Is there any evidence that this is a literal machine, other than the above papers' allegorical references to same as a machine? We use metaphor as a means to explain- not prove- our theories. If thinking of biological constructs as a machine helps you to think about the concepts, its useful. But for the purposes of inferring design or a designer? That's called a tautology. Its simply not scientific, or even useful. Once you assume its a literal machine, then there must be a designer. No need to research, observe or experiment. Machines have designers- its part of their definition. Once your assertion is made, your conclusion is tautologically a given. But hey, maybe I am wrong and evolution is total crap. Feel free to long term short the entire Bio tech, health services, and pharma sectors.
I'll ask my biologist friend for some citations of papers related to the evolution of "molecular machines" and get back to you. Til then, all I can do is critique the format of the argument: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
drtomaso wrote: It was a Darwinist that coined the term "molecular machine". As far as I know, Darwinian scientists accept that the molecular machines found in nature are literal machines. But they don't think they were created by an intelligent agent. They claim that the designer of these machines is an accidental, coincidental process. Show me the evidence that supports this claim. It's the lack of evidence that molecular machines are the product of sheer dumb luck that causes me to think intelligent design is a better explanation and not just the fact that molecular machines are literal machines.
Then by that very definition, ' coined the term ' is not literal and molecular machine is a figure of speech. Biological processes you compare to - motors or machines known to be designed - cannot be literal as you state.. For one thing, the motors humans design do not make copies of themselves. In that regard biological "molecular machines" are distinctly not, in a literal sense, like machines known to be designed. Biological "motors" work by chemical reactions not mechanical interaction, as do machines known to be designed. In that way also they cannot be literal By making simplistic comparisons between things, ignoring any essential or genuine characters that make them intrinsically different, air planes are not metaphorical birds, but literal to those found in nature.
If this discussion wasn't occurring within the context of Darwinian evolution then no one on this thread would be arguing that the molecular machines found in nature are not literal machines. The Darwinists here are evidently afraid that if literal machines exist in nature the design inference will be strengthened and they can't have that. A machine is simply a device consisting of many well-matched interacting parts that produces a function that is beyond the individual components. The molecular machines created by the nanotechnology industry and those found in nature both meet this criterion. In 1998, the leading journal Cell featured a special issue on âMacromolecular Machines.â All cells use complex molecular machines to process information, build proteins, and move materials back and forth across their membranes. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, introduced this issue with an article entitled, The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines. In it, he stated: Materialists have only one hope: to quickly find a way to teach and study life without ID concepts and language. Since this hope is likely in vain, ID will probably return as a serious player. Many biologists say that life is not designed, but as biologists, they treat life as if it were designed. And sooner or later, people pay more heed to what you do than what you say.
Stu wrote: Are you claiming that molecular machines reproduce? They don't. They are created within the cell. The cell is a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines where machines are put together part by part. Stu wrote: Wrong. The ATP synthase is a small electromechanical engine, its performance is described as a mechanical device.
You ARE joking? Repeated chemical reaction , constantly recurring processes, producing an enzyme over and over, is not reproducing? How about explaining the way a Buick L-8 engine block and all its parts biochemically reproduces that way in order to show the comparison is literal as you say it is You are, as always, ill informed. The ATP synthase is an enzyme and as such is a chemical reaction not a mechanical interaction. For that reason it is not a literal motor or machine. Your arguments alwys seem to be based on a logical fallacy of one kind or another Machines are intelligently designed ATP synthase is a machine Therefore ATP synthase is intelligently designed. Animals are furry A fish is an animal Therefore a fish is furry
Apologists for ID had their play but have been roundly discredited from court house to science lab, from bona fide research institute to college council. What at first glance may sound plausible, turns out puerile, often childish but always simplistic controversial argument, wrapped up in misleading fancy wordplay, which relies on the assumption most will be ignorant of the salient facts . That has fast become recognized as a key trade mark of ID.
more misleading bullshit from STU. I just love reading the indignant, self righteous blather of people posing as open minded acolytes of science;when they can not even open their mind to the science of top string theorists on this very subject. I would have thought by now stu would have caught on to the fact that national publications are writing about many top scientists converting to a belief in alternate parallel universes. (billions and billions of them) The magazines even discuss dopppelgangers. Are you too damn dense to understand why they have to make these assertions of parallel universes without any proof? You would think that after reading all the quotes I gave you from top physicists you would understand that some top scientists admit the universe looks designed.
You're absolutely correct in pointing out the similarities between cells and humanly designed machines. Cells indeed function in the same way and carry the same function as would a machine built and designed by a human. The underlying order and complexity are amazing and speculation about an intelligent design are understandable. But the problem with intelligent design is that in its explanation it focuses not on the design but on the designer. As a theory it is as of yet unable to explain who this designer would be and how the proces of design took place. Untill that's cleared up the theory of intelligent design has no scientific merit whatsoever. It's a good thing to point out the holes in the theory of evolution but to teach kids that "God diddit" or whoever the designer of choice may be is unscientific. There are certain things inherrent to our universe such as the amazing underlying order of nature and the fact that our universe has not always existed that might point in the direction of a creator god(s) or some kind of intelligent cause, but untill convincing evidence is collected that theory remains unscientific.