machine", and (b) whether it was created by an intelligent entity  or not?
23
maybe it's because you really don't understand the true nature of biological entities.  most Darwinists don't seem to. Bruce Alberts is a rare exception.

...And this understanding of yours goes roughly like this: You feel each animal is designed, and that there is an over-arching design that it has a specific function or functions in. You feel Humans play a central role in this design. You feel that anything in this design that makes it seem less than ideal from a human perspective is caused by humans upsetting this design. Broad strokes, I know, but it seems to describe your position fairly accurately.

You never really question this belief. Not only that, but there is no kind of outcome of any test imaginable that would make you change your mind about it. Maybe a signed affidavit from God would do the trick, which basically means that the only thing that would make you believe in a nature without a supernatural element is a supernatural element.

This is your starting-point, and you work backwards from there, looking for whatever is compatible with this belief and giving that strong emphasis, and ignoring or explaining away anything that does not fit. And why not? You already know it works that way. For you it is just a matter of working out the practical details.

Agreeing with this approach is what you call "understanding the true nature of biological entities".

The rest of us call it confirmation bias.
It's not a "feel" ... it's observation.

Then tell me this: what result of what test would convince you otherwise?
It's not a "test" ... anymore than observing something like an automobile or a washing machine or a coffee maker is a "test" ... we simply observe it in action and we intuitively know what it is ... a machine. (Unless we are a typical Darwinist ... in which case, our intuition is mostly blocked)
24
No need for dentists either, thus freeing up an entire profession to spend their lives doing something useful instead.
25
"tbh, I half agree.  I certainly think it's much better to eat less sugar than to immunise yourself against the effects of eating sugar."

Hmm

But you think it's good to "immunise" yourself against other menaces?  Like measles?  As opposed to just trying to be more healthy?

Yes, I do think it is good to immunise yourself against infectious diseases.  By doing so not only are you less likely to be infected if exposed but you are less likely even to be exposed to infection (because vaccination confers herd immunity as well as individual immunity). 

However, fluoride only does the first of those (so I should have put "immunise" in scare quotes).  It reduces the risk of damage if you are exposed to low pH, but it doesn't reduce your exposure.  Better not to eat too much sugar (and thereby reduce exposure) AND drink fluoridated water and/or use fluoride mouthwash/toothpaste.  And as sugar is ALSO empty calories AND directly bad for you, it's win win win.


Better still to eat like Price's "primitives" so you don't have to use fluoride which some people say is a mild poison.