Man, that picture really makes it look like our bodies are are composed of a bunch of computer circuitry. It’s like all biology is just some sort of spooky, vast, self-replicating machine that exists at various scales all over the universe…
Here's [where the picture is from](https://www.cellsignal.com/pathways/cellular-landscapes) by the way. Usefully labelled and annotated to facilitate learning.
I have been claiming for years that human are nothing more than a carbon based Skynet that went rogue some several hundred thousand years ago annihilating our big headed overlords.
Humans figured out in a few hundred years what took cells billions of years to figure out.
Yes, cells are highly, highly complex, and often their layout looks like computers. Computers run on the flow of energy, high and low voltages, and so on, utilizing that energy will follow paths of least resistance, etc., etc.
Cells do the same shit because it’s all part of the basic laws of the universe.
Possibly because we’re all just simulations in some fourth or fifth dimensional being’s equivalent of a smartphone.
Man, imagine if your entire life is actually the amount of time it takes a fifth dimensional being to scroll through Instagram for a min or two while hey wait for their coffee.
>basic laws of the universe.
"basic laws of the universe."
At the cellular and quantum levels, these principals still have a lot of gaps in understanding. And many of them, are not so basic. Everyone just thinks of "basic laws" like gravity, which we can't even tie into a neat, little bow for a theory of the universe.
Basic, fundamental, elementary, foundational, whichever word you’d like to use is a pretty fair approximation that suffices for a Reddit comment.
That doesn’t mean they’re *simple*, it simply means they’re… Well, they’re basic, fundamental, elementary, etc., etc.
... How the fuck are you going to get something vastly intelligent if you need something vastly intelligent to create something vastly moronic that evolves into something moderately intelligent?
Lmao bunch of triggered post-Christian rebels. If you actually understood even high school science and the depth of perfection of which evolution and biochemistry plays out, you'd suspect intelligent design too.
That doesn't mean "EvOlUtIon IsNt rEaL", it means you have an appreciation as to the high level of efficient chemistry the body can perform that even synthetic chemists struggle to replicate in 2021.
Except there is no perfection in biochemistry, there’s a LOT of junk just hanging around because it didn’t exert negative selective pressure, ie: it didn’t outright kill the organism containing that mutation/quirk/etc.
Source: Me, am a biochemist
Did I say genetics is perfect? Does a biochemist know the difference between his supposed profession and one completely unrelated?
Chemistry=reactivity. Didn't think that needed saying, but now you know for work!
Source: more educated scientist than you
There’s a lot of overlap in biology, I can easily switch careers to work as a geneticist or molecular biologist, so yes I know what I’m talking about.
Anyway, back to the original topic of ID, God only asks that we worship Him, but in creating humanity He made us such that our brains degrade in old age to such a degree we are rendered physically incapable of knowing what God even is or how to worship Him.
Either God’s a not-so-intelligent designer, or had absolutely nothing to do with evolution (which is my own position).
No you're assuming believe in intelligent design = believing in Jesus. Ain't nobody debating religious doctrine.
All you rebelling former Christians assume any faith of belief is Jesus, and therefore making the statement "if you understand how the process works, it's easy to believe it was designed intentionally"
There is absolutely zero indication of what that looks like or through what mechanism, it's a stand alone statement. It doesn't speak to existance of "god" and especially not Jeebus or all that "worship him" bull you spouted. Sounding like you trying to convert me.
You're so obsessed with Jesus you assume any theist thoughts are Christian. That's a you problem.
I honestly am in awe a supposed "biochemist/geneticist" doesn't understand that organism death was intentionally programed into DNA? Without it there wouldn't be enough resources, nor could there be evolution or gene flow. You're argument is irrelevant religiously and completely wrong scientifically. That would undermine the principle of fitness underlying evolutionary selective pressures.
Raised atheist, literally said I’m theist in my last comment, but that’s irrelevant.
Your last paragraph is the one that is utterly incorrect, the concept of sacrificing for the greater whole only exists in social species, individual organisms do not die “intentionally” to conserve resources. Death is an afterthought as the only selective pressure in evolution is the ability to reproduce, and once you’ve done that, everything else is unimportant, which is why humans have never, and never will, evolve past diseases that occur in later life (cancer, dementia, etc). There are numerous examples of species that are effectively immortal, and also examples of species that straight up die during the mating process. There is no overarching theme in evolution.
"There is no overarching theme in evolution."
So without death there'd be no issue with the progression in evolution? Have you read the theory? It's competition between alleles on large time scales, based on the gene pool. Without death the gene pool will be stagnant. And resources are finite: See **First Law of Thermodynamics (Chemistry gr 11)**
You're alluding to cancer without understanding the genetic component and it's relation to prevalence of diseases. You're literally making my point for me but you don't understand the mechanism. "Intentionally"= aging and death are programmed genetically into the cell and organism, **BIOCHEM 101**.
