"Given the right ingredients, a biologist might be able to assemble a living cell without fully understanding all the details of how the parts interact."
Yeah all that's been done. Scientists create a soup of amino acids in water, throw an atmosphere of certain gasses atop it, and kapow!
Here, fer'instance, is how RNA made itself in 2009. Ahem! 2009!
"The computer programmer, however, must describe every molecular event."
Not since computer programming quit using the LOGIC programming language. Know how algorithms are going to eat everyone's children? Other magazines, this month? Well, they allow a program to be inspired, to imagine...
Wait. All I wanted to do is say current programming (rithm-free, even) allows for conditionals ad infinitum. And so: If amino acid A is in (inf. car.) to amino acid IV, the two IV to IV resulting in IV like it's your birthday. Which itself results in IV...
That is, any given laptop can compute anything computable. Just wait a while (forever). Turing knew this in 1960, designing his namesake machine with pen and paper. See Wikipedia, Turing Machine.
Which is to say: Noting that biological processes are incredibly complex is... correct. The catch being that, unless infinitely complex and, therefore, making your argument a reduction to the absurd, here's the thing:
Computers can do it. The Original Turing Machine (nevermind the Quantum Turing) can do it, too, if you've got the paper.
POINT BEING! Organic chem has recreated the conditions of a young earth in the lab -- many variants many ways -- and life is here there everywhere. Dunno how one misses that stuff.
And computer science... Unless you invalidate your own argument, give a TM enough tape and enough time and even it will give you all possible results of all possible reactions. Or, for your needs, millions etc.
Had a Turing Machine started the enterprise in 1960-ish, it could be finishing up now...
FINAL POINT! You're way way way off on computational abilities.
PS: I didn't see the point in reading past Web page four, since your fundamental argument seems to proven wholly wrongheaded.
If I missed anything, I'll be sure to add your comments to my blog.
posted by d m
February 9, 2013
JSTOR, the online academic archive, contains complete back issues of American Scientist from 1913 (known then as the Sigma Xi Quarterly) through 2005.
The table of contents for each issue is freely available to all users; those with institutional access can read each complete issue.
View the full collection here.
An early peek at each new issue, with descriptions of feature articles, columns, and more. Every other issue contains links to everything in the latest issue's table of contents.News of book reviews published in American Scientist and around the web, as well as other noteworthy happenings in the world of science books.
To sign up for automatic emails of the American Scientist Update and Scientists' Nightstand issues, create an online profile, then sign up in the My AmSci area.