Self-Assembly of Nano-Machines: No Intelligence Required?

In my research, I have recently come across the self-assembling proteins and molecular machines called nano-machines one of them being the bacterial flagellum…

Have you ever wondered what mechanism is involved in the self-assembly process?

I’m not even going to ask the question how the self-assembly process has supposedly evolved, because it would be offensive to engineers who struggle to design assembly lines that require the assembly, operation and supervision of intelligence… So far engineers can’t even dream of designing self-assembling machines…But when they do accomplish that one day, it will be used as proof that random, natural processes could have done too…in life systems.. lol

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, just watch this video:

The first thing that came to my mind when I debating the self-assembly process was one of Michael Behe’s books The Edge of Evolution. I wanted to see whether he mentioned any known, or unknown, mechanism driving the self-assembly process of nano-machines, like the flagellum…

In the Edge of Evolution Behe uses an illustration of a self-assembling flashlight, which parts possess the many different types of magnets that only fit the right type of part into it; each part having the affinity for the corresponding magnet…something like that…

It’s not clear to me whether Behe questions that the magnetic attraction is sufficient for the self-assembly of the flagellum (I might have to read the parts of the book on the theme again). Behe seems to question the ability of Darwinian processes to be able to evolve the sequence and the fitting process of each part of the flagellum, by random processes of random mutation and natural selection…

This is what BIOLOGOS have to say on the theme of self-assembly of the flagelum:

“Natural forces work “like magic”

Nothing we know from every day life quite prepares us for the beauty and power of self-assembly processes in nature. We’ve all put together toys, furniture, or appliances; even the simplest designs require conscious coordination of materials, tools, and assembly instructions (and even then there’s no guarantee that we get it right!). It is tempting to think the spontaneous formation of so complex a machine is “guided,” whether by a Mind or some “life force,” but we know that the bacterial flagellum, like countless other machines in the cell, assembles and functions automatically according to known natural laws. No intelligence required.1

Video animations like this one (video no longer available) by Garland Science beautifully illustrate the elegance of the self-assembly process (see especially the segment from 2:30-5:15). Isn’t it extraordinary? When I consider this process, feelings of awe and wonder well up inside me, and I want to praise our great God.

Several ID advocates, most notably Michael Behe, have written engagingly about the details of flagellar assembly. For that I am grateful—it is wonderful when the lay public gets excited about science! But I worry that in their haste to take down the theory of evolution, they create a lot of confusion about how God’s world actually operates.

When reading their work, I’m left with the sense that the formation of complex structures like the bacterial flagellum is miraculous, rather than the completely normal behavior of biological molecules. For example, Behe writes, “Protein parts in cellular machines not only have to match their partners, they have to go much further and assemble themselves—a very tricky business indeed” (Edge of Evolution, 125-126). This isn’t tricky at all. If the gene that encodes the MS-ring component protein is artificially introduced into bacteria that don’t normally have any flagellum genes, MS-rings spontaneously pop up all over the cell membrane. It’s the very nature of proteins to interact in specific ways to form more complex structures, but Behe makes it sound like each interaction is the product of special design. Next time I’ll review some other examples from the ID literature where assembly is discussed in confusing or misleading ways.”

To me personally, the self-assembly process, especially that of the molecular nano-machines like the bacterial flagellum, involves much, much more than random motion of molecules and the affinity of their binding sites for one another…

There has to be not only some kind of energy directing force but also some hidden information source to direct that energy…I have a hunch what that could be and there is only one way of finding it out…

Does anybody know what I have in mind? No, I don’t think it’s Jesus …

 

472 Replies to “Self-Assembly of Nano-Machines: No Intelligence Required?”

  1. DNA_Jock
    Ignored
    says:

    The second sentence is guano-worthy.

  2. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    CharlieM: A “dynein being” is composite, it is not just a protein but a complex of proteins. When does something become a living thing in itself? Are all the social insect workers that do not reproduce excluded from being classed as living things because of this? What about slime molds? Are the individual cells living things or is it just when they aggregate they become living things?

