|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sound of Trumpet
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:22 am Post subject: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
 |
|
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/biologistsnewapproach022603.htm
Biologists' New Approach: Do Not Shoot the Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Sharon Begley
How would a team of biologists fix a radio ? First, they'd secure a
large grant to purchase hundreds of identical working radios . After
describing and classifying scores of components (metal squares, shiny
circles with three legs, etc.), they'd shoot the radios with .22s.
Examining the corpses, the biologists would pick out those that no
longer work. They'd find one radio in which a .22 knocked out a wire
and triumphantly declare they had discovered the Key Component (KC)
whose presence is required for normal operation.
But a rival lab would discover a radio in which the .22 left the Key
Component intact but demolished a completely different Crucial Part
(CP), silencing the radio . Moreover, the rivals would demonstrate
that the KC isn't so "key" after all; radios can work fine without it.
Finally, a brilliant post-doc would discover a switch whose position
determines whether KC or CP is required for normal operation. But the
biologists still can't fix the blasted radios .
For those of you who haven't looked inside a radio lately, the Key
Component is the wire connecting the external (FM) antenna to the
innards of the radio , the Crucial Part is the internal (AM) antenna
and the switch is the AM/FM switch.
Biologists can't repair radios because their part-by-part approach
fails to describe the radio as a system -- what's connected to what
and how one part affects another.
Biologists' affinity for the one-part-at-a-time approach, argues
biologist Yuri Lazebnik of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on New York's
Long Island, who dreamed up the radio analogy, is "a flaw of
biological research today."
For that, thank the events of 50 years ago.
On Feb. 28, 1953, a Saturday, James Watson spent the morning at his
Cambridge, England, lab piecing together cardboard representations of
the "base pairs" in the DNA molecule. With that, he and Francis Crick
realized that the master molecule of heredity is shaped like a spiral
staircase, or double helix.
This discovery ushered in the era of the gene and gave birth to a new
field: molecular biology. The study of living things became a science
in which progress meant describing the smallest bits possible, usually
one at a time -- one stretch of DNA, one RNA, one protein. The double
helix, Harvard University naturalist E.O. Wilson once said, "injected
into all of biology a new faith in reductionism" -- a "shoot the radio
" approach.
As the world celebrates the golden anniversary of the discovery of the
double helix with symposia, galas and media paeans, let me be
contrarian: The reductionist paradigm launched by the double helix is
just so 20th century.
Don't misunderstand. Molecular biology was a rousing success. It
reached its pinnacle with the sequencing of the human genome, whose
final draft will be unveiled in April. But all good things must end,
and there are signs that biological reductionism is one of them. It's
pretty clear that making a parts list for an organism, even if you
annotate it with those parts' functions, is no more adequate to
understanding the complexity of a living thing than is listing the
parts of a Boeing 777. Instead, you have to ask how the parts fit
together and work together.
The new approach is called systems biology, and it represents a huge
departure from the reductionist paradigm. "Biology undergoes these
revolutionary waves from time to time, after which nothing is ever the
same," says biologist Eric Davidson of the California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena. "This is one of those times."
Catching the wave, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last year
launched a systems-biology program melding computer science,
engineering and biology. In November, Eli Lilly & Co. established a
systems biology lab in Singapore, where it expects to spend $140
million over five years, and several biotech start-ups are hitching
their stars to the new paradigm.
Systems biology analyzes a living thing as a whole, not one gene or
one protein at a time. "You have to look at all the elements in a
living system to understand how they function," says biologist Leroy
Hood. His seminal work on DNA-sequencing technology fell four-square
in the reductionist camp, but in co-founding the Institute for Systems
Biology in Seattle in 2000 he became one of the first and most
prominent defectors.
Not surprisingly, the systems approach represents an unsettling shift
that "is not exactly welcomed" by many biologists, says Mr. Lazebnik.
