Research on Intelligent Design

To put together scientific advances from the perspective of Intelligent Design.

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Design principles of a bacterial signalling network

Nature 438, 504-507 (24 Nov. 2005)
Markus Kollmann, Linda Løvdok, Kilian Bartholomé, Jens Timmer and Victor Sourjik

From the Abstract:
"Cellular biochemical networks have to function in a noisy environment using imperfect components. In particular, networks involved in gene regulation or signal transduction allow only for small output tolerances, and the underlying network structures can be expected to have undergone evolution for inherent robustness against perturbations. Here we combine theoretical and experimental analyses to investigate an optimal design for the signalling network of bacterial chemotaxis, one of the most thoroughly studied signalling networks in biology".

"Moreover, the underlying topological design principles compensating for intercellular variations seem to be universal among all known or predicted bacterial chemosensory systems."

[bipod wrote: "The “evolution of robustness against perturbations” is a worthy research project, don’t ya think".]

In that same link [bipod's] we can read the next comments:

"... a “gene net” [is] a gathering, a grouping of a network of gene actions and their products into discrete units during the course of development. ... The gene nets must become isolated from one another and proceed independently. It is not total independence; they still must keep in touch with one another, for this is the way pattern formation is achieved. But the signals between them are likely to be few and quite specific. ... (An interesting aside: It has been pointed out to me [to Krauze] by my former colleague Jon Seger that a properly structured “modular” computer program is put together in a way that is analogous to the gene nets postulated here.)”

Krauze's Reference:
John Tyler Bonner, The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural Selection (Princeton University Press, 1988), pp. 174-5.

AdR commented:

"That sounds much like ‘design-by-contract’.

"So studying the underlying design, one can deduct the gene organization."

"...gene nets show a striking similarity to the design patterns that software architects would use. The best (and scientific) approach would then be that you start modelling the gene nets on software methodologies... That’s more than neodarwinism ever dreamed of."

"The question in this stage is whether it is a coincidence that the gene nets show similarities with design patterns. I’d say it is not, because the design patterns just define ‘best practices’ for the architecture of complex systems."


Blogger Tover van Ooteldonk said...

I was intrigued by your blog on intelligent design. But frankly I am puzzled. I cannot connect the dots. I do not understand how your posting on crayfish, for example, proves anything about intelligent design or the existance of an intelligent designer. What you have proved is that scientists make new discoveries that upset old ideas. But we know that already. That's called scientific progress.

Since we both are interested in intelligent design, I invite you to visit my blog and read my essay on the subject. It is too long to post as a comment here.


Monday, November 28, 2005 6:19:00 PM  
Blogger fdocc said...

Yes, The Crayfish Variation was posted here by me on Fri. Oct. 28, 2005. Being that work an extention of the concept of Intelligent Design to Generate Biodiversity posted at ISCID the 15 of Jan. of 2005.

So, I post for all those students really willing to learn the benefits of ID; repeating some of the 'ID-biodiversity' objectives :

1. To identify organisms that as products of ID are able to interbreed producing fertile offspring.

2. Based on such ID found in nature and in living organisms, we can produce new biodiversity by reverse engineering of those ID original products.

3. To demonstrate that, as original ID products, the boundaries of genetic compatibility surrounding similar organisms are a robust reality.

Remember that Jonathan Wells and his research demonstrates the usefulness of an ID directed reverse engineering applied to nature . J. Wells wrote:

"...ID could function as a "metatheory," providing a conceptual framework for scientific research. By suggesting testable hypotheses about features of the world that have been systematically neglected by older metatheories (such as Darwin's), and by leading to the discovery of new features..."

Mendelian Bioengineering has been systematically neglected by Darwinism and ID can lead us to the production of new biological varieties as well as to our molecular understanding of their pre-established natural boundaries.

So, Mendelian Bioengineering fits under the perspectives and the framework of Intelligent Design, repudiating a Darwinian evolution.

Finally, I want to ask to you: Is this research project based on ID a "scientific malarkey"? Does these objectives have or have not "any legs to stand on"? [in "quote marks" the previous commenter's own words.]

I welcome any consistent objection or scientific reference related to it!

Fernando Castro-Chavez.


My next posting on the subject will be related to the finches. Are they properly and logically understood by the current Darwinian domination of Science or not? I will present my ID evidence on them vs. Darwinism, as well as the usefulness of this new ID paradigm to produce new biodiversity.

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:15:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home