|
Author
|
Topic: A request for more complex system analysis
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 21. January 2006 15:00
Hello to everyone,
I guess I should introduce myself as I am new to this forum, I am a Mechanical engineer and I make designs in 3D in the course of my work and for the past 7 years I have been backing the I.D. concept and have read everything I can get my hands on to better understand the mechanics of living systems. I have been analysing many of the writings that break down a systems inner workings and with the understanding gained from that study I now realize that even though there is a high level of explanitory power involved in them there is a level of complexity that is missing.
I would like to ask those people who have the greater understanding of these systems to possibly write a paper that would better explain some of the system components of whatever they know the most about for example the eye. In most of my reading I see a very linear layout of the chain of items involved in a system but the question always arises as to how it arrives at its destination to then do its part, I also wonder if some of these items may in fact be part of a subsystem involving many parts to allow it to ultimately do its main job in the greater system.
I hope that my post is clear enough to get my point across and not offend anyone that has written so far and It is my hope that another dimension involving mechanics may be advantageous to our shared goal.
If anyone knows of papers that I may have missed that deals with this subject please point me to it.
Thanks to all that help.
KBC1963
[ 22. January 2006, 08:46: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 23. January 2006 05:51
Thankyou for replying David, It is an honor to be able to participate in this forum and though I may not be of an intellectual level of most here I do hope that my understanding of mechanics can help further the overall arguement.
This excerpt from http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_041001.htm
is roughly what I am seeking and I know that in the case of the eye we have little understanding of all that is involved but maybe there are other more simplistic systems that we may have a greater undertanding of that could be broken down mechanicallly.
"Macroevolution must be able to explain the independent development of each component that is necessary for accommodation. The lens must have a certain elasticity that allows it to change shape. It needs to be suspended in a way that allows for this action. The ciliary muscle and its nervous control must come into existence. The whole process of neuromuscular function and reflex activity must be explained on a step by step basis at the biomolecular and electrophysiological levels. None of this has been accomplished except to make optimistically broad statements about the simplicity of the task without any specifics. This may be sufficient for those who are antecedently wedded to the notion of macroevolution but falls short of what should be required of any truly scientific endeavor."
"Is Part III the level you are looking for or are you seeking the next higher level of complexity?"
This article has a very decent level of explanatory power but in the case of the eye we are wholey at a loss to see the overall interconnectivity within the organism so i'm sure it will be some time before we will see something that can even list every system connection involved, but none the less it will help.
My ultimate goal is to layout a complex system with all its interconnectivity within an organism and then show that mechanically slight changes over time are impossible because each component within a "system" is mechanically related and proportional to every other component, This makes any change within the system require that all other parts of the system be adjusted to keep system integrity.
[ 23. January 2006, 18:22: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 23. January 2006 21:00
quote:
My ultimate goal is to layout a complex system with all its interconnectivity within an organism . . .
KCB That is a very important perspective to identify and quantify. Encourage you on it.
I am working to lay out a design methodology.
Relating to your interests, I am considering and distinguishing:
1) Design or "function" and its parameters and limits
2) Genetically determined parameters
e.g. parameters of optical sensory biochemical components such as rods & cones.
retina structure and eyeflagilum.
3) Regulated Parameters
e.g., functionally critical parameters which are maintained within prescribed ranges by regulative systems with control parameters.
3.1) Parameters maintained by open loop regulation.
3.2) Parameters maintained by closed loop regulation.
4) Parameter dynamics
4.1) Fixed parameters.
4.2) Time varying regulated parameters. e.g., that vary with growth.
4.3) Time varying parameters that are regulated in prescribed ratios. e.g., Eye, lens and retina dimensions relative to focal lengths that are maintained with growth.
I believe all these will fit into straight forward design methodology. However, I think they will be a probabilistically impossible achievement by small incremental steps by evolution within Dembski's Universal Probability Bound of 10^120.
Flagellum: On systems that are "simpler" than the eye, an obvious one that is being thoroughly studied is the ID mascot flagillum. See Behe etc.
Flagellum Keiichi NAMBA Flagellum Research
NAMBA Interview
ATP Synthase: However, I would strongly recommend focusing on the much more critically important ATP synthase. i.e., Without discrete biological energy of the ATP, there are no biological processes or life. Following are a few links to ATP Synthase:
Walker on ATP Synthase
Jonathan Sarfati Design in living organisms
ATP Synthesis
Torque Application to ATP Synthase
Bergman: ATP The Perfect Energy Currency
[ 23. January 2006, 22:00: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 25. January 2006 19:48
Hi KBC
In this article:
biosynthesis Glenn McGee comments:
quote:
These scientists generate novel biological functions through the design and construction of living systems
My question is really if scientists that are into biosynthesis are really making anything radically new designs? Is it possible to make novel structures and functions from pieces designed for other specific functions? - Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 26. January 2006 01:58
Hi Chris,
You ask;
"if scientists that are into biosynthesis are really making anything radically new designs? Is it possible to make novel structures and functions from pieces designed for other specific functions?"
As an engineer I am intimate with reverse engineering principles and given enough time trying different things we can indeed do these things however our failure will be to make frankensteins long before we know enough about the entire process. I envision these new formations being apparently safe at first but then an unforseen interaction will occur and just as the africanized honey bee it will get out of hand.
I reflect back to a time when I was a great 7,8,9 year old that was a pro at taking things apart but because of ignorance I never seemed to get them functioning correctly again.
So for those of us that watch from the sidelines we have but two choices to pick from, it will either harm the enviroment around us or it will harm us directly.
What do you think Chris?
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 26. January 2006 09:24
Chris
Thought provoking question.
Reusable modules vs novel applications
From a design perspective:
1)Efficient design often explicitly makes modular components that can be configured into numerous applications. Object oriented software design particularly focuses on this.
2) Regarding novelty, one basis for patents is for novel applications of existing products.
So from design theory, both modular rearrangement and novel applications are to be expected.
KCB makes the important point that both objectives require good knowledge of the design and function before one can reliably obtain desired results without major problems.
Health problems of hydrogenation and Trans Fats
A case in point is partial hydrogenation of cheap liquid oils for food applications to achieve higher profitability. However, our bodies only make/use cis configured fats while chemical hydrogenation makes both cis and trans configurations. The consequences are:
1) a ten fold reduction in the relative availability of the essential Omega-3 fatty acid alpha-linolenic acid, and
2) The introduction of trans fat components.
This results in malnutrition and numerous errors in biological growth and function respectively.
This has been one of the largest biological experiments ever imposed on the public without knowledge or consent.
I expect that many of the diseases that have rapidly increased in the last generation will be shown to correlate with one or both of these problems. e.g. Estimates are that trans fats cause at least 30,000 premature deaths and possibly 100,0000 premature deaths per year. See:
The Oiling of America
Cholesterol and Heart Disease—A Phony Issue
Ascherio et al. Trans Fatty Acids and Coronary Heart Disease
Legislative authorities are finally requiring that trans fats to be labeled. We are now seeing a beginning of a major shift away from trans fats in the diet.
ID Vs Evolution of cis via random iterations
If this is the consequence of starting with good design and adding in randomization factors, I can't imagine the consequences of gradual changes by randomization. Frank Peretti gives some inkling in Monster
Neo-Darwinian Evolution has no step by step explanation of starting with random configurations of organic molecules and forming self reproducing living cells that use only cis fats and chiral proteins instead of raceimic systems. i.e., formation of life and macroevolution vs microevolution.
Both cis fats and chirality naturally derive from a design objective of minimizing the design information required.
[ 26. January 2006, 09:37: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic