Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

a reply to: Xtrozero

The last thing a machine makes me think is that it was made by unintelligible incident.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: whereislogic

Let's just say that your statement "machines are the product of engineering" is not correct in suggesting all machines. I would be more inclined to say that technology is a product of engineering whereas the term machine is more of a term describing a process that could be intelligent design or not. Saying that the usage of any word doesn't write in stone what something is or is not. I might use the term engineering to explain something totally non-intelligence and you could disagree with me, but in my use, it doesn't automatically suggest anything.

This is what happens when you make blanket statements and demand just a yes or no answer. Hence why I said, OK...I'll play your game.

Biologists use the term cellular machinery because it acts like engineered machinery. ATP synthase works just like a motor...

When you have to start re-defining words to salvage your belief system that's a sign you're straying from objective reality

'Acts like' and 'is' are entirely separate definitions or descriptions.

When it comes to redefinitions, that's what you're both doing. You're using the term 'machine' in the absolute, but in the paper Logic quoted it is used in the abstract.

Many natural organisms and processes are 'machine-like', I will concede that, but I don't agree that it means they are constructed or created by any other method than organic evolution and adaptation.

a reply to: TerraLiga


"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

originally posted by: Xtrozero
... whereislogic is suggesting if we label something a machine then that means 100% that it is intelligent design too.

I see you're sticking to your preferred straw man no matter what I say or how I explain that that is not what I'm suggesting.

In the process evading an actual response to my actual argumentation.

Saying that the usage of any word doesn't write in stone what something is or is not.

I woud agree, so let's not argue a point that we both already agree on and where I never argued otherwise (as in your preferred straw man). Calling something a "natural" machine, doesn't actually make it a natural machine in the sense that it was produced by a natural process with no intelligent agency involved, it is also not evidence that such a machine could exist or emerge in that manner.* And referring to a natural process (or something that was caused by natural forces) as a machine also doesn't make it a machine.

*: suggesting these means for machinery to emerge, would require some evidence in the form of observing this emerging process. Not just vaguely claiming that it can also happen by other means than engineering (and swapping that term out with "intelligent design" again), but not even specifying by which means then, let alone providing empirical evidence for it. Until I see a machine emerge without someone engineering it, thus without any intelligent input, I remain unconvinced that there is another way for machinery to emerge that doesn't require intelligent input (and foresight, and the will/desire to make that machine, etc.; I mentioned a bunch of requirements for the act of engineering before). Mind you, machines making more machines, as happens in life, is not the type of evidence I would be looking for, cause it does not demonstrate that the initial machinery did not require to be engineered to have these abilities, requiring even more intelligent input than machines that can't make other machines (because it's often more technologically advanced, in particular when we're talking about how the machinery of life does it).

originally posted by: TerraLiga
...

Many natural organisms and processes are 'machine-like', I will concede that, but I don't agree that it means they are constructed or created by any other method than organic evolution and adaptation.

Just to be clear, if the things in a living cell referred to as enzymes or machines/machinery, actually are machines, and not merely 'like machines' ("machine-like"), than the most obvious conclusion would be that they were the product of engineering? Just like any other machine. As established by considering the only known and observed causal mechanism by which machinery has been observed to emerge, namely engineering, which in turn requires intelligent (causal) agency. This is called inductive reasoning, as explained in more detail before. You basically stick to reasoning on and considering known well-established facts, and draw your conclusions from that; the exact opposite of arguing from ignorance (or wishful speculation*, imagination, or fantasy, for that matter).

Or do you, like Xtrozero, also believe that there might be another way (causal mechanism) by which you can get machinery that does not involve engineering or any intelligent agency?

Your main point of contention is that they are not actual machines, just merely like machines, machine-like, "machine" "in the abstract" (sense)? Not sure what is exactly meant with that last expression, I'll just add the word "sense" and take that as referring to the same point.

*: “We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity (Behe 1996); but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (The Way of the Cell by Franklin M. Harold)

A paper in Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology states,“Today biology is revealing the importance of ‘molecular machines’ and of other highly organized molecular structures that carry out the complex physico-chemical processes on which life is based.”(1) (notice the disctinction made between the molecular machines, and the "complex physico-chemical processes" that they carry out, they are not the same things; some commenters here seem to think it's OK to swap them out in my argumentation or questions, as if they are the same things, so they can argue that the processes being carried out aren't the product of engineering. My argument of induction is not about the processes, but the machines that carry them out.)

A molecular machine, according to an article in the journal Accounts of Chemical Research, is “an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, or energy from one to another in a predetermined manner.”(2) A 2004 article in Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering asserted that “these machines are generally more efficient than their macroscale counterparts,” further noting that “[c]ountless such machines exist in nature.”(3) Indeed, a single research project in 2006 reported the discovery of over 250 new molecular machines in yeast alone!(4)

In 1998, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Bruce Alberts wrote the introductory article to an issue of Cell, one of the world’s top biology journals, celebrating molecular machines. Alberts praised the “speed,” “elegance,” “sophistication,” and “highly organized activity” of “remarkable” and “marvelous” structures inside the cell. He went on to explain what inspired such words:

“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.”(5)

1. Marco Piccolino, “Biological machines: from mills to molecules,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, Vol. 1:149-153 (November, 2000).

