Do we have computers that can design a protein to fold in such

>>9133032
>He just figured out how significant we are in the grand scheme of things.

Yes. We have the power to take God's building blocks and make something new.
Now the hard part is making the simulation reality.

>>9133032
For most "specific function" we've little to no idea on how it really works, so...
We would need to have a computer able to simulate, at a molecular level, a whole human body. And then we'd need to setup the correct initial state.
Then, trials and error until we find the good protein for a task.
Then synthesis, depending on the protein it could be everything from grotesquely simple to absurdly difficult.
We're not there yet.

>>9133032
Recently I've been thinking about how memories are chemical, and therefore able to be produced or changed. It'd be nice to have more efficient, artificial brains that are immortal. Personal simulations would solve all problems. There would be no political debates, because you could choose to live in whatever reality you can imagine.

>>9133032
Generally, proteins don't need to be folded; the chemical processes and physical interactions between amino acids cause tertiary (and quarternary) structure to come into existence. Sometimes, chaperones are needed for correct folding, but those are just other proteins. We can already produce proteins without requiring cells; we can purify the enzymes responsible for producing proteins and have them function outside.

We have, so far, not been able to link protein structure to function. It kinda works for some proteins.. But we still can't simulate a ribosomal protein for over a second. It's because proteins aren't static; they can rapidly shift from one stable state to the other and are part of (and interact with) a highly stochastic environment. The first person who can simplify protein modelling enough to do it without needing five supercomputers is going to win a Nobel prize.