Well, ding-dangit, I nearly missed my own celebration thread!

A funny little anecdote y'all might appreciate: I am doing a research project on detecting RNA sequences in certain forms in transit in-vivo in real time, the implications of which suggest that the methods I'm developing could be used to detect with great specificity a number of infectious diseases, as well as some genetic diseases.

Anyways, a few weeks ago, I present my project to some people outside of my lab. Afterwards I'm talking about possible applications, and when I talk about detecting certain genetic diseases, somebody says, "So....like lupus?" My co-worker (who also watches House and has seen all the sifts about 'em) looks at me, and mutters under his breath, "It's never lupus..." and we both start cracking up.

Now all the other labs think we're weird. Thanks, VideoSift! Here's to a 100 more.

Bluecliff: Where he is, is not the question, If he is, is the question. Aside from that did you even watch the movie, and thoroughly read the posts?

Cryptographix: said "Proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates react naturally via well understood physical and chemical processes...in a similar way to how hydrogen reacts with oxygen to produce water."
-my point was not that they do not react you fool, it was that they do not constitute life... therefore are utilized irrelevantly Throughout the ENTIRE VIDEO'S METAPHOR (which im not sure you watched).

-Cryptographix "those combinations form what we now know as complex life...from certain combinations that stay together in certain environments further combining with other combinations...on and on, through time."
What you describe directly above is called luck. The theory of evolution DOES NOT APPLY TO ENTITIES LACKING DNA or RNA! such as phospho-lipids or proteins

-most scientists agree the first basic cell was infinitely more complex than a simple, singular chemical process. Take Bio 310 in your first year of university.

ShakaUVM- i think the principle you're reaching for, the one you've almost but not quite grasped hold of, is what is referred to as natural selection. Not ID. Once you have genes that replicate, the "goal" is to have genes that replicate better.

Fortunately for us, one of the best ways for genes is to encode information about their surroundings. The better an organism fits in its surroundings, the better its chances of passing on its genes. The god, or designer you're looking for is simulacra, or information-encoding. Starting with the beginning of life, the story of this planet has been the accumulation of information- the creation of more and more specific models of the "real world". A polar bear is white because he lives in a white landscape and can hunt better, giraffes have long necks to reach tall leaves, etc etc etc.

The rate of acceleration has increased even further as one species has learned how to encode information in non-dna form- by building tools, and eventually specifically through spoken and written language, religions, etc- and finally the scientific method.

We are witnessing the end of the era of dna dominated information encoding. So far our technology has a better QUALITY of information about the universe than is encoded in the DNA of the species of the earth, but a much lower quantity. This will change dramatically in our lifetimes.

So yes, there is a "force". The force is natural, not supernatural. And it drives the processes that we think of as human endeavor, but are really just continuation of the progress that began when the first strand of RNA drove the synthesis of the first enzymes that made the first protein in the first lifeform on our planet.

That's damned amazing. Knowing how it works on paper, and seeing it are two vastly different things. I'd like to see a video for how RNA interference works.

Thanks gluonium, good find. You might find this interesting:

It's a lecture by Craig C. Mello, who won the Nobel in 2006 for the discovery of RNA interference. He's a pretty good speaker. Of course it doesn't hurt that this is one of the most promising areas of medicine.

Return to the RNAi World: Rethinking Gene Expression and Evolution - Google Tech Talks April 9, 2007
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7104884525024111858&q=rnai&hl=en

Evolution is a pretty wild idea.

I choose never to mock individuals who don't think it is the guiding force of nature. Its an exceedingly humbling idea, and for many other reasons I can understand why some people might choose not to believe independent of some very compelling evidence. And as long as they don't want to be researchers in a biological discipline, teachers of a biological discipline, paleontologists, or veterinarians, they have the freedom to be comfortable in my opinion.

The argument that a supernatural force might have interceeded in putting together some RNA and a couple of proteins a billion years ago and then just let it stew seems rather silly to me, but whatever floats your boat.

(bonus! most primative primate fossil link ; http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/yu-pdm012307.php )

Sam Brownback always seemed like a nice enough gent, in a grandfatherly, "back in my day..." kind of way. Tancredo is kind of an ass, though.

@UncleJeet's super-comment;

To argue that the impact of molecular biologists, neuroscientists, particle physicists, or journalists on humanity is the creation of belief, and requires faith in their trustworthiness is a perfectly valid semantic and philosophical point.

But to imply that what these individuals test, create and share requires equivalent faith to believing the scriptures, in the minds of John Q. Public, is silly and borderline offensive.

You argue that if an individual can not personally explain the tests, data and analysis that indicate the relative truth of all discoveries off the top of their head, then their understanding of these discoveries is equivalent to faith in the gospels. Which of these are false: A)George Bush Jr. is 6ft tall, B)two planes crashed into two skyscrapers in New York in 2001, C)the amygdala in the brain plays a large part in fear responses, D)a few amino acids in different sequences, held in place by a sugar backbone, form the basic mechanism for the coding of all life on Earth.

You're one step from arguing that if I've never met George Bush or the people he hangs out with I can't tell you what his height is. If I wasn't staring at the twin towers on Sept.11th, I'm just expressing my faith that TV is showing my the truth. If I don't ablate the amygdala in a subject animal and then try to scare it, I'll never really know if neuroscience is BS'ing me. And if I can't tell you how exactly DNA and RNA code for living organisms, well, obviously its just faith.

I can only assume that no-one called you out on this because your comment was soo long.


On a similar note, many scientists are spiritual and/or classically religious. Things are hardly ever black and white.