Evolution Engineered

• 07Jul

  Rule-of-Thumb (Standard Practice) Revisited

  Uncategorized No Comments

  I previously posted on “rule-of-thumbs” and how they are used by structural engineers in practice. Rule-of-thumbs, also called “industry best/standard practice”, exist in other technical areas, such as oil exploration.

  I came across this graphic (accompanied by this pdf) that compares industry standards to the standard BP (apparently)* followed during their disasterous Deepwell Horizon oil exploration project (HT: Jillian Bandes @ Townhall). If proven correct, it demonstrates that by not following industry rule-of-thumbs/standard practices, BP put workers lives, the environment, and the fate of the whole company at risk, as well as potentially destroying the livelihoods of Gulf coast residents.

  Rule-of-thumbs/standard practice may seem “unscientific”, but until proven otherwise, they work and should be strictly followed; even more so when the risk is higher.

  *While there are some good sources regarding the cause(s) of this disaster, it is prudent to allow a thorough investigation to be completed before definitively assigning blame.

• 09Jun

  Super-Conference Me!

  Football, Just for Fun 4 Comments

  I love college football. I love all kinds of (North American) football. My wife cringes when September rolls around because I’ll have as many as four football teams playing any given weekend*. However, it’s June, not September, so we should be talking about the Stanley Cup Finals, not college football.

  But all that changed recently with potential conference expansion talks heating up. Now, this may all be nothing but hype, but it’s fascinating nonetheless; way more fascinating than talk of expanding NCAA men’s basketball tournament from 65 team to 96 (they expanded to 68 instead *yawn*). The two big players in this game are the Big 10 and Pac 10 conferences. The dominoes start falling (or not) depending on the actions of either or both conferences.

  With that in mind, let’s play a game. How will all this shake down?** When the dust settles, how will the American college football landscape look? This is just for fun, but I reserve the right to brag mercilessly if my predictions are right.

  The most interesting character in all this is Texas, coveted by both the Big Ten and Pac 10. So as part of my game, I’m going to give two scenarios: where the Big 10 acts first and where the Pac 10 acts first. The main assumption of this game is that Texas will be landed by whoever acts first. Another assumption will be each conference is limited to a maximum of 16 schools. I will provide a list of the new conference layout with teams new to that conference in bold.

  Continue reading »

• 08Jun

  The Relationship Between Consequences and Being Right

  Economics, Interesting Stuff No Comments

  These days, I seem to be more interested in debating economics than evolution. I’m involved in one such debate over at Telic Thoughts(TT). When debating the validity of an economic axiom, olegt, a physics professor, made this comment:

  A lack of consensus between experts shows that the answer is not as clear cut as Klein tries to make it. Whether you like the opinion of those experts does not matter.

  Once again, consensus is invoked as support for a position, or in this case, lack of consensus is invoked to show there is no correct answer. Whether this is true or not is another thing. I want to take a closer look at what is involved in reaching a consensus.

  Before I continue, I mean no disrespect to those who work hard at their chosen profession/field of work. Each requires a specialised knowledge and years of experience to master properly.

  That said, opinions of different professions regarding their own profession do not carry the same weight. For instance, an opinion of an engineer in engineering matter carries more weight than an opinion of a meteorologist in weather forecasting. The cause of this discrepancy can be directly tied to the consequences of being wrong. If a meteorologist is wrong about the weather, it is rare that he/she will lose his/her job, let alone someone losing their life over a wrong forecast. However, if an engineer is wrong about an engineering design, he/she will be lucky if the only thing that is lost is his/her job. Lives can be lost if an engineer is wrong about his/her design. While there can be multiple “correct” designs, that does not mean there are no wrong designs.

  Therefore, an engineer has a rather large incentive to be right while a meteorologist does not. Of course, this does not mean that a meteorologist wants to give wrong forecasts all the time; just that the incentives to be right are not at the same level as an engineer.

  What about a carpenter? A mechanic? A janitor? An economist? A doctor? A physicist? A climatologist? The incentive to be correct can be directly tied to the consequences of being wrong. When other lives are involved, the incentives increase dramatically.

  So getting back to the debate at TT, whose consensus carries more weight: engineers on engineering matters or economists on economic matters? Seeing as how economists have a generally poor record of prognostication, I’d say the answer is obvious. It is yet another reason why invoking consensus makes for a poor argument.

  Does that mean there is no right and wrong in economics (or any other profession where human lives aren’t tied to the professional’s job)? Heaven forbid. The best wayto debate the validity of a position is to provide a logical cause-and-effect reasoning to support it, and (if possible) tie it to real-world practice. This is the debate I am looking for, but rarely find.

• 17May

  Quantum Darwinism – Research in Desperate Need of a Name Change!

  Just for Fun, Science No Comments

  I have to admit, I’ve never heard of this branch of scientific research before today.

  From Wikipedia:

  Quantum Darwinism is a theory explaining the emergence of the classical world from the quantum world as due to a process of Darwinian natural selection; where the many possible quantum states are selected against in favor of a stable pointer state. [Emphasis mine]

  The emphasised portion has been a peripheral intellectual interest of mine for a while, but I never knew someone actually gave it a name. Quantum Darwinism just does not sound as cool as quantum physics or string theory. I mean even a proto-scientific endeavour like Intelligent Design has a way cooler name. Some scientists need a lesson in marketing!

  In all seriousness, the PhysOrg.com article, New evidence for quantum Darwinism found in quantum dots, was the first exposure I had to QD. I don’t know if this research will lead to anything substantive, but I think I will wait for the Cliff’s Notes Dr. Heddle’s Depressed Bruin fan Art’s* layman’s version before commenting further.

  Now let’s have some fun. I suggest a naming contest to give a sexier, cooler name to QD. I mean, even Quantum Natural Selection is better than QD!!

  *Sorry Art. I couldn’t resist. At least you’ll get the Oilers’ leftovers at the draft this year!

• 13May

  Blast From the Past: Design Is Not A Mechanism

  Design, Engineering, Interesting People No Comments

  I admit that lately, I haven’t been too interested in actively participating in the ID/evolution debates. I have various excuses reasons: the culture war mentality doesn’t appeal to me, my extra-curricular interest has moved to other topics (economics, health care, theology), it has been a slow news period for this topic, I don’t see a need to add to what others have already so eloquent written, and currently, I find the debate predictable and boring.

  That is, until an old argument of mine got resurrected (thanks Brent):

  BTW, I still consider “design” a mechanism.

  I’ve already debated this at TT over a year ago, and I’m not looking to rehash old arguments. What I do want to point out is that I am not alone in taking this position. Continue reading »

• 12May

  A Small But Encouraging Step for DCA Treatment

  DCA, Medicine No Comments

  Source: First Edmonton Trial Shows Hope For DCA – Edmonton Journal

  When he was at Uncommon Descent, DaveScot would regularly sing the praises of a common, but previously little known chemical, dichloroacetate (DCA). It caught my attention for a couple of reasons:

  1. A 2007 study showed DCA had the potential to slow tumour growth or even cause tumour shrinkage in rats.

  2. DCA is so common that it is almost literally dirt cheap. The problem with being inexpensive is it provided no financial incentive for drug companies to fund human studies.

  However, thanks to a grassroots funding effort raising about $800,000 (with supplementary funding by philathropist and the Canadian government), a small and very limited study was done on five patients by Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, the results being published in the recent edition of Science Translational Medicine, a journal of the American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

  The results, while limited, are promising:

  In two patients, their tumour regressed. One patient’s tumour stopped growing. A fourth patient underwent a second surgery to remove a residual part of the tumour, which then never regrew. The fifth patient died within the first three months.

  Despite these promising results, caution must be urged.

  [Dr. Michelakis's]  studies prove the drug can have an effect on human tumours, not just animal tumours, which isn’t always the case. But beyond that, the sample size is too small to “permit any definitive conclusion.”

  Obviously, further studies are required before regulatory approval. However, it warms my heart to see a study funded in large part due to ordinary, hard-working people, and I hope that not only does the grassroots funding continue, but that it thrives such that it provides a new research funding model. For the case of DCA, the end goal is very tantalising:

  Many patented cancer drugs cost between $60,000 and $80,000 a year and some don’t prolong life more than one month, Michelakis said. “That’s how bad it is in oncology.”

  If approved, he said, DCA, a chemical with a very simple structure, could be produced by a facility like the University of Alberta for less than $100 a year. [Emphasis mine]

• 11Mar

  The Anthropic Principle – The Physicist’s “Rule-of-Thumb”?

  Engineering, Science 7 Comments

  Dr. David Heddle from the blog, He Lives, has an excellent post on The Antrhopic Principle. While the post as a whole is a great read, this part drew my engineering interest:

  In its proper place the Anthropic Principle can be quite useful. But it must be remembered: it can be a guide—but it is never an explanation.

