PDA

View Full Version : Systems Biology



bob b
January 16th, 2006, 10:35 PM
I thought that those biologists who have been annoyed by my constant harping over the fact that biologists would benefit greatly by using some of the tools of systems engineering would enjoy this rebuke from one of their own:


A little more than a year ago, Dr. Hood quit the university and delivered a stinging message. The university, he said, and universities in general, are unfit for the new age of biology.

So now, at 62, Dr. Hood is starting over. He has formed a nonprofit research center, the Institute for Systems Biology, which he hopes will transform the study of biology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/17/health/17HOOD.html?ex=1137560400&en=eccd7106de7d8f80&ei=5070

sentientsynth
January 16th, 2006, 11:18 PM
That's interesting, Bob B. Especially his "discovery science."

SS

noguru
January 17th, 2006, 12:32 AM
I thought that those biologists who have been annoyed by my constant harping over the fact that biologists would benefit greatly by using some of the tools of systems engineering would enjoy this rebuke from one of their own:



http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/17/health/17HOOD.html?ex=1137560400&en=eccd7106de7d8f80&ei=5070

Here are some more links to articles about Dr. Hood.

Orielly interview (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2002/01/18/hood.html)

Three approaches (http://www.systemsbiology.org/Scientists_and_Research/Faculty_Groups/Hood_Group)

Somehow I don't think that Hood would support your YEC model.

bob b
January 17th, 2006, 09:58 AM
Here are some more links to articles about Dr. Hood.

Orielly interview (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2002/01/18/hood.html)

Three approaches (http://www.systemsbiology.org/Scientists_and_Research/Faculty_Groups/Hood_Group)

Somehow I don't think that Hood would support your YEC model.

Give him time. The evidence is mounting. :wave:

noguru
January 17th, 2006, 11:40 AM
Give him time. The evidence is mounting. :wave:
:rotfl:

Oh yeah, that's right. You already have the evidence, but this underachiever Dr. Hood is eventually going to find it.

This is in spite of the fact that in the second link he specifically mentions evolution over millions of years as a model for one of his approaches.



The challenges of biology are focused around three central features of life: evolution, development, and physiology. These features operate across very different time dimensions: roughly millions of years, the lifetime of the organism, and seconds to weeks, respectively. Our laboratory is focused on a series of deep biological questions relating to these features.


Methinks this event does not mean what you would have us believe it means. :chuckle:

Sorry to :rain: on your parade Bob, but your insinuation smells like a steaming pile of :PureX:

bob b
January 17th, 2006, 11:52 AM
:rotfl:
Oh yeah, that's right. You already have the evidence, but this underachiever Dr. Hood is eventually going to find it.

I have always had an uncanny ability to sometimes spot a "coming" trend in technology before others, even though most of these "others" were quite competent in their respective fields of expertise. The reason probably has to do with being able to look at the overall "picture" and not be distracted by the voluminous details.


This is in spite of the fact that in the second link he specifically mentions evolution over millions of years as a model for one of his approaches.

I applaud his approach of concentrating much of his research on finding how evolution could have accomplished such an amazing feat as turning a protocell into a human being. I have quiet and unshakable confidence that their efforts in this area will result in abandoning this absurd concept, leaving "multiple types at the beginning" as the only logical alternative.

noguru
January 17th, 2006, 03:26 PM
I have always had an uncanny ability to sometimes spot a "coming" trend in technology before others, even though most of these "others" were quite competent in their respective fields of expertise. The reason probably has to do with being able to look at the overall "picture" and not be distracted by the voluminous details.



I applaud his approach of concentrating much of his research on finding how evolution could have accomplished such an amazing feat as turning a protocell into a human being. I have quiet and unshakable confidence that their efforts in this area will result in abandoning this absurd concept, leaving "multiple types at the beginning" as the only logical alternative.

OK. So you are predicting that in the future this research will support your YEC model of origin better than the naturalistic model?

Bob, do you think you are the only one with this "uncanny ability to sometimes spot" a coming trend in technology?

bob b
January 17th, 2006, 03:55 PM
OK. So you are predicting that in the future this research will support your YEC model of origin better than the naturalistic model?

Of course. Why? Because it is the correct answer.


Bob, do you think you are the only one with this "uncanny ability to sometimes spot" a coming trend in technology?

Nope. I once attended a talk by Grace Hopper in which she predicted that in the future most people would have their own personal computer that would fit on their desktop.

I told the guy sitting next to me that she was nuts. He agreed. Most people 50 years ago did also.

Jukia
January 17th, 2006, 03:59 PM
I think I would be more impressed if bob b really knew some basic biology before he applied his systems engineering expertise to it!

noguru
January 17th, 2006, 04:06 PM
I think I would be more impressed if bob b really knew some basic biology before he applied his systems engineering expertise to it!

Right! :rolleyes:

noguru
January 17th, 2006, 04:08 PM
Of course. Why? Because it is the correct answer.



Nope. I once attended a talk by Grace Hopper in which she predicted that in the future most people would have their own personal computer that would fit on their desktop.

I told the guy sitting next to me that she was nuts. He agreed. Most people 50 years ago did also.

I guess you never invested in Microsoft or McCintosh when they just started out? :think:

I'm not suprised. :chuckle:

bob b
January 17th, 2006, 07:30 PM
I guess you never invested in Microsoft or McCintosh when they just started out? :think:

I'm not suprised. :chuckle:

No, most computer nerds knew that Gates had bought an inferior operating system to peddle, but unfortunately IBM didn't. The best does not always prevail.

And the first Apple series was a joke until they came out with the Mac with the OS ideas they stole from Xerox.

I didn't buy Google stock either. :doh:

noguru
January 17th, 2006, 07:35 PM
No, most computer nerds knew that Gates had bought an inferior operating system to peddle, but unfortunately IBM didn't. The best does not always prevail.

And the first Apple series was a joke until they came out with the Mac with the OS ideas they stole from Xerox.

I didn't buy Google stock either. :doh:

Inferior to what? Do you know of an operating system other than DOS that worked better for the purpose it was intended?

Actually IBM released the first version of DOS in 1981 for that tank they called the PC. Later they subcontracted out to Microsoft to write their software.

bob b
January 17th, 2006, 08:16 PM
Inferior to what? Do you know of an operating system other than DOS that worked better for the purpose it was intended?

Anyone who lived through that era knows that Gates "aced out" Gary, who at the time had a superior operating system that was in wide use.


Actually IBM released the first version of DOS in 1981 for that tank they called the PC. Later they subcontracted out to Microsoft to write their software.

That's not the way I heard it and I bought one of those "tanks". Sounds like someone is trying to rewrite history, or at least "spin it" to some extent.

BTW, I was involved in the writing of a successful OS more than 20 years prior to DOS, but admittedly, DOS was much more comprehensive and a better implementation than ours had been. On the other hand our FORTRAN compiler was way ahead of its time and had some neat features that today's FORTRAN compilers still don't.

bob b
January 17th, 2006, 08:29 PM
Here's the first Google hit about the history of the IBM PC and DOS that showed up on my search. This account sounds about how I remembered it.


In 1980, IBM first approached Bill Gates and Microsoft, to discuss the state of home computers and Microsoft products. Gates gave IBM a few ideas on what would make a great home computer, among them to have Basic written into the ROM chip. Microsoft had already produced several versions of Basic for different computer system beginning with the Altair, so Gates was more than happy to write a version for IBM.

As for an operating system (OS) for the new computers, since Microsoft had never written an operating system before, Gates had suggested that IBM investigate an OS called CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers), written by Gary Kildall of Digital Research. Kindall had his Ph.D. in computers and had written the most successful operating system of the time, selling over 600,000 copies of CP/M, his OS set the standard at that time.

IBM tried to contact Kildall for a meeting, executives met with Mrs. Kildall who refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement. IBM soon returned to Bill Gates and gave Microsoft the contract to write the new operating system, one that would eventually wipe Kildall's CP/M out of common use.

The "Microsoft Disk Operating System" or MS-DOS was based on QDOS, the "Quick and Dirty Operating System" written by Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products, for their prototype Intel 8086 based computer.

QDOS was based on Gary Kildall's CP/M, Paterson had bought a CP/M manual and used it as the basis to write his operating system in six weeks, QDOS was different enough from CP/M to be considered legal.

