Top-Down Analysis of Temporal Hierarchy in Biochemical Reaction Networks is authored by Neema Jamshidi and Bernhard Ø. Palsson and appears in PLOS Computational Biology. The paper discusses the development of top-down investigative approaches; the objective being the development of "a “systems” understanding of how networks operate dynamically." The abstract:
Thought Provoker mentioned EAM while talking about FLE in another thread.
Alan Fox requested answers from an EAM point of view to determine if it is just another variation of FLE. As the only resident EAMer, I described it here and expanded here.
That thread has more than 100 comments, meaning I won't be able to keep following if that discussion wants to go anywhere. So this thread will serve that purpose if anyone's got anything they want to discuss about Endogenous Adaptive Mutation.
Politics isn't a focus of this forum, and participants here cover the spectrum of political views and policy leanings. This is not a thread about politics, please don't use it as one.
That out of the way, I'd like to post a few excerpts from a review of progressive activist Markos Moulitsas' new book Taking On the System, because his words have broader social application.
Discussion on the lengthy Remarkable Nucleotides thread has become unwieldy, as well as not much about remarkable nucleotides anymore. This thread serves for continuing sidelines off-topic there - OoL and ET scenarios primarily, as well as physical diversions.
Yep. That's the headline. Whole thing reads…
Biology Enters 'The Matrix' Through New Computer Language
Bradford posted about a Protein Folding Game, where scientists are hoping humans turn out to be more efficient than computer modeling programs have been at functional folding. This article is about a new computer language that can mimic the 'mind' of a cell.
Yep. You read that right. Enter "Little b," working off an AI programming language called LISP…
A few years ago I worked as tech support for an internet provider. After being there for a year and a half's worth of steady paychecks, I was suddenly informed by HR that they could no longer write my checks out to the name on my bank account because my SS card had a different name first.
I argued that the middle name on that SS card is the name on my bank account as well as the name on my birth certificate and I can use any of the names I've got if I so choose. They told me I'd have to take time off work - unpaid - to go sit at the SS office all day to get the names switched around to suit their new policy, supposedly imposed by Homeland Security. Being not very tolerant of pointless corporate/governmental stupidity, I told 'em to shove their silly policy on which of my legal names I can choose to have on my paycheck - they didn't pay me enough for that sort of garbage.
What does name-changing have to do with these debates? Well, we've seen quite a few critics recently who want to know why it is that TTers who aren't part of the DI and aren't 'Creo-bots' would still call what they're talking about "Intelligent Design." And their questions have been repeatedly answered by pointing out that it wouldn't do us any good to change the name of the approach to biology and evolution, because these very same critics - as well as hoards of others - would still claim we're part of the DI, support "The Wedge" and *are* Creo-bots. What would be the point?
Read the rest of this entry »
Is human intelligence a model for detecting intelligent design? If it is do we infer from the model based on human behavior and is there any way of detecting design, be it of human origin or other, without detecting the designer and observing designer behavior? Here's one view on the designer-centric approach:
The designer-centric approach not only gives up on the question of detecting design, but also gives up on trying to accurately reconstruct our past. There can be no evidence for design and there can be no evidence against design. Design would be forever hidden away firmly in our collective intellectual blind spot. The designer-centric position is thus fundamentally agnostic about ID.
There were a couple of very interesting research news reports this week coming in from the fields. Turns out that biological scientists are beginning to understand why their simplistic model of evolution [a.k.a. Neodarwinian Synthesis] can't account for the empirically obvious differences between human beings and our closest relatives. They've been looking at things the wrong way, guided by that simplistic model.
First up is the report that Ancient Retroviruses Spurred Evolution of Gene Regulatory Networks. About the estimated 8% of the human genome that consists of primate-specific retroviral DNA insertions.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Approaches category.
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