    Consider this: worker insects, non-reproducing slime molds and somatic cells all derive from reproducing predecessors. You have chosen the oddballs that for various reasons take a back seat when it comes to reproduction, but if I am permitted to quote myself: “when a xerox machine is broken, it does not cease to be a xerox machine”.

    You appear to have fallen back on some version of vitalism: the belief that the elements that make up living organisms are different from those of non-living entities, because they are suffused with some life force. However, that idea has been dead for a long time* and for good reasons too.

    * yes, pun intended

  3. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    CharlieM: but no scientist here seems willing to discuss this with you J-Mac.

    I’d love to, but the Darwinian Gestapo won’t allow it.

  4. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    CharlieM: I noticed that quantum information is briefly mentioned in an article Allan Miller linked to in your recent thread on information

    The connection is the word ‘quantum’, I suppose. I can’t see any other link.

    I would also like to hear what the experts say about quantum information in relation to flagellar self assembly or polymerases but no scientist here seems willing to discuss this with you J-Mac.

    We’re all chickenshit, I guess. Or, alternatively, J-mac hasn’t said anything one can discuss. It presumably means something to you, but I can make no sense of it. Saying ‘quantum’ in that context seems to serve a similar purpose to you saying ‘wisdom’ – it seems devoid of explanatory power; something said for saying something’s sake.

  5. DNA_Jock
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel,
    Agreed.
    Also, his slime mold example is terrible. Individual cells reproduce just fine, thank you very much.

  6. DNA_Jock
    Ignored
    says:

    Well, Allan Miller, I have been waiting for J-Mac’s proposed experimental protocol. He’s hinted that there’s a simple experiment to demonstrate the effect of disrupting QI on flagellar assembly. I suspect that it won’t differentiate the QM explanation from a more mundane one, but I haven’t seen the protocol yet.
    Until then, there’s nothing to discuss.

  7. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    DNA_Jock: Also, his slime mold example is terrible.

    He was thinking of the stalk cells in a Dictyostelium fruiting body, most likely.

    If you want to have meaningful discussions here at TSZ, you need to turn charitable reading into an art form. 😀

  8. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Do you have an explanation for the rare ECB males that were responsive to the blend of the asian species? Perhaps they had a little interference when communicating with their group souls?

    from an article on pheromone synthesis in lepidoptera:

    What is unusual about the Ostrinia nonfunctional genes is that they are well conserved between the two species (European corn borer and Asian corn borer). However, recent pseudogenization could account for this. In addition, there are several other cases in which pseudogenes have been shown to be conserved and even possess intact ORFs.

    Duplicate genes allow for a certain amount of variability within a kind. There is wisdom in having variability which allows adaptation to an ever-changing world.

    They give some figures:

    A large and diverse olfactory receptor multigene family would provide an adaptive advantage for male moths, allowing for the rapid evolution of male response to female pheromone blends. Although such studies have not yet been conducted on moths, we predict that high levels of olfactory receptor gene duplication, gene loss, and pseudogenization will be found for these species on the basis of what has been found in other animals. For instance, a family of at least 60 olfactory receptor loci have been identified in D. melanogaster, and in vertebrates and Caenorhabditis elegans hundreds to thousands of olfactory receptor loci, including many pseudogenes, have been found.

    When it is necessary to match female signalling to male receptors, relying on pure chance would not very very beneficial for the continuation of the species.

    If you consider European corn borers and Asian corn borers to be separate species then speciation in this case is a narrowing of niches, and narrowing of one’s niche is not very desirable in an ever-changing world.

  9. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: If you want to have meaningful discussions here at TSZ, you need to turn charitable reading into an art form.

    🙂

  10. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:

    CharlieM: We can attribute wisdom to living beings, not events.

    Well, slowly but surely you are clarifying your terms. Are you saying that, when you talk about the wisdom of nature, that nature is a living being?

