Saturday, December 17, 2011

RNA interference Computer Animation Speaks Volumes


If a picture is worth a thousand words then an animation is worth a thousand books. Biology is often well suited to those who learn through images rather than text and equations. There is less math and more qualitative concepts, compared to some of the other areas of sciences, and these concepts are often best communicated with figures, graphics, and more recently with animations.

In fact the combination of our rapidly advancing (i) knowledge of biology, (ii) computer software and display technology and (iii) internet speed and availability make computer animations such as this one a revolutionary educational tool. Such animations also reveal the dramatic failure of evolution’s expectation that the biological world is a fluke that just happened to happen.

22 comments:

  1. Amazing, I love these videos. No more excuses!

    Did you see the XVIVO - "One Body"- short animation?

    Here's the link.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius:

    "Such animations also reveal the dramatic failure of evolution’s expectation that the biological world is a fluke that just happened to happen."

    I suspect you were very emotional or smoking some really good stuff when you wrote that.

    Since evolution can't really expect anything I assume you meant to say that according to evolutionary theory the biological world is a random fluke. Where did you get that idea? I wouldn't characterize the biological world like that at all, and among the many evolutionary biologists I know, I have never heard anybody characterize it like that.

    Like you presumably do, I marvel at the beauty and complexity of life, and I realize we are far from understanding it all, but evolutionary theory is the only scientific game in town that has accomplished anything in understanding it. Saying that it must have been designed has generated exactly zero scientific progress. Zero. But feel free to correct me on this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems to me that religious people nearly always underestimate the capability of matter to do amazing things on their own. A little bit of knowledge about the mathematics of dynamical systems would tell you that iterating simple rules can lead to incredibly complex and beautiful patterns. Fractals. The Mandelbrot set. If simple rules can do that, try to imagine what more complex rules can do.

    I believe that life in this universe is inevitable. Given the right conditions, sooner or later a self-replicating molecule will emerge and then evolution will take it from there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Troy

    I have just the site for you. I hope you can learn something from it.

    "How I Came to the Conclusion that Darwin was Dreaming"
    http://bit.ly/p16NOu

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lekozza said...

    I have just the site for you. I hope you can learn something from it.


    LOL!

    "If evolution is true why didn't T-rex evolve longer arms?"

    "If evolution is true why didn't cockroaches evolve language skills, intelligence, and clothing?"

    That's one of the funnier Poe sites on the web, and illustrates beautifully the fact that it's impossible to make a Creationist parody dumber than the real thing.

    er...

    That is a parody site, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. These videos do not make justice to the complexity of the stuff going on in the cell*. Everything is presented so tidily and cleanly, it's easy to forget that biochemistry is chemistry, and chemistry is messy, and stuff that "shouldn't happen" happens all the time. But then, messiness is contrary to the (unfounded) expectations of cdesign proponentists.

    * Not saying they should try to.

    Cornelius says:

    Such animations also reveal the dramatic failure of evolution’s expectation that the biological world is a fluke that just happened to happen.

    What do they show? The unmistakeable mark of purpose and design? Or just complexity?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Incredulity is not an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lekozza, I have to assume as Thorton did that that site is a parody. Because if not, the author failed to ask themselves a very important question: If longer arms were advantageous for the tyrannosaurs, then why didn't God create them with longer arms? On the other hand, we can say that cetaceans would be better off with gills rather than lungs, yet evolution explains this odd configuration quite well.

    My favorite quote from the site, and one that suggests the entire page is satire: "One final thought: When Darwin put together his theory, he thought cells were as simple as grapes." Uh, grapes have cells, as was known at the time. That's like saying, "When my mechanic put together his theory, he thought parts were as simple as cars."

    ReplyDelete
  9. troy said...
    "the capability of matter to do amazing things on their own."

    So the matter has the "will" to do amazing things?

    "iterating simple rules"

    And from where that simple rules come from?

    "can lead to incredibly complex and beautiful patterns."

    How do you know that the patterns are complex and beautiful?

    "imagine what more complex rules can do."

