Well, a particle is not a "machine" by any stretch of the imagination. Micron-sized particles are old hat. Current technology can develop "nanoscale" particles, a thousand times smaller.
You don't have any idea how nanotechnolgy works (as a machine), yet you grab onto the flimsiest support to "prove" nanobots (or whatever) exist and are being used. 500 years ago, it was witchcraft---equally real. You will invent your own devils and be terrified of them.
They aren't merely suggesting the above is possible. They are saying they already have working proof of concepts. They claim that they can make machines using DNA as the scaffolding.
This was in 1999.
You can't convince me we haven't made any progress towards the "nanomachine dream" in the 23 years since this was released.
Cells contain exquisite naturally occurring "molecular motors." One of many examples of these naturally occurring nanomachines is Fl-ATPase, which is part of the large, membrane-embedded complex that synthesizes ATP within mitochondria (Figure 8.1). This structure, only about 10 nm in size, is a robust, fully functional rotating motor that is powered by natural biochemical processes. In 1998 the Amersham Pharmacia Biotech and Science Prize was awarded to Hiroyuki Noji, a young Japanese scientist who demonstrated the function of this molecular motor by attaching a long actin filament to the rotating part of the motor and observing the rotation in an optical microscope. The detailed understanding of the structure and function of this motor protein and other macromolecular assemblies essential for life is an area of growing scientific importance.
The precise pattern and periodicity of the tiles can be modified by
altering DNA sequence, allowing the formation of specific lattices with programmable
structures and features at a nanometer scale.
You can call it what you want and argue semantics all day, but that last line highlighted in the OP image sure does sound like a programmable "robot" using DNA is definitely on the table. You may not want to call them "nanomachines" just to be argumentative, but that's effectively what they are. Little machines we programmed to do stuff, up to and including building more of themselves.
No moving parts. Not a machine. I'm not being "argumentative." I'm just using words for what they mean. I think I have some expertise, being an engineer for 50 years. You are in the position of calling an amoeba a zebra.
At best, what they describe might be a tool. For what, I don't know. Just because nature can come up with all kinds of mechanism does not mean we are as smart as nature. And certainly no basis for thinking we have mastered it as an accomplished fact.
I don't know what it is, but the more that people really don't understand the reality of science, they are really willing to embrace the fantasy of science. I guess it is because they don't understand how big the steps are between points of progress.
Well, a particle is not a "machine" by any stretch of the imagination. Micron-sized particles are old hat. Current technology can develop "nanoscale" particles, a thousand times smaller.
You don't have any idea how nanotechnolgy works (as a machine), yet you grab onto the flimsiest support to "prove" nanobots (or whatever) exist and are being used. 500 years ago, it was witchcraft---equally real. You will invent your own devils and be terrified of them.
I guess you haven't read the full report then...
They aren't merely suggesting the above is possible. They are saying they already have working proof of concepts. They claim that they can make machines using DNA as the scaffolding.
This was in 1999.
You can't convince me we haven't made any progress towards the "nanomachine dream" in the 23 years since this was released.
You can call it what you want and argue semantics all day, but that last line highlighted in the OP image sure does sound like a programmable "robot" using DNA is definitely on the table. You may not want to call them "nanomachines" just to be argumentative, but that's effectively what they are. Little machines we programmed to do stuff, up to and including building more of themselves.
No moving parts. Not a machine. I'm not being "argumentative." I'm just using words for what they mean. I think I have some expertise, being an engineer for 50 years. You are in the position of calling an amoeba a zebra.
At best, what they describe might be a tool. For what, I don't know. Just because nature can come up with all kinds of mechanism does not mean we are as smart as nature. And certainly no basis for thinking we have mastered it as an accomplished fact.
I don't know what it is, but the more that people really don't understand the reality of science, they are really willing to embrace the fantasy of science. I guess it is because they don't understand how big the steps are between points of progress.