Systems Biology

[noguru]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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?