Slashdot Mirror
MIT Making Computer Parts from DNA
Rei writes "Following in the footsteps of Lynn Conway's pioneering work on VLSI that allowed ordinary students to create their own processors, a group of MIT professors have almost completed doing the same thing
using DNA, known as synthetic biology. While not all of the components of a basic computer are working yet, there is hope that some day ordinary students may be able to design living computers, producing everything from novel drugs to seeds that sprout into treehouses."
What makes you thing we all weren't created in this way? We're constantly making more and more progress in creating devices, computers, etc. out out living organism (nanotubues, oled, etc.) I believe one day we will be able to create life just like how God has created us. And by then we will understand the true reason of our existence. I believe we all exist (created) for a reason. Just like any electronics devices or programs. We're here to serve the purpose of our Creator (God) But nobody knows what the purpose is ....
Why does the phrase "Amateur Genetic Engineering" scare the shit out of me?
If you find this post offensive, don't read it! THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING! I am what I am because of how apes behave.
A practical consequence of "Playing God" is that you open the doors to a scary problem. It is the problem where if we can make replacements for humans we lose our humanity. Its more then just the philosophical question of where we lose our humanity. What if a group wants to replace the goverment leaders by clones which they control? ok, maybe it would be an improvement, but it is still a problem.
Their approach is pretty cool, where the activity of each gene corresponds to one bit (actually one analog "voltage", but I digress) that can be independently controlled. Unfortunately each cell in their "computer" is expected to behave similarly, so the approach won't scale. The problem is that each gene is gonna be at least 1000 base pairs, roughly. Compare that to a typical bacterial genome (~5,000,000 base pairs) or the human genome (~3,000,000,000 base pairs), keeping in mind that large portions of those genomes are there to, well, keep the organism alive. Right now they're not even talking about taking over whole entire genomes here, just plasmids and viruses. That'll get you in the ballpark of 100,000 base pairs, or 100 bits, at most. Oh yeah, for each transition in a circuit here you'll have to make a new batch of proteins. That'll take minutes to hours. Not exactly stellar clock speeds. Which of course begs the question of how nature gets anything done at all. It's still pretty mysterious actually, but part of it comes down to the fact that your cells use feedback in a much more nuanced way than just "on" and "off". There's also lots of parts re-use, but probably the most important thing of all is communication and coordination *between* your cells. Like the fact that each neuron in your head does something different, and all of them put together make up something interesting and useful (hopefully). Rudimentary cell-cell communication circuits are already being constructed, and I'd like to see these scientists incorporate some of that into their work.
To interact with man God can take a finite part of himself of arbitrary non-infinite size and expose man to it. Man however can only truly interact with this finite segment, and because the segment is finite, man can not determine whether the whole itself is infinite.
I'm sorry, but god would likely first have to exist for any interaction to actually occur and the rest of your comment is quite the mystic mumbo jumbo. As you've failed to demonstrate how this can happen, the rest of your argument are unquantifiable mystical ideas here and clearly conjecture.
You could determine that this person claiming to be God is standing in your yard shooting fire from eyes and parting your birdbath is more powerful than an actual human, but you could never logically establish that he is God.
By this argument, Abraham, Moses and Jesus also were incapable of recognising their "God". Therefore, no god. God is a human idea and so a human would define their god acording to their capacity however flawed this fantasy may be.
The main point I'm trying to make here is that your belief system is no more or less irrational than anyone else's, and nobody gains anything from sweeping statements from either side.
You don't seem to have made the point sufficiently to convince me that doubting the existence of god is irrational or that all beliefs are irrational. In the world as we know it, there is no hint whatsoever of a god. No god in dna, no god in atoms, no god in gravity, no god anywhere whatsoever. To therefore conclude that doubting god is irrational is a very flawed argument. The onus is on you to prove in non existant things. I can prove computers exist, as I can prove that rainbows exist. I can also infer quite easily that the tooth fairy and santa claus are non existent, just like god. Oh, and if you think holding any view whatoever is irrational, then you should aim that argument on your own views.
I personally am getting very tired of proselytizers on both sides shoving their supposed axioms on others without provocation.
If you tire of discussion, it's likely that your participation is beyond your ability. I'm not here to shape my views acording to your personal tastes.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Were you expecting to see a drag queen when you went to her site?
Why is this relevant to you, anyway? Most people don't realize it, but T's are everywhere. If you read one of the links from her page, you'll find out just how many of us there are!