Does Cell-Building Require Intelligence?


#21

Yes, and the things that do these activities are all dumb proteins who do their work naturally and spontaneously.

Yet another unsupported assertion.

And yet another unsupported assertion.


(Thomas W. Rogers) #22

And where does AI programming come from? An unintelligent source?


(Mitchell W McKain) #23

Not a valid argument.

Just because an artist uses paint to make a picture of a tree doesn’t mean that paint has anything whatsoever to do with the tree itself. Just because the art of film directing was used to make a film about boxing, doesn’t mean a film directing skill is required for boxing. Just because intelligence is required to make a computer simulation of natural processes doesn’t mean that intelligence has anything to do with those natural processes.


#24

It seems that you have an unfalsifiable argument. If humans can’t design something better than that found in nature it is evidence for a super-intelligence. If humans can design something as good as or better than what is found in nature it is also evidence for a super-intelligence.


#25

Where’s the intelligence in assembling bone spurs? Oh wait, I know. We blame the patient.


#26

And when humans have to fix the intelligent designer’s many mistakes (Not the right number of cells, as is the case with cataracts, cancer, bone spurs, etc.) wouldn’t that make humans smarter than the designer, who makes the same mistakes repeatedly?


#27

It is also rather odd how ingesting certain chemicals can stop God from doing certain things in the body, such as making blood clots. It is also rather strange how God will stop making DNA sequences in my test tubes if I forget to add polymerase.


#28

Yes indeed! After my stroke I started taking a blood thinner to stop the gods’ capricious actions. And now wer’e in the realm of magic, where we can force the gods to do what we want. (Not what I believe, but hey, whatever.)


(Richard Wright) #29

Hi Tom,

I agree with the first paragraph of your post but not this:

We’re on dangerous ground, IMO, when we try to concord Genesis 1 with science and/or history. Science doesn’t back-up the bible, but more importantly, it doesn’t need to. LIke you said, there are many reasons to believe in Jesus and the bible. We have a universe that somehow figured out how to evolve intelligent, conscious life that can worship its creator. We have the change in our souls when we were born-again in Christ. What more do we need?

To the point, there is no, and never has been, a consensus on how to concord Genesis 1. My apologetics instructor says the light on day 1 was from the center of the galaxy. Actually, until 300 thousand years after the BB, there was no light, that only came after the photons were released. Maybe the fact that there is no way to demonstrate what the light refers to, itself, points to the conclusion that its a theological, and not an historical statement.


(Richard Wright) #30

Hello Thomas.

I’m wondering if by, “intelligence” you mean that a universe that evolved such complex entities and processes necessitates an intelligent creator, or that it means that something, somewhere down the line of life on earth, must have been instantiated?


(Haywood Clark) #31

Plenty of “multicellular entities” have no such vessels. Try the phylum Porifera for a start.

I second T_aquaticus’s question: have you ever performed PCR in your three decades of study?


(Chris Falter) #32

Hi Mitch -

This is a striking insight. Certainly DNA encodes information in the Shannon theory sense. And that information describes what is necessary to build the proteins, structures, and processes necessary to live as a particular kind of organism.

Shannon theory also tells us that the long stretches of nonce DNA between genes–that repeat the same pattern iteratively-- are not information. That would explain why it is not transcribed.

It’s worth thinking about the implications of this DNA-as-information idea. I will have to roll it around some more.

AlphaGo actually used reinforcement learning, not an evolutionary algorithm. They are somewhat related, but not the same.

Chris


(Mitchell W McKain) #33

Maybe that is true when it required training with human players. But to work by itself, as it does now, it must be essentially the same thing – just what you would get if you adapted the evolutionary algorithm to playing the game of go. It is really the only thing which makes its success believable to me. Besides, the evolutionary algorithm and learning reinforcement is pretty much the same thing from my point of view.


(Chris Falter) #34

Hi Mitch,

Artificial intelligence is the profession in which I work, teach, and study. It is true that both evolutionary algorithms and reinforcement learning use a stochastic change function and a selection function. They differ in that RL refines a model stored in memory, whereas EA discards the least favorable mutations and leaves a remnant of most favorable variants. If we are using biological analogies, RL is like neural functioning in the human brain, while EA is like population genetics. This why Pedro Domingos, professor of computer science at U Washington and author of “The Master Algorithm,” assigns evolutionary algorithms and neural networks such as AlphaGo to separate categories.

That said, I agree with you that the distinction is not critical to the discussion we are having here. I was just trying to increase the clarity with which we handle the concepts being discussed in the forum.

Blessings,
Chris


(Thomas W. Rogers) #35

Let’s simplify the question. Do you believe that counting things requires intelligence?


(Chris Falter) #36

How does that question simplify anything? Almost 200 years ago, Charles Babbage built a steam-powered set of gears and sprockets that gave correct answers to math questions.

Also, counting certainly does not require a college education. Some birds can count.


(Thomas W. Rogers) #37

Do you show gratitude for the vegetables, fruit, and meat that has been made for you your whole life, Beaglelady?
Do you think discipline is good for a child?


(Thomas W. Rogers) #38

Hi Richard:
Would you agree that there is an access way to the required construction atoms from outside the cell construction site?
Re: PCR: Would you agree that developing the right formulae for the reagents and controlling the heat application takes some intelligence?


(Randy) #39

What do you define as intelligence? Irreducible complexity?


(Thomas W. Rogers) #40

But is there any intelligence required for these examples?
The point we are trying to make is that far greater intelligence than mankind has, is essential for building cell-parts (molecular machines), cells, and us.