Meanwhile, in the real world of science, biomolecular machines really are machines that perform a function.
These machines are multi-protein complexes an fit the following criteria which you conveniently snipped. Here they are again. Live with it.
Availability:
The parts needed for a machine to function need to be available.
Synchronization:
The availability of these parts need to be synchronized so that they are all present at the time the machine needs to function.
Localization:
The parts must be made available at the same site of the construction of the machine. Not at the same time necessarily, but at least at the same site at the time they are needed.
Interface compatibility:
The parts must be mutually compatible and capable of mutually interacting in a proper way.
Coordination:
The above four criteria are useless if the parts are not coordinated in the right way.
But if you still can't get the fact that science describes these multi-protein complexes as machines (heaven knows you only need a quick survey of the literature, heck this thread gave you plenty of examples), how about reading... more published literature...
Interesting article:
Rise of the machines: Bruce Alberts and the biochemistry of multi-protein complexes
Mol Biosyst. 2008 Nov;4(11):1043-1045.
Guess you are stuck between a rock and a hard place...
1) Scientists are delusional when describing multi-protein complex proteins as biochemical machines.
2) These multi-protein complex proteins really are biochemical machines.
Want some tinfoil to read post #317...?
These machines are multi-protein complexes an fit the following criteria which you conveniently snipped. Here they are again. Live with it.
Availability:
The parts needed for a machine to function need to be available.
Synchronization:
The availability of these parts need to be synchronized so that they are all present at the time the machine needs to function.
Localization:
The parts must be made available at the same site of the construction of the machine. Not at the same time necessarily, but at least at the same site at the time they are needed.
Interface compatibility:
The parts must be mutually compatible and capable of mutually interacting in a proper way.
Coordination:
The above four criteria are useless if the parts are not coordinated in the right way.
But if you still can't get the fact that science describes these multi-protein complexes as machines (heaven knows you only need a quick survey of the literature, heck this thread gave you plenty of examples), how about reading... more published literature...
Interesting article:
Rise of the machines: Bruce Alberts and the biochemistry of multi-protein complexes
Mol Biosyst. 2008 Nov;4(11):1043-1045.
Professor Bruce Alberts of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) celebrated his 70th birthday in April of this year. There are few people that can rival Bruce with respect to his impact on science both inside and outside the laboratory. In recognition of Bruce’s storied career, we are pleased to dedicate this special issue of Molecular BioSystems to him.
The articles in this special issue of Molecular BioSystems focus on this fascinating area of multi-protein complex chemistry, biochemistry and molecular biology. They reveal that the Alberts paradigm of thinking of these complexes as highly interactive, tightly regulated biochemical machines has held up well over the years and guided many of the important studies that have elucidated their mechanism of action.
Finally, on a personal note, I had the pleasure of working in Bruce’s laboratory at UCSF for two years in the 1980’s. Therefore, I can personally attest to the fact that one of the reasons Bruce has made so many important discoveries is that he is frighteningly smart.
Guess you are stuck between a rock and a hard place...
1) Scientists are delusional when describing multi-protein complex proteins as biochemical machines.
2) These multi-protein complex proteins really are biochemical machines.
Want some tinfoil to read post #317...?
Last edited: