Do you want to learn about the human metabolism in a hurry? It's easy: Go here and memorize the figure.
(With apologies to Monty Python and a hat tip to Andrew Rowell.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
January 26th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Well, THAT's certainly easy enough! Now I understand why so many DarwinDefenders keep saying "it's just basic biochemistry" whenever some ID supporter suggests things are so complex they might be designed…
btw, my eyesight isn't what it used to be. Can anybody see what particular pathways are described there in the middle of the chart with such perfectly lovely spirals and circles? Thanks!
Comment by Joy — January 26, 2006 @ 11:01 am
January 26th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Hi Joy,
Click on a section of the figure to have it enlarged.
Comment by Krauze — January 26, 2006 @ 11:10 am
January 26th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Too bad the poster is no longer available.
Comment by David — January 26, 2006 @ 11:43 am
January 26th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
These pathways are just what Darwinism predicted. If you think its designed, than show me the signature of the designer in the lower right-hand corner
Comment by inunison — January 26, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
"Darwinism" predicted? What did Darwin know of metabolic pathways?
btw, the spirals are for fatty acid synthesis and oxidation. Which actually makes a lot of sense if you've ever tried to keep up with the latest pronouncements about which fatty acids are 'good' or 'bad' for your health, or have ever been on the weight gain/loss merry-go-round. So when your doctor tells you your weight (or cholesterol level) is "spiraling out of control," you'll know precisely what s/he means!
Comment by Joy — January 26, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
The big circle in FG-56 is the citric acid cycle, aka the Krebs cycle. That makes sense because… citrus fruits are round?
Comment by Krauze — January 26, 2006 @ 1:25 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
By Jove, I think you've got it Krauze! See how easy that is? Why, one might be tempted to say this 'pathway phrenology' is just the sort of prediction about cellular processes that "Darwinism" has been so successful with for the past century and a half… the charted 'shape' of the pathway indicates precisely what it is and does!
Now all we need to do is figure out where the cheese is hiding in the several lovely mazes, since the variety of cheese is just bound to tell us everything we need to know about what the pathway does for us lab rats in real life. I haven't isolated the Swiss or the Brie yet, but the Limburger is (as always) pretty obvious…
…I think we're onto something here. You want to inform the NRC, or should I?
Comment by Joy — January 26, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
I'm afraid to spoil this party, but someone needs to mention that the vast majority of this poster (maybe 90%, maybe more, off the top of my head) reduces to a mere handful of chemical reactions (adding and removing water, redox, reactions that use cofactors aka vitamins, etc., etc….). That's what makes biochemistry so easy, and why a committee can in good conscience ask a student in an oral exam to derive a biochemical pathway leading from one hypothetical compound to another.
A good exercise is to peruse the chart for reactions that are absolutely unique - involving a general chemistry not found anywhere else on the chart.
Comment by Art — January 26, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Ohh, thats so complex, I can't make heads or tails out of it! It must be designed!
Comment by Aagcobb — January 26, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
No need to worry, you didn't spoil the party.
Because it's the information conducting the process that is still amazing.
These aren't a large group of isolated processes either. The interconnectedness and feedback loops still drive the point home.
Also, why did you get the notion that Krauze was doing anything more than just showing what the pathways were? I read his initial post and his responses a few times, I didn't see where he was drawing any inferences inregards to design or not-design.
And Joy's comment was directed to inunison's comment about Darwinism predicting this 'set-up'. Do you disagree with Joy's comment? If so, please support it with information as to where this arrangment was predicted.
Thanks.
Comment by Doug — January 26, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Aagcobb, in all the time you've been debating this topics that's the best sarcastic criticism you could come up with?
Like the notions of design live or die on whether one can't make 'heads or tails' of a particular situation. One could easily make 'heads or tails' of something and still advance the idea of design.
Comment by Doug — January 26, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Pssst… Doug, they have no sense of humor. This is explained by the "flatness" of the steroidal/hormonal pathways you can follow on the 10 level, F-forward.
I'd tell you what my dear departed friend Mr. Bill (Boss Clown at Ringling for many years) used to say about people who can't take a joke - which is actually quite 'in line' with the flat shape of these particular metabolic pathways - but I don't wish to cause detrimental effect to my standing as a civil contributor to this forum.
Comment by Joy — January 26, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Sorry my humor fell flat, Doug; I lack both the time and the talent of Jonathan Swift to craft a truly wicked sarcastic response. And my response was to Joy's first comment, Now I understand why so many DarwinDefenders keep saying "it's just basic biochemistry" whenever some ID supporter suggests things are so complex they might be designed"¦
Comment by Aagcobb — January 26, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
January 26th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Doug is right; if I thought that the complexity of metabolic pathways was evidence of intelligent design, I would have included my post in that category. In fact, I was impressed by the level of detail of that map - most maps concentrate on the major pathways - and I saw a chance to make a reference to an old Monty Python sketch. That's it.
Comment by Krauze — January 26, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
January 27th, 2006 at 12:13 am
Dang it Krauze, I wish you'd told me you were going to make this post. I would've been the first to respond, with something like:
Comment by Deuce — January 27, 2006 @ 12:13 am
January 27th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Of course, the purpose of such schematics is to simplify by hiding the details. So if you think it looks complex you ain't seen nuttin'.
Comment by Rock — January 27, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
January 27th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Ssshhhh! Rock, you're not supposed to know that. Art's likely to take it seriously…
Comment by Joy — January 27, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
January 27th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
What is 'DarwinDefener' supposed to mean? Is that some sort of insult or something?
That chart is actually pretty old - I used to have a copy on my wall at home. And it always made me shrink in awe at the incredible complexity if Life.
I just knew because of this that life was the product of Intelligence. I mean, can there be any other explanation for something so darn complicated?
Comment by derwood — January 27, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
January 27th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
I think she wrote DarwinDefender, and you meant complexity of life.
Comment by Guts — January 27, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
January 27th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
"I just knew because of this that life was the product of Intelligence. I mean, can there be any other explanation for something so darn complicated?"
We just went over this. Is "DarwinDefender" the only thing you noticed? Where did Krauze or Joy make ANY comment at all about it being so complicated it must have been designed? You don't even know what you're attacking.
And by DarwinDefender, maybe she was refering to those who are so blinded by their philosophical assumptions that they'll attack the idea of design even when that is NOT the issue at hand. Or those who make assumptions about the intent of the original article even when it has nothing to do with what the attacker is attacking. Kind of like what you seem to be doing.
Comment by Doug — January 27, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Talk about knee-jerk reactions. Apparently, your desire to find Purpose in everything has blinded you to simple sarcasm.
Or, maybe she was just using it as a perjorative?
Kind of like you are?
Projection is not always a good quality to be in possession of, Douglas.
But the institutionalied denigration of those that you are philosophically opposed to seems to be a weakness in your position.
DarwinDefender, Scientiste, etc.
Perjorative monikers employed by many internet IDists and tolerated by those that do not use them themselves. Perhaps soon you will want us to wear emblems on our clothing, too?
Comment by derwood — January 30, 2006 @ 11:58 am
January 30th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Great catches (searches for a 'rolleye' emoticon).
Comment by derwood — January 30, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Derwood, I have used the term "DarwinDefender" for at least a couple of years because it's specific, and can be shortened to "DD" so it's as easily typed as "ID." When one becomes aware that many internet pseuds who spend their time defending Darwinism/ Neodarwinism are not scientists despite their claims to 'speak for science' and despite pretenses to the contrary, a generalized term seems quite appropriate to me.
Can you explain why you take offense at the term?
Comment by Joy — January 30, 2006 @ 12:28 pm