N.Wells
Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
[quote=GaryGaulin,April 28 2015,19:20][/quote] Quote | Please spare us your anti-ID related embellishments to already accepted definitions. The word "designed" is not found (and does not belong) in the following: Quote | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......eration
A theory of operation is a description of how a device or system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. It aids troubleshooting by providing the troubleshooter with a mental model of how the system is supposed to work. The troubleshooter can then more easily identify discrepancies, to aid diagnosis of problem. |
|
This is not "my embellishment" - it is just standard understanding. The Wikipedia writers probably didn't realize that there would be anyone dense enough to miss the point without adding "designed" after all the talk about devices and maintenance and service documentation and people troubleshooting problems. Theories of operation are written by people who create (design) devices or systems so that users can gain a better mental model of how something works so they can fix it. Find one example of somebody, other than you, using "theory of operation" for a nondesigned system, and I will publicly apologize.
Quote | It's not my fault that Charles Darwin only had a simple outside view of a complex intelligent system (that causes speciation) and did not have enough detail for a working model of it. | Assuming facts not in evidence - you have not yet demonstrated that evolution is an intelligent system.
Quote | If he did then he would have possibly like me have reached a point where the model would require a theory of operation (to explain how it works). | No, that would require a regular scientific theory, not a theory of operation. Gary, words mean stuff: you can't just make up rubbish whenever you want just so you can feel better about your prior beliefs. Neither reality nor English work that way.
Quote | In my opinion I'm simply following a very useful systems biology approach, you will just have to get used to. |
OF COURSE you would claim to be doing systems biology: it's a wonderful buzzword and is very poorly defined, so all sorts of things could qualify. Your stuff is about a system, right, so surely it has to qualify? Well, no.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for systems biology. In Geology, I love to alternate (A) looking at things from small details and fundamental processes in order to build up to the big picture of how large systems are working, with (B) working down from the big picture of how a system operates to figure out how all its parts contribute and mesh together. The global climate models that I just mentioned are in effect "Systems Climatology".
Nonetheless, let's take a look at systems biology approaches, and see where your rubbish falls short.
NIH Quote | [from http://irp.nih.gov/catalys....-by-nih ]Systems biology is an approach in biomedical research to understanding the larger picture—be it at the level of the organism, tissue, or cell—by putting its pieces together. It’s in stark contrast to decades of reductionist biology, which involves taking the pieces apart. .... Start with Computational Modeling ...... models need solid experimental data as input and as a reference to ensure reality checks. Otherwise the biological models are likely to be oversimplified ........ ...... And they have a top-down approach that uses inferences from perturbation analyses to probe the large-scale structure of the interactions not only at the cellular level, but also at the tissue and even the organism level. ...............
Ron Germain does have his own definition of systems biology that he’s sticking to: a scientific approach that combines the principles of engineering, mathematics, physics, and computer science with extensive experimental data to develop a quantitative as well as a deep conceptual understanding of biological phenomena, permitting prediction and accurate simulation of complex (emergent) biological behaviors. |
From http://sbiaustralia.org/systems....biology Quote | Definition of Systems Biology
"Understanding biomedical systems by data-based mathematical modelling of their dynamical behavior. For the purposes of this study the objective of systems biology has been defined as the understanding of network behavior, and in particular their dynamic aspects, which requires the utilization of mathematical modeling tightly linked to experiment." |
From http://blogs.nature.com/sevenst...._3.html Quote | What is systems biology?
23 Jul 2007 | 21:22 BST | Posted by Molecular Systems Biology Team | Category: Publishing
For the fun of it, here are a few examples of definitions:
To understand complex biological systems requires the integration of experimental and computational research — in other words a systems biology approach. (Kitano, 2002)
Systems biology studies biological systems by systematically perturbing them (biologically, genetically, or chemically); monitoring the gene, protein, and informational pathway responses; integrating these data; and ultimately, formulating mathematical models that describe the structure of the system and its response to individual perturbations. (Ideker et al, 2001)
[…]the objective of systems biology [can be] defined as the understanding of network behavior, and in particular their dynamic aspects, which requires the utilization of mathematical modeling tightly linked to experiment. (Cassman, 2005)
By discovering how function arises in dynamic interactions, systems biology addresses the missing links between molecules and physiology. Top-down systems biology identifies molecular interaction networks on the basis of correlated molecular behavior observed in genome-wide “omics” studies. Bottom-up systems biology examines the mechanisms through which functional properties arise in the interactions of known components. (Bruggeman and Westerhoff, 2007)
Why is it so difficult to come up with a concise definition of systems biology? One of the reasons might be that every definition has to respect a delicate balance between “the yin and the yang” of the discipline: the integration of experimental and computational approaches (Kitano, 2002); the balance between genome-wide systematical approaches (Ideker et al, 2001) and smaller-scale quantitative studies (Tyson et al, 2001); top-down versus bottom-up strategies to solve systems architecture and functional properties (Bruggeman and Westerhoff, 2007). But despite the diversity in opinions and views, there might be two main aspects that are conserved across these definitions: a) a system-level approach attempts to consider all the components of a system; b) the properties and interactions of the components are linked with functions performed by the intact system via a computational model. |
So, let's see how you stack up. Are you starting with solid experimental data as input and as a reference to ensure reality checks, lest your biological models become oversimplified for lack of data? No, you don't start with experimental data as either input or reality checks, and you brag about how your models are excessively simplified. Are you doing perturbation analysis to see how the system responds to changes? No. Are you starting with massive data sets and trying to create a model that yields those results from first principles (exactly as I was describing for regional climate models)? No. (Your insect has a hippocampus, FCOL. That's orders of magnitudes of inaccuracy without even leaving the starting gate.) Are you using "extensive experimental data to develop a quantitative as well as a deep conceptual understanding of biological phenomena, permitting prediction"? - that would "heck, no!!". Are you using mathematical modelling tightly linked to experimentation? Again, no. You would certainly love to discover "how function arises in dynamic interactions" but you are merely asserting this: are you actually addressing "the missing links between molecules and physiology" and identifying "molecular interaction networks" on the basis of "correlated molecular behavior observed in genome-wide “omics” studies"? Again, that's a bunch of no's.
Other than your finch beak growth model, your shock zone stuff comes closest to a systems biology approach where you are trying to align experimental results with how your model functions. With hard work, reworking the model to start with basics that are biologically real, and more ground-truthing to make sure that you are modelling things the way they actually work (rather than "Do: Up = Up + AngelLift: Loop Until Up > NotYetAirborne"), you might actually get a model of rat navigation. However, you are claiming that your model is about such things as the emergence of intelligence; molecular intelligence, evolution as an intelligent system; intelligence being fractal, emergent, self-similar, and intelligently designed all at the same time; natural selection not working as advertised, etc., etc., etc. and navigation around shock zones is none of that.
|