2. Tinh-Alfredo V. Khuong, Jose E. Junez, Carlos E. Godinez, and Miguel A. Garcia-Garibay, “Crystalline Molecular Machines: A Quest Toward Solid-State Dynamics and Function,” Accounts of Chemical Research, Vol. 39(6):413-422 (2006).

3. C. Mavroidis, A. Dubey, and M.L. Yarmush, “Molecular Machines,” Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 6:363-395 (2004).

4. See “The Closest Look Ever At The Cell’s Machines,” ScienceDaily.com (January 24, 2006).

5. Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell, Vol. 92:291 (February 6, 1998).

All this serves to underscore something David Snoke once said:

Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology. Although the main practitioners of the field attribute the presence of such things to the outworking of natural selection, they cannot avoid using design language and design concepts in their research, and a straightforward look at the field indicates it is really a design approach altogether.

(David Snoke, “Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2014 (3).)

Source: Biologist in TEDx Talk: Life’s “Complex Interacting Molecular Machines” Appear “Built by an Engineer” | Evolution News

The article above is concerning this TEDx talk, note what's said at 0:55 (discussed in more detail in the article above):

Notice his evolutionary beliefs entering the picture at 3:50 and taking over from reason (what's described at the start of the bolded part in the Snoke quotation).

I think you're taking the argument too far. The opposite side of the topic have both made their positions clear. Arguing terminology and semantics won't get either side anywhere.

One side believes these processes are created and the other believes they are natural, organic chemistry. We need a biochemist or evolutionary biologist.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

One side believes these processes are created and the other believes they are natural, organic chemistry. We need a biochemist or evolutionary biologist.

Biologists refer to it as cellular machinery...

"Adopting a process-based approach to understanding cell and tissue biology, it describes the molecular and mechanical features that enable the cell to be robust in operating its various components, and explores the ways in which molecular modules respond to environmental signals to execute complex functions."

www.cambridge.org...

I also have a degree in neuroscience and chemistry and I agree. The aspects of cells and even cells themselves are micromolecular machinery

a reply to: cooperton

I also have a degree in neuroscience and chemistry and I agree. The aspects of cells and even cells themselves are micromolecular machinery

You're a liar. You have never been in a lab or attended a university for a science degree. Stop the lying.

You forget: I know who you are.

originally posted by: Phantom423

You're a liar. You have never been in a lab or attended a university for a science degree. Stop the lying.

You forget: I know who you are.

Ahab, You're going insane trying to catch Moby Dick

I dare you to show these conversations to anyone in the scientific field. They'd confirm everything I say regarding scientific empiricism.

Now take your childish nonsense elsewhere, the adults are talking.

The universe is actually the purpose behind the universing.

originally posted by: whereislogic

I mentioned a bunch of requirements for the act of engineering before). Mind you, machines making more machines, as happens in life, is not the type of evidence I would be looking for, cause it does not demonstrate that the initial machinery did not require to be engineered to have these abilities, requiring even more intelligent input than machines that can't make other machines (because it's often more technologically advanced, in particular when we're talking about how the machinery of life does it).

None of this is my point in anything, it is all your point, so let's move on. It starts to get rather repetitive.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

One side believes these processes are created and the other believes they are natural, organic chemistry. We need a biochemist or evolutionary biologist.

originally posted by: cooperton

Biologists refer to it as cellular machinery...

Not the cellular (chemical) processes TerraLiga is talking about (which he can more easily view and describe as "natural, organic chemistry"), but the enzymes/machines that carry them out. Remember, he keeps changing the subject to accomodate what he wants to talk about. This may be caused by his reluctance to use the term "machines/machinery" to describe the subject. But since there is an alternative for him (see below), it raises the question why he isn't just using that to at least stay on subject. From that it seems he prefers talking about the cellular processes (and their origin) rather than the cellular enzymes/machines (and their origin). So that's when I begin to suspect that he swaps out the subject "to accomodate what he wants to talk about" instead.

A suggestion for TerraLiga: if you're looking for the right word to describe the subject we were discussing (which I refer to as biomolecular or cellular machinery, etc.), but you don't want to call them "machines", you can go with enzymes, that way, we're still talking about the same subject.

So then your sentence above becomes:

'One side believes these enzymes are created and the other believes they are ... [and here you'll have to change something cause you can't just say "natural, organic chemistry" anymore cause that doesn't make any sense; you would have to add something like "produced by" or "caused by" in front of that as an alternative suggestion to creation/engineering. And you may have to drop the word "organic".]' But perhaps you don't want to spell it out as clearly as that, but that does seem to be what you are trying to point out describing the 2 sides on this subject (the origin of cellular enzymes/machines). Or it would be a more accurate way of putting it.

