Register to reply

Cells are made of molecules,molecules are made of atoms,atoms are made of energy.so..

by jimmy1200
Tags: atoms, cells, energyso, molecules
Share this thread:
jimmy1200
#1
Dec20-07, 02:24 PM
P: 46
does that mean that we are just walking talking energy? theoretically. how does that apply to biology?
the face that we were grown up to believe, which is that we are solid beings of bone, skin, muscle, cells, etc..., not completely true?

is my hand just an well created illusion, and im really just a thing made of energy, that was born in this world of skin, disease, air, etc.., and i maintain this view of the world, and how things should interact with one another, and how i look, for some reason?

maybe its some inborn code that i dont know how to consciously control, or maybe there is a higher power maintaining this reality for my mind. but anyways, how does this apply to the future of how we treat diseases, or manipulate dna, etc...

is the fact that it appears we are just pure energy at the core, takin into consideration by most mainstream biologist, doctors, etc... or do they still generally use the old newtonian view of the universe? if that is the correct term to use, excuse me.

sorry if that sounds a little jumbled. im at work, tired, and i want to go to sleep.


im just wondering if that the fact that at the core, we appear to be nothing more than walking talking energy, is taken into consideration when people are out there trying to come up with new techniques to cure cancer, manipulate genes, cure diseases, etc...

or is it still, i need to find out why 1+1 doesnt work, because it has to equal two, there is no other way, but it just doesnt want to add up for some reason. if thats a proper analogy. i want to go home :(
Phys.Org News Partner Biology news on Phys.org
Scottish zoo: 'Bad news' for pregnant giant panda
DNA may have had humble beginnings as nutrient carrier
Central biobank for drug research
jim mcnamara
#2
Dec20-07, 03:14 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 1,384
No.

We exist as matter, and taking a practical viewpoint rather than a philosophic, quantum mechanical, or relativistic point of view is best. You can successfully and pointlessly argue that since matter and energy are the same thing, we are energy - yeah, true, but not on the level we as biological entities operate. So, how does that knowledge of deep duality (matter=energy) help Biology? Not all that much.

Just consider that Biology has very successfully operated as a Science without Quantum Theory or Relativity since the the very earliest Naturalists and Herbalists. Biology depends heavily on classical physics, chemistry, but not all that much on what happens inside black holes.
DaveC426913
#3
Dec20-07, 03:25 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
We are not "simply" energy. Saying that mass is equivalent to a certain amount of energy is not the same thing as saying mass is the same as energy.

farahmand
#4
Feb24-10, 12:55 PM
P: 3
Cells are made of molecules,molecules are made of atoms,atoms are made of energy.so..

There are literally thousands of biochemical machines in a single cell that are vital for the cell to operate and need to be in place in order for it to function. Is it possible to duplicate a cell in the lab (a biochemical machines) that are the fundamental science of life. Need to get educated - many thanks
Rob060870
#5
Mar17-10, 08:25 PM
P: 52
Quote Quote by farahmand View Post
Is it possible to duplicate a cell in the lab
I watched a program called the cell not long ago on the bbc. A group working on creating life in the lab said that they were about a year away from making it happen.
Im not sure if they are there yet.
sponsoredwalk
#6
Mar30-10, 06:21 PM
P: 534
Quote Quote by jim mcnamara View Post
We exist as matter, and taking a practical viewpoint rather than a philosophic, quantum mechanical, or relativistic point of view is best.
I certainly think that is waffle. Again I've just witnessed a person bash down another for daring to say something step out of line with blank-faced reality in front of our eyes.

I wouldn't get so angry as to even reply except for the fact that you refuted yourself in the next sentence;

Quote Quote by jim mcnamara View Post
You can successfully and pointlessly argue that since matter and energy are the same thing, we are energy - yeah, true, but not on the level we as biological entities operate.
So not only do you agree with the original posters thoughts, you are sick of thinking about the truth of the matter because it provides you with no immediate practical use and you also gleefully ignore processes like atp that are directly responsible for you blissfully having the energy to make such claims.

Instead of bashing others down for asking questions you could have added things to complement the OP's questions;

Quote Quote by jimmy1200 View Post
is my hand just an well created illusion, and im really just a thing made of energy,
There's also something like 98% empty space in that thing you call a hand

There also could have been mention of the enormous complexity of extending the mathematics of quantum mechanics - the kind that has a hope of "theoretically" explaining everything you're talking about -beyond even a single hydrogen atom.

that said, you could have done that, but the reality in front of our eyes seems unfortunately to appear different from the way some of us think.
DaveC426913
#7
Mar30-10, 06:29 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by sponsoredwalk View Post
Instead of bashing others down for asking questions you could have added things to complement the OP's questions;
Are you trying to pick a fight?