Microsoft bought the rights to QDOS for $50,000, keeping the IBM deal a secret from Seattle Computer Products.

Gates then talked IBM into letting Microsoft retain the rights, to market MS DOS separate from the IBM PC project, Gates proceeded to make a fortune from the licensing of MS-DOS.

In 1981, Tim Paterson quit Seattle Computer Products and found employment at Microsoft.

noguru
January 17th, 2006, 08:30 PM
Anyone who lived through that era knows that Gates "aced out" Gary, who at the time had a superior operating system that was in wide use.



That's not the way I heard it and I bought one of those "tanks". Sounds like someone is trying to rewrite history, or at least "spin it" to some extent.

BTW, I was involved in the writing of a successful OS more than 20 years prior to DOS, but admittedly, DOS was much more comprehensive and a better implementation than ours had been. On the other hand our FORTRAN compiler was way ahead of its time and had some neat features that today's FORTRAN compilers still don't.

I don't think I am trying to rewrite history. In 1983 I had a copy of IBM-DOS that had a release date of 1981. After that I remember all DOS pachages being MS-DOS. I used to write batch files in DOS in the early 80's. I also worked on maiframe and minicomputers that used compiled COBOL and RPG program/file/objects. One of the beauties of DOS is that you did not have to compile the batch programs like you did on mainframes and minis. Also I used to write programs in R-Base and D-Base (for the PC) where you could run the source code as a program. Granted they did not run as fast as the compiled object. But it was good for debugging the programs.

noguru
January 17th, 2006, 09:55 PM
I don't think I am trying to rewrite history. In 1983 I had a copy of IBM-DOS that had a release date of 1981. After that I remember all DOS pachages being MS-DOS. I used to write batch files in DOS in the early 80's. I also worked on maiframe and minicomputers that used compiled COBOL and RPG program/file/objects. One of the beauties of DOS is that you did not have to compile the batch programs like you did on mainframes and minis. Also I used to write programs in R-Base and D-Base (for the PC) where you could run the source code as a program. Granted they did not run as fast as the compiled object. But it was good for debugging the programs.

Bob, I was a little inaccurate in my understanding of this. Here is why.

IBM-DOS (http://www.mackido.com/History/History_DrDos.html)

It seems that I assumed since I once owned a IBM-DOS version that IBM had written it. It turns out that Bill Gates had very astute lawyers who worked a very good deal for him. He wrote the software for IBM. IBM was allowed to sell it under their name. But Gates was also allowed to keep the rights to the code and sell under his own company, thereby reducing and eventually eliminating any chance IBM had at the software market for their own PCs.

I also looked up IBM-DOS and found that they offered an IBM-DOS for their 360 series, which I have worked on also. But this DOS is very different than the one used for the PC.

bob b
January 17th, 2006, 10:19 PM
No problem noguru. Let's get back to the subject of systems biology.

noguru
January 17th, 2006, 10:51 PM
No problem noguru. Let's get back to the subject of systems biology.

OK what did you want to discuss? How your original post introducing this thread is misleading?

bob b
January 17th, 2006, 11:07 PM
OK what did you want to discuss? How your original post introducing this thread is misleading?

I didn't consider it misleading.

Sometimes people make the mistake of assuming that if I reference a paper or article that I am doing so because it supports everything I believe. I don't operate that way.

In the case at hand I wanted to emphasize my call for a "systems" approach to biology that uses all the resources available from other disciplines as well as those from the traditional biology courses.

Dr. Hood said some things that I endorse in regards to systems biology. That doesn't mean that I think he would agree with me across the board on everything I believe. He obviously doesn't. Sometimes we are accused of "quoting out of context" when we use something that is said about evolution to support our view, because the person quoted still believes in evolution. When we quote a person, we recognize that they may not support our entire position, but because there is some overlap of views it is fair to point this out.

This is why I quoted Dr. Hood on the subject of the need for the systems approach to biology.

noguru
January 17th, 2006, 11:59 PM
I didn't consider it misleading.

Sometimes people make the mistake of assuming that if I reference a paper or article that I am doing so because it supports everything I believe. I don't operate that way.

In the case at hand I wanted to emphasize my call for a "systems" approach to biology that uses all the resources available from other disciplines as well as those from the traditional biology courses.

