From a laymans perspective, can human beings create our own version of DNA, let's say with the use of transistors instead of biological cells, long into the future? Or is DNA just magic and we can't recreate it inside solid state objects like a robot made out of transistors?
DNA sequences are instructions that get printed on the spot and self assemble. This requires a great deal of flexibility so any reproduction would probably look much like what we find in nature.
Or did you understand that and were wondering if we'd ever coopt the bodies mechanisms to create familiar logic gate based compute? Personally I doubt that we'd use already familiar transistors because the process requires ultra pure materials that are modified in very thin layers using gasses to scrape or place individual layers, but maybe we'd find a mechanical analogue expressible via protein, or at that point use purpose built neurons instead.
God designing us in an emergent manner or through a static blueprint are the same thing. Someone had to create the laws, the genetic algorithm idea itself and all of these components and the environment for it to operate within never mind things like colors, matter etc. Evolutionists cant see the forest for the trees.
I think intelligence is the correct word. Why not?
Useful languages can succinctly distinguish things which are qualitatively quite different. Describing everything in the world as "intelligent" sounds kinda cool and Zen, and may reflect some peoples' worldviews - but it also make "intelligent" pretty useless as an adjective.
Intelligence is not well defined enough for a succinct distinguishment. At least, not colloquially.
But also we're in a context where acknowledging the intelligence of other life forms is pretty radical so distinguishing them as 'lesser' than human would be precisely opposite of the point. The baseline world view is that human intelligence is magically different than other animal intelligences.
> How did we figure all this stuff out? > We don’t yet have the technology to just observe all of the activity inside a living cell . That Goodsell painting above that shows the crowded cytoplasm packed with proteins is an artistic composite—backed by rigorous research to be sure—because there’s no way to capture all the different players in situ at once. > A group at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne uses a…
Yeah I always appreciate that, I hate it when people shy away from honesty because they think some heckler won't understand the subtlety of the observations at play.
I find this to be an incredibly bizarre thing to say. Nobody is stopping you from thinking anything, of course you're allowed and surely you know this very well. I suspect what you're really saying is "Will you still respect me for being a creationist". And the answer is, LOL of course not. Nobody is entitled to have their wacky ideas be respected. A lot of the "free speech" complaints are really demands that other p…
It’s funny, because the creationists generally feel the exact same about evolutionists. Both are faith based responses to questions we cannot answer any other way. Getting caught up in absolutes thinking your interpretation is the gold standard is a sign of an unrefined critical thinking process.
That's cool and all, but do you give an equal amount of credit to Young Earth Creationists and regular creationists? Because both are equally based in faith. It is equally possible some holy being made fake dinosaur bones 6000 years ago to fool us, and no amount of scientific rigor can compete with a being with the foresight to know exactly how we would test the bones. At what point is "umm we obviously have evidence these bones are over 6000 years old" thinking in absolutes? In the meantime, I'm willing to be disrespected for thinking both forms of creationism are equally woo-woo in comparison to evolutionary theory.
> Part of our problem is the way we think. I am a person. I am not a complex adaptive system. I agree that, in general, we humans, downgrade the importance of external stimulus and interactions with our environment (including other people). My two cents is that this is downplayed where we live in cities and don't move too much, once you move to very distanct places and cultures (and not assuming yours is the best one…
it's hard to forget about others in a city though. you have neighbors, traffic, etc. that's why the whole 'cabin in the woods' experience can be sold as a relative luxury nowadays. that said, based on the status quo we definitely don't spend enough resources on making sure we can peacefully and sustainably live next to others.
I read a quote once that said “Simple bacteria can divide about every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long. For bacteria to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years, the time that many scientists believe life has existed on earth.” I haven'…
It's the "one at a time" that is the issue here. Evolution is a massively parallel process. If a beneficial mutation happens once every million gnerations, and a generation is 20 minutes, that's a beneficial mutation every 38 years. If you have a million cells, that's a beneficial mutation every 20 minutes. If you have a billion cells, that's 1000 beneficial mutations every 20 minutes. In your body there are around 4…
It’s funny, because the creationists generally feel the exact same about evolutionists. Both are faith based responses to questions we cannot answer any other way. Getting caught up in absolutes thinking your interpretation is the gold standard is a sign of an unrefined critical thinking process.
God designing us in an emergent manner or through a static blueprint are the same thing. Someone had to create the laws, the genetic algorithm idea itself and all of these components and the environment for it to operate within never mind things like colors, matter etc. Evolutionists cant see the forest for the trees.
Then that's not believing in creationism, that's believing in evolution. You wouldn't "not believe in fusion theory" because you believe God created the sun through the process of inventing a universe that sustains nuclear reactions. You would just believe in fusion, as a part of God's creation.
God designing us in an emergent manner or through a static blueprint are the same thing. Someone had to create the laws, the genetic algorithm idea itself and all of these components and the environment for it to operate within never mind things like colors, matter etc. Evolutionists cant see the forest for the trees.
So your answer to "where did this complexity come from?" is to invent an even more complex celestial being that just did it.