Partly, that's because "doing systems biology requires a huge change
in the research culture," says Prof. Davidson. "In traditional
molecular biology, each scientist works on his own gene, but the
systems approach requires determining the effect of every gene on
every other. You have to give up this 'my gene, your gene' stuff."
But the payoff could be tremendous. At MIT, quantitative models
showing the interconnections among cellular components -- much like
the wiring diagram for a computer chip -- promise to predict
unexpected properties of anticancer drugs such as Herceptin, says
MIT's Peter Sorger. With any luck, the models will predict how to
tailor cancer treatment to individual patients.
File Date: 02.26.03 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanity's Little Helper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:22 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote in
news:1185589328.863462.125630@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com to
alt.atheism:
| Quote: |
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/biologistsnewapproach022603.htm
Biologists' New Approach: Do Not Shoot the Radio
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------- by Sharon Begley
snip |
It is very notable that, recently, and increasingly, religion can only
defend itself by railing against science. That may not be Sharon Begley's
motive, but it certainly is Sound of Fuckwit's.
That should tell any honest person something very important about
religion as such.
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
"If you are informed by God, you can be misinformed by nobody" - Osama
Bin Laden |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Day Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
On Jul 27, 10:22 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
But the payoff could be tremendous. At MIT, quantitative models
showing the interconnections among cellular components -- much like
the wiring diagram for a computer chip -- promise to predict
unexpected properties of anticancer drugs such as Herceptin, says
MIT's Peter Sorger. With any luck, the models will predict how to
tailor cancer treatment to individual patients.
That is one way to put it. But in unraveling the DNA software, they |
will be able to repair damage and replace lost portions. which will
effectively stop the aging process.
And the world is crowded all ready.
But regarding these components, I saw a cosmologist explain that stars
create, and disperse 'organic' molecules, eg, those made of carbon,
nitrogen, & oxygen. And it occurs to me that they have been doing this
long before they began cooking down the heavier elements. And there
are frozen snowballs of this stuff, not only seen as comets, but
drifting round in the ort cloud and interstellar space as well, and
have been doing so long before our own sun was even born.
So- life was not entirely invented on this planet, or limited in its
evolution to the 4 billion years this solar system as been around. It
will take inter stellar expeditions to nail down some of what was
'invented' here, and some of what just drifted in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Conspiracy of Doves
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:55 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
On Jul 27, 10:22 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/biologistsnewapproach022603.htm
Biologists' New Approach: Do Not Shoot the Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Sharon Begley
How would a team of biologists fix a radio ?
|
By calling an electrical repairman? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
raven1
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:22:08 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Did you even read the article? What has this to do with "Darwinism",
and what exactly is your point?
| Quote: |
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/biologistsnewapproach022603.htm
Biologists' New Approach: Do Not Shoot the Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Sharon Begley
How would a team of biologists fix a radio ? First, they'd secure a
large grant to purchase hundreds of identical working radios . After
describing and classifying scores of components (metal squares, shiny
circles with three legs, etc.), they'd shoot the radios with .22s.
Examining the corpses, the biologists would pick out those that no
longer work. They'd find one radio in which a .22 knocked out a wire
and triumphantly declare they had discovered the Key Component (KC)
whose presence is required for normal operation.
But a rival lab would discover a radio in which the .22 left the Key
Component intact but demolished a completely different Crucial Part
(CP), silencing the radio . Moreover, the rivals would demonstrate
that the KC isn't so "key" after all; radios can work fine without it.
Finally, a brilliant post-doc would discover a switch whose position
determines whether KC or CP is required for normal operation. But the
biologists still can't fix the blasted radios .
For those of you who haven't looked inside a radio lately, the Key
Component is the wire connecting the external (FM) antenna to the
innards of the radio , the Crucial Part is the internal (AM) antenna
and the switch is the AM/FM switch.
Biologists can't repair radios because their part-by-part approach
fails to describe the radio as a system -- what's connected to what
and how one part affects another.
Biologists' affinity for the one-part-at-a-time approach, argues
biologist Yuri Lazebnik of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on New York's
Long Island, who dreamed up the radio analogy, is "a flaw of
biological research today."
For that, thank the events of 50 years ago.
On Feb. 28, 1953, a Saturday, James Watson spent the morning at his
Cambridge, England, lab piecing together cardboard representations of
the "base pairs" in the DNA molecule. With that, he and Francis Crick
realized that the master molecule of heredity is shaped like a spiral
staircase, or double helix.
This discovery ushered in the era of the gene and gave birth to a new
field: molecular biology. The study of living things became a science
in which progress meant describing the smallest bits possible, usually
one at a time -- one stretch of DNA, one RNA, one protein. The double
helix, Harvard University naturalist E.O. Wilson once said, "injected
into all of biology a new faith in reductionism" -- a "shoot the radio
" approach.
As the world celebrates the golden anniversary of the discovery of the
double helix with symposia, galas and media paeans, let me be
contrarian: The reductionist paradigm launched by the double helix is
just so 20th century.
Don't misunderstand. Molecular biology was a rousing success. It
reached its pinnacle with the sequencing of the human genome, whose
final draft will be unveiled in April. But all good things must end,
and there are signs that biological reductionism is one of them. It's
pretty clear that making a parts list for an organism, even if you
annotate it with those parts' functions, is no more adequate to
understanding the complexity of a living thing than is listing the
parts of a Boeing 777. Instead, you have to ask how the parts fit
together and work together.
The new approach is called systems biology, and it represents a huge
departure from the reductionist paradigm. "Biology undergoes these
revolutionary waves from time to time, after which nothing is ever the
same," says biologist Eric Davidson of the California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena. "This is one of those times."
Catching the wave, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last year
launched a systems-biology program melding computer science,
engineering and biology. In November, Eli Lilly & Co. established a
systems biology lab in Singapore, where it expects to spend $140
million over five years, and several biotech start-ups are hitching
their stars to the new paradigm.
Systems biology analyzes a living thing as a whole, not one gene or
one protein at a time. "You have to look at all the elements in a
living system to understand how they function," says biologist Leroy
Hood. His seminal work on DNA-sequencing technology fell four-square
in the reductionist camp, but in co-founding the Institute for Systems
Biology in Seattle in 2000 he became one of the first and most
prominent defectors.
Not surprisingly, the systems approach represents an unsettling shift
that "is not exactly welcomed" by many biologists, says Mr. Lazebnik.
Partly, that's because "doing systems biology requires a huge change
in the research culture," says Prof. Davidson. "In traditional
molecular biology, each scientist works on his own gene, but the
systems approach requires determining the effect of every gene on
every other. You have to give up this 'my gene, your gene' stuff."
But the payoff could be tremendous. At MIT, quantitative models
showing the interconnections among cellular components -- much like
the wiring diagram for a computer chip -- promise to predict
unexpected properties of anticancer drugs such as Herceptin, says
MIT's Peter Sorger. With any luck, the models will predict how to
tailor cancer treatment to individual patients.
File Date: 02.26.03
-- |
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Logan Kearsley
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:16ila3pcm3vad105lsuhjlqmnnk475irr0@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:22:08 -0700, Sound of Trumpet
soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
Did you even read the article? What has this to do with "Darwinism",
and what exactly is your point?
|
I think the evidence is fairly strong that SoT hasn't been reading any of
the stuff it posts for quite some time.
-l.
------------------------------------
My inbox is a sacred shrine, none shall enter that are not worthy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
"Day Brown" <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote in message
news:1185593681.290802.272650@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jul 27, 10:22 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com
wrote:
|
Feed that troll. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mike Schilling
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 27, 10:22 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com
wrote:
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/biologistsnewapproach022603.htm
Biologists' New Approach: Do Not Shoot the Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Sharon Begley
How would a team of biologists fix a radio ?
By calling an electrical repairman?
|
By replacing the dead battery with an electric eel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mike Painter
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
Paul Ciszek wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <1185589328.863462.125630@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote:
How would a team of biologists fix a radio ?
By giving it to an EE major?
I notice that Creationists often make the exact opposite mistake:
They have Electrical Engineers writing about biology and
desmonstrating (painfully, sometimes) that expertise in one field
doesn't carry over into another.
|
The problem is that the EE's and the biologists are starting to work
together to use the theory of evolution to build biological circuits that
will work better than any purely electronic counterpart.
J think this will remove one more of their complaints.
(If you are an EE you get the J) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
cactus
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:30 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
| Quote: |
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/biologistsnewapproach022603.htm
Biologists' New Approach: Do Not Shoot the Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Sharon Begley
How would a team of biologists fix a radio ? First, they'd secure a
large grant to purchase hundreds of identical working radios . After
describing and classifying scores of components (metal squares, shiny
circles with three legs, etc.), they'd shoot the radios with .22s.
|
How would fundies fix a radio? They would preach hellfire and damnation
at it to see if that would get it working. Next they would try to
obtain money from it so that other radios could be fixed. If that
didn't work, they would give it to a preacher to fix. If that didn't
work, they would try a deacon, and so on until they found someone who
could. The next step would be to prevent the radio from receiving any
signals except from evangelical radio stations, or if that didn't work,
they would cut the speaker cables. At that point it might work but it
would either broadcast their message or none at all.
<snip> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
brian fletcher
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:46 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet@mailcan.com> wrote in message
news:1185589328.863462.125630@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/biologistsnewapproach022603.htm
Biologists' New Approach: Do Not Shoot the Radio
|
No need to if he has chosen to direct his conscious evolutionary endevour
towards engineering.
Having recently read Dawkins' recent excellent and very convincing "The God
Delusion", I saw further evidence of the importance of evolving beyond
dogmatic religious influences, and how such dogma is essential to "the
journey".
Those that can see beyond such dogma, seem to carry an inherant fear
(denial) that discovering the reality of metaphysics,or pysychic phenomina
somehow returns one to the dark ages of dogma domination.
Why should the discovery of "everlasting life" (one's spiritual identity)
have anything whatever to do with religious perception ?, except possibly
,by example, to identify the "seven day creation" pov, could have a seed of
truth when one takes into account that an that an" Earth day" is
inconsequental when one takes a cosmological perspective.
BOfL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
darwinist
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
On Jul 28, 12:22 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@mailcan.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/biologistsnewapproach022603.htm
Biologists' New Approach: Do Not Shoot the Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Sharon Begley
How would a team of biologists fix a radio ? First, they'd secure a
large grant to purchase hundreds of identical working radios . After
describing and classifying scores of components (metal squares, shiny
circles with three legs, etc.), they'd shoot the radios with .22s.
Examining the corpses, the biologists would pick out those that no
longer work. They'd find one radio in which a .22 knocked out a wire
and triumphantly declare they had discovered the Key Component (KC)
whose presence is required for normal operation.
But a rival lab would discover a radio in which the .22 left the Key
Component intact but demolished a completely different Crucial Part
(CP), silencing the radio . Moreover, the rivals would demonstrate
that the KC isn't so "key" after all; radios can work fine without it.
Finally, a brilliant post-doc would discover a switch whose position
determines whether KC or CP is required for normal operation. But the
biologists still can't fix the blasted radios .
For those of you who haven't looked inside a radio lately, the Key
Component is the wire connecting the external (FM) antenna to the
innards of the radio , the Crucial Part is the internal (AM) antenna
and the switch is the AM/FM switch.
Biologists can't repair radios because their part-by-part approach
fails to describe the radio as a system -- what's connected to what
and how one part affects another.
Biologists' affinity for the one-part-at-a-time approach, argues
biologist Yuri Lazebnik of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on New York's
Long Island, who dreamed up the radio analogy, is "a flaw of
biological research today."
For that, thank the events of 50 years ago.
On Feb. 28, 1953, a Saturday, James Watson spent the morning at his
Cambridge, England, lab piecing together cardboard representations of
the "base pairs" in the DNA molecule. With that, he and Francis Crick
realized that the master molecule of heredity is shaped like a spiral
staircase, or double helix.
This discovery ushered in the era of the gene and gave birth to a new
field: molecular biology. The study of living things became a science
in which progress meant describing the smallest bits possible, usually
one at a time -- one stretch of DNA, one RNA, one protein. The double
helix, Harvard University naturalist E.O. Wilson once said, "injected
into all of biology a new faith in reductionism" -- a "shoot the radio
" approach.
As the world celebrates the golden anniversary of the discovery of the
double helix with symposia, galas and media paeans, let me be
contrarian: The reductionist paradigm launched by the double helix is
just so 20th century.
Don't misunderstand. Molecular biology was a rousing success. It
reached its pinnacle with the sequencing of the human genome, whose
final draft will be unveiled in April. But all good things must end,
and there are signs that biological reductionism is one of them. It's
pretty clear that making a parts list for an organism, even if you
annotate it with those parts' functions, is no more adequate to
understanding the complexity of a living thing than is listing the
parts of a Boeing 777. Instead, you have to ask how the parts fit
together and work together.
The new approach is called systems biology, and it represents a huge
departure from the reductionist paradigm. "Biology undergoes these
revolutionary waves from time to time, after which nothing is ever the
same," says biologist Eric Davidson of the California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena. "This is one of those times."
Catching the wave, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last year
launched a systems-biology program melding computer science,
engineering and biology. In November, Eli Lilly & Co. established a
systems biology lab in Singapore, where it expects to spend $140
million over five years, and several biotech start-ups are hitching
their stars to the new paradigm.
Systems biology analyzes a living thing as a whole, not one gene or
one protein at a time. "You have to look at all the elements in a
living system to understand how they function," says biologist Leroy
Hood. His seminal work on DNA-sequencing technology fell four-square
in the reductionist camp, but in co-founding the Institute for Systems
Biology in Seattle in 2000 he became one of the first and most
prominent defectors.
Not surprisingly, the systems approach represents an unsettling shift
that "is not exactly welcomed" by many biologists, says Mr. Lazebnik.
Partly, that's because "doing systems biology requires a huge change
in the research culture," says Prof. Davidson. "In traditional
molecular biology, each scientist works on his own gene, but the
systems approach requires determining the effect of every gene on
every other. You have to give up this 'my gene, your gene' stuff."
But the payoff could be tremendous. At MIT, quantitative models
showing the interconnections among cellular components -- much like
the wiring diagram for a computer chip -- promise to predict
unexpected properties of anticancer drugs such as Herceptin, says
MIT's Peter Sorger. With any luck, the models will predict how to
tailor cancer treatment to individual patients.
File Date: 02.26.03
|
That silly I don't even have a gun, I would ask the engineers at work
to have a look at it.
The real question is "Could 'Sound of Trumpet' ever defend or even
understand any of the articles it copies and posts?"
What a lame tool of propaganda. SOT never responds to objections or
writes its own material.
Typical of ignorance-based political movements.
Let's see a post arguing the scientific merits of bible-stories once
in a while, then we can compare which models are best supported by the
evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ash
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Can Darwinist Fix A Radio? |
|
|
darwinist wrote:
| Quote: |
The real question is "Could 'Sound of Trumpet' ever defend or even
understand any of the articles it copies and posts?"
What a lame tool of propaganda. SOT never responds to objections or
writes its own material.
Reasonable question. I think with these sort of people, there is the |
assumption that they post things they think are impressive, persuasive
or just interesting, but I am wondering if this assumption is valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