Dr. Hood said some things that I endorse in regards to systems biology. That doesn't mean that I think he would agree with me across the board on everything I believe. He obviously doesn't. Sometimes we are accused of "quoting out of context" when we use something that is said about evolution to support our view, because the person quoted still believes in evolution. When we quote a person, we recognize that they may not support our entire position, but because there is some overlap of views it is fair to point this out.

This is why I quoted Dr. Hood on the subject of the need for the systems approach to biology.

Well Bob there is a simple solution to this confusion. If you are forthright about what parts you do and do not agree with when referrencing something and explain why, then people would not be left thinking that you might be trying to mislead them.

bob b
January 18th, 2006, 09:26 AM
Well Bob there is a simple solution to this confusion. If you are forthright about what parts you do and do not agree with when referrencing something and explain why, then people would not be left thinking that you might be trying to mislead them.

I'll try to do better in that regard.

Ross
January 18th, 2006, 09:57 AM
bob,

Earlier in this thread you seem to be making a connection between systems biology and YEC, essentially implying that successes in systems biological approaches to current research problems will transfer somehow into support for YEC. I'm familiar with Ludwig von Bertalanffy's general systems theory and Ervin Laszlo's systems philosophy, and I fail to see the connection between systems thought and YEC. Maybe you can explain.

Ross

bob b
January 18th, 2006, 03:34 PM
bob,

Earlier in this thread you seem to be making a connection between systems biology and YEC, essentially implying that successes in systems biological approaches to current research problems will transfer somehow into support for YEC. I'm familiar with Ludwig von Bertalanffy's general systems theory and Ervin Laszlo's systems philosophy, and I fail to see the connection between systems thought and YEC. Maybe you can explain.

Ross

It is not a direct connection so I can understand your puzzlement.

I started my career in the Systems Engineering field and later transferred to Operations Research, a field that is somewhat related. When I first started reading about DNA some 22 years ago I recalled some earlier lectures in which scientists at Bell labs were analyzing bodily systems using the techniques we had been using to analyze missile systems, treating them of course as automatic feedback control systems.

Such systems have to be fine tuned to function at all. Too much gain and they overreact to signals and swing wildly from one extreme to another (as happens in some human diseases where a person cannot "home in" on an object to be picked up). In short the system components must be well "tuned" to one another to allow the system to operate properly.

Biologists are beginning to treat biological systems as automatic feedback control systems, because it is obvious that they function in a similar way (e.g. my above example of one set of consequences of a genetic disease).

But this raises the ante regarding the function of mutations, copying errors. Systems thinkers recognize that it will take simultaneous changes in more than one component of an automatic feedback control system in order to improve its operation. This means that the probability of making improvements to such systems via random changes is vastly reduced compared to previous thinking that changes could be made serially, each serial change potentially improving system operation.

In reality the situation is even worse for the serial change concept, for it has recently been discovered that biological systems not only consist of multiple interrelated components but the individual components (proteins) frequently participate in multiple subsytems simultaneously. This raises the ante even more, to the point where it becomes obvious that there is a vanishingly small probability that improvements to biological systems could come about via random mutations, basically because there is no serial mutational pathway that would constitute steadily improving function which natural selection would then be able to preserve.

Thus, in my opinion the move to systems biology will inevitably cause thoughtful scientists in those fields to eventually abandon the "small change random mutation paradigm." In other words either some other mechanism must be found that could cause large scale evolutionary change (macroevolution) or the Biblical paradigm of multiple types at the beginning will remain the only logical concept left standing.

Note that the usual straw man which posits all species at the beginning is not what most creationists favor, for it is recognized that there is natural variation due to recombination, etc. that natural selection can work on in various ways to create very rapid change (microevolution) among lifeforms. A visit to the animal exhibits at a county fair should convince anyone of that possibility.

Thus the "beginning" would not have to be all that far in the past as far as genetics and lifeform variety is concerned.

BTW, Isn't it remarkable that recombination seems to generate a well functioning unique organism virtually every time? How can that be?