Jim is (was*) fully within his rights to refute the OP's argument. That's what discussion is.

What discussion is not, is attacking the person making the argument - an ad hominem - which is what you're doing.

So, if you have an opinion about the argument, voice it.


*Also, that post is two years old.
sponsoredwalk
#8
Mar30-10, 07:25 PM
P: 534
No I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm also well aware of his right to voice his objection to the OP's question.

I'm also aware of my dislike of putting others down for only asking questions.

I'm also aware of the dislike I have for non-constructive answers.

I'm also aware that those are the kinds of answers that alienate people from asing further questions.

I only pointed out that the answerers response to the OP's question was to agree with the OP's premise but to then tell him "it's pointless" to even think of the situation inspired by E=mc. It's a wonder why nobody else would care to clear up the situation for the OP, he was just asking genuine questions in a place of learning.

I further pointed out that his claim that taking a practical viewpoint of some of the most inspiring things in the world and neglecting the more philosophical etc... aspects is "waffle".
One need only read E.O. Wilsons "Conscilience" to understand some of the social stigma we see occuring here and I was refuting this perspective.

If I came across a bit angry it's because I was. The way I seen this situation was for the answerer to agree with the OP but to tell the OP his personal feeling it is pointless to think about such things, it's non-pragmatic.

There was no rheterocal technique there. If you'll follow the logic I merely worked off of the response, I mean no antipathy toward the answerer as a person but I really dislike his manner in answering questions (in this one case lol, I'm sure he'll get a science adviser badge like you too Dave ).

If you feel otherwise please quote me and I'll clear up what I meant, but there's nothing I've said off-topic, I even thought ahead of being accosted with this argument but assumed my mention of things like the difficulty of broadening QM to biological systems, and that matter is mostly empty space would have quenched that fire.
DaveC426913
#9
Mar30-10, 07:43 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
I don't see where you find Jim' s comments objectionable at all. Is it simply his use of the word 'pointless'? I don't see anything else he said that put the OP down.

That aside, I did/do agree with him.

Oh it's easy for you to play self-righteous and claim we are "discouraging the OP from asking questions", but that's just a cheap ploy.

The OP looked like he may have been going down a road that would lead him away from useful knowledge. The idea that people are just energy was explored in the 60's and occasionally today in various woo-wooist books.

We were doing right to encourage him in a productive direction, including refining his questions to elicit meaningful answers, not fluffiness.

Question: of what use is chiming in on a discussion that ended two years ago?
Evo
#10
Mar31-10, 10:01 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,560
Quote Quote by sponsoredwalk View Post
No I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm also well aware of his right to voice his objection to the OP's question.

I'm also aware of my dislike of putting others down for only asking questions.

I'm also aware of the dislike I have for non-constructive answers.

I'm also aware that those are the kinds of answers that alienate people from asing further questions.

I only pointed out that the answerers response to the OP's question was to agree with the OP's premise but to then tell him "it's pointless" to even think of the situation inspired by E=mc. It's a wonder why nobody else would care to clear up the situation for the OP, he was just asking genuine questions in a place of learning.

I further pointed out that his claim that taking a practical viewpoint of some of the most inspiring things in the world and neglecting the more philosophical etc... aspects is "waffle".
One need only read E.O. Wilsons "Conscilience" to understand some of the social stigma we see occuring here and I was refuting this perspective.

If I came across a bit angry it's because I was. The way I seen this situation was for the answerer to agree with the OP but to tell the OP his personal feeling it is pointless to think about such things, it's non-pragmatic.

There was no rheterocal technique there. If you'll follow the logic I merely worked off of the response, I mean no antipathy toward the answerer as a person but I really dislike his manner in answering questions (in this one case lol, I'm sure he'll get a science adviser badge like you too Dave ).

If you feel otherwise please quote me and I'll clear up what I meant, but there's nothing I've said off-topic, I even thought ahead of being accosted with this argument but assumed my mention of things like the difficulty of broadening QM to biological systems, and that matter is mostly empty space would have quenched that fire.
This is the BIOLOGY forum, not Philosophy. Jim's response was correct and polite, and right now you have mananged to drag an old thread off topic just to criticize a poster for no reason that is apparent, except to you.

Thread closed.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Everything made up of atoms? General Discussion 2
Atoms and molecules Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework 1
Can scientists see either atoms or molecules? Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics 20