-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Are you signing up for Amazon Prime?
Biomolecular machines
- Thread starter Teleological
- Start date
Teleological
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
What human analogies? Point them out please. Which particular analogies do you object to? That is how they are described in the primary literature believe it or not.
Off course it is evidence of something. Evidence of how these biomolecular machines work. It still does not prove anything, and that was not the purpose of this thread. Here, I'll give it to you again:
A thread to lump together all the interesting discoveries regarding the intracellular biomolecular machinery that are crucial for life to exist. Feel free to post interesting discoveries and perhaps describe the functionality of the intracellular biomolecular machines.
Off course it is evidence of something. Evidence of how these biomolecular machines work. It still does not prove anything, and that was not the purpose of this thread. Here, I'll give it to you again:
A thread to lump together all the interesting discoveries regarding the intracellular biomolecular machinery that are crucial for life to exist. Feel free to post interesting discoveries and perhaps describe the functionality of the intracellular biomolecular machines.
Last edited:
nauseous_monkey
Expert Member
Telic.
No offense intended with this post. Just Interested.
What is it about all of these posts that directly link to your idea that God exists. I get the feeling you have a pretty solid idea of how they link, and I am interested in your view.
I was exactly like you once, I thought the complexity in nature was indicative of a higher power, it made sense to me that it did. Unfortunately then I started reading books and listening to people far more educated than me. They explained to me that it was not my conclusion which was wrong, it was the way I was thinking.
I was looking at the world and seeing only what I wanted to see. It was only once I changed my reasoning skills that I looked at the same problem again (complexity in nature) and realized that it might all be amazing.... but it is really not even close to proof of god's existence.
Just my 2c
No offense intended with this post. Just Interested.
What is it about all of these posts that directly link to your idea that God exists. I get the feeling you have a pretty solid idea of how they link, and I am interested in your view.
I was exactly like you once, I thought the complexity in nature was indicative of a higher power, it made sense to me that it did. Unfortunately then I started reading books and listening to people far more educated than me. They explained to me that it was not my conclusion which was wrong, it was the way I was thinking.
I was looking at the world and seeing only what I wanted to see. It was only once I changed my reasoning skills that I looked at the same problem again (complexity in nature) and realized that it might all be amazing.... but it is really not even close to proof of god's existence.
Just my 2c
Teleological
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
I intend to make a thread about it. For now, could you PLEASE keep the posts relevant!
nauseous_monkey
Expert Member
can't wait.
alloytoo
Honorary Master
How about you delete #1 & #3?
Teleological
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
Off course. Seeing that it was never really about science, but dueling the metaphysics. Science is agnostic when it comes to metaphysical matters.
You would do well if you actually posted something relevant.
Here: Another fascinating macromolecular complex
The anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome: a machine designed to destroy.
Last edited:
Teleological
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
This post was slightly, but as I said, this thread is not here to prove anything.
This one was not, seeing that the purpose of the thread is this:
A thread to lump together all the interesting discoveries regarding the intracellular biomolecular machinery that are crucial for life to exist. Feel free to post interesting discoveries and perhaps describe the functionality of the intracellular biomolecular machines.
So far not a single one from you. It is really easy, just go to sciencedaily.com or pubmed.com. The thread can be much more interesting you know.
From my perspective you are trying to prove something. You are trying to prove design, hence the reason the OP uses the analogy "machinery" so many times... but we can pretend thats not what you are doing
alloytoo
Honorary Master
'Plagiarism' was the word used on the Dawkins net.
Teleo is seemingly incapable of summarising anything he posts in nice simple English.
This is a typical creationist tactic, to get so bogged down in the nit picking details (and his apparent expertise in a whole swathe of subjects) that you lose sight of the bigger picture.
To wit (and to remain on topic) the whole molecular machine terminology, and analogy. The consistent implication of design, while consistently ignoring the hallmark of design which is uniqueness (in a manner which separates from something wholly from the rest of biological world).
It's a bit of desperation you see, there's no evidence of prime cause, creator, or even garden gnome.
There's no evidence of separate uniqueness.
So he's clinging Irreducible Complexity, which was always like the emperors new clothes anyway (to wit Interlocking complexity), personal incredulity, (intrinsically worthless), and a form of plagiarism which borders on quote-mining.
Here's the crux of the matter, anyone wishing to discuss these issues in the depth demanded by posts #1 & 3 would choose a forum populated by experts in these fields, and not a branch of an IT forum's "Off topic".
Anyone wishing to discuss these matters in general/principle would have summarised them to a couple of paragraphs not requiring multiply posts.
