Firstly, always be wary with animations, especially those used in biology. They are never as accurate as they seem to be; they are often presented in ways which the animators think the viewer will understand best. What might looks like very clever "machines" are often simple processes within the cell that don't really do anything as amazing as the animations seem to show.
Secondly, in regards to the "design patterns", it doesn't seem very surprising that nature beat us to this either. Cells have been evolving for billions of years; it makes sense that they would have very efficient ways of doing things by now. Design patterns are certain ways of coding things to make the overall program more efficient, but they are all tied into specific tasks. In other words, a programming task was stated, and programmers have come up with the best practice way ("design pattern") to execute the task. The whole concept of the growth of a design pattern (or the growth of a computer program for that matter) can be linked to evolution, in that a program always starts off very simple, often with hastily programmed methods, but it improves over time as the programmer looks over the code, eradicates bugs, and makes methods more efficient.
So no, I don't think it is surprising at all that over 4 billion years, cells have been able to take a task, and come up with efficient "machines" to execute it. Humans have done the same in a matter of years, but then we have the benefit of a working mind and can think ahead; the cells cannot.
Secondly, in regards to the "design patterns", it doesn't seem very surprising that nature beat us to this either. Cells have been evolving for billions of years; it makes sense that they would have very efficient ways of doing things by now. Design patterns are certain ways of coding things to make the overall program more efficient, but they are all tied into specific tasks. In other words, a programming task was stated, and programmers have come up with the best practice way ("design pattern") to execute the task. The whole concept of the growth of a design pattern (or the growth of a computer program for that matter) can be linked to evolution, in that a program always starts off very simple, often with hastily programmed methods, but it improves over time as the programmer looks over the code, eradicates bugs, and makes methods more efficient.
So no, I don't think it is surprising at all that over 4 billion years, cells have been able to take a task, and come up with efficient "machines" to execute it. Humans have done the same in a matter of years, but then we have the benefit of a working mind and can think ahead; the cells cannot.
