Back to Basics of ID Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization Natural selection Paley's ghost speaks out

Paley’s Ghost speaks out: the problem of [neo-]darwinist evolutionary incrementalism

Spread the love

One of the common weak arguments against the design inference on functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I, a functional form of specified complexity) is the idea that body-plan level macro-evolution is “simply” the accumulation of lots and lots of micro-evolutionary adaptations in a grand climb of fitness.

It seems to be back on the table, so let us highlight its fundamental flaw through an infographic:

Notice, how easy it is to trap a process that depends on loose-sense hill-climbing.

Where, too, the FSCO/I origin challenge can be similarly summarised:

That fitness peaks will naturally occur as islands of function amidst vast seas of non-function should be obvious from the need for correct, matched, properly arranged and coupled parts to attain relevant, coherent functions. The watch is a classic example:

A Watch Movement c. 1880

And, Paley’s observations in Ch 2 of his 1804 Natural Theology on the thought exercise of a self-replicating watch should have been properly addressed by proponents of origin of cell based life and of body plans by incremental, blind watchmaker processes:

NTh, Ch 2: Suppose, in the next place, that the person who found the watch [in a field and stumbled on the stone in Ch 1 just past, where this is 50 years before Darwin in Ch 2 of a work Darwin full well knew about] should after some time discover that, in addition to [–> here cf encapsulated, gated, metabolising automaton, and note, “stickiness” of molecules raises a major issue of interfering cross reactions thus very carefully controlled organised reactions are at work in life . . . ]


all the properties [= specific, organised, information-rich functionality] which he had hitherto observed in it, it possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movement another watch like itself [–> i.e. self replication, cf here the code using von Neumann kinematic self replicator that is relevant to first cell based life] — the thing is conceivable [= this is a gedankenexperiment, a thought exercise to focus relevant principles and issues]; that it contained within it a mechanism, a system of parts — a mold, for instance, or a complex adjustment of lathes, baffles, and other tools — evidently and separately calculated for this purpose [–> it exhibits functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information; where, in mid-late C19, cell based life was typically thought to be a simple jelly-like affair, something molecular biology has long since taken off the table but few have bothered to pay attention to Paley since Darwin] . . . .

The first effect would be to increase his admiration of the contrivance, and his conviction of the consummate skill of the contriver. Whether he regarded the object of the contrivance, the distinct apparatus, the intricate, yet in many parts intelligible mechanism by which it was carried on, he would perceive in this new observation nothing but an additional reason for doing what he had already done — for referring the construction of the watch to design and to supreme art [–> directly echoes Plato in The Laws Bk X on the ART-ificial (as opposed to the strawman tactic “supernatural”) vs the natural in the sense of blind chance and/or mechanical necessity as serious alternative causal explanatory candidates; where also the only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is intelligently configured configuration, i.e. contrivance or design]


. . . . He would reflect, that though the watch before him were, in some sense, the maker of the watch, which, was fabricated in the course of its movements, yet it was in a very different sense from that in which a carpenter, for instance, is the maker of a chair — the author of its contrivance, the cause of the relation of its parts to their use [–> i.e. design]. . . . .

We might possibly say, but with great latitude of expression, that a stream of water ground corn ; but no latitude of expression would allow us to say, no stretch cf conjecture could lead us to think, that the stream of water built the mill, though it were too ancient for us to know who the builder was. What the stream of water does in the affair is neither more nor less than this: by the application of an unintelligent impulse to a mechanism previously arranged, arranged independently of it and arranged by intelligence, an effect is produced, namely, the corn is ground. But the effect results from the arrangement. [–> points to intelligently directed configuration as the observed and reasonably inferred source of FSCO/I] The force of the stream cannot be said to be the cause or the author of the effect, still less of the arrangement. Understanding and plan in the formation of the mill were not the less necessary for any share which the water has in grinding the corn; yet is this share the same as that which the watch would have contributed to the production of the new watch . . . .

