3 ms·

Speaking as a biochemist, I feel you're too quick to condemn based on what I would assume is an overly rigorous interpretations of these words. I would assume,

by patcon 6y ago

Speaking as a biochemist, I feel you're too quick to condemn based on what I would assume is an overly rigorous interpretations of these words. I would assume, knowing what I know, and presuming what he knows -- He's not saying biology/nature has no toxins. He's saying biology by and large isn't toxic to ecological systems made of average biological components. And I feel he's more right than wrong. The efficiency thing is only right in certain domains, but really interesting ones: e.g., (1) functional state of folded proteins being an exact match with the lowest energy conformational state that it's linear amino acid order allows, (2) ecology recycling everything and re-using it all without "waste", and stuff like that.

hoseja 6y ago
(1) isn't really true though, is it?
- patcon 6y ago
  Heh, thanks for asking instead of downvoting :) I would say it is true: "toxic" is only a word in reference to effects on other biologies. So on the whole, no, biology is NOT toxic to biology. It is non-toxic. (Though yes, toxins exist in biological niches that are toxic to some biologies and neutral to others.)
  - hoseja 6y ago
    No, I meant "(1) functional state of folded proteins being an exact match with the lowest energy conformational state that it's linear amino acid order allows" This is untrue.
    - patcon 6y ago
      I'd say yes: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/45/15873 https://www.pnas.org/content/111/45/15873 But no, if one were being that particular brand of particular that points out that amorphous aggregates are technically lower energy, which is true but not really interesting and kinda beside the point: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Energy-landscape-of-protein-folding-and-aggregation-The-purple-surface-shows-possibility_fig1_330939850 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Energy-landscape-of-prot... And yes, I'm sure there are uncountable exceptions in biology, but this is the generally mechanism of how it works, no?

by patcon 6y ago

hoseja 6y ago

(1) isn't really true though, is it?

patcon 6y ago
Heh, thanks for asking instead of downvoting :) I would say it is true: "toxic" is only a word in reference to effects on other biologies. So on the whole, no, biology is NOT toxic to biology. It is non-toxic. (Though yes, toxins exist in biological niches that are toxic to some biologies and neutral to others.)
- hoseja 6y ago
  No, I meant "(1) functional state of folded proteins being an exact match with the lowest energy conformational state that it's linear amino acid order allows" This is untrue.
  - patcon 6y ago
    I'd say yes: https://www.pnas.org/content/111/45/15873 https://www.pnas.org/content/111/45/15873 But no, if one were being that particular brand of particular that points out that amorphous aggregates are technically lower energy, which is true but not really interesting and kinda beside the point: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Energy-landscape-of-protein-folding-and-aggregation-The-purple-surface-shows-possibility_fig1_330939850 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Energy-landscape-of-prot... And yes, I'm sure there are uncountable exceptions in biology, but this is the generally mechanism of how it works, no?