Systems Biology

[bob b]

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]

That's interesting, Bob B. Especially his "discovery science."

SS

 

[noguru]

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

Three approaches

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

 

[bob b]

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

Orielly interview

Three approaches

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

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

 

[noguru]

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 ureX:

 

[bob b]

: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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[noguru]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

No problem noguru. Let's get back to the subject of systems biology.

 

[noguru]

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]

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.