Systems Biology and The Rabbit
by chunkdz 
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"
March 27th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Here is a short video that illustrates how the cell uses the instructions encoded in DNA to manufacture a particular protein. To do so a specialized protein machine has to unzip a particular section of DNA so that can be transcribed by creating a messenger RNA, which is then transported through a gate in the wall of the cell nucleus to a ribosome which then uses the encoded instructions from the messenger RNA to manufacture a specific protein that is needed by the cell… which is then folded by another specialized molecular machine into the correct shape. Finally the newly manufactured protein is shepherded by still another specialized molecular machine to where is needed in the cell.
None of what I just described is teleological? There is no plan or purpose behind this process, yet it just happens repeatedly this way (like it was planned) in living cells trillions upon trillions of times in the in the life time of advanced organisms like ducks, rabbits and humans? (Talk about shit happening!)
If it’s not teleological, then is the transport of messenger RNA from point A (the cells DNA) to point B (the ribosome) just an illusion? Doesn't point B represent a telos or, in plain English, a goal? It certainly appears to be a goal directed process to me. If it is teleological process and evolution is a non-teleological process how does an non teleological process evolve into a teleological one? Inquiring minds want to know.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 27, 2011 @ 3:27 pm
March 27th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Did it occur to anyone that cognitive illusions (of which the Duck-Rabbit is one example) are carefully created artifacts?
Comment by olegt — March 27, 2011 @ 8:50 pm
March 28th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Gentlemen, the point is not whether a given system is actually purposeful, or whether the 'duck-rabbit' actually was purposefully designed.
The point is that using teleology as a working assumption appears to be a very fruitful approach.
In other words:
ID is producing results in the lab.
Comment by chunkdz — March 28, 2011 @ 12:20 pm
March 29th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Design like information is subjectively delineated. When we say a disk has 1MB of information, this "measurement" does not proceed via first principles of physics or chemistry, it is subjectively reconginzed. Despite the subjectivity, there are few engineers who will say that the subjectivism invalidates the the scientific concept of information (as in reduction of uncertainty) measurement on the disk. If this were not the case we would not be able to estimate how much information a given disk can store.
In like manner, identifying design entails matching the artifact with pre-conceived patters that we call designed patterns (examples are the pattern of a "decoder", a "logic gate", etc.). But these patterns only make sense in a rabbit-centric (engineering) world, they do not proceed from first prinicples in chemistry or physics, nor can they, ever. The subjective transcendence from physics and chemistry is an essential feature of what distinguishes engineering designs from mere collections of atoms.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 29, 2011 @ 6:07 pm
April 2nd, 2011 at 12:38 pm
No.
The reason purpose is ignored has more to do with materialist/mechanistic philosophy than it does with science.
An illustration:
An automobile can be described in purely mechanical terms – with no reference to purpose – but that would leave you with an incomplete picture of why the various systems do what they do.
A wholistic approach would require analyzing what the engineers were thinking when they designed the systems.
Biology is the same. Scientists try to explain why biological systems do what they do by analyzing the mechanical workings alone. That won't do. They must get to the intent of the system.
The problem is; Science abandoned "intent" when it replaced the Aristotelian view of the world with a materialist one. Such things as "purpose" (the Aristotelian "final cause") were thought to be "unscientific". Now we're left with an incomplete picture.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 2, 2011 @ 12:38 pm