Though it be now no longer probable that the individual watch which our observer had found was made immediately by the hand of an artificer, yet doth not this alteration in anywise affect the inference, that an artificer had been originally employed and concerned in the production. The argument from design remains as it was. Marks of design and contrivance are no more accounted for now than they were before. In the same thing, we may ask for the cause of different properties. We may ask for the cause of the color of a body, of its hardness, of its heat ; and these causes may be all different. We are now asking for the cause of that subserviency to a use, that relation to an end, which we have remarked in the watch before us. No answer is given to this question, by telling us that a preceding watch produced it. There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, without a contriver; order [–> better, functionally specific organisation], without choice; arrangement, without any thing capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose, without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated, or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use, imply the presence of intelligence and mind. No one, therefore, can rationally believe that the insensible, inanimate watch, from which the watch before us issued, was the proper cause of the mechanism we so much admire in it — could be truly said to have constructed the instrument, disposed its parts, assigned their office, determined their order, action, and mutual dependency, combined their several motions into one result, and that also a result connected with the utilities of other beings. All these properties, therefore, are as much unaccounted for as they were before. Nor is any thing gained by running the difficulty farther back, that is, by supposing the watch before us to have been produced from another watch, that from a former, and so on indefinitely. Our going back ever so far brings us no nearer to the least degree of satisfaction upon the subject. Contrivance is still unaccounted for. We still want a contriver. A designing mind is neither supplied by this supposition nor dispensed with. If the difficulty were diminished the farther we went back, by going back indefinitely we might exhaust it. And this is the only case to which this sort of reasoning applies. “Where there is a tendency, or, as we increase the number of terms, a continual approach towards a limit, there, by supposing the number of terms to be what is called infinite, we may conceive the limit to be attained; but where there is no such tendency or approach, nothing is effected by lengthening the series . . . ,

And the question which irresistibly presses upon our thoughts is. Whence this contrivance and design ? The thing required is the intending mind, the adapted hand, the intelligence by which that hand was directed. This question, this demand, is not shaken off by increasing a number or succession of substances destitute of these properties; nor the more, by increasing that number to infinity. If it be said, that upon the supposition of one watch being produced from another in the course of that other’s movements, and by means of the mechanism within it, we have a cause for the watch in my hand, namely, the watch from which it proceeded — I deny, that for the design, the contrivance, the suitableness of means to an end, the adaptation of instruments to a use, all of which we discover in the watch, we have any cause whatever. It is in vain, therefore, to assign a series of such causes, or to allege that a series may be carried back to infinity; for I do not admit that we have yet any cause at all for the phenomena, still less any series of causes either finite or infinite. Here is contrivance, but no contriver; proofs of design, but no designer. [Paley, Nat Theol, Ch 2]

The unanswered Paley challenge to origin of self-replicating life and to origin of body plans by blind watchmaker incrementalism is on the table. END

24 Replies to “Paley’s Ghost speaks out: the problem of [neo-]darwinist evolutionary incrementalism

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    Paley’s Ghost speaks out: the problem of [neo-]darwinist evolutionary incrementalism

  2. 2
    jawa says:

    Interesting OP.

  3. 3
    OLV says:

    “That fitness peaks will naturally occur as islands of function amidst vast seas of non-function should be obvious from the need for correct, matched, properly arranged and coupled parts to attain relevant, coherent functions. ”

    Yes, agree.

    However, the expression “should be obvious” only applies to open-minded thinking persons. There’s nothing “obvious” to those who have decided to stick to unproven dogmas in order to keep unwanted concepts or ideas from being considered, if they contradict their worldview. There’s no possible serious reasoning between opposite irreconcilable worldview positions, unless there’s open-mindedness and humility on both sides of any debate.

    Perhaps that’s a reason why some folks don’t like to associate biological cells with machines, as it is discussed in a separate thread here in UD. Some researchers have been using terms in their papers that definitely don’t please the Darwinian fundamentalists who want to maintain their academic establishment at any cost. What are they going to do? Establish a list of terms that are not allowed in the publications? Which words should be included in that list? Choreography, orchestration? What else?

    See below the opinions of highly respected scientists, NOT ID-friendly, who admit the failure of the Neo-Darwinian main concepts (RV+NS), but still try desperately to find a naturalistic solution to the obvious debacle. I’m sure neither you or I would like to be in their shoes. Specially seeing that their situation gets worse with every new scientific discovery in Biology research. Notice their final evolution-of-the-gaps conclusions. Pathetically hopeless scientific expectations. Really sad.

    living organisms operate at multiple levels of complexity and must therefore be analysed from a multi-scale, relativistic perspective.

    all biological processes operate by means of molecular, cellular and organismal networks.

    the interactive nature of these fundamental processes is at the core of biological relativity and, as such, challenges simplified molecular reductionism.

    such an integrative view emerges as the necessary consequence of the rigorous application of mathematics to biology.

    what emerges is a deeply humane picture of the role of the organism in constraining its chemistry, including its genes, to serve the organism as a whole, especially in the interaction with its social environment.

    this humanistic, holistic approach challenges the common gene-centered view held by many in modern biology and culture.