    And where come the more complex rule come from?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Derick Childress said...
    If longer arms were advantageous for the tyrannosaurs, then why didn't ToE selected tyrannosaurs with longer arms?
    we can say that cetaceans would be better off with gills rather than lungs, yet evolution explains this odd configuration quite well but not why cetacean coul occupy the ocean full of animals with gills.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Blas: So the matter has the "will" to do amazing things?

    Only things with "wills" can do amazing things? Exactly how exactly did you come to this conclusion?

    Blas: And from where that simple rules come from?

    We can know nothing about umbrellas without exhaustive knowledge of meteorology?

    Science does not exist to reconcile your preconceived belief in a particular supernatural being and the biosphere. Rather, we have fields of science, which themselves have individual spheres. Evolution is focused on explanations for the concrete biological adaptations we observe.

    Questions lead to answers, which lead to better questions, which lead to better answers, etc. I have no reason to expect this process to end.

    Does the lack of one all encompassing answer, such as "God did it", make you uncomfortable?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Scott said...

    Only things with "wills" can do amazing things? Exactly how exactly did you come to this conclusion?

    Show me something amazing not done by a will.

    Blas: And from where that simple rules come from?

    We can know nothing about umbrellas without exhaustive knowledge of meteorology?

    Science does not exist to reconcile your preconceived belief in a particular supernatural being and the biosphere. Rather, we have fields of science, which themselves have individual spheres. Evolution is focused on explanations for the concrete biological adaptations we observe.

    Questions lead to answers, which lead to better questions, which lead to better answers, etc. I have no reason to expect this process to end.

    Does the lack of one all encompassing answer, such as "God did it", make you uncomfortable?

    I´m just asking from where rules come from.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Show me something amazing not done by a will."

    The Grand Canyon.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Blas said:

    troy said...
    "the capability of matter to do amazing things on their own."

    So the matter has the "will" to do amazing things?

    --------------------

    There's a big difference between capability and "will". Troy said "capability".

    I'm curious, do you think that everything, or some things, only occur or exist because of the "will" of a god? Do you think that some things can occur or exist without being willed?

    ReplyDelete
  15. The whole truth said...

    "There's a big difference between capability and "will". Troy said "capability"."

    The exact words of Troy are:

    " the capability of matter to do amazing things on their own."

    If something has the "capability to do" it can do or not do it, then should have the "will" to do.

    "The Grand Canyon.·

    And what has of amazing the Grand Canyon? The size? That is the amazing thing?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Blas: "If longer arms were advantageous for the tyrannosaurs, then why didn't ToE selected tyrannosaurs with longer arms?
    we can say that cetaceans would be better off with gills rather than lungs, yet evolution explains this odd configuration quite well but not why cetacean coul occupy the ocean full of animals with gills."


    I don't follow. Please try that paragraph again.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Blas: "If something has the "capability to do" it can do or not do it, then should have the "will" to do."

    So computer programs have 'wills'?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Derick Childress said...
    Blas: "If something has the "capability to do" it can do or not do it, then should have the "will" to do."

    So computer programs have 'wills'?

    No computers have programmed instructions and start keys operated by humns with free will.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Blas said...

    If something has the "capability to do" it can do or not do it, then should have the "will" to do.


    Moving and colliding tectonic plates have the capability to raise mountain ranges.

    Do moving tectonic plates have "will"?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thorton said...

    Do moving tectonic plates have "will"?

    And the amazing thing product of the tectonic plates are mountains?
    Why mountains are amazing? Because are big?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Blas said...

    Thorton said...

    Do moving tectonic plates have "will"?

    And the amazing thing product of the tectonic plates are mountains?
    Why mountains are amazing? Because are big?


    Why do you think 'amazing' is a requirement in the determination if 'will' was involved or not?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Blas: Show me something amazing not done by a will.

    Which is a classic inductivist argument. The problem is, inductivism is inadequate for justifying conclusions. Nor do we actually use it in practice.

    In fact, I can give a concrete example where you yourself do not use it.

    Can only beings with complex, material nervous systems have will? Show me will that is not accompanied by complex, material nervous systems.

    Yet, I'm guessing you do not believe all wills require complex, material nervous systems, do you?

    Blas: I´m just asking from where rules come from.

    That depends on the kind of rules you're referring to, wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete