3 ms·

You got me thinking, could we distinguish engineered vs emergent life? I mean, I at look those animations of proteins in the cell and... it looks pretty robotic

You got me thinking, could we distinguish engineered vs emergent life? I mean, I at look those animations of proteins in the cell and... it looks pretty robotic to me. Maybe it's projection in terms of how we interpret the data. But I really like that the answer to a most ancient question such as "what is life" is building up to something like "it's all nanobots controlled by molecular computers"...

ben_w 3y ago
> could we distinguish engineered vs emergent life? I think we can tell the difference between engineered and evolved (but note that simulated evolution is still evolution) — oddities like the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve are cited as evidence against an intelligent designer, and I expect it isn't the only such oddity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve > But I really like that the answer to a most ancient question such as "what is life" is building up to something like "it's all nanobots controlled by molecular computers"... If you've not already watched it, I recommend this video by A Capella Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObvxPSQNMGc&t=198s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObvxPSQNMGc&t=198s
- namaria 3y ago
  Flaws are not proof of non intentional emergence vs intentional design. We design flawed systems all the time. Besides, it would be a very naïve stance to think the universe as it is today was drawn complete and definitively. There are a lot more nuanced and intricate creationist worldviews and they have been espoused in a clear headed way by some of the most fundamental characters in the history of science.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    It's more the type of pattern in the errors rather than the mere existence of them. On the other topic, although the mere existence of errors would count against a supposedly all knowing and all powerful designer, that combination is not found in most religions, and not even all versions of Christianity.
    - namaria 3y ago
      Hey that combination is also not found anywhere else in this discussion.

ben_w 3y ago

> could we distinguish engineered vs emergent life? I think we can tell the difference between engineered and evolved (but note that simulated evolution is still evolution) — oddities like the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve are cited as evidence against an intelligent designer, and I expect it isn't the only such oddity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve > But I really like that the answer to a most ancient question such as "what is life" is building up to something like "it's all nanobots controlled by molecular computers"... If you've not already watched it, I recommend this video by A Capella Science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObvxPSQNMGc&t=198s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObvxPSQNMGc&t=198s

namaria 3y ago
Flaws are not proof of non intentional emergence vs intentional design. We design flawed systems all the time. Besides, it would be a very naïve stance to think the universe as it is today was drawn complete and definitively. There are a lot more nuanced and intricate creationist worldviews and they have been espoused in a clear headed way by some of the most fundamental characters in the history of science.
- ben_w 3y ago
  It's more the type of pattern in the errors rather than the mere existence of them. On the other topic, although the mere existence of errors would count against a supposedly all knowing and all powerful designer, that combination is not found in most religions, and not even all versions of Christianity.
  - namaria 3y ago
    Hey that combination is also not found anywhere else in this discussion.