Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 38

L&FP, 58b: The JoHari Window and recognising limits of our knowledge

The JoHari Window provides a useful context to control speculation or accusation or assumption posing as knowledge:

Here, we see a personal focus. This can readily be extended to institutions, movements, interest groups and the public. We can even see, through faction dynamics, how a minority may see while the community at large is innocently or even willfully blind, stuck in an ill advised business as usual.

For example:

Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .

Therefore, we are well advised to heed an adjusted form of Dallas Willard’s observation on knowledge and how it confers legitimate authority:

To have knowledge in the dispositional sense—where you know things you are not necessarily thinking about at the time—is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”). This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life, and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric . . . no satisfactory general description of “an adequate basis of thought or experience” has ever been achieved. We are nevertheless able to determine in many specific types of cases that such a basis is or is not present [p.19] . . . .

Knowledge, but not mere belief or feeling, generally confers the right to act and to direct action, or even to form and supervise policy. [p. 20] . . . .

[K]nowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves [ADJ: warranted, credibly true (so reliable) belief] [p. 4, Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge|Taylor& Francis Group, 2018.] . . .

Knowledge, then, confers legitimate authority rooted in wisdom. So, there is a tendency to over-claim one’s knowledge and to dismiss what those one differs with may know. This underscores the crucial importance of objective warrant.

Including, when what is warranted is negative knowledge, knowing that one or one’s institution or movement does not know. Likewise, knowing that others, too may not know.

However, this is no excuse for failing/refusing to learn and warrant, or for selectively hyperskeptical dismissal of reasonable warrant. Extraordinary claims only require reasonable, adequate warrant.

Again, it is clear that knowledge (as it embeds hard questions) is not simple. END

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Evolution News: Did Life First Arise by Purely Natural Means?

Walter Bradley and Casey Luskin write:

Major scientific magazines and journals often feature articles on the “Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Science”1 — and the origin of life is almost always on that list, sometimes as the number one mystery.2 In this and coming posts we will explore key challenges to a natural, chemical origin of life. We’ll examine the formation of the essential functional polymers of life — proteins, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), and RNA (ribonucleic acid). How might these extraordinarily complex molecules have formed in oceans, lakes, or ponds from simple, naturally occurring molecular building blocks like sugars and amino acids? What is life? How does it operate? Could life originate by strictly natural means?

Three Scientific Discoveries

Darwin’s theory of evolution and the development of the second law of thermodynamics by Boltzmann and Gibbs are two of the three major scientific discoveries of the 19th century. Maxwell’s field equations for electricity and magnetism are the third. The second law of thermodynamics has had a unifying effect in the physical sciences much like the theory of evolution has had in the life sciences. What is intriguing is that the predictions of one seem to contradict the predictions of the other. The grand story of evolution teaches that living systems have generally moved from simpler to more complex over time.3 The second law of thermodynamics teaches just the opposite, a progression from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity in the physical universe. Your garden and your house, left to themselves, go from order to disorder. But you can restore the order if you do the necessary work. In the winter, when it is cold, the interior of your house will gradually drop in temperature toward the outside temperature. But a gas heater can reverse this process by converting the chemical energy in natural gas into thermal energy in the house. 

True Everywhere in Life

This simple analogy illustrates what is true of all living systems: they can only live by having access to energy and a means of converting this energy into the alternative forms of energy or work required to oppose the pull toward thermodynamic equilibrium, from complexity to simplicity. Living systems are much more complex than nonliving systems. Like a lawnmower with gasoline as a source of energy and an engine to convert that energy into movement of a blade to cut the grass, living systems must have access to sources of energy and systems to convert the energy into the needs of plants and animals.

Nonliving objects in nature exist without any complex functional systems or any energy flow requirements. They are generally made of simple crystalline or amorphous materials.

The second law of thermodynamics is a law of nature (like gravity, everyone is subject to it). Living plants and animals can survive only with energy flowing through their systems. Nonliving objects such as mountains, rocks, sand, rivers, and soil have no need for energy flow, nor do they have the complexity to utilize energy toward some goal. 

