Biology Genetics Genomics Intelligent Design Physics

Is biology “hiding its deepest mysteries”?

Spread the love

Some quantitative biologists say they have uncovered a common mechanism regulating gene expression during development:

“From these studies, we are learning rules for how genes can be made more or less noisy,” Carthew said. “Sometimes cells want to harness the genetic noise — the level of variation in gene expression — to make randomized decisions. Other times cells want to suppress the noise because it makes cells too variable for the good of the organism. Intrinsic features of a gene can imbue them with more or less noise.”

While engineers are excited by the ability to control and manipulate biological systems, Mani said, more fundamental knowledge needs to be discovered.

“We only know the tip of the iceberg,” Mani said. “We are far from a time when basic science is considered complete and all that is left is engineering and design. The natural world is still hiding its deepest mysteries.”

Northwestern University, “Toward principles of gene regulation in multicellular systems?” at ScienceDaily

Paper. (open access)

Physics was “hiding its deepest mysteries” thousands of years ago too before anyone uncovered laws for how it works. There are still mysteries in physics, of course, but they are now more basic. The laws are now known. Let’s hope the same proves true for biology.

15 Replies to “Is biology “hiding its deepest mysteries”?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    The statement “We have always underestimated cells” is still as true today as it was when Bruce Alberts first stated it back in 1998:

    In 1998, Bruce Alberts, who was a two time president of the National Academy of Sciences, stated that “We have always underestimated cells.”,,, “But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s.”,,, “instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules.”

    “We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. But at least we are no longer as naïve as we were when I was a graduate student in the 1960s. Then, most of us viewed cells as containing a giant set of second-order reactions: molecules A and B were thought to diffuse freely, randomly colliding with each other to produce molecule AB — and likewise for the many other molecules that interact with each other inside a cell. This seemed reasonable because, as we had learned from studying physical chemistry, motions at the scale of molecules are incredibly rapid. Consider an enzyme, for example. If its substrate molecule is present at a concentration of 0.5mM,which is only one substrate molecule for every 105 water molecules, the enzyme’s active site will randomly collide with about 500,000 molecules of substrate per second. And a typical globular protein will be spinning to and fro, turning about various axes at rates corresponding to a million rotations per second.
    But, as it turns out, we can walk and we can talk because the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered. Proteins make up most of the dry mass of a cell. But instead of a cell dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules, we now know that nearly every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of 10 or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”
    – Bruce Alberts, “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists,” Cell, 92 (February 6, 1998): 291-294)
    Editor-in-Chief of Science (2009-2013). Dr Alberts served two six-year terms as the president of the National Academy of Sciences

    And even though Dr. Alberts wrote that article 22 years ago in 1998, Darwinists, because of the ‘randomness’ presupposition held within their reductive materialistic framework, are still very much reluctant to let go of their belief that the cell is “dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules”.

    For a prime example of this fact, in 2013, Harvard BioVisions made a video entitled ‘Inner Life of the Cell: Protein Packing’. In the 2013 video, as you can see, Harvard Biovisions tried to make the inner workings of the cell look as random, chaotic, and haphazard as possible.

    Inner Life of a Cell | Protein Packing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeTQLNFTgU

    In fact, in 2014 New York Times itself ran an article on the ‘Protein Packing’ video. In the article Carl Zimmer stated that ‘the molecules of the cell ‘flail blindly in the crowd.” And that “Our cells work almost in spite of themselves.’

    Watch Proteins Do the Jitterbug – Carl Zimmer – APRIL 10, 2014
    Excerpt: In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it’s as if they’re trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don’t operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd. Our cells work almost in spite of themselves.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/science/watch-proteins-do-the-jitterbug.html

    Thus, even though Bruce Alberts himself. all the way back in 1998, had largely dispelled the myth that the cell was “dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules”, none-the-less, Darwinists as late as 2014, motivated primarily by their bias against Intelligent Design, were still widely disseminating the false claim that the cell was “dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules”.
    Yet, regardless of their overt bias against anyone daring to see Intelligent Design in the cell, the fact of the matter is that we now have several lines of evidence firmly establishing the fact that the cell is not nearly as random, chaotic, and haphazard in its makeup as Darwinists would prefer people to believe

