Posted on 01/27/2005 7:23:35 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Design Paper Published in PNAS 01/26/2005
Can scientific progress be made from a design perspective? The Intelligent Design movement says so, but critics say ID has no place in science, which by definition must be naturalistic; judges rule that alternatives to Darwinian evolution are forbidden in public schools (see 01/13/2005 entry). The rationale is that anything else assumes God, and is therefore religiously motivated. Then how do we interpret a paper in PNAS this week,1 that is chock full of design language?
A team of Japanese and American biologists, from Caltech and University of California and elsewhere, describe the heat shock response in the cell. They not only compare this biological system to good engineering, but treat the engineering paradigm as a proper approach to the study of cellular systems: in fact, they say, “Viewed from this perspective, heat shock itself constitutes an integral functional module. Such a characterization of functional modules is extremely useful, because it provides an inventory list of cellular processes. An analogy would be a list of machines and their function in a factory.” For more design language, look at the abstract:
Molecular biology studies the cause-and-effect relationships among microscopic processes initiated by individual molecules within a cell and observes their macroscopic phenotypic effects on cells and organisms. These studies provide a wealth of information about the underlying networks and pathways responsible for the basic functionality and robustness of biological systems. At the same time, these studies create exciting opportunities for the development of quantitative and predictive models that connect the mechanism to its phenotype then examine various modular structures and the range of their dynamical behavior. The use of such models enables a deeper understanding of the design principles underlying biological organization and makes their reverse engineering and manipulation both possible and tractable. The heat shock response presents an interesting mechanism where such an endeavor is possible. Using a model of heat shock, we extract the design motifs in the system and justify their existence in terms of various performance objectives. We also offer a modular decomposition that parallels that of traditional engineering control architectures. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)The paper is filled with design words: engineering, robustness, feedback loops, feed-forward loops, modularity, performance, functional criteria, and the like – all but the buzzphrase “intelligent design.” For example, “Biology and engineering share many similarities at the system level, including the use of complexity to achieve robustness and performance rather than for minimal functionality.”
However, to understand the operational principles of a certain machine, to repair it, or to optimize its performance, it is often necessary to consider a modular decomposition of the machine itself. Such a decomposition does not necessarily require stripping the machine down to the component level but rather identifying its submodules with their predefined functionalities. A particularly successful such modular decomposition has been extensively used in the field of control and dynamical systems, where components of a system are classified in terms of their role with respect to the regulation objective. Similar decompositions exist in computer science, for example, because modularity is a basic principle of good programming.The authors make no mention of a Programmer, or state their personal beliefs about origins. But that, again, supports a principle stated frequently in the intelligent design literature: the identity of the designer is not the issue. Design detection is a purely scientific question, and the design-theoretic approach is a fruitful avenue of research.
Big Science went ballistic when Stephen Meyer published an ID paper in a minor journal (see 09/24/2004 entry), claiming it was a mistake to let such material pass peer review. Well, ID scientists should print this paper and wave it in the face of Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller and all the other Darwin Party hacks who claim ID is illegitimate in science. Here again – and this is one of many examples we have reported (see 01/01/2005 and 12/20/2004 for recent examples) – ID is not only detectable in biological phenomena, but ID itself is the most fruitful approach to doing science. This is abundantly evident in this paper, written by authors completely outside the “intelligent design movement” and published in a leading secular journal. Most likely unintentionally, they have underscored what the ID movement has been saying all along: regardless of one’s religious beliefs (or lack of them), a reasonable inquirer into a phenomenon can detect design, and the design approach is productive for science. It’s the same approach used by Faraday, Mendel, Kepler, Carver and most of the other great scientists of history. Only the Darwin Party welfare bums have a problem with it. (See 12/22/2003 entry; contrast it with the one that follows it.)
Next headline on: Cell Biology • Intelligent Design
Ping
Yes sir! I've added you to my ping list so you never miss out on the fun. :)
Thanks for the ping!
lol. Much obliged :-)
Methinks the creationists have their hats screwed on too tight. The actual RESEARCH PAPER concludes exactly the opposite point---that evolutionary processes can yield robust biochemical mechanisms, NOT that "intelligent design" was involved.
To all you "intelligent design" folks, I'll ask this simple question---how does "intelligent design" address the question of the acquisition by bacteria of resistance to antibiotics???
>Then how do we interpret a paper in PNAS this week,1 that is chock full of design language?
Errr... no, it's not, at least not in the snippets provided.
Shhhh...
>>To all you "intelligent design" folks, I'll ask this simple question---how does "intelligent design" address the question of the acquisition by bacteria of resistance to antibiotics???<<
It was designed to acquire resistance to anything that would threaten it's existence, via micro-evolution. That has been my position from before I was a Christian.
Most of bacterial resistance that we know about is due
to conjugation (where different bacteria can pass on
genes they already had) to another bacteria, or through
transmission by plasmids (double stranded DNA whose origin as far as Ihave read is unknown..last theory I read
was it was a virus incorporated into cell at some unknown (why is always unknown) time in the past., There may be
transposons (which I believe are genes which shift on the
genome)...sometimes there are genes which hop around
(i think that is called transposition)...and then
translocation....
The interesting thing is that usually if a mutation occurs,
it renders the bacterial biochemical process less vulnerable
to the antibiotic by changing the susceptibility of the
biochemical attack point to the attacking agent. It doesn't
usually mean that the organism has "evolved" a new
defense.(although sometimes different enzymes may be
expressed that destroy the antibiotic (e.g.penicillinase). But if I am correct, I don't believe those particular genes aren't there already,they just aren't expressed unless the offending agent is present. Then of course, the bacteria which have the gene for production of the enzyme survive, and the others die.
A design inference for the ability of the "bacteria to
change scenario" may be that since bacteria need to live in very tough surroundings,(no real protection, little motility) they must be relatively "plastic" in their ability to adapt and survive.
Also, as a sidelight, most antibiotics are actually
biological products made from other bacteria or fungi...
It appears that the bacteria/fungi can wage war against each
other in order to carve space out for ones bacterial/fungal self.
So the prior genetic presence of these defense mechanisms could be expected since these organisms have been exposed to "antibiotics" for a long time...and still have survived..Modern exposure to antibiotics may have only demonstrated what was already there.....
Sorry 'bout the long post....
read later
No worries. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us!
Wrong. They rule that non-scientific alternatives are forbidden in science class.
the physical implementation of any of its solutions seems to have been evolutionarily solved [i.e., using the process of evolution] by using a number of recurring motifs.
That line blows away the whole point of the article.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.