Re: [asa] Molecular Biology and Design

Bernie,

I truly didn't mean to misquote you or take you out of context. So if I did
I apologize.

Second, you said:

"There really is no compartment of engineering and another of biology.
Engineering invades everything, just like computer programming. "

I totally agree. But you should really sit in on your local state science
standards hearings and listen to the drivel that comes out of the mouths of
otherwise respectable members of the ACS (American Chemical Society). They
will tell the policy makers that engineers aren't qualified to speak on
biology and thus cannot provide valid expert testimony. And therefore the
expert testimony must be set aside.

And the policy makers, not knowing any better, will believe them. And act
accordingly. I am only one of the ASA members who were eyewitnesses at the
last round of my state's hearings, which take place every five years.

Another interesting aspect is to look at the email exchanged between
members of the state science standards committee during the period they
were in session. A great deal of the chatter consisted of attacks on
individuals based on perceptions of that person's religion. If a person,
whether witness or member, was deemed to be of the wrong religion they were
attacked or dismissed, or horrible things were said about them. And this
formed the basis for decisions about science.

The problem I have with this is both state statute and federal law require
these types of proceedings to be secular, neutral, and non-ideological. And
I do not understand how a government body can meet those requirements by
focusing on the unacceptability of someone's religion.

So Bernie, we are both twice-fold second class citizens. 1) We both belong
to the ASA. (Wrong religion). 2) We are both engineers. (wrong profession).

To me, this is a civil rights issue. The system needs reform. It needs to
be televised. And committee emails and notes need to be made available on
the web. And the serial meetings laws, which prohibit private meetings from
taking place on the side, whether by a series of phone calls or emails,
needs to be expanded and have teeth put in it.

Best Regards,
Dave C

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> David C. said:
> "Bernie has a very valid question. But as far as I know, and I get this
> from my biochem books, molecular biology is based quite a bit on
> probability calculations. "
>
>
>
> That's a lot different. In the case of my question, I'm saying probability
> and statistics is not important when dealing with cosmological infinity.
> For example, if the probability is 1 in billion, what does that matter when
> dealing with infinity? You could still have infinite occurrences. A low
> probability means absolutely nothing when dealing with infinity.
>
>
>
> However, in molecular biology, you aren't dealing with infinities, but with
> gene mutations (some assumptions based in accordance with some data) over a
> finite time.
>
>
>
> Nucacids said:
> "And molecular biology was institutionalized when *scientists imported
> engineering concepts into biology*."
>
>
>
> Also, as far as engineering invading biology- that's sounds like
> compartmentalist thinking. There really is no compartment of engineering
> and another of biology. Engineering invades everything, just like computer
> programming. It is more a matter of increasing knowledge overlapping many
> fields of study. Engineering is really just applied science.
>
>
>
> When did this happen? "*scientists imported engineering concepts into
> biology"*
>
>
>
> I see it just as a maturing of science. It happened as soon as the
> knowledge was available. Until the knowledge was available, it didn't
> happen. Some day people will be able to design their own organisms by
> directly manipulating dna code on a computer and simulating the life-form
> before it is even real (like we do with computer chip designs today-
> simulating products and testing them before they are even built). This is
> not a matter of waiting for the day for software engineers and biochemists
> to do it- is a matter of getting the information to do such a thing. So I
> don't think it is a case of scientists saying "Hey, we should import some
> engineering concepts into biology." It just happens naturally as the data
> is available. We probably all agree to that, so sorry for going on-and-on…
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *David Clounch
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:18 PM
> *To:* Nucacids
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Molecular Biology and Design
>
>
>
> Mike,
> I wasn't questioning your statements. Just asking (sort of
> tongue-in-cheek) for clarification wherever it may be available.
>
> You see, when I am in a state science standards committee, and someone
> stands up and says that another person's testimony is invalid and must be
> ignored because that person is "only an engineer" then I think the process
> of government is being gerrymandered.
> Nevermind that the critic herself has a degree, not in science, but in
> "science education", and the subject of the criticism [the alleged
> engineer] has published over 300 scientific papers and is a polymer chemist
> who gives his grad students assignments on polymer formation as part of a
> hypothetical abiogenesis process on a hypothetical primitive earth.
>
> So, my guess is its very relevant to public policy whether engineers do
> or don't have something to valid to say in their fields of expertise.
>
> Also, please let me quote from another thread:
>
> Bernie replied: > Why is that important, when you have universes
>
> constantly popping into existence, the vast majority of them being
> non-viable? If this has been going on forever (new universes
> constantly being produced), why is probability important or even
> considered? If you get a fraction of universes viable from an almost
> infinite set, that's a lot of universes!<
>
>
> Bernie has a very valid question. But as far as I know, and I get this from
> my biochem books, molecular biology is based quite a bit on probability
> calculations.
>
> One book discusses why we think, for example, that two organism are
> related based on coding for producing a certain protein sequence. Some
> sequences are so unlikely to have arisen in two places independently that
> scientists assume there was only one origin, but that 60 million years later
> the coding was inherited by two otherwise unrelated lineages that we now
> know were descended from that common organism. Thus they look for common
> descent. And that is quite reasonable. Its one of the main reasons to
> believe in common descent (and to believe in evolution). But if probability
> is an insufficent basis for the assumption (because an infinite number of
> trials produces an infinite sample set) there is no reason to believe in the
> connection between the organisms.
>
> So, I agree, the molecular clock idea is kind of important to the
> science.
>
> Now, to be fair to Bernie (or anyone), the sample set within one universe
> is not the same as all the samples in all the universes, unless one
> evalulates the partition functions. One needs to look at the Boltzmann
> factor for an infinite set of universes that contains various distributions
> of universes that contain life. I don't know how to do that. BUT someone
> who wants to draw a conclusion about the worthlessness of the probabilities
> had best do the calculations on a model with a set of proposed ensembles.
> I think that needs to be done formally.
>
> Meanwhile we have probability in our one known universe. Molecular biology
> works here - and the question is whether probabilistic concepts work here.
> I think they certainly do.
>
> Best Regards,
> David Clounch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Nucacids <nucacids@wowway.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
>
>
> You ask, "Are you saying that chemical engineers (and polymer chemists)
> actually have something to say about biology?"
>
>
>
> I don't know enough about chemical engineers or polymer chemists to say.
> But I am saying what I said.
>
>
>
> 1. Biology is one of the most rapidly advancing sciences right now largely
> because of molecular biology.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure anyone can deny this.
>
>
>
> 2. And molecular biology was institutionalized when scientists imported
> engineering concepts into biology.
>
>
>
> This seems solid to me. I illustrated this in two ways. First, I conveyed
> how a mainstream molecular biologist would describe protein synthesis.
> Second, I quoted from Lewontin, who noted that some of the most pivotal
> experiments/papers in the history of molecular biology "would have been
> conceptually impossible without the metaphor of the code."
>
>
>
> 3. I also noted that molecular biology, with its embedded engineering
> concepts, has been transforming our understanding of developmental biology
> and evolution in ways that are very friendly to front-loading.
>
>
>
> -Mike
>
> Biology is one of the most rapidly advancing sciences right now largely
> because of molecular biology. And molecular biology was institutionalized
> when scientists imported engineering concepts into biology.
>
>
>
> See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/molecular-biology/
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Are you saying that chemical engineers (and polymer chemists) actually have
> something to say about biology?
>
> -Dave
>
> PS.
> There's a related article mentioned:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-mani/
>
> I think one could start reading this stanford site and not come up for air
> for a long long time.
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jan 1 16:16:55 2009