    For instance, in the following article from 2014, Dr Jonathan Wells takes direct issue with Carl Zimmer’s claim that biological molecules are ‘flailing blindly in the crowd’ and states,, But that’s not what the biological evidence shows. In fact, kinesin moves quickly, with precise movements, to get from one place to another,,,

    Flailing Blindly: The Pseudoscience of Josh Rosenau and Carl Zimmer – Jonathan Wells – April 17, 2014
    Excerpt: The new animation (like the old) also includes a kinesin molecule hauling a vesicle, but this time the kinesin’s movements are characterized (in Zimmer’s words) by
    “barely constrained randomness. Every now and then, a tiny molecule loaded with fuel binds to one of the kinesin “feet.” It delivers a jolt of energy, causing that foot to leap off the molecular cable and flail wildly, pulling hard on the foot that’s still anchored. Eventually, the gyrating foot stumbles into contact again with the cable, locking on once more — and advancing the vesicle a tiny step forward. This updated movie offers a better way to picture our most intricate inner workings…. In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it’s as if they’re trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don’t operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd.”
    But that’s not what the biological evidence shows. In fact, kinesin moves quickly, with precise movements, to get from one place to another. A kinesin molecule takes one 8-nanometer “step” along a microtubule for every high-energy ATP molecule it uses, and it uses about 80 ATPs per second. On the scale of a living cell, this movement is very fast. To visualize it on a macroscopic scale, imagine a microtubule as a one-lane road and the kinesin molecule as an automobile. The kinesin would be traveling over 200 miles per hour!
    https://iconsofevolution.com/flailing-blindly/

    Moreover, in the following 2016 paper, it was found that “crowding in cells doesn’t hamper protein binding as much as they thought it did.” In fact, finding a lack of ‘collisions’ in the crowded cell was a ‘counterintuitive surprise’ for the researchers: Specifically one of the researchers stated: “This was a surprise,” “It’s counterintuitive, because one would think collisions between a protein and other molecules on DNA would slow it down. But the system is so dynamic, it doesn’t appear to be an issue.”

    Proteins put up with the roar of the crowd – June 23, 2016
    Excerpt: It gets mighty crowded around your DNA, but don’t worry: According to Rice University researchers, your proteins are nimble enough to find what they need.
    Rice theoretical scientists studying the mechanisms of protein-DNA interactions in live cells showed that crowding in cells doesn’t hamper protein binding as much as they thought it did.,,,
    If DNA can be likened to a library, it surely is a busy one. Molecules roam everywhere, floating in the cytoplasm and sticking to the tightly wound double helix. “People know that almost 90 percent of DNA is covered with proteins, such as polymerases, nucleosomes that compact two meters into one micron, and other protein molecules,” Kolomeisky said.,,,
    That makes it seem that proteins sliding along the strand would have a tough time binding, and it’s possible they sometimes get blocked. But the Rice team’s theory and simulations indicated that crowding agents usually move just as rapidly, sprinting out of the way.
    “If they move at the same speed, the molecules don’t bother each other,” Kolomeisky said. “Even if they’re covering a region, the blockers move away quickly so your protein can bind.”
    In previous research, the team determined that stationary obstacles sometimes help quicken a protein’s search for its target by limiting options. This time, the researchers sought to define how crowding both along DNA and in the cytoplasm influenced the process.
    “We may think everything’s fixed and frozen in cells, but it’s not,” Kolomeisky said. “Everything is moving.”,,,
    Floating proteins appear to find their targets quickly as well. “This was a surprise,” he said. “It’s counterintuitive, because one would think collisions between a protein and other molecules on DNA would slow it down. But the system is so dynamic, it doesn’t appear to be an issue.”
    – per physorg

    Moreover, instead of proteins randomly colliding into each other, as the Harvard Biovisions video falsely portrayed them, proteins instead are found to be “analogous to the way wine glasses tremble”,,, “If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave,”

