Saying Gene's aren't machines, because Machines are rigid bodies?? That is wrong, that seems to be the crux of his arguments, that gene's flex, and can become different shapes. Hello, machines do this.
My fishing rod is flexible. And I can cast over hand, or underhand, or side arm it under some trees.
> First, machines can be described in terms of a list of parts and a blueprint indicating how those parts fit together, meaning that someone who has never seen a particular kind of machine should in principle be able to assemble any number of copies—each virtually identical in appearance and performance—provided they can consult the machine’s design specifications. Second, as machines are designed to perform highly specific functions, their operation is tightly constrained, which is why it is possible to predict and control their behaviour. Third, machines are highly efficient in what they do because they always follow the exact same sequence of steps in every cycle of their operation. And fourth, the operation of machines is not continuous; their functioning can be interrupted and their parts examined without thereby jeopardizing their structural integrity.
And argues that cells look more like this:
> according to this alternative view, the cellular architecture is regarded as a fluid, self-organizing process; protein complexes are considered to be transient, pleomorphic ensembles; intracellular transport is deemed to result from the harnessing of Brownian motion; and cellular behaviour is viewed as a probabilistic affair, subject to constant stochastic fluctuations.
And
> Viewing the cell as a machine allows us to think of its organization in terms of modular, solid-state circuits that can be approached reductionistically, and it also gives us the confidence to expect that when we eventually work out how all of the cell’s parts fit together, we will be able to completely predict its behaviour. If, on the other hand, we view the cell as a highly integrated, self-organizing, fluid system composed of densely interconnected processes ever-subject to stochastic fluctuations, we no longer have reasons to suppose that achieving such epistemic goals is even possible, let alone feasible. The stark contrast between these two outlooks is exemplified by their strikingly different ways of understanding causation in the cell (Bizzarri et al., 2019), and it serves to explain why some researchers find it easier than others to obtain funding and publish their work.
But just looking at mitochondria as an example, and ATP transport. That looks very repeatable, machine like. It isn't like mitochondria just suddenly change function, or form out of random goo and change shape and function, they are pretty much transporting ATP. That is what they do. It is highly regular and repeatable and built from a blue print.
The self regulating goo is nice idea, I think using it to say we aren't machines is the stretch.
> this conclusion does not imply that every entity or process within the cell is being (or needs to be) reconceptualized. To be clear, the thesis I have sought to defend is not that all organelles exist as irreversible steady states, that every protein complex is a pleomorphic ensemble, and so on. It is rather that a very large number of cellular and molecular phenomena that were traditionally interpreted in terms that support the MCC are now being explained in terms that directly oppose it.
Where's my medal?