    Yes the earth can be thought of as a living being. But in order to speak of wisdom there must be consciousness to apply this wisdom. Human display both consciousness and wisdom (on rare occasions 🙂 ) at the individual level. IMO other forms of life display wisdom at a higher level than the individual organism, and they display different levels of consciousness becoming more individual the more closely they are related to humans. The lower animals and plants actually have a group consciousness which is a higher form of consciousness than the individual self-consciousness of humans.

    My point still stands, I think. If a population adapts by a change in frequency of favourable traits, where is ‘wisdom’ applied? What’s its mode of operation, and how can it be distinguished from that which evolutionists term ‘adaptation’?

    The wisdom lies in the fact that there is a built in plasticity within the kind or species. But this variability is insufficient for the overall evolutionary changes that has come about in the history of life, again IMO.

  11. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:

    Anyone who wants to demonstrate the causal power of genes has no option but to at least provide evidence as to which genes are responsible for the effect in question.

    Anyone who wants to bring an alternative explanation to bear might consider themselves held to their own standard, in fairness.

    Me:Not as such, but you evidently think butterfly minds are tapping into something.

    I have already stated me beliefs elsewhere. The orthodox belief holds that everything stems from fundamental point-wise forces and particles, and that is how the genome is seen. It is looked at as a consisting of extremely small atoms which interact in accordance with standard physics and chemistry.

    I believe that there is a polar opposite, peripheral side to reality which is not taken account of by the one-sided atomistic view. The infinitely small point is complimented by the infinitely large plane. So sub-atomic “particles” have a second aspect to them which is the “planar” aspect. Living physical form is governed by field-like forces acting on the material produced by genetic forces. the genes don’t determine the form, they contribute towards the appropriate substances being available.

    Charlie: Neither have I mentioned butterfly minds. The behaviour of these butterflies is sufficient for me to consider the group as an individual entity […]

    So how does that assumed entity persuade the individual butterflies to flap their little wings and head south?

    The cells in your body are part of a higher entity which is you. Some of your cells migrate to form your tissues. You do not have to persuade them to do this and neither does the higher entity of which individual butterflies are a part need to do any persuading.

    The wisdom inherent in the structure of termite mounds cannot be found within individual termites, nor in any part therein,, it is a group wisdom, realized by group action.

    Do you think that the cells of a single body are exhibiting ‘group wisdom’?

    They are contributing towards the life of the whole.

    Good to see you saying there is an arrow to evolution

    That does not mean what you think it means.

    To me arrows indicate direction.

  12. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Consider this: worker insects, non-reproducing slime molds and somatic cells all derive from reproducing predecessors. You have chosen the oddballs that for various reasons take a back seat when it comes to reproduction, but if I am permitted to quote myself: “when a xerox machine is broken, it does not cease to be a xerox machine”.

    You appear to have fallen back on some version of vitalism: the belief that the elements that make up living organisms are different from those of non-living entities, because they are suffused with some life force. However, that idea has been dead for a long time* and for good reasons too.

    * yes, pun intended

    Among many here you are quite happy to use the machine metaphor when it comes to these nano-entities. But it is frowned upon to use a metaphor comparing them to living organisms. Why?

    Well I argue that they have more in common with other living entities than they do with human made machines. Of course they have a life force because they are living entities. If you wish to see the difference between living and dead matter, cut your arm of and wait for it to type a message on your keypad.

    Dynein complexes can move along microtubules, they can step over obstactes, reverse direction if need be, and take steps that vary in length. They can also act in harmony with other dynein complexes What prompts them to act in this way?

  13. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    CharlieM: Among many here you are quite happy to use the machine metaphor when it comes to these nano-entities. But it is frowned upon to use a metaphor comparing them to living organisms. Why?

    Nobody here is objecting to machine metaphors or living organism-metaphors. What people resist is the conclusion that the similarity somehow identifies proteins / protein complexes as truly being machines or living organisms. They are neither.

    CharlieM: Of course they have a life force because they are living entities. If you wish to see the difference between living and dead matter, cut your arm of and wait for it to type a message on your keypad.

