PDA

View Full Version : Biochemical Machines


DC
12th January 2011, 07:30 AM
Yesterday i found a Video on YT with the Title.

Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - Evolution

As i didn't know they actually presented evidence, i though, lets watch it.

its the famous Discovery Institute video.

the message from the video seems to be, We don't know how something could evolve from simpler organisms, So a unknown Designer did it.


but i wondered one thing. The video contains the famous 3D animation of the inside of a cell and its perfect process in it going on.
Do we know how those processes look in reality ? are they so fine coordinated or is it more chaotic in reality?
Like when a protein gets assembled from a part of DNA, in the animation it looks like a perfect machine doing its work.
Is that a realistic visualization or is it more chaotic and not soo well coordinated?

zpNt8d2jgSU

from 6:40 on

bokonon
12th January 2011, 08:32 AM
The processes are more hectic -- much, much faster, lots more stuff going on all around, very crowded -- but not more chaotic. Where the animation shows tRNA delivering amino acids as though they were placed on an assembly line, the reality is probably more like lots of trial and error, with mostly wrong amino acids being presented and rejected, for instance. It is, in my opinion, very well coordinated, and I agree with the ID proponent that the whole system is truly mind-boggling.

We really don't know how such massively interacting information processing systems might have come about. While I'm not willing to endorse the intelligent design hypothesis myself, I understand how some scientists (like Francis Collins) could find these biochemical machines to be compelling evidence for it.

DC
12th January 2011, 08:40 AM
The processes are more hectic -- much, much faster, lots more stuff going on all around, very crowded -- but not more chaotic. Where the animation shows tRNA delivering amino acids as though they were placed on an assembly line, the reality is probably more like lots of trial and error, with mostly wrong amino acids being presented and rejected, for instance. It is, in my opinion, very well coordinated, and I agree with the ID proponent that the whole system is truly mind-boggling.

We really don't know how such massively interacting information processing systems might have come about. While I'm not willing to endorse the intelligent design hypothesis myself, I understand how some scientists (like Francis Collins) could find these biochemical machines to be compelling evidence for it.

that is what i meant with more chaotic.

Bishadi
12th January 2011, 08:48 AM
Yesterday i found a Video on YT with the Title.

Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - Evolution funny

As i didn't know they actually presented evidence, i though, lets watch it.

its the famous Discovery Institute video.

the message from the video seems to be, We don't know how something could evolve from simpler organisms, So a unknown Designer did it.

that is voodoo science


but i wondered one thing. The video contains the famous 3D animation of the inside of a cell and its perfect process in it going on.
Do we know how those processes look in reality ?

lots of both animations and actual meiosis footage all over the world

but the funniest part is YOUR question "Do we know how those processes look in reality ?"

as you and i argue all day long on the science of mass and energy and you claim, the 'community' already has it all down and i am just a woowoo.

what a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



are they so fine coordinated or is it more chaotic in reality? it sure aint chaotic. Living processes are well orchestrated within a sustaining process. Kind of like a flame/fire.... there are specifics that must be involved and quite easy to ascertain what is required to keep the process going.

The difference is, in biology it is so complex and small that identifying which specific reactions are doing what has become mechanical (reductionary) versus self sustaining (alive).


Like when a protein gets assembled from a part of DNA, in the animation it looks like a perfect machine doing its work.

ie.... the mass is just mechanically doing, when nothing of the energy is even observed.


Is that a realistic visualization or is it more chaotic and not soo well coordinated?

the animation aint correct, nor is the chaotic ideology.

So the the video is just another scientific design of an opinion.


i wonder if the video should be in el wrong cubbard's shelf of dianetics?

it would be if any had an intelligent design

DC
12th January 2011, 08:55 AM
funny


that is voodoo science



lots of both animations and actual meiosis footage all over the world

but the funniest part is YOUR question "Do we know how those processes look in reality ?"

as you and i argue all day long on the science of mass and energy and you claim, the 'community' already has it all down and i am just a woowoo.

what a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it sure aint chaotic. Living processes are well orchestrated within a sustaining process. Kind of like a flame/fire.... there are specifics that must be involved and quite easy to ascertain what is required to keep the process going.

The difference is, in biology it is so complex and small that identifying which specific reactions are doing what has become mechanical (reductionary) versus self sustaining (alive).



ie.... the mass is just mechanically doing, when nothing of the energy is even observed.



the animation aint correct, nor is the chaotic ideology.

So the the video is just another scientific design of an opinion.


i wonder if the video should be in el wrong cubbard's shelf of dianetics?

it would be if any had an intelligent design

i never claimed the community has it all figured out.
and you are indeed total woo or extremely incompetent to express yourself, my bet is on both.

Bishadi
12th January 2011, 09:22 AM
i never claimed the community has it all figured out.


i guess you dont read what you write.

ie... if your rebuttle on this thread is about me being a woo and then you are asking if a cell is actually 'more chaotic', then the fact is, you actually have no clue and have no right to call me any kind of woo.


So be it intelligently designs videos representing someone else's opinion or just a random chaotic process of accidents just bumping into each other ..............you have nothing to sustain an opinion on facts other than to hold onto YOUR accepted opinions and insult anyone who is non conforming.............(the evidence; you calling me a woo)

my opinion on the thread is that a living cell aint chaotic and the video represents a close proximity to the mathematical representations of a reuctionary confinement of mechanical operations and why the intelligent designer concept is being represented as "Scientists presents proof...."


what you are not comprehending, is that it is the conflict with chaos, via the evidence, that is invoking the 'design' ideology (as there is no way all that can operate by accident)

when that 'life' of the mass is the energy, which is what is causing the motions and operations to occur.

my woo, is that a living process (life) must be in action based on the state of the mass (the energy;em) of each structure to sustain what is occuring within the environment/associations of the molecular structures, within the cells.


i woo on a causal approach and my claim is the intelligent design approach belongs with the el wrong cubbard (pseudoscience class)




.:p

please stick to the opinion and thread, not me...............

