"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 08:35:55 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Current biotechnology understands about half of what is going on actually. That
understanding is not detailed enough for to design totally new synthetic life, but is
plentiful for to do things with positive economic impact. Global genetic engineering
market size is in billions dollars and growing rapidly. Those visualisation might help
people who are studying to be specialists of that market to gain knowledge. There
are enough similarities between nano and macro world for these animations to be
useful for illustrating that.
Otherwise yes, things that work on that nano level act somewhat differently than
clocks and bicycles. Similarly microprocessors work somewhat differently than big
electrical circuits. It is not beyond human comprehension, just that there are
differences. But for the creationist/materialist dispute the animation is probably
useless; anyone can see something that conforms with their views; also anyone
can say that whatever in it is illusion caused by it being just a "model" and/or
"abstraction".
On 02/10/2023 06:32, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Hadn't you noticed that the Intelligent Design movement is very keen on machine model of a cell? Claiming a design beyond human conception is
not an effective route to convincing people, so they find it to be rhetorically advantageous to play up similarities to mechanical devices.
--
alias Ernest Major
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:45:55 PM UTC+11, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 08:35:55 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Current biotechnology understands about half of what is going on actually. That
understanding is not detailed enough for to design totally new synthetic life, but is
plentiful for to do things with positive economic impact. Global genetic engineering
market size is in billions dollars and growing rapidly. Those visualisation might help
people who are studying to be specialists of that market to gain knowledge. There
are enough similarities between nano and macro world for these animations to be
useful for illustrating that.
Otherwise yes, things that work on that nano level act somewhat differently than
clocks and bicycles. Similarly microprocessors work somewhat differently than big
electrical circuits. It is not beyond human comprehension, just that there are
differences. But for the creationist/materialist dispute the animation is probably
useless; anyone can see something that conforms with their views; also anyone
can say that whatever in it is illusion caused by it being just a "model" and/or
"abstraction".
I've wondered - is there a logical/mathematical limit to how much we can ever understand ourselves? Intuitively, the complexity of an observer must be much greater than the complexity of an object for "full" understanding?
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:45:55 PM UTC+11, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/10/2023 06:32, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Hadn't you noticed that the Intelligent Design movement is very keen on machine model of a cell? Claiming a design beyond human conception is
not an effective route to convincing people, so they find it to be rhetorically advantageous to play up similarities to mechanical devices.
--Both evolution and ID predict "a design beyond human conception" - hence the inherent conflict.
alias Ernest Major
As much as I appreciate the reframe of the video, the flagellum, for example, *is* a machine! Along with kinesin, ribosome, spliceosome, etc, etc... If it walks like machine and quacks like a machine, it probably is a mechanical duck :)
And the cell in total? The "factory" or "city" metaphor seems like a reasonable starting point - apparent chaos resulting in order and output.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 6:15:56 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:45:55 PM UTC+11, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/10/2023 06:32, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Hadn't you noticed that the Intelligent Design movement is very keen on machine model of a cell? Claiming a design beyond human conception is not an effective route to convincing people, so they find it to be rhetorically advantageous to play up similarities to mechanical devices.
--Both evolution and ID predict "a design beyond human conception" - hence the inherent conflict.
alias Ernest Major
As much as I appreciate the reframe of the video, the flagellum, for example, *is* a machine! Along with kinesin, ribosome, spliceosome, etc, etc... If it walks like machine and quacks like a machine, it probably is a mechanical duck :)You can certainly define "machine" in such a way that the flagellum or the ribosome "*is* a machine!" That tells you nothing new about flagella or ribosomes, only about how you've decided to use words.
And the cell in total? The "factory" or "city" metaphor seems like a reasonable starting point - apparent chaos resulting in order and output.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 11:00:56 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 6:15:56 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:45:55 PM UTC+11, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/10/2023 06:32, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Hadn't you noticed that the Intelligent Design movement is very keen on
machine model of a cell? Claiming a design beyond human conception is not an effective route to convincing people, so they find it to be rhetorically advantageous to play up similarities to mechanical devices.
