Another IT approach to solving biological enigmas. We're starting to untangle the deep informational structure of the global genome. I can't help thinking again that these tools will also lead to AI breakthoroughs, the potential is breathtaking.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
LHC booted up
Only one sunset so far tonight so it seems the LHC start up hasn't brought about the end of the world yet.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
OOL and evolution part 2
Here’s another blogger who is arguing that our current understanding of the mechanisms behind biological evolution encompass the origin of life. To be fair, like Myers and Natzke, Mike’s main point is not to concede the OOL ground to those expounding a religious explanation.
My view, and one of the reasons that I created this blog, is that there is nothing more to be gained by arguing scientific questions with those whose intent is to bring religious ideas into scientific discussions. The existence of God is simply not a question that can be debated scientifically. To put it bluntly, no rational argument can support the pro God viewpoint. I believe it is better to discuss areas of scientific enquiry without accommodating religious viewpoints. I do not mean that non-rational ideas shouldn’t be publicly debated, and I enjoy and am a regular poster on such admirable websites as Pharyngula and Dawkins.net. However I think that by involving religious viewpoints on scientific subjects where no strong scientific consensus exists leads to distortion of the dialogue. So, to put it simply, no religion in scientific discussion, no science in church, and anything goes in the public arena.
With regard to the OOL, there are numerous alternative scientific hypotheses in play which so far appear fairly equally plausible given the current evidence, so this is clearly not a situation where science knows the answer. That’s not a bad thing! All my personal favourite areas of scientific research are these questions at the boundary of our scientific understanding. I hasten to add I’m very confident that we will one day have a convincing and widely accepted scientific explanation of OOL.
Mike makes much of the difficulty in defining life, however this is not a good argument for claiming that the OOL is unamenable to a more definite scientific explanation; after all, perhaps a strong explanation of the OOL will lead to a better definition of life.
I think that a better approach may be to see the OOL as the origin of information. Admittedly, information itself is extremely difficult to define. However so is electricity, but we still know a lot about it.
The one single quality which seems to be unarguably a property only applicable to living systems, is information (I exclude the sense in which it is used by physicists).
It is clear that information can arise from randomness, given life – this is the basis of natural selection. The question is how did the process begin? Or, what was the first message, the garbling of which gave NS something to act on? This is the question various research groups are trying to answer, there is an answer, and we will find it.
My view, and one of the reasons that I created this blog, is that there is nothing more to be gained by arguing scientific questions with those whose intent is to bring religious ideas into scientific discussions. The existence of God is simply not a question that can be debated scientifically. To put it bluntly, no rational argument can support the pro God viewpoint. I believe it is better to discuss areas of scientific enquiry without accommodating religious viewpoints. I do not mean that non-rational ideas shouldn’t be publicly debated, and I enjoy and am a regular poster on such admirable websites as Pharyngula and Dawkins.net. However I think that by involving religious viewpoints on scientific subjects where no strong scientific consensus exists leads to distortion of the dialogue. So, to put it simply, no religion in scientific discussion, no science in church, and anything goes in the public arena.
With regard to the OOL, there are numerous alternative scientific hypotheses in play which so far appear fairly equally plausible given the current evidence, so this is clearly not a situation where science knows the answer. That’s not a bad thing! All my personal favourite areas of scientific research are these questions at the boundary of our scientific understanding. I hasten to add I’m very confident that we will one day have a convincing and widely accepted scientific explanation of OOL.
Mike makes much of the difficulty in defining life, however this is not a good argument for claiming that the OOL is unamenable to a more definite scientific explanation; after all, perhaps a strong explanation of the OOL will lead to a better definition of life.
I think that a better approach may be to see the OOL as the origin of information. Admittedly, information itself is extremely difficult to define. However so is electricity, but we still know a lot about it.
The one single quality which seems to be unarguably a property only applicable to living systems, is information (I exclude the sense in which it is used by physicists).
It is clear that information can arise from randomness, given life – this is the basis of natural selection. The question is how did the process begin? Or, what was the first message, the garbling of which gave NS something to act on? This is the question various research groups are trying to answer, there is an answer, and we will find it.
cell signalling breakthroughs in the ancient world
I favour the viewpoint that life is best thought of as a phenomenon that incorporates the flow of energy and the flow of information. I suspect that significant key breakthroughs in biological evolution are tied to the appearance of new mechanisms that markedly increase the flow of information (whether genomic or other), thanks to the bootstrapping of natural selection. One of these breakthroughs is undeniably the appearance of multicellular life forms, so it is interesting to note that genomic sequencing of choanoflagellates, the organisms suspected by many to be a link between proto and metazoans shows they have more and better cell signalling proteins than other micro-organisms.
In fact they seem to have a wider repertoire of signalling proteins than anything else, the question is: why? “we don’t have a clue” stated one of the researchers, with refreshing honesty.
Sounds like the start of some great research.
In fact they seem to have a wider repertoire of signalling proteins than anything else, the question is: why? “we don’t have a clue” stated one of the researchers, with refreshing honesty.
Sounds like the start of some great research.
Hadean life
Pinpointing when in earths history life began has been a big challenge for science. Naturally the further back you go, the scarcer the evidence becomes. At the moment the general agreement is that microfossils found in ancient rocks, together with other clues, like the banded iron formations, are proof of that life was established here on earth by around 3.5 billion years ago, but more equivocal evidence has suggested that the beginning may be yet earlier. However it is usually thought that the late heavy bombardment that tails off around 3.8 billion years ago imposes a limit on the antiquity of life’s origin. Interesting then, that recent research on to isotopic carbon ratios in ancient Australian rocks indicates that some kind of biological process may have been at work up to 4.25 billion tears ago. Living organisms concentrate the lighter isotope of carbon, and we aren’t aware of any other natural processes that do this to any significant extent, so the presence of high levels of C12 in the carbon inclusions found in these ancient zircon deposits is curious to say the least.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Origin debate on Pharyngula
Discussion currently at Pharyngula where PZ Myers complains about those who "get out of trying to answer the question of where life came from by simply saying that that isn't evolution."
His view? It is. I disagree: we have agood understanding now of how the mechanisms whereby biological evolution works. I don't think the same can be aid of abiogenesis/OOL. Thats what makes it so fun to conjecture about.
His view? It is. I disagree: we have agood understanding now of how the mechanisms whereby biological evolution works. I don't think the same can be aid of abiogenesis/OOL. Thats what makes it so fun to conjecture about.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
