Scientists in Germany have successfully assembled Rubisco, a protein instrumental for photosynthesis, the process that plants use to produce oxygen and sugars from CO2 and H2O.
If the protein’s efficiency in converting CO2 can be improved, many of the implications would be far-reaching.
News 24 article (what it means).
Insciences article (how it was done).
'Luthon64
Sounds like an intelligently designed idea? What is wrong with intelligently designing evolution towards a few end points >:D?
More about chaperones:
They are part of cell’s quality control systems.
How do they work? Well, some of them are two-stroke, two-speed, protein machines.
Article:
Setting the chaperonin timer: A two-stroke, two-speed, protein machine
From the article:
[b]Protein machines and their man-made, macroscopic counterparts share several common attributes, e.g., concerted, coordinated movements, cyclical operation, and energy transduction.[/b] These machines are seldom reversible because each cycle generally involves at least one irreversible step, e.g., the consumption of fuel. Often these machines operate at variable speed, a plethora of timing devices adjusting the cycle speed in response to demand.An exemplary bipartite protein machine is the chaperonin system, typified by GroEL and GroES from Escherichia coli. GroEL is composed of 2 heptameric rings, stacked back to back, which, in the presence of GroES, operate out of phase with one another in the manner of a 2-stroke, reciprocating motor (1, 2). Driven by the hydrolysis of ATP, the chaperonin proteins function as a biological simulated annealing machine (3, 4), optimizing the folding of their substrate proteins (SPs) whose passage to biologically functional conformations is thus assured.
[b]The picture of the chaperonins that emerges from our work is that of a machine equipped with a timer, the trans ring, poised to respond to the appearance of SP [substrate protein inside the cavity] but otherwise idling in a quiescent state.[/b] We note that Nature’s design of this 2-speed protein machine minimizes the hydrolysis of ATP in the absence of SP. However, it maximizes the number of turnovers and minimizes the residence time available to the encapsulated SP to reach the native state, design principles well suited to the operation of an iterative annealing device.
If one ignores the transparently infantile goading, and the tendentious selectivity of, and emphases within citations in the remainder of your post, then the answer is as follows: Nothing really, provided it’s done responsibly. After all, in this case not only do we know the intelligent designers, we have actual, direct, objective, repeatable evidence of them. That is, there is no need to speculate and conjecture about (a) the existence, (b) the goals, (c) the methods, (d) the nature, or (e) the identity of the intelligent designer. How cool is that!?
'Luthon64
Ah well, at least you are able to recognise the existence of design. You unfortunately need to reconcile it with your philosophically materialistic outlook on life. Good luck with the cognitive dissonance there.
Please feel free to explain for us slowpokes lagging behind your towering intellect how an ability to recognise intelligent design, given verifiable the verifiable actions of verifiable intelligent designers, is irreconcilable with philosophical materialism.
Can you please do that? Because it is a supremely important point, perhaps the one cardinal one.
And please do it in baby steps, not by resort to gormless evasion.
Thank you in advance for your no doubt eruditely illuminating reply. I look forward to it.
'Luthon64
Well now, certain kinds of philosophically materialistic outlooks are plainly incompatible with any kind of design that come from the mental states of engineers, scientists etc. Eliminative materialists for one posit that mental states (such as belief and sensation and goal-directed mental states such as designing something towards a goal) do not actually exist. I am pretty sure you are not an eliminative materialist because you sure believe your mental states do have an effect on the outside world. I guess you need to tell us just what kind of an idiotic philosophical materialist you are though. A type that makes it more compatible with the existence of mental states and your very real ability at goal-directed behaviour.
Do try and explain how you are a philosophical materialist that does not just plainly collapse into eliminative materialism or similar idiotic philosophical outlooks that are just plain self-refuting. Feel free to make a new thread though.
Let’s talk more about those chaperone machines and how they are used to design (scientists) new forms of RuBisCo.
But you haven’t answered the question that was posed. You have merely rattled off an irrelevant slew of flat, unsubstantiated and superficially relevant assertions.
'Luthon64
Evade actually defining what kind philosophical materialist you are all you want. If you don’t answer that question, I am not able to answer your question as you might actually not be an eliminative materialist or an actual philsophical materialist that does not collapse into EM.
EM is incompatible with the actions of intelligent designers (verifiable or not) because it denies the existence of mental states of intelligent designers in the first. Are you too dumb to actualy get that or just willfully evading defining what kind of philosophical materialist you are that does not collapse into EM?
You’re still just dodging. And flatly asserting, as before.
How is eliminative materialism “incompatible with the actions of intelligent designers (verifiable or not)”? Where do you get that a denial of “the existence of mental stares [sic] of intelligent designers in the first [sic]” (citation, please!) negates either the actions of designers or intelligence?
You really do make the most remarkable unsubstantiated claims sometimes. Now answer the original question and the above two, please.
'Luthon64
Mental states… (fixed)
Damn you must really be that thick:
Here:
EM is irreconcilable with the ability to recognise intelligent design, given verifiable the verifiable actions of verifiable intelligent designers simply because EM states that mental states such as recognising, verifying as well as object-directed states such as wanting and desiring do not exist.
Do you get it? Are you an eliminative materialist? If not, definine what kind of philosophical materialist you are that does not collapse into EM.
If you don’t understand EM, go read a book or something.
Temporarily accepting your eliminative materialism straw man unreservedly for argument’s sake, how does the illusory existence, variously non-existence of sensations render either the underlying brain states or the stimuli that produced them illusory, variously non-existent? Before you answer that, though, please give a philosophically satisfactory account of what it means for something “to exist” with particular reference to sensations in general.
So far, that’s five unanswered questions. Gee, I think you’re right, I must really be that thick!
'Luthon64
Look, I think you need to at least read up on EM before accusing others of straw men. Countless times have I asked others to actually define what they think “philosophical naturalism” and “philosophical materialism” refers to without even a hint of an attempt. You being another prime example. You say you are one but seem to catastrophically fail to go into any remote detail of an understanding of what you think you are (PS, now is a good time to actually describe it). When someone attempts to discuss it, they are accused of straw men by the same interlopers who are incapable of describing it for others and themselves in the first place.
No-one said brain states or the stimuli that are producing them are illusory or variously non present (note, non-existent is not a good way to put it in light of the above definition of “to exist”). EM proposes that beliefs, sensations (such as joy) and other mental states are illusory or variously non present in reality. For example:
You can insist that the sensation of joyfulness is a property of a brain state. This sensation of joyfulness however plays no causal role in bringing about a smile or a tear of joy as the sensation of joyfulness is illusory or variously not present in reality. Only the the physical aspects of the brain state play a causal role in bringing about a smile, or a tear.
What does it mean “to exist”? I don’t think there is a general consensus (philosophically speaking) on the meaning of “to exist”. If I had to venture a guess, I think for something “to exist” it has to somehow sense reality and be aware of itself, it has to have some sort of consciousness. You might object by saying that “so if there are no conscious beings inside or outside the universe then the universe does not exist?” No, that is not what I am saying, that would just imply that the universe is still present without beings that exist. Difference between presence and existence.
To restate the above post then in light of this definition:
EM is irreconcilable with the ability to recognize intelligent design, given verifiable the verifiable actions of verifiable intelligent designers simply because EM states that mental states such as recognizing, verifying as well as object-directed states such as wanting and desiring are not present in reality.
Your turn to actually participate and I think it is a good idea to explain what you mean when you say you are a philosophical materialist.
Done that already, but you should too, you know. If your subsequent straw man “refutation” was as simple as you make it out to be, relevant experts of the accomplishments and stature of the Churchlands and Daniel Dennett could reasonably be expected to agree to it because it’s accurate and valid. But it’s funny – don’t you think? – that they still present a case for EM that many other philosophers deem worth considering even if they disagree with it. Instead of paying appropriate attention, you present yourself here in this lesser corner of the Internet as a self-styled expert who continually and without respite attempts to sneak in mysticism through the back door after dressing it in the rags and tatters of science shredded by your own amateur hand.
As usual, that’s a bit of a self-serving distortion.
Another self-serving distortion. I am a philosophical materialist in that I reject any need for non-material, supernatural or mystical accounts of whatsoever phenomena. Matter and energy in the physicist’s sense are all that ultimately exist, which is not to say that we don’t have different levels and modes of explication appropriate to the particular phenomenon under scrutiny. Not that I haven’t addressed your questions before and before and before.
Another self-serving distortion. You’re not attempting to discuss anything. You’re pushing an agenda and it seems that you wrongly and quite presumptuously think that all others are too dim-witted to see that. Maybe if you dropped your not-so-clever scheming, more productive discussion will ensue.
Is that a fact? Because it looks just like a flat assertion dressed in straw.
And, presently, there remain five unanswered questions.
'Luthon64
Exactly. That means your whole argument is up a creek without a paddle.
Jesus Frikkin’ Christ. Back to your bogus semantic tricks, eh?
You haven’t got a clue it seems.
Appealing to authority is not exactly an argument. And appealing to the authority of the Churchlands and Dennett… you can do better. And do you really think there aren’t any good objections from other intelligent philosophers? Really now… Seems you don’t know much about the objections to EM or EM in general.
Again, this argument from authority is not going to get you anywhere if you can’t even show a rudimentary understanding of EM. Many other philosophers are of the opinion that panpsychism, information monism, idealism, anti-realism etc. as worthy as well. So what? Want to have a pissing contest or discuss the validity of EM?
Yeeesss, kinda hypocritical to write that if you ask others to define “to exist”. So how about your version there before lecturing others on “self-serving distortions”.
Now is a good time for you to explain what you mean when you say: “Matter and energy in the physicist’s sense are all that ultimately exist”
Define matter and energy in the physicist’s sense. While you are at it, define “to exist” for us before poor Irreverend thinks “your whole argument is up a creek without a paddle”. I mean the guy is known for his consistency not?
Gee, perhaps you should start a thread for questions you want answered. I can do the same and then we are all happy little campers…
Let’s discuss EM here shall we?
So, now we all know how those German scientists assembled Rubisco and what pivotal role it plays in photosynthesis.
Here’s something that photosynthesises. It doesn’t tell lies and it has an attention span, albeit a very short one.
No, let’s not.
'Luthon64
Mecchie me dull lad, every argument is an appeal to authority. It’s just a question of which authority.
With your weak bladder you’ll lose either way. I’ll put bucks on it.
So sez Mr Supremo Slick, Esq.
Matter and energy. China, you really suck at this Google thing. Be a cool dear and define, quote, what it means for something “to exist” with particular reference to sensations in general. Go on, stun me by noticing and respecting the “with particular reference to sensations in general”.
Gee, perhaps you should start a thread with answers to all the questions that have been asked of you. Wait, you’ll need an internet all of your own for that.
Really, every argument? Wow man, did you come up with all by yourself and want us all to believe it? Try a bit harder.
Now that you have found the wiki links (pretty deep stuff that must be for you huh) for matter and energy, what can you tell us about it? You can do more than google can’t you? Which version of matter do you prefer btw? Common, revised (whatever that is), general, Aristotelian etc? You read it haven’t you? Now where is Mefi with her philosophical materialism and her definitions of matter and energy she prefers and what properties she thinks it has?
Yup, but asking you to think about it is a waste of words.
Not the super-dense kind like inside your head.
