Is Systems Biology a "Rabbit-Centric" approach?

Can the teleological approach offer any insight into biology?

Should "purpose" be purposely ignored?

Let's hear from Systems Biologist Arthur D. Lander.

"What distinguishes systems biology from earlier traditions is the tendency to define importance less in operational terms (e.g., necessary or sufficient to produce a behavior) than in terms of relevance to the goals of a system. In making this leap, systems biology inextricably binds itself to teleology. Indeed, without the presupposition of goals or purposes, the very notion of “system” itself is hollow." -from "Morpheus Unbound: Reimagining the Morphogen Gradient"

Creationist sites were abuzz today over a recent paper in Nature. For example, Fazale of "Reasons To Believe" wrote this:

During the opening day’s plenary session, biologist Darrel Falk, president of the BioLogos Foundation, presented a case for evolutionary creationism (formerly known as theistic evolution). Specifically, Dr. Falk argued that humans and chimpanzees must have evolved from a common ancestor because of the Alu sequences found in human and chimpanzee genomes…

Some mRNA molecules possess Alu sequences near one of the molecule’s ends. These Alu sequences can pair with Alu sequences in lncRNAs to form a duplex with the two RNA molecules. This duplex is targeted by a protein called STAU1, which binds to RNA duplexes and destroys them. As a consequence of this destruction, protein production is kept in balance.

Discoveries like this one undermine the case for common descent and human evolution made by evolutionary creationists like Falk.
here

I honestly don't see the connection. Forgetting for the moment that STAU1 doesn't actually do the destruction, how does this account for the differences? Evolution has occurred since humans and chimps (and other primates) diverged, which actually does explain those differences.

I remember the last time Dawkins took a swipe at E. O. Wilson. Wilson replied:

I am used to taking the heat and in the past I turned out to be right.

here

I recently read this at Homologous Legs:

Consider, for example, an alien race that (hypothetically) created life on Earth through the application of highly advanced synthetic biology. Need they have been omniscient creatures of perfect design? No, they could have easily made simple errors like Venter’s team did. Design errors do not falsify ID and fellow critics need to stop saying that they do, because the Discovery Institute will spit back something like this and you’ll look incredibly silly.

here

I think that the reason why this argument doesn't follow is because we can see and touch Venter. We can even dissect him if we wanted to. We have independent evidence of the rational designer of his synthetic biology and so we can easily perceive bad design as mistakes. However, we don't have independent evidence of the rational designer of biology. So when you hold up really beautiful design in biology and marvel at it's complexity and all that, and you take that as evidence for rational design, but you don't take bad design seriously, then you aren't being consistent.

However, I think following the trail of "bad design" problems can be fruitful.
Read the rest of this entry »

…Yea I'm sorry for this post.

Recently fellow TT commenter olegt and me got into a discussion (again!) about the three unsolved problems in science: the origin of the universe, the origin of life and the origin of consciousness.

Olegt agrees “that the questions of the origin of the universe, life, and consciousness are unsolved at the moment. But,” he argues.” similarly difficult, seemingly intractable problems [have] existed in the past [and] were eventually solved.” He goes on to claim “that the three origins problems may be eventually solved by science.”

He seemed to be baiting me, trying to get me to commit to some kind of metaphysical/ theological explanation.  Since in the past he has described philosophy (and no doubt its evil twin theology) as “navel gazing” I wasn’t interested in pursuing another discussion/debate like that with him.  Nor, was I interested in becoming involved in navel gazing with another guy.  Olegt’s really not my type.  A beautiful young blond of the feminine gender is what I have in mind for that sort of thing.

Read the rest of this entry »

Most travellers who are even cursorily familiar with modern philosophy, the ID movement or teleology in general will be acquainted with the so called “mind-body problem”.

Descartes was the first to identify the problem in the modern sense. It is clear that when the notion of matter being comprised of colourful, odorous, tasty, etc. particles is abandoned (as it was at the birth of modernism) these properties would have to be redefined from objective external qualities to subjective experiences in the mind of the beholder. However, once redefined these qualities may no longer be material; hence the rise of dualism (and arguably the birth of the “mind-body problem”).

Read the rest of this entry »

Quantum Mind: Matrix of the Universe

It begins with…

In this work we present a notion of God as the infinitely creative source and sustainer of the universe (“Quantum Mind”), a creative dimension of Being that, seemingly with purpose, fragments an infinite primordial awareness into a vast multitude of experiencing sentient beings. In fact the metaphysical model of the creation and functioning of the universe presented in this work has truly awe-inspiring and deeply significant implications for our understanding of and our engagement with the process of reality.

Read the rest of this entry »

For example, they found a gene in Capsaspora that's nearly identical to the animal gene brachyury. In humans and many other animal species, brachyury is essential for embryos to develop, marking a layer of cells that will become the skeleton and muscles. Ruiz-Trillo and his colleagues have no idea what Capsaspora is doing with a brachyury gene. They're now doing experiments to find out; in the meantime, Ruiz-Trillo speculates that single-celled relatives of animals use the brachyury gene, along with other transcription factors, to switch genes on for other tasks.

