Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Bacteria

Page 1 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Oct 2010, 11:30 pm

For those whose minds are not totally warped by human hubris and the fantasies of religion there is a fascinating article at http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-en ... -us-23628/



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

19 Oct 2010, 12:23 am

Forget bacteria. Remember your Biology 101 from high school. I really fail to see anyone adequately explain how these sub-cellular structures know how to do their job from DNA/RNA sequences with mechanical perfection at the scale it happens. Our bodies do millions of functions automatically that we can't even understand in real-time that make us look like slackers.

Perhaps bigger = slower and dumber. :lol:



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Oct 2010, 12:38 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Forget bacteria. Remember your Biology 101 from high school. I really fail to see anyone adequately explain how these sub-cellular structures know how to do their job from DNA/RNA sequences with mechanical perfection at the scale it happens. Our bodies do millions of functions automatically that we can't even understand in real-time that make us look like slackers.

Perhaps bigger = slower and dumber. :lol:


Your blatant dismissal and overconfidence in the matter is significant.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Oct 2010, 2:14 am

Sand wrote:
For those whose minds are not totally warped by human hubris and the fantasies of religion there is a fascinating article at http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-en ... -us-23628/


That miller-mmcune website is a treasure trove. Good article.

ruveyn



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

19 Oct 2010, 6:19 am

Sand wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Forget bacteria. Remember your Biology 101 from high school. I really fail to see anyone adequately explain how these sub-cellular structures know how to do their job from DNA/RNA sequences with mechanical perfection at the scale it happens. Our bodies do millions of functions automatically that we can't even understand in real-time that make us look like slackers.

Perhaps bigger = slower and dumber. :lol:


Your blatant dismissal and overconfidence in the matter is significant.


You want to tell me it's easy to comprehend?

I'm in awe how a single cell knows how to do all that it does supposedly only on chemical reactions. It's more complex than perhaps the grandest machine/device man has ever created.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Oct 2010, 6:39 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Sand wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Forget bacteria. Remember your Biology 101 from high school. I really fail to see anyone adequately explain how these sub-cellular structures know how to do their job from DNA/RNA sequences with mechanical perfection at the scale it happens. Our bodies do millions of functions automatically that we can't even understand in real-time that make us look like slackers.

Perhaps bigger = slower and dumber. :lol:


Your blatant dismissal and overconfidence in the matter is significant.


You want to tell me it's easy to comprehend?

I'm in awe how a single cell knows how to do all that it does supposedly only on chemical reactions. It's more complex than perhaps the grandest machine/device man has ever created.


It's not a matter of how much you can grasp, it's a matter of multiple accepted sources perceiving more or less the same paradigm. I have no idea how this happens and no doubt it is extremely odd. But reputable people in the field would not go this far out on a limb without some validation.



wblastyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 533
Location: UK

19 Oct 2010, 12:57 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Sand wrote:
You want to tell me it's easy to comprehend?

I'm in awe how a single cell knows how to do all that it does supposedly only on chemical reactions. It's more complex than perhaps the grandest machine/device man has ever created.

Cells don't "know" how to do anything, rather the cellular processes run based on the laws of chemistry and physics.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

19 Oct 2010, 1:26 pm

wblastyn wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Sand wrote:
You want to tell me it's easy to comprehend?

I'm in awe how a single cell knows how to do all that it does supposedly only on chemical reactions. It's more complex than perhaps the grandest machine/device man has ever created.

Cells don't "know" how to do anything, rather the cellular processes run based on the laws of chemistry and physics.


QFT

Biochemistry is, in many ways, the study of trial-and-error. There are probably something like 10^23 or 10^24 human cells on the planet at this moment (let's not even try to count animal, plant or fungal cells, or protozoa!) Each of these is the daughter of an continuous biogical process extending back hundreds of millions of years.

Cells work because there is nothing else that they can do. When they stop functioning, they are dead, and the living cells, that do work, carry on.


_________________
--James


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Oct 2010, 7:10 pm

visagrunt wrote:
wblastyn wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Sand wrote:
You want to tell me it's easy to comprehend?

I'm in awe how a single cell knows how to do all that it does supposedly only on chemical reactions. It's more complex than perhaps the grandest machine/device man has ever created.

Cells don't "know" how to do anything, rather the cellular processes run based on the laws of chemistry and physics.


QFT

Biochemistry is, in many ways, the study of trial-and-error. There are probably something like 10^23 or 10^24 human cells on the planet at this moment (let's not even try to count animal, plant or fungal cells, or protozoa!) Each of these is the daughter of an continuous biogical process extending back hundreds of millions of years.

Cells work because there is nothing else that they can do. When they stop functioning, they are dead, and the living cells, that do work, carry on.


Thinking is also a chemical process involving virtual trial and error.



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

22 Oct 2010, 9:45 am

Sand wrote:
Your blatant dismissal and overconfidence in the matter is significant.

How so? It is not like you made a point.

When people just post links to articles they consider to be interesting, without making a point themselves, it usually means they agree with the authors point, however, as Zer0netgain pointed out, this is a long and complected article and it is not easy to judge what point you are in agreement with. Considering the fact that it was posted in PPR, perhaps it was this:
Valerie Brown wrote:
The import of this distribution of microorganisms is unclear, but its existence reinforces the notion that humans should start thinking of themselves as ecosystems, rather than discrete individuals.
which is a point that you have made in several other threads and Zer0netgain might disagree with.

