"You mean like a Sears santa is useful" No. That Santa serves no scientific purpose. His utility is not a scientific one.
Whereas, an imagined attempt to rigorously produce "life", "from scratch", including every little valve, faucet, and membrane, is just dripping with scientific utility.
"Compared to machine tool approaches organic structures leave a lot to be desired."
But biological ones tend to be better designed and more efficient,
What? In what sense? You really think a mechanical flaggelum would require that many parts, that expensive to procure, feed and maintain? Biological systems only look efficient when you don't take into account the support system that keeps them operational.
which is why they are and will be mimicked. For example, synthetic muscles are currently about 10000 times weaker than actual muscles.
Really? In what sense? When was the last time your sink faucet twisted it's ankle?
What you are referring to is the inherent shortcomings of engineering when it comes to duplicating the functions of nonlinear systems. It is more desirable to have linear systems because they are easier to engineer.
Very few biological functions related to motion cannot be adequaely modeled as linear systems subject to laplace analysis, because motion is inherently linear.
"You are vastly unaware, apprently, of how much engineering it would take to duplicate a living cell 'from scratch' as you have insisted." And, contrary to your claim of being well versed in nanotechnology, you are vastly unaware of the ultimate goal of this field. It is to develop atomically precise manufacturing in an atom-by-atom fashion. The vision is programmable matter.
Another escapee from the back-pages of Analog and F&SF. Nanotechnology has neither an "ultimate goal", nor any plans on the table to produce an exacting copy of "life", literally from scratch.
Am I assuming a lot. Yes, I am. And I am well aware that testing my assertion presumes vast leaps in our technical know how. And I am assuming this will happen. Soon.
Groovy. Having spent most of my life repairing software that was supposedly working fine, for which I had the sources, and could run a debugger, I am not so sanguine about the unlimited potential of itty-bitty minicomputers running amok in the environment, working together to produce ever more useful results.
"Whereas, an imagined attempt to rigorously produce 'life', 'from scratch', including every little valve, faucet, and membrane, is just dripping with scientific utility."
Sure is. Even if abiogenesis was true, my test will demonstrate how complex biological systems can be assembled. What works and what doesn't. In other words, engineering linear systems is easy. We know how to build a building by starting with the foundation. But how can you assemble a functional nonlinear system with interdependent parts? Which part is put into place first? What order can it be assembled? Answering these questions would shed light on any model of abiogenesis.
"You really think a mechanical flaggelum would require that many parts, that expensive to procure, feed and maintain? Biological systems only look efficient when you don't take into account the support system that keeps them operational."
Nuts. Biological systems are extremely more efficient taken as a whole. Efficient in every sense. Energy efficient - more energy converted to do more work. And I really think you are obsessive about the "expensive" issue. You included it in your demarcation criteria, and now you are saying that supporting life is "expensive". I am unsure how. Biological systems do not have currency; they get what they need for free.
" Really? In what sense? When was the last time your sink faucet twisted it's ankle?"
This is your reply to my comparison of synthetic muscle to real muscle? A faucet does not have and ankle to twist. If engineers try to duplicate the ankle using every resource available and sparing no expense, they will be unable to duplicate the functionality of a healthy one. Now you can chock that up to ID or your "infinite" evolutionary process, but it the reality of it.
"Very few biological functions related to motion cannot be adequaely modeled as linear systems subject to laplace analysis, because motion is inherently linear."
But motion alone does not represent the work being performed by these complex systems. You can duplicate individual tasks and do them more efficiently using linear systems. But they cannot replace the overall functionality of complex ones.
"Another escapee from the back-pages of Analog and F&SF. Nanotechnology has neither an 'ultimate goal', nor any plans on the table to produce an exacting copy of 'life', literally from scratch."
The "ultimate goal" was not a claim I invented, but quoted from a leader in the field. Once this goal is achieved, atom by atom assembly of living organisms will be on the table.
Your unwillingness to even consider the implications of intelligent assembly of life versus an "infinite" process, underscores that you are essentially conceding that intelligent assembly is simpler and more efficient way for life to form.
"I am not so sanguine about the unlimited potential of itty-bitty minicomputers running amok in the environment, working together to produce ever more useful results."
But I thought unguided processes working over infinite amounts of time were the way to go. Are you suggesting intelligent intervention and guidance of these technologies?