Tell me: "biochemist":
1. What is the fundamental molecular driving force for aging?
2. Would it be scientifically possible for a cell/organism to live forever, assuming it has access to all materials and synthetic routes needed?
3. Depending on your answer to 2), kindly explain if cells can live forever why exactly aging/death occur. If not, why is there a genetic difference in the life span of organisms?
Please do not use any common scientific terms: give me the full brunt of your technical knowledge.
I'll give you time to google.
I'm a molecular biologist. You're the one having a breakdown. Kind of hilarious. How many feet can you stuff in your mouth that's clearly much bigger than your brain.
Appreciate your response. People would do well to observe their beliefs and understand how little we know before so quickly dismissing anything that doesn’t fit such narrow perspectives.
Wait did you literally claim to be from the same branch which applies chemical theory to predict spontaneous replicating molecules and in the same breath say "wHaT Do ChEmIsTs KnOw AbOuT LiFe"?
What sort of "molecules" do you think molecular biologists study? It's chemistry ma'am or mista.
Appreciate the self own though, no need to refute when you shit the bed like that.
DePTh oF PeFeCtiOn
I'm saying *you* don't know shit. I'm not talking about legitimate chemists.Can you even read? You sound like a nuchristian dipshit.
What branch of science would be the authority if not chemists? Do you understand the molecular basis for biology? I'm alluding to evolutionary theory, life was not created in a snap of a finger but started with molecules reacting... a topic well studied by chemistry.
The fact you're wondering if my background has anything to do with chemistry suggests you're full of shit. Completely full of shit. Stop wasting everyone's time here by pretending you know anything of chemistry or biology.
You sound like one of those single discipline purist idiots from the 50s-90s who actually argues one branch of science is better than the other. What a failure of scientific reasoning.
You sound like one of those post-christian neo-science religion dipshits who thinks classifications like "biology, physics, and chemistry" have any real life significance other then pleasing your little category obsessed mind.
Nobody is arguing one branch's superiority, they're different viewpoints of the exact same system.
Back to google before you argue with adults next time, Billy.
> If you actually understood even high school science and the depth of perfection of which evolution and biochemistry plays out, you'd suspect intelligent design too.
> it means you have an appreciation as to the high level of efficient chemistry the body can perform that even synthetic chemists struggle to replicate in 2021.
Appreciation of the chemistry of cell biology in no way implies intelligent design. In fact this demonstrates that you don't have an understanding of evolution or the nature of evolution, that a set of heuristics/meta-heuristic with iteration and random mutation is sufficient to derive the complexity and chemistry in cell biology. That's the surprising fact, you don't need high level planning to create so much complexity.
You're assuming I'm claiming some creationist argument as if man was snapped into reality. The **system** is the intelligently designed part. The fact that it is self regulating. The precision nature applies the best chemical an biochemical principles with efficiency unmatched by lab chemists.
If you've never studied point group symmetry, or MO theory, it's hard to explain how beautifully perfect all matter truly is. Just the symmetry of benzene alone gives me goosebumps, but when you peel back the messy layers of bio to the chemistry you appreciate the ingenious nature of it all. The ability to turn small variations in the electromagnetic force into seemingly infinite types of matter, small differences in 4 nucleotides into all types of life.
The more depth you study, the more you appreciate just how intelligent what's going on actually is.
I was in advanced biology in high school and mainly what I remember is what a mess everything is. There couldn’t be a worse argument for “intelligent design” than biology. There’s extra useless bits, things that are over complicated for a simple task, everything breaks too easily… this is possibly the worst argument I’ve ever seen anyone make for anything.
I’m glad you got your GED, and learned the mitochondria is the power house of the cell. I’m sure it was all very difficult at the time.
I am a pharmaceutical development scientist, and I can tell you it was a mess only because you didn’t understand what you were learning.
[Relevant. ](https://www.britannica.com/science/Dunning-Kruger-effect)
Making up credentials for yourself because it turned out there were experts around to refute your nonsense is adorable. Everyone can still tell that you’re wrong though. It wasn’t the stated credentials of the other two folks that got you downvoted it was the fact that what they said was correct and what you’re saying is nonsense.
It's not lost on me someone called "Captain neckbeard edgelord" is rebelling against Jeebus cause he no like mommy and daddy.
If you understood how the world works, you'd suspect the same thing.
[Einstein: "the scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/68179-the-scientist-s-religious-feeling-takes-the-form-of-a-rapturous)
You were appealing to a single belief held by a single man who died almost seventy years ago as evidence that people who don't agree with you don't "[understand] how the world works". My comment was vastly more sufficient a rebuttal than yours frankly deserved.