--Both evolution and ID predict "a design beyond human conception" - hence the inherent conflict.
alias Ernest Major
Sure, it's definitions and semantics. But would you agree that the following object might qualify as a "machine" by some definitions?As much as I appreciate the reframe of the video, the flagellum, for example, *is* a machine! Along with kinesin, ribosome, spliceosome, etc, etc... If it walks like machine and quacks like a machine, it probably is a mechanical duck :)You can certainly define "machine" in such a way that the flagellum or the ribosome "*is* a machine!" That tells you nothing new about flagella or ribosomes, only about how you've decided to use words.
"The prokaryotic flagellum spins, driven by a rotary motor at speeds of over 100,000 rpm in at least one species. The torque generated by the motor is converted to thrust by the corkscrew-shaped filament or propeller."
"Bacterial Flagellum: Visualizing the Complete Machine In Situ" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098220602286X
And the cell in total? The "factory" or "city" metaphor seems like a reasonable starting point - apparent chaos resulting in order and output.
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 01:25:57 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:45:55 PM UTC+11, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 08:35:55 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Current biotechnology understands about half of what is going on actually. That
understanding is not detailed enough for to design totally new synthetic life, but is
plentiful for to do things with positive economic impact. Global genetic engineering
market size is in billions dollars and growing rapidly. Those visualisation might help
people who are studying to be specialists of that market to gain knowledge. There
are enough similarities between nano and macro world for these animations to be
useful for illustrating that.
Otherwise yes, things that work on that nano level act somewhat differently than
clocks and bicycles. Similarly microprocessors work somewhat differently than big
electrical circuits. It is not beyond human comprehension, just that there are
differences. But for the creationist/materialist dispute the animation is probably
useless; anyone can see something that conforms with their views; also anyone
can say that whatever in it is illusion caused by it being just a "model" and/or
"abstraction".
I've wondered - is there a logical/mathematical limit to how much we can ever understand ourselves? Intuitively, the complexity of an observer must be much greater than the complexity of an object for "full" understanding?
In my experience there are no limits as there are no need for anyone of us to
understand anything fully. We are not doomed to work alone, so there are no point. For example Google Chrome web browser contains about 35 millions of lines of program code. If a hypothetical very bright programmer could read and
understand it at speed of 35 lines per minute then it would still take about 9
years to go through all of it for him. No one does that and so everybody working
on the code base have full understanding of only some parts of it.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 10:25:56 AM UTC+11, Öö Tiib wrote:definition this knowledge can never be integrated and assessed holistically?
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 01:25:57 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:45:55 PM UTC+11, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 08:35:55 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Current biotechnology understands about half of what is going on actually. That
understanding is not detailed enough for to design totally new synthetic life, but is
plentiful for to do things with positive economic impact. Global genetic engineering
market size is in billions dollars and growing rapidly. Those visualisation might help
people who are studying to be specialists of that market to gain knowledge. There
are enough similarities between nano and macro world for these animations to be
useful for illustrating that.
Otherwise yes, things that work on that nano level act somewhat differently than
clocks and bicycles. Similarly microprocessors work somewhat differently than big
electrical circuits. It is not beyond human comprehension, just that there are
differences. But for the creationist/materialist dispute the animation is probably
useless; anyone can see something that conforms with their views; also anyone
can say that whatever in it is illusion caused by it being just a "model" and/or
"abstraction".
I've wondered - is there a logical/mathematical limit to how much we can ever understand ourselves? Intuitively, the complexity of an observer must be much greater than the complexity of an object for "full" understanding?
In my experience there are no limits as there are no need for anyone of us to
understand anything fully. We are not doomed to work alone, so there are no
point. For example Google Chrome web browser contains about 35 millions of lines of program code. If a hypothetical very bright programmer could read and
understand it at speed of 35 lines per minute then it would still take about 9
years to go through all of it for him. No one does that and so everybody working
on the code base have full understanding of only some parts of it.