    Endorsement:

    Jos de Mul, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands

    “world-renowned physiologist and systems biologist Denis Noble effectively argues for a fundamental revision of the theory of evolution.  Against the reductionist, gene-centered approach of Neo-Darwinism, which has dominated biology for more than a century, Noble passionately pleas for a more integrated approach.”

    Chapter 9, page 248:

    I suspect that for many scientists, defending reductionism, including particularly Neo-Darwinism, was a necessity in order to counter the claims of creationist religions or supernatural intelligent design.

    Chapter 9, page 254:

    In common with many other scientists, I feel embarrassed by the lack of basic philosophical awareness in much of what is written on this matter on behalf of ‘science’.  Whether the authors know it or not, they are in fact speaking not on behalf of science but rather on behalf of an alternative metaphysical viewpoint, and often enough they do not appreciate the need for humility in the face of the deep uncertainties.  To claim to speak to the general public with ‘scientific’ authority about the deepest ‘why’ questions with a false certainty that cannot be justified simply creates problems, it does not solve them.

    Chapter 9, page 262:

    We have no idea what, if anything, could lie beyond what we see and observe.  That should inspire humility.

    Necessarily, science is concerned with what we can know.

    Chapter 9, page 264:

    if the history of science tells us anything about the big why questions, there can’t be much doubt that future centuries will see discoveries beyond what we can imagine today.  I suggest that there will always be a relativistic ‘beyond’ – beyond what we can know.

    Dance to the tune of life: biological relativity
    2017 Book by professor Denis Noble

  4. 4
    gpuccio says:

    KF:

    Very good thoughts!

    I have always said that complex functions (for example, those that exhibit more than 500 bits of functional information) can never be deconstructed into simple steps, each of them conferring greater function. That is simply not true for any really complex function, in every possible domain, be it language, software, machines, proteins, networks and so on.

    Incrementalism is only possible when there is a continuous functional space, and that happens only with certain types of information, in particular when the information is in the form of compressible order. Elizabeth Liddle gave such an example at TSZ, a lot of time ago. Of course, those cases have nothing to do with biological information.

    Biological information, like language, like software, like machines, has true functional complexity, true configurations of specific bits, in digital form, to achieve complex functions. That type of information can never, never arise incrementally.

    It would be like trying to develop Excel from Word by 1-2 byte increments, each of them providing a better software, one that can be sold better than the previous version (IOWs, with higher reproductive fitness).

    I have challenged many times our adversaries to offer even one example of complex functional information that can be constructed by incremental simple steps, each of them increasing the function. Of course, nobody has offered any.

    Protein space has the same topology, in principle. Complex functions are separated islands in the sequence space, because they require different sequence specificities. The existence of 2000 protein superfamilies, well separated at the level of sequence, structure and function, is obvious evidence of that.

    In his last book, Behe has shown very clearly that all known cases of Natural Seleciton, all those that we know in some detail, that really exist, that are not fairy tales, happen in already existing complex structures, where simple RV affects the original function in some way, but confers some advantage in particular environments (see for example simple antibiotic resistance).

    So, the truth is very simple: complex functions are not the sum of simple incremental steps from a simple start: they are complex exactly because they require, in order to exist, the coordinated configuration of many independent, indiviually not functional, “switches”. Only the final confiiguration of those individual bits generates the function, because the function is in the general configuration, and not in the individual bits.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, interesting responses. I note, that compressible order is about highly repetitive patterns similar to crystals built up from unit cells. That is the result of a low contingency process that drives the repetition, whether cystallisation or a program or structure that forces the repeating pattern. Randomness is different, highly contingent but not highly functionally organised. Functional organisation is highly aperiodic but reflects a string of Y/N switches in some description language that frames the organisation. KF

  6. 6
    gpuccio says:

    KF at #5:

    Perfectly true! 🙂

    I would like to discuss more in detail the concept of a continuous functional space, with particular reference to proteins.

    In a sense, we can have a continuous functional space in the protein space, even for functions that are not in the form of compressible order. But we need two very special conditions:

    1) A relatively simple function.