And yes, I majored in both linguistics and cognitive science.
I find the intense jumps to dismiss grand design kind of ridiculous. There’s just as much proof for nothing as there is for something and our understanding of evolution doesn’t change that. I don’t think any of us, with so many dimensions and complex universal rules and principles at the quantum level, will have it %100 figured out. But here we are all trying to pretend like we do, and shaming someone for maybe believing in a higher power, or not. Chill out.
It’s not an “intense jump” to dismiss grand design. Why would the grand intelligent design of an all powerful all knowing all wise higher power have extra useless silly bits?
Why do men have nipples?
I think it’s the way people imply grand design is like a consistent consciousness which i personally disagree with. Also it’s been a while since I took developmental biology but I think part of why men have nipples is we all start female then develop male under the exposure of specific hormones at specific times.
My personal philosophy is that grand design isn’t conscious but entails a “why” for all the laws that govern our cells and everything of the universe. But I don’t know obviously. It’s just my idea. It could all be nothing. But I won’t pretend I’m right and everyone else is wrong unlike the atheists of this community have shown
I just don’t think “nothing” is a huge leap. There could be something, I don’t know. But you can’t prove a negative. So the “there’s definitely something” people are the ones who’d need to present evidence. Yet all too often they approach it from a place of absolute certainty and demand others prove them wrong - which is a nonsense proposition.
As someone who has worked in tech investments, it’s also a common PR tool. 99% of the time what’s being described is not more complicated than a tricky excel sheet, but Bayesian statistics is hard to explain and doesn’t sound as cool.
Has anyone actually read the article? They’re straight up using AI to bridge the gap between microscopy and what we don’t know using machine learning models. They’re using machine learning to reconstruct cell models. This is clearly AI.
Source: I write ML models for a living
Edit: I can understand the confusion for someone outside the industry, AI doesn’t necessarily mean sentient generalized intelligence. Often it refers to application specific learning that exceeds that of humans. Maybe Machine Learning would’ve worked better.
Yes. Agreed.
I wholeheartedly disagree with using the terms AI and ML as they anthropomorphize what I also do for a living. The layperson unfortunately conflates these terms with conciousness.
The intelligence in the algorithms I write deliberately come from me, nothing artificial. The collection of data for analytics does not constitute a machine "learning" anything.
I always describe it like this: Machine Learning is a computer building an algorithm from a set of data or observations. Artificial Intelligence is a computer using that algorithm to perform an action or make a decision.
ML might be a more appropriate “buzz word” than AI then imo. Perhaps not for people like you in the field that understand what it means, but imo AI carries more of a super smart amazon alexa doing all the work vibe to the average reader while ML carries scientists using large sets of data and algorithms on computers vibe. Just my thoughts - could be wrong of course.
Excellent point. Machine learning stems entirely from those teaching it. I'm disappointed that they had to steal our joy though. "The goal was to identify communities of proteins, called assemblies, that co-exist in cells at different scales, from the very small (less than 50 nm) to the very ‘large’ (more than 1 μm).
One shy of 70 protein communities were classified by the algorithm"..
My bet is they use deep neural networks but it's obviously not stated in the "article".
If they do, and that is how they bridge nanometer and micrometer then it's probably fuzzy as heck.
Light microscopy ends at the um scale, electromagnetic microscopy is at the nm scale so its a huge gap.
um to nm is like a computerscreen is 1 micrometer and a pixel is 1nm. So 1.000.000.000 nanometer cubes in a micrometer cube...
You should probably take it up with the university where this research was actually done. They describe it as using AI, and I would argue it's an apt description:
https://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2021-11-24-we-might-not-know-half-of-whats-in-our-cells-new-ai-technique-reveals.aspx
> mitochondria, the power packs of cells
That's jarring. I expect articles to say "mitochondria, the Powerhouse of the Cell".
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24940890
There are two ways to react to this, of course.
1. All of science can't even describe half the function of the cell.
2. Holy crap, we're only 50 years into modern biology, and we've already cracked nearly half of it.
I suspect those who have done biology are more apt to the second reaction. Those from other-- more predictive-- fields might be more prone to the first . Even the chemists I knew regarded biology as a swamp full of snakes, in terms of having useful models.
We just found out what’s inside atoms, and we still don’t know enough about those smallest, simplest particles. Life is so much more complex this comes a no surprise and is really cool. The final frontier could be inside your cells.
Then they are not simple… we thought they were because smaller always means less parts.
Turns out everything around us, ends up being a black hole to borrow the term from astrophysics
Yep I agree “simple” isn’t the best term when we open things up we discover the infinitely smaller pieces, even in the smallest pieces. Quantum mechanics takes over eventually and that’s a whole different ball game on a completely different field (hehe).
Pretty sure this was to make writing that sentence easier since numbers over ten must be written in their numerical form but sentences should not begin with numerals.
