Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • talkrational: Wasabi derail from Statutory Rape Laws

Recent Posts

92
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.
94
Here is my post:

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

Yes indeed.  Evolution is in general a very effective designer. 

That's not preaching.  It's using "designer" as a metaphor, just as Dave and Alberts are using "machine" as a metaphor. 

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.

This is simply true by definition.  It's not "preaching".  Evolutionary algorithm require many generations to produce complex solutions, and many "prototypes" that turn out to be useless are generated on the way. And it can't import solutions from other design lines because it works on inheritance of characteristics, not lateral transfer.


Intelligent designers can be quite a lot faster as they can discard a lot of unpromising prototypes at the drawing board stage, and only test the few that seem to be especially promising.  And they can also import solutions from one design line (e.g. an electric motor) into another (e.g. a car). 

Again this is obviously true, and Dave would not dispute it, surely.  After all, he prides himself on taking solutions from one design (car battery) and using it to power something quite different (a winch) which he then uses to do something from yet another line - tow a cage around a field.


But it does mean that their designs are a lot less complicated and sophisticated than living machines.  Basically "intelligent designers" are living machines that have figured out a quick'n'dirty way of making very crude machines that will serve their own purposes.  But the machines they make, although wonderful in many ways, are inevitably much less complicated and sophisticated than living machines themselves, which have been so exquisitely optimised for successful self-reproduction by virtue of that very capacity for self-reproduction.

Perhaps this is the part that Dave thinks is "preaching".  But then it's the part he actually agreed with!  The part that said that man-made machines were a lot less complicated and sophisticated.

so :dunno:
95
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.
96
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.

Point to the part that you think is "evangelistic preaching" and tell me why you think it is.

I prefer to stick with science.  you know evidence... Hypotheses... Etc.

No, you do not.  You don't even know what those words mean.
97
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.

"Machine" is a word, Dave.  Calling a thing by the name usually given to another thing doesn't make the thing the same as the other thing.

Yes, of course, protein assemblies in cells have quite a lot in common with human-made machines in just the way that Alberts says..

Nobody is disputing this. 

What is your point?  Other than whether or not "machine" is an apt metaphor to describe them?
98
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.
99
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.
100
 oh good God you're quibbling that maybe proteins are real machines but organisms are not? Give me a freaking break.