But who knows? What was it you did want to discuss?


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

22 Oct 2010, 9:57 am

I liked that last quote from NobelCynic of Valerie Brown. Mostly because it is true that we become ecosystems when we die, and i've realized that when observing the severals waves of insects that can colonize a body after its death if left in the open (or not at all). For them, your ribcage is a perfect hunting spot. ^.-



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

22 Oct 2010, 10:35 am

NobelCynic wrote:
Sand wrote:
Your blatant dismissal and overconfidence in the matter is significant.

How so? It is not like you made a point.

When people just post links to articles they consider to be interesting, without making a point themselves, it usually means they agree with the authors point, however, as Zer0netgain pointed out, this is a long and complected article and it is not easy to judge what point you are in agreement with. Considering the fact that it was posted in PPR, perhaps it was this:
Valerie Brown wrote:
The import of this distribution of microorganisms is unclear, but its existence reinforces the notion that humans should start thinking of themselves as ecosystems, rather than discrete individuals.
which is a point that you have made in several other threads and Zer0netgain might disagree with.

But who knows? What was it you did want to discuss?


The article I indicated, as you noted, has many points. My observation about Zeronetgain was not on the article but on his attitude towards the material and its sources. I merely said his attitude was significant. Are you saying it was not?



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

22 Oct 2010, 11:38 am

Sand wrote:
My observation about Zeronetgain was not on the article but on his attitude towards the material and its sources. I merely said his attitude was significant. Are you saying it was not?

No; If I wanted to say that I would have.

I am not found of debate as a sport though I am not ignorant of some of the tactics employed. I have noticed that you are frequently vague when making a point so you can take a defensive position when people guess what it was. Zer0netgain might have fallen into the trap in reading something spiritual into an article concerned with medical science that was posted in a forum designed to discuss politics, philosophy, and religion.

The point I was trying to make, in case it wasn't obvious, is that you didn't make a point for him to have an attitude towards the material and its sources. Need I point out you still didn't?​


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

22 Oct 2010, 1:40 pm

Sand wrote:
For those whose minds are not totally warped by human hubris and the fantasies of religion there is a fascinating article at http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-en ... -us-23628/



that was definitely worth the read.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

22 Oct 2010, 7:25 pm

NobelCynic wrote:
Sand wrote:
My observation about Zeronetgain was not on the article but on his attitude towards the material and its sources. I merely said his attitude was significant. Are you saying it was not?

No; If I wanted to say that I would have.

I am not found of debate as a sport though I am not ignorant of some of the tactics employed. I have noticed that you are frequently vague when making a point so you can take a defensive position when people guess what it was. Zer0netgain might have fallen into the trap in reading something spiritual into an article concerned with medical science that was posted in a forum designed to discuss politics, philosophy, and religion.

The point I was trying to make, in case it wasn't obvious, is that you didn't make a point for him to have an attitude towards the material and its sources. Need I point out you still didn't?​


I merely indicated that he clarified his attitude towards the material in my understanding. I do not enter comments necessarily as debating points. I merely presented material I thought worth consideration. He clearly indicated he felt it was not worth his consideration. I am not interested in trying to convince him it was, but his decision classified him for me. I did not say how he was classified either positively or negatively. You seem to assume an awful lot.



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

22 Oct 2010, 11:23 pm

Sand wrote:
NobelCynic wrote:
Sand wrote:
My observation about Zeronetgain was not on the article but on his attitude towards the material and its sources. I merely said his attitude was significant. Are you saying it was not?

No; If I wanted to say that I would have.

I am not found of debate as a sport though I am not ignorant of some of the tactics employed. I have noticed that you are frequently vague when making a point so you can take a defensive position when people guess what it was. Zer0netgain might have fallen into the trap in reading something spiritual into an article concerned with medical science that was posted in a forum designed to discuss politics, philosophy, and religion.

The point I was trying to make, in case it wasn't obvious, is that you didn't make a point for him to have an attitude towards the material and its sources. Need I point out you still didn't?​


I merely indicated that he clarified his attitude towards the material in my understanding. I do not enter comments necessarily as debating points. I merely presented material I thought worth consideration. He clearly indicated he felt it was not worth his consideration. I am not interested in trying to convince him it was, but his decision classified him for me. I did not say how he was classified either positively or negatively. You seem to assume an awful lot.


i think the point sand is trying to make is that he wasn't trying to make a point. he shared a link that i probably wouldn't have found for months, otherwise. that he called someone out for reading (or ignoring) this article and deciding it was crap based on the fact that it contradicted their previous notions without referencing any reason their previous notions should hold priority is not a sign that he was trying to take a stand on vagary to play a game of "debate" but rather a sign that he does not respect the position held by the casual, self-confirming, pessimist.

sand doesn't seem to mind playing the game you're implying but he also doesn't seem to be playing it right now.

his message was pointed and his point was valid. as much as you'd like to paint him as candide's Pococurante, i think you'll find him to be quite pococurante instead.


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)