    2) Intelligent selection of the function, with continuos measurement of it at all possible levels.

    I will show what I mean sing one of my favourite examples: Szostak’s ATP binding protein.

    Of course, we already know that Szostak’s paper is a brilliant case of intelligent protein engineering, but still he succeeds in generating a well detectable biochemical function, ATP binding, using RV and a form of selection.

    How is that possible?

    It is possible because the scenario here satisfies the two conditions I have mentioned:

    1) The function is relatively simple: while it is impossible to measure exactly its functional information, because there is not ebough information in the paper, especially about the rounds of artificial mutation and intelligent selection, it seems by the final analysis that just a few AA positions are really important for the function. So, let’s say that it is a function with some functional complexity, but well below the threshold of 500 bits (let’s remember that 500 bits correspond to about 115 fixed aminoacid positions).

    2) The selection is made by a very sensitive lab method, which can detect even very low affinity for ATP. Moreover, the measurement is for all practical purposes continuou, in the sense that it can detect all possible levels with satisfying precision.

    Those two premises generate a continuous functional space for ATP binding: our intelligent leasurement can detect different levels of ATP binding, even at very low levels, and our probabilistic resources can generate the necessary variation, with the help of our intelligent selection, which reduces the probabilistic barriers even for a relatively simple function like the one we have chosen.

    The problem is when those two conditions are not present:

    1) The function is much more complex

    2) The selection is not intelligent selection, but natural selection.

    Let’s see the second point first.

    For example, Szostak’s protein, even if rather simple, could never be found by a darwinian pathway. Why? Because, even in its “evolved” form, it’s completely useless, indeed deleterious, in any real biological context.

    Because what’s the use of a protein that just binds ATP? It can only deplete the cell of a precious source of energy.

    The proteins that bind ATP and are functional are indeed much more complex than that. They bind ATP, they effectively hydrolyze it to ADP, and in some way they couple the energy released from ATP ti some other useful biochemical reaction that is needed in the cell. To do that, they need much higher functional complexity.

    The functional space explored by natural selection is not a continuous functional space: it can detect a function only if it:

    a) is strong enough

    b) is useful in the cell. And not only generically useful, but useful enoght to give a detectable reproductive advantage vs the previous popolation.

    This is not a continuous measurement. Not at all. And it can measure only a limited number of functions.

    I have discussed those aspects in this OP, some time ago:

    Natural Selection Vs Artificial Selection

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/natural-selection-vs-artificial-selection/

    But there is more. Let’s go back to the first point.

    The simple truth is that, if the function is complex enough, even intelligent selection will never find it. Why?

    Because the function is too complex to be present, even at a very low level, without a lot of specific bytes already present.

    IOWs, Szostak finds a few 80 AAs proteins weakly binding ATP in a random library of 6 × 10^12 sequences. That means that the basic, very low level function has a complexity of about 40 bits, in the range of the probabilistic resource of his lab. A few more bits are then gained by rounds of mutation and intelligent selection.

    But what if the basic function we need, even at its lowest levels, already requires a lot of bits? What if the basic, lowest function requires more than 500 bits of functional information?

    What if the function we need is the function of ATP synthase? A protein, or protein complex, that can use a proton gradient to synthesize ATP fron ADP?

    ATP synthase, as we know it, is very complex. It is made of mant components, and we know that even the two basic components of the catalytic part, the F1 region, IOWs the alpha and beta chains, have very high functional information, certainly much more than 1000 bits. And they have retained that specific sequence information from bacteria to humans. We are discussing hundreds of specific AAs.

    Now, we can imagine, evem if their no evidence of that, that in some ancient time a “simpler” form of ATP synthase existed. I don’t believe it, but let’s say that it is possible.

    But how simple?

    We are discussing a protein compolex that works like a watermill, but the water her is a gradient of protons between two membranes, and the function of the mill is to use a specific rotor to induce a specific deformation in multiple active sites, so that a new high energy phosphate is joined to ADP, and then ATP is released. This is not so simple, however we look at it.

    So, even is a simpler ATP synthase existed, I really doubt that it could exist using only a few bits of functional information. Even if it existed, and that is only a remote possibility, it was probably rather complex. Even in its simples form. Almost certainly, more than 500 bits.

    Now, we know that 500 bits of functional information are well beyond the probabilistic resource of our whole universe. No lab can ever explore that search space. No RV in any realistic natural system can do that. Ever.

    So, the simple conclusion is that if a function is complex enough, even in its simplest form, we will never find it by RV, even if we can use intelligent selection to detect it. Because we will never find the basic form of the function. Never. And so, we will never have anything at all that can be selected, even intelligently.

  7. 7
    Brother Brian says:

    One of the common weak arguments against the design inference on functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I, a functional form of specified complexity) is the idea that body-plan level macro-evolution is “simply” the accumulation of lots and lots of micro-evolutionary adaptations in a grand climb of fitness.

    A glaring misunderstanding of how evolution works in the very first sentence. That does not bode well for the rest of the OP.

  8. 8
    gpuccio says:

    Brother Brian:

    “A glaring misunderstanding of how evolution works in the very first sentence. That does not bode well for the rest of the OP.”

    Could you be more clear? Are you denying the incremental nature of the theory? Just to understand.

  9. 9
    Brother Brian says:

    GP

    Could you be more clear?

    I think I will wait a while to see if anyone can pick up on it.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    A glaring misunderstanding of how evolution works in the very first sentence.

    LoL! That sentence has nothing to do with how evolution works and EVERYTHING to do with what evolutionists are doing with it.

    Evos will gladly tell you that macroevolution is just an accumulation of microevolutionary events, albeit without any evidence. They will also tell you that natural selection was the main process and that NS is all about fitness.

    In other words Brother Brian continues to prove that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, that amino acid sequences can move in 20-state, one place increments does not vitiate GP’s main point. Continuity is not strictly applicable in the mathematical sense but his meaning is clear enough (he is not a native English speaker) given how fitness functions are usually discussed. The point, as highlighted in the OP, is that we have good reason to see isolated islands and there is also reason to ponder ruggedness. The basic point of the search challenge to span seas of non function on resources inadequate to sample an effectively negligible fraction of the config space is material, once we see 500 – 1,000 bits of FSCO/I and have sol system or observable cosmos scale resources. KF

    PS: The frame usually discussed is:

    chance variation + differential reproductive success –> descent with incremental modification –>

    unlimited modifications across deep time –>

    branching tree of life body plan level macro-evo

    The only actual candidate source of information is the CV, the DRS is a subtracter of info. The onward chain is proposed as loose sense hill climbing unlimited so as to yield the usual tree type model.

    The key problem is the FSCO/I issue, which leads to isolated islands of function and needle in haystack search challenge.

  12. 12
    gpuccio says:

    BrotherBrian:
    So wait, if you like. As for me, I have better things to do than trying to guess what you are thinking, if you don’t want to clarify it.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    kairosfocus and gpuccio- Brother Brian is upset with the use of “a grand climb of fitness”. There isn’t one. It all just happens and nature sorts it out.

  14. 14
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BB

    “A glaring misunderstanding of how evolution works in the very first sentence. That does not bode well for the rest of the OP.”

    You don’t like “grand climb of fitness”?

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    GP, posing a dismissive objection on an alleged “glaring misunderstanding” that by implication disqualifies what is to follow, whilst suggesting we aren’t smart and/or knowing enough to spot it, is unfortunately a common rhetorical move. If BB objects to the grand loose-sense hill climbing summary, then the shoe is actually on the other foot as that does not imply any single peak, and indeed part of the following discussion he wants to dodge actually dealing with on its merits is about peaks and valleys, also intervening expanses of non-function in configuration spaces. The neo-darwinian synthesis is incrementalist and punctuated equilibria does not resolve the body plan origin challenge, where we can see that those require 10 – 100+ mn bases of genetic information. KF

  16. 16
  17. 17
    ET says:

    And wait, there is moar: It isn’t just a mere accumulation, meaning it isn’t “simply” the accumulation of lots and lots. It is a differential accumulation biased towards those variants whose genotypical changes did not convey a survival and reproductive disadvantage. And in some cases those genotypical changes afforded some individuals a survival and reproductive advantage in the populations’ specific environments. (But that could be just about anything- faster, slower, great eyesight, no eyes, taller, shorter- whatever, meaning contingent serendipity is the primary mechanism involved.)

  18. 18
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Ok, it’s not “fitness” because nobody knows what that means except that something survives and reproduces, maybe, or not.

    And it’s not a “grand climb” because supposedly bacteria just wandered randomly into becoming human beings, purely out of the need for survival and reproductive advantages.