    I’d rather not if it is all the same to you. 🙂

    Not sure what this cutting-my-arm-off business is supposed to demonstrate either. If a severed arm doesn’t type a message then it is … not-alive? Didn’t you want to demonstrate the opposite?

    CharlieM: Dynein complexes can move along microtubules, they can step over obstactes, reverse direction if need be, and take steps that vary in length. They can also act in harmony with other dynein complexes What prompts them to act in this way?

    Are these conscious decisions? I’d say no.

  14. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: What people resist is the conclusion that the similarity somehow identifies proteins / protein complexes as truly being machines or living organisms. They are neither.

    Are cells machines?

  15. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: Are cells machines?

    Not in my book.

  16. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel,

    Why?

  17. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: Why?

    Peculiar question if you come to think of it, but here goes:

    Because I think of machines as mechanical constructs that serve to perform some designated task. Cells are not mechanical constructs, but organic entities. We can argue whether they are performing tasks for us, I suppose, but it sure wasn’t designated by us.

  18. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller: The connection is the word ‘quantum’, I suppose. I can’t see any other link.

    We’re all chickenshit, I guess. Or, alternatively, J-mac hasn’t said anything one can discuss. It presumably means something to you, but I can make no sense of it. Saying ‘quantum’ in that context seems to serve a similar purpose to you saying ‘wisdom’ – it seems devoid of explanatory power; something said for saying something’s sake.

    If quantum mechanics is to be taken seriously then the classical view that all particles must be located in their own particular area of space is contradicted. So if a particle does not occupy one particular place in Euclidean space then it has an aspect which exists regardless of space. IMO this is an indication in the direction of the planar aspect of the “particle” From our perspective it should be looked at as being relative to the infinitely small point and also the infinitely large plane. Physical matter exists through the polarity of these two aspects.

  19. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: He was thinking of the stalk cells in a Dictyostelium fruiting body, most likely.

    If you want to have meaningful discussions here at TSZ, you need to turn charitable reading into an art form.

    Reproduction exists at many levels. Some would say that birds are the offspring of theropods.

    How’s this fort a holographic image 🙂

  20. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: CharlieM:

    Among many here you are quite happy to use the machine metaphor when it comes to these nano-entities. But it is frowned upon to use a metaphor comparing them to living organisms. Why?

    Nobody here is objecting to machine metaphors or living organism-metaphors. What people resist is the conclusion that the similarity somehow identifies proteins / protein complexes as truly being machines or living organisms. They are neither.

    Then why is there a bias in favour of using the term “machine”?

    Do you agree that functioning protein complexes are living tissue?

  21. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    If organisms aren’t machines then the whole argument for intelligent design collapses.

  22. vjtorley
    Ignored
    says:

    Excerpt from Why Living Organisms Aren’t Machines by Sune Holm (RealClearScience, November 9, 2018):

    Why organisms aren’t machines

    One of the most basic objections to the identification of organisms and machines is that their behaviour cannot be reduced to the activities and relations of their parts.

    In contrast to a mechanical watch, whose activity is fully determined “from the bottom up” by the activities and organisation of its parts, organisms influence the activities of their parts. For example, your muscles start to grow if you start to exercise. Moreover, the parts of a watch exist before the watch does. It is not the watch itself that builds its own parts.

    In contrast, organisms are self-producing in the sense that it is the organism itself that builds and maintains its parts.

    However, there must presumably be some level of an organism (biomolecular, I presume) at which the parts do not build and maintain their sub-components. And at this level, the mechanical metaphor would be entirely apt. If one could show that these parts could not have come together by chance, then that would constitute a powerful argument for Intelligent Design. Unfortunately for ID proponents, no such proof is forthcoming.

  23. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist:
    If organisms aren’t machines then the whole argument for intelligent design collapses.

    But why should one take Corneel’s argument that they are not machines seriously?

    Basically he is saying that they are not machines because they are living.

  24. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    vjtorley: If one could show that these parts could not have come together by chance, then that would constitute a powerful argument for Intelligent Design.

    If one could show that they could, that would be a powerful argument for the atheist evolutionists.

    Unfortunately no such proof is forthcoming.

  25. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Not sure what this cutting-my-arm-off business is supposed to demonstrate either. If a severed arm doesn’t type a message then it is … not-alive? Didn’t you want to demonstrate the opposite?

    It demonstrates that life and death occurs at many levels. Organisms die, organs die, cells die.Life and death at lower levels occurs within life and death at higher levels. A functioning arm is a living part of a living human and a functioning protien complex is a living part of a functioning organism. Humans, arms and protein complexes are all living when they are functioning under normal conditions.

    CharlieM:

    Dynein complexes can move along microtubules, they can step over obstactes, reverse direction if need be, and take steps that vary in length. They can also act in harmony with other dynein complexes What prompts them to act in this way?

    Are these conscious decisions? I’d say no.

    And I would agree. Conscious decisions are a rare occurrence in life. Even in humans conscious decisions are a very small part of our lives.

  26. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    CharlieM: Then why is there a bias in favour of using the term “machine”?

    I wasn’t aware there was.

    CharlieM: Do you agree that functioning protein complexes are living tissue?

    I’d agree that protein complexes are usually part of living tissue, but please note that they can exist outside of this context.

  27. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: But why should one take Corneel’s argument that they are not machines seriously?

    My turn now …

    Why should we take your argument seriously that cells are machines?
    If you maintain that cells qualify as machines because, like machines, they were constructed, then you are begging the question. So what features of living cells tells you they are machines?

  28. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Not in my book.

    They are more like cities than machines. 🙂

  29. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: If organisms aren’t machines then the whole argument for intelligent design collapses.

    You should know better than that.

  30. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: My turn now …

    Why should we take your argument seriously that cells are machines?
    If you maintain that cells qualify as machines because, like machines, they were constructed, then you are begging the question. So what features of living cells tells you they are machines?

    machine
    /məˈʃiːn/
    noun
    noun: machine; plural noun: machines

    1.
    an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

    That’s why.

    It has nothing to do with them being constructed, though clearly they are.

  31. BruceS
    Ignored
    says:

    vjtorley:
    Excerpt from Why Living Organisms Aren’t Machines by Sune Holm (RealClearScience, November 9, 2018):
    In contrast to a mechanical watch, whose activity is fully determined “from the bottom up” by the activities and organisation of its parts, organisms influence the activities of their parts

    The modern definition of mechanism incorporates downward causation through constraints on the state space of the component dynamics. So one can argue that successful explanations of living cells are can call them mechanisms, in that sense of the word.

    Mechanisms in Science

    Explicating Top-down Causation Using Networks And Dynamics

    ETA: KN pointed out Juarrero’s Dynamics in Action in an earlier post to point to a naturalized approach to personal/agent-level teleology. She uses the constraints approach to downwards causation as part of that approach well.

  32. BruceS
    Ignored
    says:

    vjtorley:

    Don’t tell me you believe the tornado in a junk yard argument …

    If one could show that these parts could not have come together by chance,

    I asked you not to tell me that!

  33. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    BruceS,

    If a tornado in a desert made a machine, would you be able to identify it as a machine that was not designed?

  34. BruceS
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo:
    BruceS,

    If a tornado in a desert made a machine, would you be able to identify it as a machine that was not designed?

    Swampman

    H/T to Mung for style

  35. DNA_Jock
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: noun: machine; plural noun: machines

    1.
    an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

    That’s why.

    It has nothing to do with them being constructed, though clearly they are.

    From the Greek mehkos, meaning ‘contrivance’. Etymology matters.

  36. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    DNA_Jock,

    Why, is this current definition wrong?

    When you tell people goodbye, do you mean “God be with you?”

  37. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung:
    Quoting Kantian Naturalist: If organisms aren’t machines then the whole argument for intelligent design collapses.

    Mung: You should know better than that.

    Yep. By this time we should understand that no amount of philosophical / scientific / conceptual problems will stop creationists from pretending that their arguments are alive and well.

