Biologic Institute

When we think of simple, elegant, unifying principles in science, we think of physics.  It’s not surprising then that physicists who examine living systems are looking for principles of this kind.

And it seems they have found one.  Simply stated, it is that biological processes tend to be optimal in cases where this can be tested.  Life’s complexity can make it hard to pinpoint what “optimal” means, but sometimes physical limits provide a crisp definition.  Because these limits cannot possibly be exceeded, they serve as an objective standard of perfection.  Interestingly, in cases where it is clearly beneficial to edge right up to this standard, that’s exactly what life seems to do. more…

Researchers at Biologic Institute have stunned the scientific community with the announcement today of a fully functioning automobile capable of replicating itself.  Although simple autocatalytic versions of self-replication have previously been demonstrated, the complexity of the system described today—complete with GPS navigation, DVD player, and onboard WiFi—has taken everyone by surprise.  In the minds of many, this discovery has forever altered the once fundamental distinction between life and non-life.

Reactions from the automotive industry have, understandably, been less philosophical.  One executive, who wished to remain unnamed, characterized the development as “altogether unhelpful.”  An assembly plant worker was less restrained: “This is unreal… I just hope they quarantine the [expletive] things before this gets out of hand.”
more…

It’s a big year for all things Darwin.  This month, two centuries after his birth, we commemorate the man and his accomplishments.  And in November, a century and a half after On the Origin of Species was published, we commemorate the beginnings of the theory by which we all know him.

But how exactly should we think of his theory?  Is it to be remembered the way we remember the man—as an important part of the past?  Or is it to be remembered as something more than that—as an intellectual seed that grew into something that thrives to this day?

Many, of course, would like to think of Darwin’s theory in these flourishing terms.  But the growth of something else makes this view increasingly hard to hold.  We refer here to the seldom discussed but steadily expanding body of peer-reviewed scientific work that refuses to square with Darwinism. more…

The parting advice given to Caltech’s graduating class of 2008 was to tell good stories. In his commencement address, science journalist Robert Krulwich emphasized that “scientists have to tell stories to nonscientists, because science stories have to compete with other stories about how the universe works and how it came to be.” [1] He warned that “to protect science and scientists—and this is not a gentle competition—you’ve got to get in there and tell your version of how things are, and why things came to be.”

Krulwich is right about the importance of communicating science clearly to nonscientists. But his suggestion that the strength of science lies in storytelling is troublesome. Quoting E. O. Wilson, Krulwich proposed that “science, like the rest of culture, is based on the manufacture of narrative…. We all live by narrative.”

Huh?

Narrative is clearly a component of science, but the basis? Shouldn’t less manufactured things like observation and analysis be given that spot? If not, then the “protection” that Krulwich advocates looks to be nothing more than a power grab. He surely doesn’t intend this, but neither does he articulate just how a story-based science can escape it. more…

When evolutionary biologist Andrew Parker strolls through the vast collection of once-living specimens on display at the Natural History Museum in London, he sees “a treasure trove of brilliant design” [1]. If he’s right about that, then the current fascination with living designs among engineers should come as no surprise. The hot new field of biomimetics was born out of this fascination, fueled by the irresistible thought of translating some of these brilliant designs into lucrative technologies.

But are engineers really even needed for this? What if these technological advances could be had ‘on the cheap’, without any design expertise? A recent National Geographic article put it this way: If “every species, even those that have gone extinct, is a success story, optimized by millions of years of natural selection”, then “why not learn from what evolution has wrought?” [1] Indeed, why not?

more…

On the first day of this month, thousands of people traveled to a narrow strip of land stretching across Siberia, Mongolia and China. Their common purpose was to observe an uncommon phenomenon—a total solar eclipse. However, minutes before totality, observers in one popular location in China were despondent. Clouds were covering the Sun. Then, just moments before the big show began, the clouds parted like curtains opening to reveal an actor on a stage. The sky darkened and the Sun’s pearly white corona became visible. When it was over, the observers broke into applause—a scene that was repeated at many other locations along the eclipse path.

People go to great lengths to witness events like this. Not only did they have to travel (considerable distances, in some cases) to position themselves along the narrow eclipse track, they also needed to maneuver to avoid cloud cover. No one on the ground would have seen the eclipse if the clouds had prevailed along the entire eclipse path.

more…

One of Biologic Institute’s research projects goes public this week, with a paper in PLoS ONE describing a new model for studying protein evolution [1] and a project at SourceForge.net providing the software to implement it [2] (both free of charge).

Okay—it’s not free beer, but here’s why we think it’s an exciting development anyway.

The challenge Darwinism currently faces is about broad explanatory principles—what kinds of things can be produced by undirected causes and what kinds of things can’t (even in billions of years). So, while the main goal is to explain the things of biology, it should be possible to advance that goal by examining things that are like the things of biology in some important way.

Computer models may prove very useful here.

more…

Darwinists have always recognized the existence of an intuitive barrier that prevents many of us from joining them. Human understanding of complex things is strongly shaped by our experiences with human technology. You don’t have to be an engineer to appreciate in some way the extraordinary difficulty of getting physical systems to perform extraordinary tasks. Technology doesn’t just happen. It only comes with sizable investments of genius and diligence, along with more than a little patience.

So Darwin’s suggestion that genius and diligence are optional if patience is plentiful is a stretch for most of us. Richard Dawkins put it this way:

It took a very large leap of imagination for Darwin and Wallace to see that, contrary to all intuition, there is another way and, once you have understood it, a far more plausible way, for complex ‘design’ to arise out of primeval simplicity. A leap of the imagination so large that, to this day, many people seem unwilling to make it. [1]

I doubt anyone, Dawkins included, would generally recommend sweeping aside all intuition to accommodate leaps of imagination, particularly when the intuition is your own and the leap is not. If Darwinism really is plausible, it must instead be the case that Darwin leapt to something of substance—something that really explains how, contrary to our intuitions, the remarkable gadgets we see in biology can be chalked up to mindless inevitability. What exactly is this explanation? It needs to be compelling, whatever it is, since the intuition we’re being asked to abandon is so tied to real-world experience—the very stuff of science.

more…