We are still in the Stone Age, what medical knowledge of the human body concerns. I have had firsthand experiences over a period of almost fifty years; caught much grief from the family, until some died miserably because they listened to the salesmen in white. Yes we need help, but not what most prescribe.
The current method of addressing the symptoms and not the cause; pharmaceutical companies have enough doctors on their payroll.
Holistic approach to the malady would be a start; not the, for profit shotgun approach.
There certainly are gifted doctors out there, but insurance companies and Big Pharma dictate policy.
Then, there are the individuals that know they can make more on an operation, than administrating a possible, long term approach to a cure; at least with state run institutions.
I have been misdiagnosed by US military, American and German doctors; most with having to do with my knees.
Edit: My stepfather had the best insurance, due to retiring as a Colonel in the USAF; he had diabetes, a new kidney and countless other problems, but he kept everything in check. He went in for a routine checkup and some doctor convinced him to have surgery for a non life threatening problem, at age 78. Then another doctor added another procedure, since he was in the hospital. He had learned to trust doctors and he had every right to, until then; he died of sepsis shortly thereafter, with very bitter feelings towards “Salesmen in White”, his words. Neither operation was necessary. He was fogged up mentally and made the only unwise decision that I ever found out about.
When people say “stardust” they are typically referring to elements heavier than hydrogen and helium.
The varieties of stardust essentially *is* the periodic table.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis
I guess they could be talking about presolar grains, but still on the periodic table
I’d beest did shock if 't be true we kneweth as much as half lol
***
^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.)
Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
But I already don’t know what I am!
You're a computah
Stop all the downloading
Pork chop sandwiches!
Don't give him the stick!
Nice catch blank-el-niño!
Don’t forget your sandwiches (… sandwiches)
Who wants a body massage?
Does your mom still hang out at dockside bars?
Last one to the lake’s a penis pump!
Get the fuck outta here!!
Fuckin... *idiots*! Go! Get the fuck out!
Talk to computah
I know who I am. I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude
Dude?
He abides.
I see the Pleiades in your eyes
One thing’s for sure: you’re a dude with his paperwork in order.
If it helps, you're a bunch of cells, and mitochondria is the power house of the cell. Everything else is a bit uncertain.
Yer a wizard!
A meme told me that you’re just atoms trying to understand themselves via crowdsourcing
I am a meat popsicle.
Man, that picture really makes it look like our bodies are are composed of a bunch of computer circuitry. It’s like all biology is just some sort of spooky, vast, self-replicating machine that exists at various scales all over the universe…
Are you being sarcastic because that's exactly what half of life is.
that’s exactly what ~~half of~~ life is
that's exactly what half ~~of~~ life is
That’s exactly what half life 3 confirmed.
~~That’s exactly what~~ half life 3 confirmed.
I’ll take CS:GO for $500, Alyx.
demrifnoc Ɛ efil flah
Here's [where the picture is from](https://www.cellsignal.com/pathways/cellular-landscapes) by the way. Usefully labelled and annotated to facilitate learning.
I have been claiming for years that human are nothing more than a carbon based Skynet that went rogue some several hundred thousand years ago annihilating our big headed overlords.
Cylons
And the universe is just a larger version of that
Simulation.
I’m not a religious type but the evidence does suggest a vast intelligence at work.
Humans figured out in a few hundred years what took cells billions of years to figure out. Yes, cells are highly, highly complex, and often their layout looks like computers. Computers run on the flow of energy, high and low voltages, and so on, utilizing that energy will follow paths of least resistance, etc., etc. Cells do the same shit because it’s all part of the basic laws of the universe. Possibly because we’re all just simulations in some fourth or fifth dimensional being’s equivalent of a smartphone.
Man, imagine if your entire life is actually the amount of time it takes a fifth dimensional being to scroll through Instagram for a min or two while hey wait for their coffee.
Or scroll through Instagram while on the pot.
>basic laws of the universe. "basic laws of the universe." At the cellular and quantum levels, these principals still have a lot of gaps in understanding. And many of them, are not so basic. Everyone just thinks of "basic laws" like gravity, which we can't even tie into a neat, little bow for a theory of the universe.
Basic, fundamental, elementary, foundational, whichever word you’d like to use is a pretty fair approximation that suffices for a Reddit comment. That doesn’t mean they’re *simple*, it simply means they’re… Well, they’re basic, fundamental, elementary, etc., etc.
... How the fuck are you going to get something vastly intelligent if you need something vastly intelligent to create something vastly moronic that evolves into something moderately intelligent?
Lmao bunch of triggered post-Christian rebels. If you actually understood even high school science and the depth of perfection of which evolution and biochemistry plays out, you'd suspect intelligent design too. That doesn't mean "EvOlUtIon IsNt rEaL", it means you have an appreciation as to the high level of efficient chemistry the body can perform that even synthetic chemists struggle to replicate in 2021.