You raise an interesting point. The accumulated collective human knowledge on say humans vastly exceeds an individual's capacity to even read it, let alone "understand" it. Is it still possible to claim "full" collective human understanding if by
Moreover, regardless, is the number of human minds applied to understanding the human mind irrelevant, i.e. is there a circularity here that logically prevents this?
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 12:05:56 PM UTC+11, MarkE wrote:Sure, why not? Just so long as you are careful not to attribute characteristics to the bacterial flagellum inherited from other definitions of "machine" which include characteristics like "artificial" or "man-made" and imply a designer.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 11:00:56 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 6:15:56 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:45:55 PM UTC+11, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/10/2023 06:32, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Hadn't you noticed that the Intelligent Design movement is very keen on
machine model of a cell? Claiming a design beyond human conception is
not an effective route to convincing people, so they find it to be rhetorically advantageous to play up similarities to mechanical devices.
--Both evolution and ID predict "a design beyond human conception" - hence the inherent conflict.
alias Ernest Major
Sure, it's definitions and semantics. But would you agree that the following object might qualify as a "machine" by some definitions?As much as I appreciate the reframe of the video, the flagellum, for example, *is* a machine! Along with kinesin, ribosome, spliceosome, etc, etc... If it walks like machine and quacks like a machine, it probably is a mechanical duck :)You can certainly define "machine" in such a way that the flagellum or the ribosome "*is* a machine!" That tells you nothing new about flagella or ribosomes, only about how you've decided to use words.
"The prokaryotic flagellum spins, driven by a rotary motor at speeds of over 100,000 rpm in at least one species. The torque generated by the motor is converted to thrust by the corkscrew-shaped filament or propeller."
"Bacterial Flagellum: Visualizing the Complete Machine In Situ" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098220602286X
That is, '...qualify as a "machine" by some widely accepted definitions?'And the cell in total? The "factory" or "city" metaphor seems like a reasonable starting point - apparent chaos resulting in order and output.
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
On 02/10/2023 06:32, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Hadn't you noticed that the Intelligent Design movement is very keen on machine model of a cell? Claiming a design beyond human conception is
not an effective route to convincing people, so they find it to be rhetorically advantageous to play up similarities to mechanical devices.
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 11:00:56 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 6:15:56 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:45:55 PM UTC+11, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/10/2023 06:32, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Hadn't you noticed that the Intelligent Design movement is very keen on
machine model of a cell? Claiming a design beyond human conception is not an effective route to convincing people, so they find it to be rhetorically advantageous to play up similarities to mechanical devices.
--Both evolution and ID predict "a design beyond human conception" - hence the inherent conflict.
alias Ernest Major
Sure, it's definitions and semantics. But would you agree that the following object might qualify as a "machine" by some definitions?As much as I appreciate the reframe of the video, the flagellum, for example, *is* a machine! Along with kinesin, ribosome, spliceosome, etc, etc... If it walks like machine and quacks like a machine, it probably is a mechanical duck :)You can certainly define "machine" in such a way that the flagellum or the ribosome "*is* a machine!" That tells you nothing new about flagella or ribosomes, only about how you've decided to use words.
"The prokaryotic flagellum spins, driven by a rotary motor at speeds of over 100,000 rpm in at least one species. The torque generated by the motor is converted to thrust by the corkscrew-shaped filament or propeller."
"Bacterial Flagellum: Visualizing the Complete Machine In Situ" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098220602286X
And the cell in total? The "factory" or "city" metaphor seems like a reasonable starting point - apparent chaos resulting in order and output.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 6:05:56 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 11:00:56 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 6:15:56 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:45:55 PM UTC+11, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/10/2023 06:32, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Hadn't you noticed that the Intelligent Design movement is very keen on
machine model of a cell? Claiming a design beyond human conception is
not an effective route to convincing people, so they find it to be rhetorically advantageous to play up similarities to mechanical devices.