    Symphony of Life, Revealed: New Imaging Technique Captures Vibrations of Proteins, Tiny Motions Critical to Human Life – Jan. 16, 2014
    Excerpt: To observe the protein vibrations, Markelz’ team relied on an interesting characteristic of proteins: The fact that they vibrate at the same frequency as the light they absorb.
    This is analogous to the way wine glasses tremble and shatter when a singer hits exactly the right note. Markelz explained: Wine glasses vibrate because they are absorbing the energy of sound waves, and the shape of a glass determines what pitches of sound it can absorb. Similarly, proteins with different structures will absorb and vibrate in response to light of different frequencies.
    So, to study vibrations in lysozyme, Markelz and her colleagues exposed a sample to light of different frequencies and polarizations, and measured the types of light the protein absorbed.
    This technique, , allowed the team to identify which sections of the protein vibrated under normal biological conditions. The researchers were also able to see that the vibrations endured over time, challenging existing assumptions.
    “If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave,” Markelz said. “Many scientists have previously thought a protein is more like a wet sponge than a bell: If you tap on a wet sponge, you don’t get any sustained sound.”
    per sciencedaily

    In fact, instead of a biological systems being “dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules”, the fact of the matter is that biological systems are now shown to be extremely resistant to random background noise. As the following article on photosynthesis stated, ‘These biological systems can direct a quantum process,,, in astoundingly subtle and controlled ways – showing remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments.’

    Unlocking nature’s quantum engineering for efficient solar energy – January 7, 2013
    Excerpt: Certain biological systems living in low light environments have unique protein structures for photosynthesis that use quantum dynamics to convert 100% of absorbed light into electrical charge,,,
    “Some of the key issues in current solar cell technologies appear to have been elegantly and rigorously solved by the molecular architecture of these PPCs – namely the rapid, lossless transfer of excitons to reaction centres.”,,,
    These biological systems can direct a quantum process, in this case energy transport, in astoundingly subtle and controlled ways – showing remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments. “This new understanding of how to maintain coherence in excitons, and even regenerate it through molecular vibrations, provides a fascinating glimpse into the intricate design solutions – seemingly including quantum engineering – ,,, and which could provide the inspiration for new types of room temperature quantum devices.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-n.....nergy.html

    Likewise the following article on human vision stated that, “Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light”.,,, “it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,”,, and the researched added, “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,, “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?”

    Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016
    Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons.,,,
    it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,,
    The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.
    “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?”
    http://phys.org/news/2016-07-humans-smallest.html

    And in the following article, the authors even go on to state that ‘this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems’,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.

    Quantum entanglement in hot systems
    Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems,,,
    Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.
    http://quantum-mind.co.uk/quan.....t-systems/

    Thus instead of the molecular machines of the cell being dominated by random noise in the cell, as Carl Zimmer had falsely claimed in his New York Times article, the molecular machines of the cell are instead shown to have ‘remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments.’ Moreover, molecular machines are apparently designed in such an ingenious way so as to feed off the noise in the cell. Quote unquote, “Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new (quantum) entanglement.”

    To say finding ubiquitous quantum processes in the cell is counter-intuitive to Darwinian presuppositions is an understatement.

    Namely, since quantum mechanics, in and of itself, falsifies materialism,,,

    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE

    and since quantum information is found to be ubiquitous within molecular biology,

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    and since Darwinian evolution is forever wedded to reductive materialism,

    “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
    – Richard Lewontin, Harvard biologist

    , then that means Darwinian evolution, with its reductive materialistic foundation, is not even on the correct theoretical, i.e. “quantum”, foundation in order to properly understand molecular biology in the first place.

    If Darwinian evolution were a normal science that were subject to falsification, instead of being, basically, an unfalsifiable pseudoscience, even a religion, for atheists, these findings should count as yet another devastating, even fatal, falsification of Darwin’s theory.

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  2. 2
    PaV says:

    The whole idea of differing mutation rates struck me as a mechanism employed by living organisms for their own benefit. The related idea here would be: directed mutations–a combination of purposefulness and randomization. These ideas now appear to be a “rule” for living organisms. In other words, what seemed to be the upshot of why mutation rates differ turns out to be the actual reason for their differing: that is, simple reason leads you to the right answer. How can such simple reasoning lead to the correct answer in a purely “randomized” world? Would Darwinists like to answer.

  3. 3
    Retired Physicist says:

    PaV, I think you said there’d be like 27,000 deaths worldwide from this disease. There’s been half a million now. Why would anybody on earth listen to you?

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Retired Physicist, in response to PaV’s observation that Intelligent Design is a better heuristic, i.e. guiding principle, in science than Darwinian evolution is, states,

    I think you said there’d be like 27,000 deaths worldwide from this disease. There’s been half a million now. Why would anybody on earth listen to you?

    HUH??? And exactly what does that have to do with what PaV wrote about ID being a much better heuristic in science than Darwinian evolution is? And if I recall correctly, the initial estimates, from the so called ‘experts’, for deaths from Covid 19 in the USA alone, put the number of deaths in the USA alone at around 2.2 million. Thus, numerically speaking, PaV’s back of the envelope prediction turned out to be far closer than what the experts initially predicted.

    Moreover, PaV is completely correct in his observation that Intelligent Design is a much better heuristic, i.e. guiding principle, in science than Darwinian evolution is. You don’t have to take PaV’s word for it, Jerry Coyne himself admitted that, ““Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits.”

    “Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
    (Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).)

    Darwinian Evolution is simply useless as a guiding principle in science. As Marc Kirschner stated, “over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    – Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    And as the late Philip Skell noted, “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.”

    “Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
    I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
    In the peer-reviewed literature, the word “evolution” often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for “evolution” some other word – “Buddhism,” “Aztec cosmology,” or even “creationism.” I found that the substitution never touched the paper’s core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,,
    Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.”
    Philip S. Skell – (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. – Why Do We Invoke Darwin? – 2005
    http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

    And as Adam S. Wilkins noted, “most (biologists) can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas.”

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”
    – Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    In fact, besides Darwinian evolution being completely useless as a guiding principle in science, in so far as Darwinian ideas have guided research in biology, those ideas have only misled, not helped, researchers. Two semi-famous examples of researchers being severely misled by Darwinian ideas were the false Darwinian predictions of vestigial organs and junk DNA.

    Evolution’s “vestigial organ” argument debunked
    Excerpt: “The appendix, like the once ‘vestigial’ tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary ‘left over,’ many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice” (David Menton, Ph.D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).
    “Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).
    The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.
    http://www.ucg.org/science/god.....-debunked/

    Although catchy, the term ‘junk DNA’ for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early 1990s. Now, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements as a genomic treasure.”
    (Wojciech Makalowski, “Not Junk After All,” Science, Vol. 300(5623):1246-1247 (May 23, 2003).)

    Those false predictions of junk DNA and vestigial organs are not just a couple of anomalous examples of false predictions coming from Darwinian presuppositions, Darwinian evolution has been found to be wrong, time after time, across the spectrum in foundational predictions that are at its core.

    Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
    This paper evaluates 22 fundamental (false) predictions of evolutionary theory from a wide range of different categories.,,,
    The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria. They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought. They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints. Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated. They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question.
    https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions

    Thus, using Retired Physicist own criteria of a false prediction rendering someone unworthy to ‘listen to’, and since Darwinian evolution itself has made spectacularly false predictions time after time, why in blue blazes does Retired Physicist himself continue to ‘listen to’ Darwinists? Indeed, why does he attack PaV, and thus ID advocates in general, as somehow being unworthy to listen to?

    Verse

    Matthew 13:15
    For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

  5. 5
    ET says:

    Retired Physicist- Your time here has done nothing but prove that you are incapable of reading for comprehension and also incapable of forming a coherent argument.

    That’s why no one listens to you.

    According to RP’s “logic” no one should listen to anyone who got a 99 on a test. After all they did get something wrong. What a clueless loser RP is…

  6. 6
    PaV says:

    Retired Physicist:

    Try to get your facts straight. At the time I made the prediction, there were already that many deaths in the world. My estimate was for the US alone. It was based on what I saw happening in Europe and in China–it was all the data we had available. It assumed that China had not lied, or, if they had lied, it was not an outrageous lie.

    Well, it turns out China’s lie was an outrageous lie. Their true deaths and cases were off by at least a factor of 6. As well, the steep incline, but, most critically, the steep decline they showed, were both wrong. Had I known that their decline was a big lie, then number would have been closer to 40 to 45,000.

    Also, if you look at Worldometers.info/coronaupdate, you will see that the pattern of rise and decline in Italy and Spain, the basis of my prediction, does not look at all like the pattern we’ve seen develop here. As to why this might be, well, we can conjecture.

    Part of that conjecture has to include the known fact that our deaths are being exaggerated for the purpose of obtaining extra federal dollars. So, lies are being told here in the US. This wasn’t the case for Italy since the health system there is government run. No extra federal dollars to entice!

    Dr. Birx has publicly stated that she thought the death figures were off by 25%. I’d say it’s likely the figures are off by at least 30%. And then there is ineptitude of Cuomo and deBlasio, a complete disaster on their part in handling the outbreak (nothing done to cleanup the subway and sending Covid positive patients back into nursing homes), which also skews the numbers. For example, subtract the New York harbor numbers (NY and NJ) and the numbers for the US are 84,000 deaths.

    So, take 84,000 deaths, decline this by 30%, and you have 48,800 roughly. That’s not far away from 27,000.

    Or, take 27,000 and mulitply by 6 (the correcting for the Chinese numbers) and, guess what, you get 162,000. That’s likely what our total will end up being.

    So, next time you want to throw something in somebody else’s face, try getting the facts straight.

    How good was Neil Ferguson’s numbers? How good was the initial IHME numbers?

  7. 7
    PaV says:

    I failed to mention in my last post that here in the US, because of “Hate-Trump” politics, hydroxychloroquine was not being prescribed whereas in Italy this became rather standard treatment early on. Who knows how many lives were needlessly lost because of political hatred. These are all factors.

    Was my estimate wrong? Yes, obviously. But there were many reasons for that, including fraud, malfeasance, greed and politics. A rather powerful brew, eh?

    I certainly wish that my estimate/prediction had been accurate!

  8. 8
    asauber says:

    PaV,

    My rule of thumb is to not make predictions about numbers that are presented by institutions and bureaucracies. They invariably support what the institution and bureaucracy wants their message to be, not what could be reasonably guessed at by one of the great unwashed.

    Andrew

  9. 9
    Querius says:

    Biology was once far simpler and “well understood” when cells were made of protoplasm. Same was true for Newtonian mechanics, which some physicists are desperately clinging to in order to maintain their deterministic ideology.

    Similarly, spontaneous generation is now the goal of research in both biology and cosmology. It’s far more scientific to generate billions of universes every second than believe in God. Right?

    -Q

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    Then again, why anyone with any mental ability left would treat any over-saturated uber mass-media Covid scoreboard numbers and charts as anything but marketing, is something to ponder.

    Andrew

  11. 11
    asauber says:

    “One of the problems is that information proffered by health officials doesn’t paint a complete picture — and people are beginning to realize that.”

    Beginning to realize?

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/paula-bolyard/2020/07/02/what-are-they-hiding-ohio-health-dept-says-foia-requests-can-be-delayed-until-90-days-after-covid-emergency-ends-n597273?fbclid=IwAR0TNvQ_YtN4gfEyXDT48L9k57fXKuGnE8dnhHfDgnaHUZN-6wVesVEfhYo

    Andrew

  12. 12
    jawa says:

    ‘The natural world is still hiding its deepest mysteries.”
    I disagree.
    Biology research discoveries are increasingly revealing the deepest mysteries which undoubtedly point to designed biological systems. Note that a growing proportion of the discoveries are in the area of multi-level regulation.
    However, those who don’t want to accept the design explanation, still wait for other discoveries that provide naturalistic explanations. That’s why they claim that the mysteries remain hidden. It’s kind of an attitude of denial.

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    Interesting comparison, Jawa.

    Let me suggest that understanding the natural mechanisms in how something or some process works doesn’t detract from the design behind it, nor does it diminish the superiority in assuming intentional design rather than assuming random junk that somehow works.

    -Q

  14. 14
    Fasteddious says:

    This piece gets off to a bad start with, “cells want to harness the genetic noise — the level of variation in gene expression”. To relegate the precision choreography of the homeostasis that goes on inside most cells, to mere “noise” is a poor way of starting to address the mysteries in biology. That would be like walking into a busy factory with its production line, and referring to the variations in sounds as an important aspect of how the factory works.

  15. 15
    jawa says:

    “cells want to harness the genetic noise”

    “cells want”?

    Do cells have will?

    These authors use interesting language to express their blurry ideas.

Leave a Reply