I was really hoping for an answer to the 2 questions I raised in my last comment though, to gain a better understanding of your views. It helps when discussing these matters. They are not that complicated, and I don't need a lot of elaboration for just understanding your views regarding these 2 questions. I'm also not asking you to prove them, just want to know what exactly they are, and to make sure that I understand correctly what they are (because Xtrozero's views were also not entirely clear from his "yes" answer to the first initial question, and you said "yes" as well, so maybe I misunderstood your answer as well in the same manner). So if you could just clear that up quickly, I'd be much obliged.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

None of this is my point in anything, it is all your point, so let's move on.

Duh, it's my comment. You're responding to my commentary, which is also how this discussion started, you responding to a comment I made to DaydreamerV.

It starts to get rather repetitive.

Do you have an actually important point to make about anything in the comment you are responding to other than complaining that it's getting rather repetitive? Or is that important to you to point out that it's getting rather repetitive? Otherwise, what's the point of responding? Pun intended.

I guess sometimes when you're sticking to established facts and drawing conclusions by induction, since they don't change, it appears repetitive to some people. Especially if they themselves stick with discussing their preferred straw men in response or when talking about my commentary.

a reply to: cooperton

Did you notice how many times I presented the term "enzymes" on a platter for TerraLiga as an alternative to cellular "machines", so he wouldn't have to continue talking about "processes" in response, and stay on subject? I didn't spell out a suggestion like I did in my comment above, but they were sort of hints, or nudges in that direction.

Enzymes are not "processes" or "chemical reactions". That shouldn't be hard to understand, so why are both Xtrozero and TerraLiga talking about "processes" or "chemical reactions" in response to a point about enzymes as if the enzymes are the "processes" or "chemical reactions", as if it's the same subject they are making a point about, just using a different terminology (and if you say something about it, you're the one "arguing terminology and semantics" that "won't get either side anywhere"; surely if one side refuses to respond to the right subject, and swaps it out, that's when you won't get anywhere if you don't find a way to stop that unreasonable behaviour)? Is it because they want to talk about the philosophy/idea/belief that enzymes are the product of "natural ... chemistry" "processes" and "chemical reactions"? So you just call them that already?* And then Xtrozero says that I'm the one suggesting that just using a term for something also automatically means it actually is what you're calling it. (he used slighty different wording to paint that straw man on my argumentation)

*: or is it more a matter of subtly changing the subject, and then if I point out that they shouldn't refer to enzymes as "processes" or "chemical reactions", explaining that they weren't talking about enzymes, but about the cellular processes or chemical reactions. Wasting a lot of time and still not responding to my argumentation.

a reply to: whereislogic

It always gets to this point in the conversation where they simply have to ignore the obvious truth to maintain their mutant fantasy.

Even the processes that enzymes are foregoing are also intelligible. Look at the Bessemer process for example, the first affordable method of creating steel on a mass scale. This is a process that was intelligently contrived in an attempt to maximize efficiency.

So in this sense even the biochemical processes themselves are intelligible, since they are meant to execute a particular function efficiently, which is of course conducted by the cellular machinery

This post is for participants in this thread:

Cooperton is a liar. He's a member of an extreme cult.

He does not have a degree in any science.

He has never been in a science lab or conducted any experiments.

You choose to believe him, that's your problem.

originally posted by: Phantom423
This post is for participants in this thread:

Cooperton is a liar. He's a member of an extreme cult.

He does not have a degree in any science.

He has never been in a science lab or conducted any experiments.

You choose to believe him, that's your problem.

Funny that all of those claims are patently false, making you the liar. I have multiple collegiate degrees, I'm not a member or leader of any church, and I have conducted multiple scientific experiments including a novel low-cost method of re-purposing expanded polystyrene.

Participants in the thread: notice who is obsessed with trying to insult their opponent as opposed to who is actually discussing empirical science in this thread. That gives you the answer of who is right and who is wrong.

originally posted by: whereislogic

I guess sometimes when you're sticking to established facts and drawing conclusions by induction, since they don't change, it appears repetitive to some people. Especially if they themselves stick with discussing their preferred straw men in response or when talking about my commentary.

I'm talking about your opinion about machines. You gave me your opinion on it and I gave you mine.

originally posted by: whereislogic

*: or is it more a matter of subtly changing the subject, and then if I point out that they shouldn't refer to enzymes as "processes" or "chemical reactions", explaining that they weren't talking about enzymes, but about the cellular processes or chemical reactions. Wasting a lot of time and still not responding to my argumentation.

No clue what you are complaining about. Enzymes facilitate the chemical reactions in cells. They bind with a substrate that basically speeds up the chemical reactions. So what do you want to call it?