Oh well, the schools went back yesterday.
Last edited:
alloytoo
Honorary Master
From my perspective you are trying to prove something. You are trying to prove design, hence the reason the OP uses the analogy "machinery" so many times... but we can pretend thats not what you are doing
We could pretend, but what would be the fun in that?
Teleological
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
Right... so are you going to pretend that the authors of primary literature are also trying to prove design, seeing that the words with mechanical design like:From my perspective you are trying to prove something. You are trying to prove design, hence the reason the OP uses the analogy "machinery" so many times... but we can pretend thats not what you are doing
machine
guide
locate
rectify
verify
translate
orient
secure
communicate
circuit
decode
monitor
suppress
amplify....and the list goes
are being used liberally to describe these macromolecular complexes?
These are just interesting observations, nothing more. If you don't like it, leave it. Or you can just go with the flow and point out a few interesting findings. So far none, but it is your choice.
Teleological
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 836
- Reaction score
- 0
So alloytoo, how do you spell the following?
Plagerism
incabably
summerising
consistant
consistantly
seperates
Irreductable
increduality
summarised
I am sorry that your lack of senior high biology education (most definitely science and probably spelling) makes it very difficult to understand even simple summaries, but if you can't contribute something useful to a thread because you do not understand the subject, don't attack other people because of it. Posts #1 and #3 do not even remotely go into depth about anything, they are summaries in simple English you know.
I claim no expertise, I thought these posts would be interesting, but seeing that anything related to science causes you so much distress, I wonder if you shouldn't rather leave it and try not to look so malicious. Your character is unsavory and antagonistic to say the least. Your claims of plagiarism to the thread amounts to slander, nothing more. Now please, if you have anything interesting to post, let's see it, until then you may respectfully disappear.
Last edited:
alloytoo
Honorary Master
Now that you've had your childish and petulant outburst maybe you would like to address the issues.
What is your point?
I notice apart from nit picking you rarely seem to have one, and you persistently deny the one your behaviour leads us to assume.
A drive-by trolling with ‘interesting’ material couched in “design” terminology is typical creationist behavior.
Personal attacks followed by whinging and whining, when responded to in kind, is typical creationist behaviour.
Now I forget, is “….” In respect of 4 pages (IMS) of Richard Dawkins book, an example of:
a) Quotemining
b) The worth of your summary skill.
c) Plagiarism, because you just cut and paste it.
If you want us to assume otherwise, change your behaviour.
It’s worth noting that the accusation of plagiarism came from Dawkins net forums. Have you adequately addressed it? If so, a linky would be nice.
Which brings me back to the question:
What is the point of this thread?
Are these articles interesting?
Yes they’re interesting, but you’re presenting them in a fashion that certainly doesn’t doesn’t make them attractive to discuss.
Why do you keep on emphasising words that suggest the mechanical?
Are those words particularly interesting? If so why? Perhaps you have a spelling bee coming up, and you’re boning up on new words?
Or…..
Are you perhaps suggesting that these scientists choice of words suggest design of these evolved biological functions.
If that was your intent, then lets ask the scientists in question if that was their intent. I for one would like to hear their response. I think that would be very interesting, at least as interesting as the ethical debate that might follow should they deny it.
Are you suggesting that the processes and systems they're describing are irreducibly complex?
Behe suggests that irreducible complexity is a hallmark of design, though he seemingly ignores interlocking complexity, which is a predicted outcome of evolution.
I’m suggesting that singular uniqueness is a far better measure of design, would you care to discuss it?
To summarise:
If it is your intent to infer design in the biological systems described by these researchers?
Yes or no?
From my perspective you are trying to prove something. You are trying to prove design, hence the reason the OP uses the analogy "machinery" so many times... but we can pretend thats not what you are doing
If you don't want to read this thread then don't....
You accuse Teo of being a broken record, just like you?
Not one of you guys really ever have any "science" facts that YOU stumbled apon by yourselves, yes NM thats me telling you that you love the ctrl + c and ctrl + v just as much as anyone else on this forum.
Now if you can't keep it relevant then please stay out of the thread....
Or are you still incapable of playing in the adult pool? (thanks for that NM)
alloytoo
Honorary Master
That's factually incorrect.
Rofl you are factually stupid.... ps and you have a god complex.
Please if you can not even adhere to the rules of the foum....IOW If you want to troll fock off, then maybe you should go do some growing up?
Lol you are a joke
Ps please send me your research.
And the lies dont stop.... completely expected.
Also.. I have not accused teo of being a broken record.. thats your dementia speaking right there mate... pity you cant understand what I was trying speak to him about.
Last edited: