The Future of Biology: Reverse Engineering

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 3/14/05 | Staff

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Ping

[Windsong]

"But like an army with nothing to do, a large heat-shock response force is too expensive to maintain all the time. Instead, the rescuers are drafted into action when needed by an elaborate system of sensors, feedback and feed-forward loops, and protein networks.

It is comments like this that display the true intelligence behind the design of cell division, respiration, and even photosynthesis. Why the non-believers persist in ignorance is beyond understanding.

[brivette]

Wow, I'm a control system engineer and my last name is Esch...

[anniegetyourgun]

"The future of biology belongs to the engineers who appreciate good design when they see it."

"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good." Gen 1:31a

[Paloma_55]

Get your asbestos underwear on!

I have seen such comments launch a flame-fest in the past. :)

It takes a lot of faith to be an evolutionist. (my fuel to the fire)

[tallhappy]

With the flood of data hitting molecular biologists in the post-genomic era

I have to repeat Craig Venter's comment on this term. There is no such thing as the post-genomic era. The post-genomic era is when one is dead.

It is simply the genomic era.

[Paloma_55]

But are the analytical principles of reverse engineering relevant to biological systems? Yes, they continue:

Note for the analytically challenged... you can't reverse engineer something that was not engineered to begin with.

Note of irony... Satan, Eve, and ultimately Adam all wanted something that they could not have... to be like God.

I always get a kick out of watching history repeat itself.

[PeterFinn]

Amen. The religious Darwinists will come out of the woodwork with their tinfoil hats on any second now...

[MacDorcha]

"Note for the analytically challenged... you can't reverse engineer something that was not engineered to begin with. "

I'm taking part of that as my tagline :) Thanks :p

[r9etb]

It is comments like this that display the true intelligence behind the design of cell division, respiration, and even photosynthesis.

At a gross level the idea of a designer is inherently plausible -- we as humans can understand how a designer might have come up with the things we can observe. At finer levels one can also see how randomness could play a role in the process. We can also understand ways in which randomness and design could both play roles in what we see. The "reverse engineering" aspects of this article are addressing that basic point.

Why the non-believers persist in ignorance is beyond understanding.

That's a pretty sticky statement, though. There are plenty of processes that really are explainable as random and/or non-directed events.

One can hypothesize that the "problem of life" belongs within that group, and that's what the theory of evolution basically does. The question is whether it should be so included.

The underlying issue is a philosophical one: is it scientifically plausible to a priori assume that life is wholly explainable in strictly naturalistic terms? Put another way, is it scientifically plausible to simply rule out the possibility of "intervention" from some external source? This is the current "scientific standard" for the problem of life.

It appears that some folks have an almost ideological devotion to the "current standard," in the sense that their opposition to the idea of "intervention" seems to have roots that are not so much scientific, as an unwillingness to confront a different possibility. For some, I'd go so far as to say they're emotionally opposed to suggestions that God might actually play a role in something.

At any rate, it seems that there are a number of folks who will not admit even the inherent plausibility of a design approach. The interesting thing there is, those who deny the inherent plausibility of design, often argue against the idea by asserting that their design choices would have been much different -- which essentially validates the claim that "design" is inherently plausible.

That is not to say that those who hold to the current scientific standard are entirely wrong to ignore the idea that intervention might have occurred: some of those who argue against evolution do so very poorly indeed, which lends a bad odor to those whose objections are more respectable.

Nor am I going to claim that, because design is inherently plausible, it must be the correct explanation -- that is not a logically sound conclusion. In order to arrive at proof of design, one must find some method by which to discriminate between design and random circumstance.

[r9etb]

you can't reverse engineer something that was not engineered to begin with.

You gotta be careful, though, to distinguish between the words "reverse engineer," which were chosen by the author; and the actual phenomena that are being investigated. It may be that the phenomena were in fact the result of a design effort, or it may not. The words used to describe their work have no bearing on what they're actually doing.

[MacDorcha]

"There are plenty of processes that really are explainable as random and/or non-directed events."

Only disagreement I have with your post is right here, even then it may seem a small (yet could be vital) piece.

I must correct that statement by editing in that "There are plenty of processes that could be explainable as random and/or non-directed events, or simply we have not observed the director scientifically yet"

You address this later in your post (by stating In order to arrive at proof of design, one must find some method by which to discriminate between design and random circumstance.), so I'm sure you don't disagree entirely, but I just felt like adding the qualifier.

If we can't discern random events from design, how can we claim that there are indeed inherently random or designed events?

[AndrewC]

Thanks for the ping.

Looks like another opportunity to plug Dr. Shapiro.

A 21^st Century View of evolution

  As I see it, a 21^st Century view of evolution has to include the following features:

• Major evolutionary change to the genome occurs by the amplification and rearrangement of pre-existing modules. Old genomic systems are disassembled and new genomic systems are assembled by natural genetic engineering functions that operate via non-random molecular processes.

• Major alterations in the content and distribution of repetitive DNA elements results in a reformatting of the genome to function in novel ways --without major alterations of protein coding sequences. These reformattings would be particularly important in adaptive radiations within taxonomic groups that use the same basic materials to make a wide variety of morphologically distinct species (e.g. birds and mammals).

• Large-scale genome-wide reorganizations occur rapidly (potentially within a single generation) following activation of natural genetic engineering systems in response to a major evolutionary challenge. The cellular regulation of natural genetic engineering automatically imposes a punctuated tempo on the process of evolutionary change.

• Targeting of natural genetic engineering processes by cellular control networks to particular regions of the genome enhances the probability of generating useful new multi-locus systems. (Exactly how far the computational capacity of cells can influence complex genome rearrangements needs to be investigated. This area also holds promise for powerful new biotechnologies.)

• Natural selection following genome reorganization eliminates the misfits whose new genetic structures are non-functional. In this sense, natural selection plays an essentially negative role, as postulated by many early thinkers about evolution (e.g. 53). Once organisms with functional new genomes appear, however, natural selection may play a positive role in fine-tuning novel genetic systems by the kind of micro-evolutionary processes currently studied in the laboratory.

[MacDorcha]

Is half an hour since the last post without a darwinian in here trying to butt heads generally a sign of concession from them?

Or are they all in church?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Reverse engineering needs Darwinism like teenagers need a pack of cigarettes.

Darwinism is a recent appendage to science that adorns itself with the name. Scientific progress takes place in spite of Darwinism, not because of it.

[MacDorcha]

"Darwinism is a recent appendage to science that adorns itself with the name. Scientific progress takes place in spite of Darwinism, not because of it."

In other words... the a$$ thinks it's the brains of the operation....

[Fester Chugabrew]

Indeed, sometimes the butt bone really is connected to the head bone.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!