DC
12th January 2011, 09:42 AM
i guess you dont read what you write.

ie... if your rebuttle on this thread is about me being a woo and then you are asking if a cell is actually 'more chaotic', then the fact is, you actually have no clue and have no right to call me any kind of woo.


So be it intelligently designs videos representing someone else's opinion or just a random chaotic process of accidents just bumping into each other ..............you have nothing to sustain an opinion on facts other than to hold onto YOUR accepted opinions and insult anyone who is non conforming.............(the evidence; you calling me a woo)

my opinion on the thread is that a living cell aint chaotic and the video represents a close proximity to the mathematical representations of a reuctionary confinement of mechanical operations and why the intelligent designer concept is being represented as "Scientists presents proof...."


what you are not comprehending, is that it is the conflict with chaos, via the evidence, that is invoking the 'design' ideology (as there is no way all that can operate by accident)

when that 'life' of the mass is the energy, which is what is causing the motions and operations to occur.

my woo, is that a living process (life) must be in action based on the state of the mass (the energy;em) of each structure to sustain what is occuring within the environment/associations of the molecular structures, within the cells.


i woo on a causal approach and my claim is the intelligent design approach belongs with the el wrong cubbard (pseudoscience class)




.:p

please stick to the opinion and thread, not me...............

i am willing to learn from people explaining things and backing up claims, you do neither.
You are woo, you seem to believe to know so much more on nearly all topics, but you fail totally to explain or backup your claims.

And yes i don't know much about the mechanisms inside a cell that is why i ask. I am aware of my limited knowledge. I prefer that from extremely overestimate my own knowledge. One doesn't need to be very knowledgeable to realize you are posting a lot of nonsense.

and sorry i have never seen a video from the processes inside a cell nucleus and the assembling of proteins.
i am happy to watch them if anyone posts them.

Dinwar
12th January 2011, 10:03 AM
what you are not comprehending, is that it is the conflict with chaos, via the evidence, that is invoking the 'design' ideology (as there is no way all that can operate by accident)
No scientist has ever claimed that cells operate by accident. What they claim is that evolution is unguided, and can still lead to complex systems. What the ID advocates ignore is natural selection--they assume that evolution is random. What you ignore is the whole thing--no one's talking about how cells work today, they're talking about how they got to the point where they work that way today.

it sure aint chaotic. Living processes are well orchestrated within a sustaining process.Chaotic, in scientific parlance, has a specific meaning, and refers to processes best described by a specific theories. Chaotic systems can be very orderly for long stretches of time (on geologic and astronomic scales). While I don't have references to back it up, my understanding is that chaos theory is a good way to understand a number of biological systems, including intracellular processes.

Lukraak_Sisser
12th January 2011, 10:12 AM
Of a great deal of the more important mechanisms in the cell we do indeed know how they work.
Both crystallography and NMR analysis allow biochemists to look at molecular/atomic level how proteins and RNA are folded and move.
But the process are still extremely hectic and error prone, hence the large amount of cellular machinery involved in detecting and removing faulty parts.

Both protein and RNA synthesis basically involve putting lots of building blocks in the vicinity of the template and fitting until you hit the right combination.
DNA polymerase makes about 1 error every 1000 bases it incorporates, but has a self correcting component that allows it to mostly fix them, lowering the actual error rate to much less.

While the whole process looks magnificent when glanced at, the more you look at how a cell works, the more you see how the whole structure is one complex series of patches on patches that has an error rate we'd find unacceptable in any engineering way of thinking.

Unfortunately animating that does not look nearly as impressive as animating an error free process. At the same time the people doling out the grant money do not like anything that suggests you might not be sure, so things get presented to the public in a neater style than reality.

In this respect science doesnt really differ from any other group of people asking for funds or bidding for a project. Unfortunate but true.

Dinwar
12th January 2011, 10:19 AM
Which is unfortunate, as those errors are often key issues. Many diseases are caused by the errors, and the whole concept of evolution is only possible with imperfect replication. You'd think people funding research would see the value in studying the errors cellular processes make.

plumjam
12th January 2011, 10:24 AM
Similar sort of video here, commissioned (I believe) by Harvard University:

MMrvmZ2i1sE

Bishadi
12th January 2011, 10:30 AM
Of a great deal of the more important mechanisms in the cell we do indeed know how they work.
Both crystallography and NMR analysis allow biochemists to look at molecular/atomic level how proteins and RNA are folded and move.

How? or that you can see, that 'they do fold" and that 'they do move'?

But how? Can you provide a link for that?

does it involve magnetism?




But the process are still extremely hectic and error prone, hence the large amount of cellular machinery involved in detecting and removing faulty parts. can we go over these enzymes (them machines doing the parts jobs)?



Both protein and RNA synthesis basically involve putting lots of building blocks in the vicinity of the template and fitting until you hit the right combination. what is causing the 'hitting'? ie... you create the 'environment' by giving the synthesis process the building blocks, by what is causing them to assemble? Move?

The reason i ask is you appear to have first hand knowledge. So please be fair as i am appreciative of the opportunity to discuss if any of these types of items (questions) are observed in your lab or the material you observe?