--Both evolution and ID predict "a design beyond human conception" - hence the inherent conflict.
alias Ernest Major
Sure, it's definitions and semantics. But would you agree that the following object might qualify as a "machine" by some definitions?As much as I appreciate the reframe of the video, the flagellum, for example, *is* a machine! Along with kinesin, ribosome, spliceosome, etc, etc... If it walks like machine and quacks like a machine, it probably is a mechanical duck :)You can certainly define "machine" in such a way that the flagellum or the ribosome "*is* a machine!" That tells you nothing new about flagella or ribosomes, only about how you've decided to use words.
"The prokaryotic flagellum spins, driven by a rotary motor at speeds of over 100,000 rpm in at least one species. The torque generated by the motor is converted to thrust by the corkscrew-shaped filament or propeller."
"Bacterial Flagellum: Visualizing the Complete Machine In Situ" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098220602286X
Mark, you may be interested in Michael Levin's work. Look him up on youtube.And the cell in total? The "factory" or "city" metaphor seems like a reasonable starting point - apparent chaos resulting in order and output.
On 10/1/23 10:32 PM, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.I'm reminded of a comment near the beginning of _The Extended Mind_
(which I am very much enjoying; thanks to whomever mentioned it here earlier): When computers were first invented, they were compared to
brains. Later, the metaphor switched, and brains came to be compared to computers. Before that, they were compared with switchboards; before
that, no doubt to something else. Metaphors shift according to
available technology.
Cells are not machines. They are cells.
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:25:57 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:sometimes leads to the discovery or expansion of a more general pattern, phenomenon, mechanism or law. Metaphors and analogies might therefore be called the engines of scientific advancement."
On 10/1/23 10:32 PM, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.I'm reminded of a comment near the beginning of _The Extended Mind_
(which I am very much enjoying; thanks to whomever mentioned it here earlier): When computers were first invented, they were compared to brains. Later, the metaphor switched, and brains came to be compared to computers. Before that, they were compared with switchboards; before
that, no doubt to something else. Metaphors shift according to
available technology.
Cells are not machines. They are cells.
Don't be afraid of metaphors:
"In science, metaphors have proved to be very useful because they facilitate analogical reasoning, the process whereby scientists transfer what they understand about one subject or phenomenon to another seemingly disparate and less familiar one. This
How about "factory" as a metaphor for the cell?description of the cell as a factory became literal when scientists genetically engineered bacteria to express the gene for human insulin (among others), turning these cells into literal factories for the production of valuable commodities. This was a
"Examples like ‘the cell is a factory’ demonstrate that sometimes a metaphor can become literal not because it changes the way we use language, but because it changes the very nature of the thing being described metaphorically. The metaphorical
https://www.rsb.org.uk/biologist-features/master-your-metaphors
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:25:57?AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:sometimes leads to the discovery or expansion of a more general pattern, phenomenon, mechanism or law. Metaphors and analogies might therefore be called the engines of scientific advancement."
On 10/1/23 10:32 PM, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"I'm reminded of a comment near the beginning of _The Extended Mind_
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
(which I am very much enjoying; thanks to whomever mentioned it here
earlier): When computers were first invented, they were compared to
brains. Later, the metaphor switched, and brains came to be compared to
computers. Before that, they were compared with switchboards; before
that, no doubt to something else. Metaphors shift according to
available technology.
Cells are not machines. They are cells.
Don't be afraid of metaphors:
"In science, metaphors have proved to be very useful because they facilitate analogical reasoning, the process whereby scientists transfer what they understand about one subject or phenomenon to another seemingly disparate and less familiar one. This
How about "factory" as a metaphor for the cell?description of the cell as a factory became literal when scientists genetically engineered bacteria to express the gene for human insulin (among others), turning these cells into literal factories for the production of valuable commodities. This was a
"Examples like ‘the cell is a factory’ demonstrate that sometimes a metaphor can become literal not because it changes the way we use language, but because it changes the very nature of the thing being described metaphorically. The metaphorical
https://www.rsb.org.uk/biologist-features/master-your-metaphors
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:10:57 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:sometimes leads to the discovery or expansion of a more general pattern, phenomenon, mechanism or law. Metaphors and analogies might therefore be called the engines of scientific advancement."