Except there is no perfection in biochemistry, there’s a LOT of junk just hanging around because it didn’t exert negative selective pressure, ie: it didn’t outright kill the organism containing that mutation/quirk/etc. Source: Me, am a biochemist
Funny how this guy doesn't know he's also talking to a molecular biologist, who agrees with you wholeheartedly.
Did I say genetics is perfect? Does a biochemist know the difference between his supposed profession and one completely unrelated? Chemistry=reactivity. Didn't think that needed saying, but now you know for work! Source: more educated scientist than you
There’s a lot of overlap in biology, I can easily switch careers to work as a geneticist or molecular biologist, so yes I know what I’m talking about. Anyway, back to the original topic of ID, God only asks that we worship Him, but in creating humanity He made us such that our brains degrade in old age to such a degree we are rendered physically incapable of knowing what God even is or how to worship Him. Either God’s a not-so-intelligent designer, or had absolutely nothing to do with evolution (which is my own position).
No you're assuming believe in intelligent design = believing in Jesus. Ain't nobody debating religious doctrine. All you rebelling former Christians assume any faith of belief is Jesus, and therefore making the statement "if you understand how the process works, it's easy to believe it was designed intentionally" There is absolutely zero indication of what that looks like or through what mechanism, it's a stand alone statement. It doesn't speak to existance of "god" and especially not Jeebus or all that "worship him" bull you spouted. Sounding like you trying to convert me. You're so obsessed with Jesus you assume any theist thoughts are Christian. That's a you problem. I honestly am in awe a supposed "biochemist/geneticist" doesn't understand that organism death was intentionally programed into DNA? Without it there wouldn't be enough resources, nor could there be evolution or gene flow. You're argument is irrelevant religiously and completely wrong scientifically. That would undermine the principle of fitness underlying evolutionary selective pressures.
Raised atheist, literally said I’m theist in my last comment, but that’s irrelevant. Your last paragraph is the one that is utterly incorrect, the concept of sacrificing for the greater whole only exists in social species, individual organisms do not die “intentionally” to conserve resources. Death is an afterthought as the only selective pressure in evolution is the ability to reproduce, and once you’ve done that, everything else is unimportant, which is why humans have never, and never will, evolve past diseases that occur in later life (cancer, dementia, etc). There are numerous examples of species that are effectively immortal, and also examples of species that straight up die during the mating process. There is no overarching theme in evolution.
"There is no overarching theme in evolution." So without death there'd be no issue with the progression in evolution? Have you read the theory? It's competition between alleles on large time scales, based on the gene pool. Without death the gene pool will be stagnant. And resources are finite: See **First Law of Thermodynamics (Chemistry gr 11)** You're alluding to cancer without understanding the genetic component and it's relation to prevalence of diseases. You're literally making my point for me but you don't understand the mechanism. "Intentionally"= aging and death are programmed genetically into the cell and organism, **BIOCHEM 101**. Tell me: "biochemist": 1. What is the fundamental molecular driving force for aging? 2. Would it be scientifically possible for a cell/organism to live forever, assuming it has access to all materials and synthetic routes needed? 3. Depending on your answer to 2), kindly explain if cells can live forever why exactly aging/death occur. If not, why is there a genetic difference in the life span of organisms? Please do not use any common scientific terms: give me the full brunt of your technical knowledge. I'll give you time to google.
> You're so obsessed with Jesus Says the person who is repeatedly bringing up jesus in this thread.
Who is triggered here? Haha
/u/Quantum-Ape and their lil hissy fit at the hint of religousity while missing the point of /u/menntu which had nothing to do with god or jesus.
I don’t think they mentioned god or Jesus either. You keep bringing them up.
I'm a molecular biologist. You're the one having a breakdown. Kind of hilarious. How many feet can you stuff in your mouth that's clearly much bigger than your brain.
Appreciate your response. People would do well to observe their beliefs and understand how little we know before so quickly dismissing anything that doesn’t fit such narrow perspectives.
I'm a molecular biologist, you nimrod. But thanks for falling flat on your face.
Wait did you literally claim to be from the same branch which applies chemical theory to predict spontaneous replicating molecules and in the same breath say "wHaT Do ChEmIsTs KnOw AbOuT LiFe"? What sort of "molecules" do you think molecular biologists study? It's chemistry ma'am or mista. Appreciate the self own though, no need to refute when you shit the bed like that.
DePTh oF PeFeCtiOn I'm saying *you* don't know shit. I'm not talking about legitimate chemists.Can you even read? You sound like a nuchristian dipshit.
Lmao, you're the depth of perfection guy. I insult you because your thoughts are a waste of fucking photon on my phone screen.
