Biology textbooks often describe proteins and cellular components as molecular machines: tiny engines, switches, and levers performing their duties with precision.
Charming — but misleading.
The Metaphor Problem
-
Machine implies intention, purpose, and design.
-
Reality: proteins and molecular complexes emerge from chemical and physical interactions, constrained by relational dynamics, not by assembly instructions or conscious engineering.
-
The metaphor encourages thinking of cells as factories staffed by “smart parts,” rather than networks of interactions following relational and energetic constraints.
Why This Is Misleading
-
Anthropomorphises chemistry — molecules are not engineers or workers.
-
Obscures relational causality — functions arise from context-dependent interactions, not inherent purpose.
-
Reinforces teleology — readers may assume that molecules “exist to do” something, rather than being actualisations of relational potentials.
The “molecular machine” metaphor is visually and rhetorically satisfying, but conceptually it masks the emergent, relational nature of cellular processes.
Relational Ontology Footnote
From a relational ontology perspective, molecular structures are fields of potential actualisations shaped by constraints. Function emerges from alignment of possibilities; there is no operator, no pre-set plan.
Closing Joke (Because Parody)
If molecules were machines, your mitochondria would clock in at 9 a.m., unionise over ATP shortages, and file complaints with HR about ribosome management.
No comments:
Post a Comment