  38. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Entropy,

    That’s good.

    Ask Jock what good means.

  39. BruceS
    Ignored
    says:

    Etymology matters.

    Maybe to Erik.

    But I think that appeals to the dictionary are often irrelevant diversions used by people who have not taken the time to understand words being used as terms of art in scientific models or in philosophy.

    What Random Mutation Means in Science

  40. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    vjtorley: If one could show that these parts could not have come together by chance, then that would constitute a powerful argument for Intelligent Design

    If by powerful you mean negative-argument-false-dichotomy-fallacious-bullshit, I agree

  41. DNA_Jock
    Ignored
    says:

    BruceS,

    Yes. I was only having a little tu quoque fun. Debates about whether a cell is a “machine” or evolution is a “search” do not change what a cell is and what evolution does.
    It’s just semantic hair-splitting for empty rhetorical advantage.

  42. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    DNA_Jock: From the Greek mehkos, meaning ‘contrivance’. Etymology matters.

    The following seems a bit redundant then:

    One of the most remarkable features in our domesticated races is that we see in them adaptation, not indeed to the animal’s or plant’s own good, but to man’s use or fancy. Some variations useful to him have probably arisen suddenly, or by one step; many botanists, for instance, believe that the fuller’s teazle, with its hooks, which cannot be rivalled by any mechanical contrivance

  43. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    DNA_Jock: Yes. I was only having a little tu quoque fun.

    Whilst being as wrong as can be.

    God be with you (do you say that in your house?)

  44. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    CharlieM: If quantum mechanics is to be taken seriously then the classical view that all particles must be located in their own particular area of space is contradicted. So if a particle does not occupy one particular place in Euclidean space then it has an aspect which exists regardless of space. IMO this is an indication in the direction of the planar aspect of the “particle”From our perspective it should be looked at as being relative to the infinitely small point and also the infinitely large plane. Physical matter exists through the polarity of these two aspects.

    ?

    That’s your answer to the charge of saying something for saying something’s sake?

  45. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    CharlieM,

    To me arrows indicate direction.

    Sure. Up, down, sideways … they are all directions. But my point was that population change is essentially irreversible, not that everything points inexorably towards your favourite organism (the chimp!).

  46. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    CharlieM,

    On the butterfly matter, you get nowhere near your own standard. If I think Monarch migration is rooted in common genetics, I must tell you which genes, precisely how they exert their effect, etc. And you say …”greater whole … all connected … nature’s like a superorganism …”.

    You don’t see the double standard?

  47. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    phoodoo: an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.

    That’s why.

    It has nothing to do with them being constructed, though clearly they are.

    Suppose I would gloss over the “apparatus” and “mechanical power” part, and concede that you found a definition that fits both man-made contrivances and biological organisms (I don’t think you have). What would be the point, I wonder? As KN was quick to point out, once you drop the “constructed” part from your definition, the design argument by analogy doesn’t work anymore. And that’s all you’ve got.

  48. Corneel Corneel
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: They are more like cities than machines.

    I like that.

  49. DNA_Jock
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:
    quotes CharlieM
    To me arrows indicate direction.

    Yeah, the only way I was able to make sense of that comment was to assume that Charlie was setting up for an equivocation: ‘direction’ as in ‘what a director does’, rather than ‘Northeast’.

  50. phoodoo
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: Suppose I would gloss over the “apparatus” and “mechanical power” part, and concede that you found a definition that fits both man-made contrivances and biological organisms (I don’t think you have). What would be the point, I wonder? As KN was quick to point out, once you drop the “constructed” part from your definition, the design argument by analogy doesn’t work anymore. And that’s all you’ve got.

    First, I didn’t “find” a defintion, that was THE defintion, the first defintion.

    Second, what makes you think I haven’t, you don’t think organisms use mechanical power? Surely you jest.

    Third, once you acknowledge they ARE machines, I didn’t say you have to acknowledge they were constructed even. But then the onus becomes on you to show that there are machines, that were never constructed.

    Good luck on that.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.