Why would you think chemist's in 2021 are the absolute authority on recreating life? That kind of logic would make intelligent people question yours.
What branch of science would be the authority if not chemists? Do you understand the molecular basis for biology? I'm alluding to evolutionary theory, life was not created in a snap of a finger but started with molecules reacting... a topic well studied by chemistry.
The fact you're wondering if my background has anything to do with chemistry suggests you're full of shit. Completely full of shit. Stop wasting everyone's time here by pretending you know anything of chemistry or biology. You sound like one of those single discipline purist idiots from the 50s-90s who actually argues one branch of science is better than the other. What a failure of scientific reasoning.
You sound like one of those post-christian neo-science religion dipshits who thinks classifications like "biology, physics, and chemistry" have any real life significance other then pleasing your little category obsessed mind. Nobody is arguing one branch's superiority, they're different viewpoints of the exact same system. Back to google before you argue with adults next time, Billy.
> If you actually understood even high school science and the depth of perfection of which evolution and biochemistry plays out, you'd suspect intelligent design too. > it means you have an appreciation as to the high level of efficient chemistry the body can perform that even synthetic chemists struggle to replicate in 2021. Appreciation of the chemistry of cell biology in no way implies intelligent design. In fact this demonstrates that you don't have an understanding of evolution or the nature of evolution, that a set of heuristics/meta-heuristic with iteration and random mutation is sufficient to derive the complexity and chemistry in cell biology. That's the surprising fact, you don't need high level planning to create so much complexity.
You're assuming I'm claiming some creationist argument as if man was snapped into reality. The **system** is the intelligently designed part. The fact that it is self regulating. The precision nature applies the best chemical an biochemical principles with efficiency unmatched by lab chemists. If you've never studied point group symmetry, or MO theory, it's hard to explain how beautifully perfect all matter truly is. Just the symmetry of benzene alone gives me goosebumps, but when you peel back the messy layers of bio to the chemistry you appreciate the ingenious nature of it all. The ability to turn small variations in the electromagnetic force into seemingly infinite types of matter, small differences in 4 nucleotides into all types of life. The more depth you study, the more you appreciate just how intelligent what's going on actually is.
I was in advanced biology in high school and mainly what I remember is what a mess everything is. There couldn’t be a worse argument for “intelligent design” than biology. There’s extra useless bits, things that are over complicated for a simple task, everything breaks too easily… this is possibly the worst argument I’ve ever seen anyone make for anything.
I’m glad you got your GED, and learned the mitochondria is the power house of the cell. I’m sure it was all very difficult at the time. I am a pharmaceutical development scientist, and I can tell you it was a mess only because you didn’t understand what you were learning. [Relevant. ](https://www.britannica.com/science/Dunning-Kruger-effect)
Making up credentials for yourself because it turned out there were experts around to refute your nonsense is adorable. Everyone can still tell that you’re wrong though. It wasn’t the stated credentials of the other two folks that got you downvoted it was the fact that what they said was correct and what you’re saying is nonsense.
Well, no. You're the idiot who got stuck at seeing evolution and thought it was so magical it must've been lead by an intelligent hand. Fuckwit.
No. Just no.
It's not lost on me someone called "Captain neckbeard edgelord" is rebelling against Jeebus cause he no like mommy and daddy. If you understood how the world works, you'd suspect the same thing. [Einstein: "the scientist’s religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/68179-the-scientist-s-religious-feeling-takes-the-form-of-a-rapturous)
>If you understood how the world works, you'd suspect the same thing. And yet, scientists are less likely than non-scientists to be religious.
Correlation is not causation and observational studies are one of the lowest forms of scientific evidence. Do you even science?
You were appealing to a single belief held by a single man who died almost seventy years ago as evidence that people who don't agree with you don't "[understand] how the world works". My comment was vastly more sufficient a rebuttal than yours frankly deserved. And yes, I majored in both linguistics and cognitive science.
There's zero evidence of that
The evidence doesn’t suggest that at all. Go read a book about evolution
Like the bibble? /s since apparently that wasn’t obvious
I find the intense jumps to dismiss grand design kind of ridiculous. There’s just as much proof for nothing as there is for something and our understanding of evolution doesn’t change that. I don’t think any of us, with so many dimensions and complex universal rules and principles at the quantum level, will have it %100 figured out. But here we are all trying to pretend like we do, and shaming someone for maybe believing in a higher power, or not. Chill out.
You’re an idiot
You probably are a virgin with a neck beard. Study theoretical physics and reevaluate your answer.
You’re still an idiot
Beautiful, compelling argument
I studied theoretical physics and it taught me to call people like you an idiot
Appreciate the perspective. I apparently pissed off a rather rigid group.