Studies by other scientists point to the same conclusion: a lot of the genes once thought to be unique to the animal kingdom were present in the single-celled ancestors of animals. "The origin of animals depended on genes that were already in place," King said. In the transition to full-blown animals , King argues, these genes were co-opted for controlling a multicellular body. Old genes began to take on new functions, like producing the glue for sticking cells together and guarding against runaway cells that could become tumors.

here

Is there a teleology-related topic that has caught your interest, but we haven't really touched on it here at Telic Thoughts? Would you welcome the possibility of writing a guest blog post about it?

Then this is the thread for you!

Just write up a short summary of the topic you wish to post on. I'll look over the ideas and call attention and hopefully select one or a few ideas to greenlight. I'll add in a few guidelines to let you know what I'm looking for here – common sense stuff, but it helps to list it anyway.

* As said, your topic should be teleology-related at least in the broad sense. A popular focus is typically on teleology in evolution or natural history, but I'd also be interested in discussions of distinctly human teleology. Are you a transhumanist who thinks mankind shall in the future be something like Q Continuum from Star Trek? "That counts," says I. Also, "I hope we'll have a better name than Q Continuum."

* Do you have a low opinion of gnus? So do I, but this shouldn't be the topic of any potential guest post. Really, thorough criticisms of that particular cult have been done to death.

* Is your topic not directly related to teleology, but does argue for an alternate (non-Darwinian) understanding of evolutionary mechanisms? Quite possibly interesting.

There you go. Have additional questions? Ask them in the thread.

This is also an open thread.

From the "I think I missed this the first time" pile is this 2009 article explaining the daily application of evolution to common security issues. From the article.

"One strategy to reduce risk would be to approach the ATM cautiously and spend a lot of time looking around while there. By doing so, you will spend more time in an exposed position," he said. "An alternative strategy would be to run in and run out as quickly as possible. We see evidence that animals use both strategies in nature. Some species are more vigilant in risky areas, while others are less vigilant, and by being less vigilant, they are able to reduce their exposure to predators because they decrease the amount of time in risky areas. Evolution and the diversity of life show us there are many strategies to solve problems and respond to risk."

It's a remarkable article, really. I mean… … nah, let's just call it remarkable and leave it at that for now.

Veiled beneath the Persian Gulf, a once-fertile landmass may have supported some of the earliest humans outside Africa some 75,000 to 100,000 years ago, a new review of research suggests.

At its peak, the floodplain now below the Gulf would have been about the size of Great Britain, and then shrank as water began to flood the area. Then, about 8,000 years ago, the land would have been swallowed up by the Indian Ocean, the review scientist said.
here

I would quibble with the use of the word "civilization", they were probably closer to Neolithic-type communities, small villages and such. Nevertheless, the oldest flood accounts come from Sumerian clay tablets found in southern Mesopotamia, just inland from the shoreline of the Gulf. Therefore, this seems to be a likely candidate for the origins of the Mesopotamian flood myth. Does this lend credence to interpretations such as this one, rather than scientific ones? It's the message that drives us, Neo.

Just noticed this over at Uncommon Descent. I'll highlight one part of his article that stood out to me.

My critic seemed to think that anyone who would agree with this statement was necessarily a creationist, if not a Biblical fundamentalist that believed the Earth was 6,000 years old. On the contrary, I'm an evolutionist. I'm committed to naturalism in science, and I believe that radioactive dating and other evidence shows the Earth to be about 4.6 billion years old. The reason I'm an evolutionist is that science is based largely on empirical evidence. The fossil record shows progressive change in life through time. The farther back we go in time, the more that life diverges from present day forms. If we do nothing but look at the fossils, we see a process of natural change, or evolution.

There is no scientific reason that one-hundred percent of biologist and geologists should not sign the Dissent from Darwinism statement. Who can disagree that "careful examination of the evidence" is indicated for every scientific theory? And there is plenty of skepticism in the scientific literature regarding the ability of natural selection alone to account for the changes we infer from the fossil record. A 2009 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science began with the words "I reject the Darwinian assumption…[of] a single common ancestor." A 2005 review paper published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution noted that "the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin" were "missing." These are but two examples that illustrate a pervasive theme of skeptical deliberation.

…

None of this is an argument for supernaturalism. There are many scientific alternatives to natural selection. Endosymbiotic theory proposes that multi-celled organisms arose not through natural selection, but through the interaction of single-celled bacteria. We beginning to become aware that horizontal gene transfer may have played an important role in evolution. We don't know how life began, and we don't understand all the mechanisms by which life evolved on Earth. And we most certainly are not aware of what we don't know. It is relatively easy for us to assess the extent of our knowledge, but impossible to fathom the extent of our ignorance.

An interesting perspective.

Here's the article.

A classic example is human birth weight. Newborns of intermediate size are more likely to survive than newborns that are extremely large or extremely small. In lieu of driving organisms to be bigger and faster over time, the 'Goldilocks' model — also known as stabilizing selection — favors moderation, the authors explained. But for the vast majority of organismal traits, this pattern is the exception, not the rule. "Rarely is it the case that the individuals that survive and reproduce the best are the ones in the middle," Kingsolver said.

The result is puzzling because the conventional wisdom is that most creatures are well adapted to the environments in which they live. "When we look at nature, we see all these amazing ways species are well-adapted to their lifestyles and habitats," Kingsolver said. "Yet the organisms that are bigger, faster, still do the best in terms of survival and reproduction. Why aren't they already just the right size or speed, or pretty close to it?" he asked.

The answer is largely, "I 'unno. Maybe it's…" But still, worth a read.