To Utilize and Store Energy

To summarize, plants can utilize solar energy to levitate above thermodynamic equilibrium. Nonliving objects such as mountains, oceans, rocks, sand, and soil have no need for such complexity; they do not store chemical energy like plants do; nor can they process solar or other forms of energy. Living matter is much more complex (e.g., RNA, DNA, protein, etc.), needing as it does to be able to utilize and store available energy from the sun or from the consumption of plants and animals. 

NotesSee for example Ronak Gupta, “The 7 biggest unsolved mysteries in science,” Digit (May 26, 2015), https://www.digit.in/features/general... (accessed November 18, 2020).See for example Philip Ball, “10 Unsolved Mysteries in Chemistry,” Scientific American (October 2011), https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar... (accessed November 18, 2020).Technically the official line from neo-Darwinian evolutionists is that evolution knows nothing of “progress” and does not necessarily move from “simple to more complex.” Nonetheless, it is also true that the grand arc of the evolutionary story moves from simpler organisms toward more complex ones. In this evolutionary story, biological and organic systems began with a single self-replicating molecule and ended up at us. Evolutionary theorists sometimes try to trivialize this clear progression by calling it “bouncing off the lower wall of complexity,” but it cannot be denied that their story entails a march towards greater complexity. See for example Stephen Jay Gould, Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin (New York: Three Rivers, 1996). 

Full article at Evolution News.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Big Think: How Earth’s magnetic field bounced back just as complex life was emerging

Recent research offers hints as to how Earth narrowly avoided a Mars-like fate.

Science writer Sam Jarman writes:

KEY TAKEAWAYS

About 565 million years ago, the strength of Earth’s magnetic field plummeted, threatening the complex multicellular organisms that were just beginning to emerge.  New geological analysis shows that this period was followed by a rapid resurgence in Earth’s field. The process was likely triggered by the birth and growth of a solid inner core. 

The magnetic field that envelopes our planet provides a vital shield against the constant stream of radiation produced by the Sun. By deflecting high-energy charged particles, the field prevents this radiation from stripping away Earth’s atmosphere and unleashing catastrophic damage to its entire ecosystem. 

Credit: janez volmajer / Adobe Stock

A lifeless surface: To imagine a world without this protection, we can simply look to our planetary neighbor. At some point in the distant past, astronomers believe that Mars likely had its own magnetic field, strong enough to sustain a water-rich atmosphere. But for reasons not entirely understood, this field drastically weakened roughly 3.8 billion years ago, leaving behind the barren, most likely lifeless world we know today. 

To understand how Earth avoided a similar fate, we need to look at our planet’s inner core: a mostly solid ball of iron and nickel, surrounded by a molten outer core. As Earth’s interior gradually cools, the solid inner core grows, stirring up convection currents in the outer core. In turn, these currents generate a magnetic field, powerful enough to extend far into interplanetary space. 

Researchers predict that this so-called “dynamo process” will likely be sustained for billions of years to come as the inner core continues to expand. Yet unsettlingly, the future of Earth’s field hasn’t always been so certain. 

Examining ancient rocks: To piece together the history of Earth’s magnetic field, researchers use a technique called paleomagnetism, which involves studying the alignment of metal-bearing minerals in ancient rocks. When these rocks were still molten, these minerals would have acted like tiny compass needles, aligning with the magnetic fields they encountered. As the rocks solidified, these alignments froze in place, providing geologists with a snapshot of the rocks’ magnetic environments in the distant past.

In 2019, one such study was carried out in Sept Îles, Quebec. Here, a team of researchers examined the alignment of minerals in rocks named anorthosites, which rose to Earth’s surface during the Ediacaran Period roughly 565 million years ago. Strangely, they found that these minerals were far less strongly aligned than those found in anorthosites from other periods, suggesting that Earth’s magnetic field dipped to just around 10% of its current strength during the Ediacaran.

If this trend had continued, the future of Earth’s capacity to sustain life may have become far less certain. Yet since this unsettling result, researchers haven’t yet determined how long it took for Earth’s magnetic field to bounce back to its present-day strength. 

A rapid resurgence: Using paleomagnetism, a new team of researchers led by Tinghong Zhou at the University of Rochester, New York, may have solved this mystery. In their study, the researchers examined the alignments of minerals within slightly newer anorthosites, taken from the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma. These rocks solidified during the Cambrian Period, around 532 million years ago, coinciding with an evolutionary explosion of complex, multicellular organisms. 