    It’s purposeless, with no direction, no progress and humans are not “more advanced” than any other organism. In fact, everything is merely chemical compounds arranged in different formations.

  19. 19
    kairosfocus says:

    ET & SA: From our perspective it is a climb through descent with unlimited modification in a claimed branching tree — only diagram in Origin. The bacteria and algae may beg to differ. KF

  20. 20
    gpuccio says:

    KF and others:

    I will quote here your statement that BrotherBrian did not like, because I think it is a very brilliant description of the essence of neo-darwinian theory:

    “One of the common weak arguments against the design inference on functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I, a functional form of specified complexity) is the idea that body-plan level macro-evolution is “simply” the accumulation of lots and lots of micro-evolutionary adaptations in a grand climb of fitness.”

    It’s perfectly true. The essence of neo-darwinism is that simple variation events, in the range of course of the probabilistic resources of the system, accumulate because they are selected by NS because they confer greater fitness (IOWs a reproductive advantage). There is no other component in the theory which goes beyond mere randomness.

    Therefore, all functional results that are complex enough to be well beyond pure randomness (including of course neutral variation, which is definitely pure randomness) must be the result of NS operating through increasing, incremental fitness, leading in some magic way to complex results like complex functional proteins and, in the end, regulation networks and body plans.

    That’s what Dawkins means by “Climbing Mount Improbable”. That’s exactly the “grand climb of fitness” that you mention.

  21. 21
    gpuccio says:

    KF:

    There is one aspect that I would like to mention, regarding your pictures in the OP. You are using the common way of representing fitness peaks, of course. That’s fine, of course.

    But the truth is, as I have mentioned a few times, that peaks are not peaks at all. They are holes. You don’t climb them, you just fall into them, if you are lucky enopugh to find one. And then it is very difficult to get out, especially if the hole is deep enough.

    IOWs, the effect of negative, purifying selection, which is really strong and universally operating, tends to preserve the function when it is already present, and makes it very difficult to change it. This is one of the many reasons that the neo-darwinian theory is completely irrational.

    IOWs, the scenario is more similar to a LABYRINTH MARBLE MAZE BOARD GAME:

    https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/vintage-wooden-labyrinth-marble-maze-1870748226

    But the holes are few and extremely distant one from the other. And almost all of them are very shallow (IOWs, they have very low functional complexity).

    The very few deep holes (high functional complexity) are extremely small, and extremely rare, and it is practically impossible to find them in any real context.

    The idea is, each single hole, however shallow, is an obstacle to reaching any other hole.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    GP, holes would indeed be a better description but the convention has been hill-climbing. Shrug. KF

  23. 23
    OLV says:

    GP and KF:

    hills, holes?
    How high? How deep?
    How far apart from each other?

    We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

    As we almost wrap up the second decade of the 21st century, just take a quick look at the scientific community struggling to figure out how to do research more effectively, in order to “untangle the biology of complex living systems” (that arose through RV+NS?):

    Systems Biology and Multi-Omics Integration: Viewpoints from the Metabolomics Research Community
    Farhana R. Pinu,1,* David J. Beale,2 Amy M. Paten,3 Konstantinos Kouremenos,4,5 Sanjay Swarup,6 Horst J. Schirra,7 and David Wishart8,9
    Metabolites. 2019 Apr; 9(4): 76.
    doi: 10.3390/metabo9040076

    “Systems biology is an interdisciplinary research field that requires the combined contribution of chemists, biologists, mathematicians, physicists, and engineers to untangle the biology of complex living systems by integrating multiple types of quantitative molecular measurements with well-designed mathematical models “

  24. 24
    OLV says:

    GP & KF:

    hills, holes?
    How high? How deep?
    How far apart from each other?

    We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

    Take a look at the following paper. The whole show it described is just about rice. Yes, just rice.

    Infrastructures of systems biology that facilitate functional genomic study in rice
    Woo-Jong Hong,# Yu-Jin Kim,# Anil Kumar Nalini Chandran,# and Ki-Hong Jung
    Rice (N Y). 2019; 12: 15.
    doi: 10.1186/s12284-019-0276-z

    Due to the development of high-throughput technologies such as next generation sequencing and mass spectrometry, a huge mass of multi-omics data in rice has been accumulated. Through the integration of those data, systems biology in rice is becoming more advanced.

Leave a Reply