  Dr. Heddle goes on to demonstrate how the Anthropic Principle (AP) can be used as a guide, but it got me thinking about a thing engineers like to use: rule-of-thumbs. Like the AP, rule-of-thumbs are not explanations (they have no basis in theory or empirical design), but are based on engineering tradition and/or aesthetics. To give an example, when sizing a beam for a specific span, L, structural engineers limit the beam depth (d) to a minimum of L/20 or L/30*. Now it is possible that a more shallow and robust beam would be just as adequate (if not more so) to resist applied loads (strength, stability and deflection). However, the more shallow beam would not “look” right. Doing a rough cost-benefit analysis, a deeper beam** is a “cheaper” alternative to client uneasiness. Using this rule-of-thumb as a starting point for design can also a time saver for the engineer.

  However, there is generally no theoretical nor experimental (empirical) basis for the L/20 beam depth rule-of-thumb. It also is not an explanation for the specific beam chosen (i.e. how the beam responds to applied loads). The L/20 rule-of-thumb is just a design guide to assist the engineer in the design process.

  So that gets me thinking, based on linked post, is the AP a physicist’s rule-of-thumb? If Dr. Heddle’s example is accurate, IMO, it would appear to be so. Ain’t it cool how concepts can transcend disciplines?

  *For example, if L = 9 metres (29.5 ft), then using L/20, minimum beam depth = 450 mm (approximately 18 inches).

  **In most circumstances, the deeper beam would weigh less than the more shallow and robust beam, thus saving money on material. That said, the price of steel these days is relatively cheap.

• 01Mar

  OUR Game!! And don’t you forget it!

  Hockey, Olympics 1 Comment

  

  Continue reading »

• 26Feb

  Canadian Women Celebrate Olympic Hockey Gold; IOC Huffs and Puffs and Needs to Get a Life!

  Hockey, Olympics 12 Comments

  

  The Canadian women’s hockey team can now be called an Olympic dynasty! 3 gold medals in 3 Olympics! Woohoo! Now, it’s the men’s turn.

  However, a “stain” on the Olympicsw occurred after. Don’t read further unless you have a strong stomach! Continue reading »

• 22Feb

  Self-Replicating RNA Designed

  Design, Engineering, FLE, OOL, Science 20 Comments

  “Life-like evolution in a test tube” is the title of an article at Cosmos Magazine that describes a potential breakthrough in Origin-of-Life (OOL) research.  (HT RichardtHughes at AtBC )

  For the first time, scientists have synthesized RNA enzymes – ribonucleic acid enzymes also known as ribozymes – that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components.

  If true, this could help shed light on the RNA-World and create many different and intriguing lines of research. 

  That said, there’s an obvious caveat: these RNA molecules were designed. For a purely natural RNA-World scenario to be true, scientists would have to show that a self-replicating RNA could have arisen through natural means, and last time I checked, they ain’t even close to demonstrating this.

  Keep in mind I am NOT questioning whether evolutionary mechanisms exist. It is obvious that they do exist and function in nature. However, take a good look at what Dr. Joyce and his colleagues did: they took their knowledge of how living things work and change/evolve, and used it to create an RNA molecule that “evolves” (or runs under the properties of known evolutionary mechanisms). This is very similar to what engineers do, using their knowledge of the known world/universe to create an object or system to suit some predetermined function(s) or design objective(s). In essence, what Joyce et al. did was attempt to engineer life.

  As if to reinforce the engineering aspect of the research, the article goes on to say:

  The ultimate goal is to create genetic systems that behave like life, and are for all intents ‘life’ as we know it, but arose without using biological systems.

  “The aim is to create systems that have inventive capabilities, that can develop novel solutions to challenges posed by the environment. But that we don’t have yet,” [molecular biologist Gerald Joyce] said. …

  [Joyce continues] “They are synthetic genetic systems, and they are evolving. But they’re not living because they don’t yet show the capacity to invent functions out of whole cloth [independently from basic building blocks].

  “The idea is to given them enough information wherewithal [build up enough genetic informaton] so they can start inventing their own solutions, rather than just optimising existing solutions,” he added.

  To recap, Joyce et al. “create[d] … [synthetic] genetic systems that behave like life” (i.e. replicate and pass on genetic information – a simple design objective). Further research will have the goal of ”… creat[ing] systems that have inventive capabilities, that can develop novel solutions to challenges posed by the environment.” (i.e. predetermined function). To accomplish this, the researchers aim to “give them enough information wherewithal [build up enough genetic informaton] so they can start inventing their own solutions, rather than just optimising existing solutions…”

  Golly gee! That sure sounds a lot like engineering and front-loading to me.

  “Front-loading is the investment of a significant amount of information at the initial stage of evolution (the first life forms) whereby this information shapes and constrains subsequent evolution through its dissipation.”
  p.147, The Design Matrix by Mike Gene

  I thought FLE/design couldn’t lead to fruitful research. Silly me!

  All kidding aside, this could set the stage for interesting new OOL research. Stay tuned!

« Previous Entries