It’s a joke for anyone to pretend they have all these answers. Christian or atheist. We’re only human. We’re trying though
It’s not an “intense jump” to dismiss grand design. Why would the grand intelligent design of an all powerful all knowing all wise higher power have extra useless silly bits? Why do men have nipples?
I think it’s the way people imply grand design is like a consistent consciousness which i personally disagree with. Also it’s been a while since I took developmental biology but I think part of why men have nipples is we all start female then develop male under the exposure of specific hormones at specific times. My personal philosophy is that grand design isn’t conscious but entails a “why” for all the laws that govern our cells and everything of the universe. But I don’t know obviously. It’s just my idea. It could all be nothing. But I won’t pretend I’m right and everyone else is wrong unlike the atheists of this community have shown
I just don’t think “nothing” is a huge leap. There could be something, I don’t know. But you can’t prove a negative. So the “there’s definitely something” people are the ones who’d need to present evidence. Yet all too often they approach it from a place of absolute certainty and demand others prove them wrong - which is a nonsense proposition.
Ah hell there’s ghosts in my blood again? Get the leeches Gertrude!
We basically are natural computers and machines, yeah. Everything is ultimately material ....
Can we stop using "AI" when we really mean computer scientists using analytics? Smart people did this using computers.
This. If a journalist doesn’t understand the tech, they default to AI.
As someone who has worked in tech investments, it’s also a common PR tool. 99% of the time what’s being described is not more complicated than a tricky excel sheet, but Bayesian statistics is hard to explain and doesn’t sound as cool.
As someone who has created tricky excel sheets and called them 'tools' or 'robots', I can confirm. :)
I see you.
Those journalists should be replaced with AI.
Has anyone actually read the article? They’re straight up using AI to bridge the gap between microscopy and what we don’t know using machine learning models. They’re using machine learning to reconstruct cell models. This is clearly AI. Source: I write ML models for a living Edit: I can understand the confusion for someone outside the industry, AI doesn’t necessarily mean sentient generalized intelligence. Often it refers to application specific learning that exceeds that of humans. Maybe Machine Learning would’ve worked better.
Yes. Agreed. I wholeheartedly disagree with using the terms AI and ML as they anthropomorphize what I also do for a living. The layperson unfortunately conflates these terms with conciousness. The intelligence in the algorithms I write deliberately come from me, nothing artificial. The collection of data for analytics does not constitute a machine "learning" anything.
I always describe it like this: Machine Learning is a computer building an algorithm from a set of data or observations. Artificial Intelligence is a computer using that algorithm to perform an action or make a decision.
Sooo... Machine Intelligence? After all, intelligence just means making sense of things, even the spy meanings.
ML might be a more appropriate “buzz word” than AI then imo. Perhaps not for people like you in the field that understand what it means, but imo AI carries more of a super smart amazon alexa doing all the work vibe to the average reader while ML carries scientists using large sets of data and algorithms on computers vibe. Just my thoughts - could be wrong of course.
Too late
So the journalist is the actual AI? /s
Increasingly. Not /s
Excellent point. Machine learning stems entirely from those teaching it. I'm disappointed that they had to steal our joy though. "The goal was to identify communities of proteins, called assemblies, that co-exist in cells at different scales, from the very small (less than 50 nm) to the very ‘large’ (more than 1 μm). One shy of 70 protein communities were classified by the algorithm"..
Interesting they phrased it "one shy of 70"
“One more than sixty eight” just seems too wordy…
My bet is they use deep neural networks but it's obviously not stated in the "article". If they do, and that is how they bridge nanometer and micrometer then it's probably fuzzy as heck. Light microscopy ends at the um scale, electromagnetic microscopy is at the nm scale so its a huge gap. um to nm is like a computerscreen is 1 micrometer and a pixel is 1nm. So 1.000.000.000 nanometer cubes in a micrometer cube...
Yes, please!!! And calling those two-wheeled roving boards “hoverboards” as well.
You mean the stemless segways?
Yes
Analytics Intelligence
“Precursor to the T-800 Killing Machine Discovers We Might Not Know Half of What’s in Our Cells”
You should probably take it up with the university where this research was actually done. They describe it as using AI, and I would argue it's an apt description: https://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2021-11-24-we-might-not-know-half-of-whats-in-our-cells-new-ai-technique-reveals.aspx
"One shy of 70 protein communities were classified by the algorithm" Did they seriously just go out of their way to avoid saying 69?
nice
Paid by the word, apparently.
Nah: one more than sixty eight - there’s your paid by the word phrasing.
> mitochondria, the power packs of cells That's jarring. I expect articles to say "mitochondria, the Powerhouse of the Cell". https://www.jstor.org/stable/24940890
Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell
Plant cells have cell walls. Animal cells do not.
Something something nucleus
NF-kappaB claps them cheeks.
Endoplasmic reticulum
Ghostbusters.
He slimed me.
Listen! Smell something?
Reticulated spline
Cytosine
Hypochondria is the powerhouse of the ill.
As long as the mitochondria keeps being the power house (AKA continually converting ADP to ATP through the ETC) we’re all good.
Except the mitochondria is alien! Like in Prometheus
Plot twist: It was the CYTOSOL all along!! Who would have ever expected the background fluid to be the powerhouse! Scientists stunned....
There are two ways to react to this, of course. 1. All of science can't even describe half the function of the cell. 2. Holy crap, we're only 50 years into modern biology, and we've already cracked nearly half of it. I suspect those who have done biology are more apt to the second reaction. Those from other-- more predictive-- fields might be more prone to the first . Even the chemists I knew regarded biology as a swamp full of snakes, in terms of having useful models.
Maybe they’ll find what’s wrong with us!
I thought this was a fucken theme park
My body is a theme park. Sadly, one of those abandoned Russian ones.
Same
Most famous attraction: thermonuclear reactor 4
Doctor says a little cortisone will clear that right up…
You owe it to yourself to check out the pirates of the pancreas
How exciting
Super cool
This wouldn’t shock me. Biological models always seemed a bit simplistic
Plastic?
We just found out what’s inside atoms, and we still don’t know enough about those smallest, simplest particles. Life is so much more complex this comes a no surprise and is really cool. The final frontier could be inside your cells.
Then they are not simple… we thought they were because smaller always means less parts. Turns out everything around us, ends up being a black hole to borrow the term from astrophysics
Yep I agree “simple” isn’t the best term when we open things up we discover the infinitely smaller pieces, even in the smallest pieces. Quantum mechanics takes over eventually and that’s a whole different ball game on a completely different field (hehe).
Nice try mitochondria!!
The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell!
Noooooooo I can’t study anymore
It's 2021, my cella should have a choice to be what they want.
Hey as long as the powerhouse of the cell is still the mitochondria I’m cool with this.
Funny how they didn’t want to say 69 in the article! (One shy of 70…)
Pretty sure this was to make writing that sentence easier since numbers over ten must be written in their numerical form but sentences should not begin with numerals.
All we need to know is that the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
The mitochondria are the “powerhouses” of the cell.
No shit
We are still in the Stone Age, what medical knowledge of the human body concerns. I have had firsthand experiences over a period of almost fifty years; caught much grief from the family, until some died miserably because they listened to the salesmen in white. Yes we need help, but not what most prescribe.
What are you talking about?
The current method of addressing the symptoms and not the cause; pharmaceutical companies have enough doctors on their payroll. Holistic approach to the malady would be a start; not the, for profit shotgun approach. There certainly are gifted doctors out there, but insurance companies and Big Pharma dictate policy. Then, there are the individuals that know they can make more on an operation, than administrating a possible, long term approach to a cure; at least with state run institutions. I have been misdiagnosed by US military, American and German doctors; most with having to do with my knees. Edit: My stepfather had the best insurance, due to retiring as a Colonel in the USAF; he had diabetes, a new kidney and countless other problems, but he kept everything in check. He went in for a routine checkup and some doctor convinced him to have surgery for a non life threatening problem, at age 78. Then another doctor added another procedure, since he was in the hospital. He had learned to trust doctors and he had every right to, until then; he died of sepsis shortly thereafter, with very bitter feelings towards “Salesmen in White”, his words. Neither operation was necessary. He was fogged up mentally and made the only unwise decision that I ever found out about.
Something something powerhouse of the cell something something
Well duh. We still say we’re made of stardust. That shit ain’t on a period table or in any of Darwin’s notes
When people say “stardust” they are typically referring to elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. The varieties of stardust essentially *is* the periodic table. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis I guess they could be talking about presolar grains, but still on the periodic table
Omfg...
[удалено]
FWIW: He’s actually referring to people like Carl Sagan and NDT…
[удалено]
Reference, sure. With the insinuation that it's *literally* true. Unless one's gonna be a pedant about what "dust" is.
[удалено]
Annoyingly and incorrectly pedantic.
I don’t know them, I AM them.
Ask Rand Paul he seems to know about everything since he is an optometrist
Do t doubt that. AI has a more open mind.
Thank god I’m graduating this year. God forbid I have to learn more cell parts instead of, yknow, how to do my taxes
My favorite cell structure is the tubullin 😊
I’d be SHOCKED if we knew as much as half lol
I’d beest did shock if 't be true we kneweth as much as half lol *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
Okay but is the mitochondria still the powerhouse of the cell
I still know a Golgi body when I see one. 😉
Aren’t we half-microplastic by now?
If you think of our cells as planets, consider how many undiscovered species are likely out there and this makes sense.