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:25:57 AM UTC+11, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/1/23 10:32 PM, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.I'm reminded of a comment near the beginning of _The Extended Mind_ (which I am very much enjoying; thanks to whomever mentioned it here earlier): When computers were first invented, they were compared to brains. Later, the metaphor switched, and brains came to be compared to computers. Before that, they were compared with switchboards; before that, no doubt to something else. Metaphors shift according to
available technology.
Cells are not machines. They are cells.
Don't be afraid of metaphors:
"In science, metaphors have proved to be very useful because they facilitate analogical reasoning, the process whereby scientists transfer what they understand about one subject or phenomenon to another seemingly disparate and less familiar one. This
description of the cell as a factory became literal when scientists genetically engineered bacteria to express the gene for human insulin (among others), turning these cells into literal factories for the production of valuable commodities. This was aHow about "factory" as a metaphor for the cell?
"Examples like ‘the cell is a factory’ demonstrate that sometimes a metaphor can become literal not because it changes the way we use language, but because it changes the very nature of the thing being described metaphorically. The metaphorical
do a bunch of experiments to show how the energy released by hydrolysis of ATP is coupled to motion of the flagellum. Saying "there must be some kind of fuel but we are not going to investigate what the fuel is, how it works or where it is produced" won'https://www.rsb.org.uk/biologist-features/master-your-metaphorsYes, metaphors or analogies can be very useful for generating ideas. They don't, by themselves, though, tell you anything at all. If you say "the bacterial flagellum is analogous to an outboard motor, it must have some kind of fuel," then you have to
Saying random mutations all added up to produce such complicated systems is what won't cut it. Stick that in your metaphor and smoke it.--
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 7:15:57 AM UTC+11, Glenn wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 6:05:56 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 11:00:56 AM UTC+11, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 6:15:56 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:45:55 PM UTC+11, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/10/2023 06:32, MarkE wrote:
"A few years ago Veritasium posted a video portraying 'molecular machines'. But is that really the right way to think about the inner workings of our cells? Are we all just running on molecular clockwork?"
https://youtu.be/jPhvic-eqbc?si=_AaJLOYY5FPiZ8aK
I thought this was worth sharing (the presenter assumes evolution; not a creationist video). He challenges the machine metaphor for cells and the electronic circuit for enzyme function.
I guess evolution will claim this as the messy and jerry-built product of trial and error, and ID will claim it as adaptable multifunctional design beyond human conception.
Either way, enjoy, and consider that our understanding of the cell may be far less that we realise.
Hadn't you noticed that the Intelligent Design movement is very keen on
machine model of a cell? Claiming a design beyond human conception is
not an effective route to convincing people, so they find it to be rhetorically advantageous to play up similarities to mechanical devices.
--Both evolution and ID predict "a design beyond human conception" - hence the inherent conflict.
alias Ernest Major
Sure, it's definitions and semantics. But would you agree that the following object might qualify as a "machine" by some definitions?As much as I appreciate the reframe of the video, the flagellum, for example, *is* a machine! Along with kinesin, ribosome, spliceosome, etc, etc... If it walks like machine and quacks like a machine, it probably is a mechanical duck :)You can certainly define "machine" in such a way that the flagellum or the ribosome "*is* a machine!" That tells you nothing new about flagella or ribosomes, only about how you've decided to use words.
"The prokaryotic flagellum spins, driven by a rotary motor at speeds of over 100,000 rpm in at least one species. The torque generated by the motor is converted to thrust by the corkscrew-shaped filament or propeller."
"Bacterial Flagellum: Visualizing the Complete Machine In Situ" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096098220602286X
Thanks - I have seen him talk about bioelectricity.Mark, you may be interested in Michael Levin's work. Look him up on youtube.And the cell in total? The "factory" or "city" metaphor seems like a reasonable starting point - apparent chaos resulting in order and output.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 429 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 117:04:32 |
| Calls: | 9,056 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,396 |
| Messages: | 6,016,548 |