ItIsWritten
January 18th, 2006, 04:06 PM
Systems thinkers recognize that it will take simultaneous changes in more than one component of an automatic feedback control system in order to improve its operation. This means that the probability of making improvements to such systems via random changes is vastly reduced compared to previous thinking that changes could be made serially, each serial change potentially improving system operation.

In reality the situation is even worse for the serial change concept, for it has recently been discovered that biological systems not only consist of multiple interrelated components but the individual components (proteins) frequently participate in multiple subsytems simultaneously. This raises the ante even more...

Since the evolutionists went "all in" on Darwin's silly simple 'sell' they have nothing left to put up. Their bluff has been called and the squealing will only get louder as more and more rats face up to the fact that this was a loosing hand and flee this sinking ship.

Thank for heads up about Hood and Systems Biology and the summary you just gave. Like your posts. Keep 'em coming.

noguru
January 18th, 2006, 06:09 PM
It is not a direct connection so I can understand your puzzlement.

I started my career in the Systems Engineering field and later transferred to Operations Research, a field that is somewhat related. When I first started reading about DNA some 22 years ago I recalled some earlier lectures in which scientists at Bell labs were analyzing bodily systems using the techniques we had been using to analyze missile systems, treating them of course as automatic feedback control systems.

Such systems have to be fine tuned to function at all. Too much gain and they overreact to signals and swing wildly from one extreme to another (as happens in some human diseases where a person cannot "home in" on an object to be picked up). In short the system components must be well "tuned" to one another to allow the system to operate properly.

Biologists are beginning to treat biological systems as automatic feedback control systems, because it is obvious that they function in a similar way (e.g. my above example of one set of consequences of a genetic disease).

But this raises the ante regarding the function of mutations, copying errors. Systems thinkers recognize that it will take simultaneous changes in more than one component of an automatic feedback control system in order to improve its operation. This means that the probability of making improvements to such systems via random changes is vastly reduced compared to previous thinking that changes could be made serially, each serial change potentially improving system operation.

In reality the situation is even worse for the serial change concept, for it has recently been discovered that biological systems not only consist of multiple interrelated components but the individual components (proteins) frequently participate in multiple subsytems simultaneously. This raises the ante even more, to the point where it becomes obvious that there is a vanishingly small probability that improvements to biological systems could come about via random mutations, basically because there is no serial mutational pathway that would constitute steadily improving function which natural selection would then be able to preserve.

Thus, in my opinion the move to systems biology will inevitably cause thoughtful scientists in those fields to eventually abandon the "small change random mutation paradigm." In other words either some other mechanism must be found that could cause large scale evolutionary change (macroevolution) or the Biblical paradigm of multiple types at the beginning will remain the only logical concept left standing.

Note that the usual straw man which posits all species at the beginning is not what most creationists favor, for it is recognized that there is natural variation due to recombination, etc. that natural selection can work on in various ways to create very rapid change (microevolution) among lifeforms. A visit to the animal exhibits at a county fair should convince anyone of that possibility.

Thus the "beginning" would not have to be all that far in the past as far as genetics and lifeform variety is concerned.

BTW, Isn't it remarkable that recombination seems to generate a well functioning unique organism virtually every time? How can that be?

I think it's because of the fall. :crackup:

noguru
January 18th, 2006, 07:19 PM
Since the evolutionists went "all in" on Darwin's silly simple 'sell' they have nothing left to put up. Their bluff has been called and the squealing will only get louder as more and more rats face up to the fact that this was a loosing hand and flee this sinking ship.

Thank for heads up about Hood and Systems Biology and the summary you just gave. Like your posts. Keep 'em coming.

ItIsWritten, here is a little refresher course on what is covered by Darwin's idea or organic evolution. Darwin's research was not comprehensive enough to come up with a "silly simple sell". Take a look at this link;

Origins of Life (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm)

Notice the digram just below the index? It shows how organic evolution, the subject that Darwin deals with, is limited to a historic time period after "The Origin Of Life".

Jukia
January 19th, 2006, 07:20 AM
I think it's because of the fall. :crackup:

Like when the leaves change color, how can that be? Oh, wait, I think you meant The Fall. Now I get it.

noguru
January 19th, 2006, 07:26 AM
Like when the leaves change color, how can that be? Oh, wait, I think you meant The Fall. Now I get it.

Oh you mean I was supposed to capitalize it?