These anorthosites only formed around 30 million years after the Quebec samples — little more than a blip on geological timescales. Yet remarkably, the mineral alignments in the rocks showed that Earth’s magnetic field had largely regained its present-day strength during that time. 

Growing an inner core: To explain this rapid renewal, Zhou’s team that the Ediacaran Period must have coincided with the formation of Earth’s inner core. Before this happened, our planet’s magnetic field may have been generated by a dynamo effect within a purely molten core, which eventually began to collapse as the Earth’s interior cooled. Yet if a solid core began to form and grow over this period, it could have provided Earth’s field with a new lease of life. 

By modelling the flow of heat from the core to the mantle, the team predicted that the solid part of the core likely began to form around 550 million years ago, expanding to half its current width by roughly 450 million years ago. 

At this point, a shift in plate tectonics on Earth’s surface would have altered the structure of the mangle surrounding the core — triggering new patterns in heat flow that persist into the present day. This suggests that Earth’s inner core likely grew in two distinct stages, with a clear boundary between its inner- and outermost parts. 

A close call: The insights gathered by Zhou’s team offer a clearer picture of the dramatic events that once unfolded deep within our planet’s interior. They also provide new hints as to how Earth narrowly avoided a Mars-like fate, just as complex, multicellular life was beginning to emerge.

Even further, the results could help astronomers better understand how similar processes could have played out in the cores of Earth-like planets beyond our solar system — ultimately helping them to better predict whether or not their surfaces could sustain complex life. 

Big Think

“A close call”, “narrowly avoided” and potentially “unleashing catastrophic damage” are descriptions of the interconnected fine-tuning events of Earth’s core and magnetic field strength that sustain the long-term habitability of our planet.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Live Event: Funeral for Queen Elizabeth II of the UK and Commonwealth

Live event video:

May she rest in peace. END

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Who is the Designer of ID?

Stephen Meyer addresses the question of the nature of the designer proposed by evidence for fine-tuning of the universe and the design in living organisms.

Although fine-tuning may not constitute “proof” for the existence of God, can we assert that it is consistent with the concept of God as creator?

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Evolution News: Defining the “Science of Purpose”

Dr. Stephen J. Iacoboni writes:

Does the idea of “purpose” have a place in science? Can there really be a science of “purpose”? Has anyone previously tried to describe such a concept? And what might that entail? 

Since the subject matter itself is at the very least novel in the scientific context, questions like these are unavoidable. The “science of purpose” is new to the analytic framework, and is thus obliged to make the case for its claim to validity. 

Purpose in a Framework

Let’s agree to accept an inarguable definition of science, and see if purpose can be accommodated within that framework. Here is a straightforward and broadly accepted definition of science. It is “the observation of natural phenomena in order to discern recognizable patterns that can be  described in a cause/effect relationship, so that a model of that relationship can be developed that provides at the very least a qualitative generalization that applies to those observed natural phenomena. At the quantitative level, such a generalization must be tested to make verifiable predictions regarding the behavior of such phenomena.”

I don’t think that one can easily find an exception to this definition. Science, especially biology, has historically been a descriptive, qualitative exercise. Almost all of the “laws of science,” which apply to the quantitative portion of the definition, are limited to the realm of chemistry and physics. 

The science of purpose can be readily subsumed within the qualitative/descriptive definition. But beyond that, a modeling relation allows for quantitative analysis as well.

Let’s continue with a further definition. What is purpose? I define it as: “the achievement of a predetermined outcome to fulfill a desired goal.” Notice that this definition entails two concepts rarely employed in science: intentionality and the future tense.

An Endless List

Yet, with just a little reflection, one realizes that it is straightforward to compile an endless list of examples in nature that exhibit purpose. Bees gather honey, birds build nests for their young, salmon migrate to feed and mate, snakes lay in ambush for their prey, plant stems bend toward the light, gymnosperms spray pollen to reproduce, prairie dogs dig burrows to hide from predators, wolves hunt in packs to improve their predatory success, ruminants travel in herds to resist predation. That would be the taxonomy of purpose, understood in much the same way that anatomists began to understand physiology two centuries ago. 

It was the discovery of the similarity of the anatomy between different classes and phyla of organisms that allowed for biology as a descriptive and qualitative science to progress. In much the same way, one quickly realizes the unity of several discrete purposes that govern and unify the biosphere.

