5 ms·

> Nature overcomes this with unbelievably complex protein repair structures that literally swap out defective proteins for new ones. it's almost as if nature

by chii 4y ago

> Nature overcomes this with unbelievably complex protein repair structures that literally swap out defective proteins for new ones. it's almost as if nature evolved nano-machines that are far more complex than any we humans can envision today, even with our technology!

nvahalik 4y ago
Or it's almost as if they were intelligently... designed...
- tinco 4y ago
  By a watchmaker with terrible eyesight...
  - tomxor 4y ago
    Over billions of years... with trillions of failed watch "designs"...
    - _0w8t 4y ago
      Was it a reference to “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” by David Hume? That book debunked the arguments by design 50 years before the watchmaker parabola was written: “If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful, and beautiful a machine? And what surprise must we feel when we find him a stupid mechanic who imitated others, and copied an art which, through a long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving?“
    - wongarsu 4y ago
      Even God agrees that iterative design works better than the waterfall process
  - _0w8t 4y ago
    It should be by a sculptor with a terrible eyesight! The sculptor analogy predates the watchmaker one by like 2200 years and for some reasons is much less known these days than watchmaker one. From THE MEMORABILIA by By Xenophon, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1177/1177-h/1177-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1177/1177-h/1177-h.htm “Socrates. But now if you had two sorts of things, the one of which presents no clue as to what it is for, and the other is obviously for some useful purpose—which would you judge to be the result of chance, which of design? Ar. Clearly that which is produced for some useful end is the work of design. Soc. Does it not strike you then that he who made man from the beginning (5) did for some useful end furnish him with his several senses—giving him eyes to behold the visible word, and ears to catch the intonations of sound? Or again, what good would there be in odours if nostrils had not been bestowed upon us? what perception of sweet things and pungent, and of all the pleasures of the palate, had not a tongue been fashioned in us as an interpreter of the same? And besides all this, do you not think this looks like a matter of foresight, this closing of the delicate orbs of sight with eyelids as with folding doors, which, when there is need to use them for any purpose, can be thrown wide open and firmly closed again in sleep? and, that even the winds of heaven may not visit them too roughly, this planting of the eyelashes as a protecting screen? (6) this coping of the region above the eyes with cornice-work of eyebrow so that no drop of sweat fall from the head and injure them? again this readiness of the ear to catch all sounds and yet not to be surcharged? this capacity of the front teeth of all animals to cut and of the "grinders" to receive the food and reduce it to pulp? the position of the mouth again, close to the eyes and nostrils as a portal of ingress for all the creature's supplies? and lastly, seeing that matter passing out (7) of the body is unpleasant, this hindward direction of the passages, and their removal to a distance from the avenues of sense? I ask you, when you see all these things constructed with such show of foresight can you doubt whether they are products of chance or intelligence?” Then in «Against Physicists” by Sextus Empiricus this was cited as: “Tell me, Aristodemus, are there some people you have admired for their wisdom? Yes, there are, he said. Who are they, then? Well, I have admired Homer for his poetry, Polyclitus for his sculpture, and Zeuxis of course for his painting. [93] And is it not because of the exceptional craftsmanship of their works that you approve of them? Yes, it is, he said. If Polyclitus’ statue, then, also took on life, would you not approve of the artist much more? Definitely. Well, given that when you saw a statue you said that it had been crafted by some skilled person, when you see a human being whose soul’s activity and whose body’s design are good, do you not think that he was crafted by some exceptional mind?”
- ouid 4y ago
  evolution is not exactly intelligent. It's close, but doen't quite make it. It doesnt take an intelligence to guess at an intelligent solution if it doesnt require intelligence to test that solution. Intelligence, in such a problem domain, is basically a measure of how many wrong guesses occur between correct ones.
MikeDelta 4y ago
Today indeed, but let's see what we can do in the year 2525 (if human is still alive).
- gcanyon 4y ago
  > in the year 2525 (if human is still alive) Hello, fellow old!
  - __d 4y ago
    Heh. I have it on original vinyl.
    - gcanyon 4y ago
      Daaaaaamn!
  - malfist 4y ago
    Hey, I'm 33 and I love that song
    - stewarts 4y ago
      I played it for my 7 year old, it went into her requested song rotation for a good 6 months. Its just a classic!
    - gcanyon 4y ago
      I'm not saying it's not a good song, or only appeals to older people, just that the probability distribution for a person's age adjusts upward (a lot) given the prior of liking that song :-)
- wiz21c 4y ago
  Don't ask the question, just give the answer: we will be alive (I mean there's no other way, is it ?)
  - 4y ago

by chii 4y ago

nvahalik 4y ago

Or it's almost as if they were intelligently... designed...

tinco 4y ago
By a watchmaker with terrible eyesight...
- tomxor 4y ago
  Over billions of years... with trillions of failed watch "designs"...
  - _0w8t 4y ago
    Was it a reference to “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” by David Hume? That book debunked the arguments by design 50 years before the watchmaker parabola was written: “If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful, and beautiful a machine? And what surprise must we feel when we find him a stupid mechanic who imitated others, and copied an art which, through a long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving?“
  - wongarsu 4y ago
    Even God agrees that iterative design works better than the waterfall process
- _0w8t 4y ago
  It should be by a sculptor with a terrible eyesight! The sculptor analogy predates the watchmaker one by like 2200 years and for some reasons is much less known these days than watchmaker one. From THE MEMORABILIA by By Xenophon, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1177/1177-h/1177-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1177/1177-h/1177-h.htm “Socrates. But now if you had two sorts of things, the one of which presents no clue as to what it is for, and the other is obviously for some useful purpose—which would you judge to be the result of chance, which of design? Ar. Clearly that which is produced for some useful end is the work of design. Soc. Does it not strike you then that he who made man from the beginning (5) did for some useful end furnish him with his several senses—giving him eyes to behold the visible word, and ears to catch the intonations of sound? Or again, what good would there be in odours if nostrils had not been bestowed upon us? what perception of sweet things and pungent, and of all the pleasures of the palate, had not a tongue been fashioned in us as an interpreter of the same? And besides all this, do you not think this looks like a matter of foresight, this closing of the delicate orbs of sight with eyelids as with folding doors, which, when there is need to use them for any purpose, can be thrown wide open and firmly closed again in sleep? and, that even the winds of heaven may not visit them too roughly, this planting of the eyelashes as a protecting screen? (6) this coping of the region above the eyes with cornice-work of eyebrow so that no drop of sweat fall from the head and injure them? again this readiness of the ear to catch all sounds and yet not to be surcharged? this capacity of the front teeth of all animals to cut and of the "grinders" to receive the food and reduce it to pulp? the position of the mouth again, close to the eyes and nostrils as a portal of ingress for all the creature's supplies? and lastly, seeing that matter passing out (7) of the body is unpleasant, this hindward direction of the passages, and their removal to a distance from the avenues of sense? I ask you, when you see all these things constructed with such show of foresight can you doubt whether they are products of chance or intelligence?” Then in «Against Physicists” by Sextus Empiricus this was cited as: “Tell me, Aristodemus, are there some people you have admired for their wisdom? Yes, there are, he said. Who are they, then? Well, I have admired Homer for his poetry, Polyclitus for his sculpture, and Zeuxis of course for his painting. [93] And is it not because of the exceptional craftsmanship of their works that you approve of them? Yes, it is, he said. If Polyclitus’ statue, then, also took on life, would you not approve of the artist much more? Definitely. Well, given that when you saw a statue you said that it had been crafted by some skilled person, when you see a human being whose soul’s activity and whose body’s design are good, do you not think that he was crafted by some exceptional mind?”
ouid 4y ago
evolution is not exactly intelligent. It's close, but doen't quite make it. It doesnt take an intelligence to guess at an intelligent solution if it doesnt require intelligence to test that solution. Intelligence, in such a problem domain, is basically a measure of how many wrong guesses occur between correct ones.

MikeDelta 4y ago

Today indeed, but let's see what we can do in the year 2525 (if human is still alive).

gcanyon 4y ago
> in the year 2525 (if human is still alive) Hello, fellow old!
- __d 4y ago
  Heh. I have it on original vinyl.
  - gcanyon 4y ago
    Daaaaaamn!
- malfist 4y ago
  Hey, I'm 33 and I love that song
  - stewarts 4y ago
    I played it for my 7 year old, it went into her requested song rotation for a good 6 months. Its just a classic!
  - gcanyon 4y ago
    I'm not saying it's not a good song, or only appeals to older people, just that the probability distribution for a person's age adjusts upward (a lot) given the prior of liking that song :-)
wiz21c 4y ago
Don't ask the question, just give the answer: we will be alive (I mean there's no other way, is it ?)
- 4y ago