Indeed they are defining a process that is mechanical. The radical species has been made part of a machine to perform a precise function. Our cells perform this same function in a similar fashion as it has compartmentalised reaction chambers and it positions the specific chemical arrangements within the compartment to control the reaction.sandy_mcd wrote: Ok, let's try the second sentence: "An example of such a process is the abstraction of hydrogen from diamond surfaces by a radical species attached to a mechanical positioning device for synthesis of atomically precise diamond-like structures. " Please note they are talking about molecular structures and not synthesizing molecules. This is clearly referring to a standard machine shop instrument.
You do the same thing for your close controlled chemical interactions. You are the mechanism that provides the compartment for the reaction or reactions, you spatially position the chemicals within the compartments and you control the quantities. Our cells do everything you do without the need for your help mechanically.
I absolutely agree but you need to understand that the exact mechanics of a machine don't require they be the same for every construction method.sandy_mcd wrote:These are two totally different approaches to making things. The first cuts and pushes around atoms out of a metal and the second mixes chemicals which react.
Consider this. Man has been making wheels for a very long time. I can go observe how the amish form a wheel and then I can go observe how goodyear makes a wheel and we will find 2 totally different mechanisms in play to produce a wheel. My point is that we can still observe some very basic functionality that underlies both methods. Both require specific spatial positioning of the constituents of matter that make up each of the created forms and only intelligently designed mechanisms have been proven to be able to make such arrangements occur. Cells must perform their functions with these same basic functionalities otherwise they could not replicate specifiable formations of matter.
Again nature must foundationally perform the same function of controlling matter in order to form structure even if the mechanism of that control is not the exact same as the mechanisms that intelligence forms for its purposes. The fact that spatial positioning control is required in order to make a 3d structural formation by both processes is undeniable. Intelligence is the only observed cause to form such a control as it is observable in real time anytime you want to see it occur. Cells perform the same act of positional control necessary to control chemical interactions.sandy_mcd wrote:The micromachining referred to in the paper can indeed be used to move atoms around.
This is not how nature does it. The machines operate in high-vacuum - something nature abhors.
A good way to further consider the precision 3d control is to look at the macro assembly of a bone. Bone is a precise deposition of matter begun at the cellular level. Consider how its final 3d shape is attained by replication. How can a specific form occur without spatial control. Why does it get the specific mechanistic form that it does? It requires that the billions of cells involved in the process of its formation know spatially where to begin and end their functions in order to end up with the same shape during each replication event. In fact there is one more dimension required for the system to work. The temporal dimension involves the timing of the depositions in spatial positions. So, foundationally cells must be spatially controlled and temporally controlled which means their 3 dimensional positions at specific times to perform their funtions in creating a 3 dimensional form must be able to be conveyed by genetic information at each replication event.
This particular point about 3d spatial positioning may help to explain the 97 or so % of the genome that isn't involved in protein formation. Suppose further that the DNA may partially be a record of where things get spatially built encoded within itself along with other control systems that deal with temporal control and expression control. Logically if evolution were an answer to what is kept persistent in the genome then it would have no barrier to removing what makes no difference to the replication process. Thus, I can logically assert that the 97% that is not understood has to perform a function that requires its presence in the organism. My choice is to infer that positional control is part of the embedded control system.