Those purposes include procurement of food, shelter, a suitable environment, mating, protection of offspring, and more. These are all readily definable purposes that define almost all of biota. Purpose at these descriptive levels is undeniable, demonstrable, and easily contained within a generalizable model of organism. Yes, in short, purpose has a place in science.

Evolution News

If “purpose” has a place in the science of living organisms, then can we say that unguided natural processes are further discredited as the source of these organisms?

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

L&FP, 58a: Dallas Willard, on knowledge and its significance: “knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach”

In his posthumous book (completed by colleagues), Willard makes a key observation on knowledge, one that challenges a power-obsessed, agenda driven era that is dismissive of objectivity rooted in good warrant:

To have knowledge . . . is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”) . . . . knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves assured truth . . . [pp. 19, 20 and 4, Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge|Taylor& Francis Group, 2018. ]

Obviously, to have the aura of knowledge confers power, legitimate power. So, in an age where the inferior substitute, skepticism has been put in the place of prudence (a cardinal virtue pivoting on balanced, well grounded soundly informed moderation), it is easy for knowledge to become captive to institutional power agendas, celebrity and cynical selective hyperskepticism.

When one hears, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” for example, one should note that that is little more than a cynical policy of suspicion of the despised other. Clearly, all that is reasonably required is adequate and responsible evidence . . . including, the frank acknowledgement of limitations of knowledge. To know where one does not know can be most important, albeit negative, knowledge. (Beyond the known unknowns of course, as we are now well aware — thanks to Donald Rumsfeld — lurk the unknown unknowns.)

Now, Willard’s statement is closely related to the weak form definition rooted in common usage, knowledge is warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief. The adequate base of thought and experience is of course, adequate warrant and good reliability. The significance of authority, starting with the dictionary and one’s teachers, is that as C S Lewis rightly observed, 99% of practical argument relies on authority. This includes Science, few of us have reproduced for ourselves the bodies of experimental, observational and analytical chains in the the fields of science we learn and practice. We must therefore recognise the pessimistic induction, thus that scientific theories do not attain to moral certainty of truth; though, their empirical reliability in a given range may well be morally certain. The sting in the tail, here, being that many known false models have similar reliability. (If you want a key case in point, ponder Newtonian Dynamics in a quantum and relativistic world.)

There is a further claim by Willard that I would adjust or at least moderate: “[k]nowledge involves assured truth.”

Once we see that the common use of knowledge — with science as key case — involves both confidence in reliability and possibility of correction, that may go or at least suggest a step too far. If what is implied is that an established body of truth on the whole is credibly more true than in need of onward correction, perhaps. But, it must be open to such correction otherwise we can fall into closed minded adherence to error.

Perhaps, we can soften to, knowledge involves well founded credibility and confident belief in that credibility. Hence, credibly true (and so reliable) belief. Obviously, for cause, that credibility can be withdrawn, but stands as the case today.

This brings us back to the point in L&FP, 58; announced in its headline: “[k]nowledge (including scientific knowledge) is not a simple concept.” END

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At New Scientist: The Perseverance rover is finding more and more organic matter on Mars

NASA’s Perseverance rover is exploring a long-dry river delta on Mars, and it has seen signs that indicate that the region is full of organics – molecules containing carbon that are widely considered to be the building blocks of life.

A mosaic image of NASA’s Perseverance rover at a rocky outcrop called Skinner Ridge on Mars. NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU/MSSS

The rover has taken measurements and samples in an area called Skinner Ridge made of layered sedimentary rocks, some of which contain materials that were most likely transported from hundreds of kilometres away by running water billions of years ago.

“With the samples we’re taking now in this more sedimentary area, we’re of course right at the heart of what we wanted to do to start with,” said NASA science lead Thomas Zurbuchen during a press conference on 15 September. The goal was to look at areas similar to those on Earth that harbour signs of ancient life, he said.

These sedimentary rocks contain complex organic molecules called aromatics, as well as clays and sulphate minerals, which can be produced when water interacts with rocks. While none of these materials are definitely signs of life, known as biosignatures, they do mean we are looking in the right place.

“This is really important that this has sulphate in it and also clays, because that means that this rock has high potential for biosignature preservation, meaning that if there were biosignatures in this vicinity when that rock formed, this is precisely the type of material that will preserve that for us to study when [the samples] come back to Earth,” said David Shuster at the University of California, Berkeley, during the press conference.

The prevalence of organic matter has increased over the course of Perseverance’s drive through the crater in which it landed towards the river delta. “If this is a treasure hunt for potential signs of life on another planet, organic matter is a clue,” said Sunanda Sharma at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California during the press conference. “We’re getting stronger and stronger clues as we’re moving through our delta campaign.”

However, we most likely won’t be able to hunt for definitive signs of life in these rocks until Perseverance’s samples are brought home in a mission planned for launch in 2028.

New Scientist

Note that “aromatics” are not exactly “complex organic molecules.” Benzene, composed of a ring of 6 carbon atoms, is a common example of an aromatic. Finding some brick-shaped rocks on a mountainside does not support the hypothesis that all the structure and infrastructure of a city came about by natural processes.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At EurekAlert: Saturn’s rings and tilt could be the product of an ancient, missing moon

Swirling around the planet’s equator, the rings of Saturn are a dead giveaway that the planet is spinning at a tilt. The belted giant rotates at a 26.7-degree angle relative to the plane in which it orbits the sun. Astronomers have long suspected that this tilt comes from gravitational interactions with its neighbor Neptune, as Saturn’s tilt precesses, like a spinning top, at nearly the same rate as the orbit of Neptune.

Hubble Space Telescope

But a new modeling study by astronomers at MIT and elsewhere has found that, while the two planets may have once been in sync, Saturn has since escaped Neptune’s pull. What was responsible for this planetary realignment? The team has one meticulously tested hypothesis: a missing moon.

In a study appearing in Science, the team proposes that Saturn, which today hosts 83 moons, once harbored at least one more, an extra satellite that they name Chrysalis. Together with its siblings, the researchers suggest, Chrysalis orbited Saturn for several billion years, pulling and tugging on the planet in a way that kept its tilt, or “obliquity,” in resonance with Neptune. 

But around 160 million years ago, the team estimates, Chrysalis became unstable and came too close to its planet in a grazing encounter that pulled the satellite apart. The loss of the moon was enough to remove Saturn from Neptune’s grasp and leave it with the present-day tilt.

What’s more, the researchers surmise, while most of Chrysalis’ shattered body may have made impact with Saturn, a fraction of its fragments could have remained suspended in orbit, eventually breaking into small icy chunks to form the planet’s signature rings.

The missing satellite, therefore, could explain two longstanding mysteries: Saturn’s present-day tilt and the age of its rings, which were previously estimated to be about 100 million years old — much younger than the planet itself.

Sometime between 200 and 100 million years ago, Chrysalis entered a chaotic orbital zone, experienced a number of close encounters with Iapetus and Titan, and eventually came too close to Saturn, in a grazing encounter that ripped the satellite to bits, leaving a small fraction to circle the planet as a debris-strewn ring.

Full article at EurekAlert.

However they formed, we can appreciate that Saturn’s rings have offered telescope viewers a spectacular jewel in the night sky.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Science Daily: Pioneering research using bacteria brings scientists a step closer to creating artificial cells with lifelike functionality

Scientists have harnessed the potential of bacteria to help build advanced synthetic cells which mimic real life functionality.

The research, led by the University of Bristol and published today in Nature, makes important progress in deploying synthetic cells, known as protocells, to more accurately represent the complex compositions, structure, and function of living cells.

Establishing true-to-life functionality in protocells is a global grand challenge spanning multiple fields, ranging from bottom-up synthetic biology and bioengineering to origin of life research. Previous attempts to model protocells using microcapsules have fallen short, so the team of researchers turned to bacteria to build complex synthetic cells using a living material assembly process.

Note: The interpretation of the preceding paragraph is that researchers can’t get life from non-life, so they try getting life from life.

Dr Can Xu, Research Associate at the University of Bristol, added: “Our living-material assembly approach provides an opportunity for the bottom-up construction of symbiotic living/synthetic cell constructs. For example, using engineered bacteria it should be possible to fabricate complex modules for development in diagnostic and therapeutic areas of synthetic biology as well as in biomanufacturing and biotechnology in general.”

See Science Daily for the complete article.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana