51–60 of 282 posts
one of these days ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
When I watch animations of how the cell works at a molecular level [0], I can't help but wonder how can this level of sheer complexity in dna transcription, protein production, and many other supporting functions in a single cell works in perfect harmony. It's mind boggling. I admit that I'm biased, but I don't think this could have evolved through random processes. I'm a believer in Intelligent Design. https://youtu…
So goddamn stupid that it's just sad.
Until I found out C.S. to a majority of the world really just means coding - the most boring activity I can imagine. (to me... I have some parts of "H.D." in the ADHD, so don't downvote me).
I thought C.S. would lead to a career of solving difficult Automata, algorithmic, etc problems. Nope.
I was very into Chemistry and Biology until I found Computer Science. C.S. was/is fascinating, so many interesting problems. Until I found out C.S. to a majority of the world really just means coding - the most boring activity I can imagine. (to me... I have some parts of "H.D." in the ADHD, so don't downvote me). I thought C.S. would lead to a career of solving difficult Automata, algorithmic, etc problems. Nope.
There is a large gap between the mechanisms of chemistry and the magic of biology that most people do not see closed until late in their education. It's a real shame that this gap cannot be closed sooner. In undergrad I took a bunch of biology and chemistry classes. It wasn't until I took Biochemistry (a senior level class) that everything came together. The biochemistry class I took was a re-telling of all the stori…
I would go further to describe living systems as not just distributed and so on. Also they are self-assembling and self-repairing. They are redundant - which makes them more damage resistant and 'evolvable'.
Also, these complex assemblies of machines work at (mostly) room temperature and pressure. Except for extremophiles that can work down to freezing or up to boiling temperatures, or in acid or high pressure environments.
Also enzymes catalyse stereospecific reactions, or can use light to drive proton gradients across a lipid membrane, or reduce nitrogen gas. I've always found it funny the sci-fi obsession with 'nanomachines' when living systems are basically composed of exactly that.
There is a large gap between the mechanisms of chemistry and the magic of biology that most people do not see closed until late in their education. It's a real shame that this gap cannot be closed sooner. In undergrad I took a bunch of biology and chemistry classes. It wasn't until I took Biochemistry (a senior level class) that everything came together. The biochemistry class I took was a re-telling of all the stori…
Great description. I would go further to describe living systems as not just distributed and so on. Also they are self-assembling and self-repairing. They are redundant - which makes them more damage resistant and 'evolvable'. Also, these complex assemblies of machines work at (mostly) room temperature and pressure. Except for extremophiles that can work down to freezing or up to boiling temperatures, or in acid or h…
There is a large gap between the mechanisms of chemistry and the magic of biology that most people do not see closed until late in their education. It's a real shame that this gap cannot be closed sooner. In undergrad I took a bunch of biology and chemistry classes. It wasn't until I took Biochemistry (a senior level class) that everything came together. The biochemistry class I took was a re-telling of all the stori…
There’s 574 amino acids making four separate interlocking chains in a single globin, plus the heme, all just to bind 4 oxygen molecules. It’s simultaneously elegant but hugely complex, far above any discussion of the rna sequencing.
It’s a big part of the “gap” between chemistry and biology IMO.
For example, why was the triangle area formula only memorized and not demonstrated to them? I thought this should be standard everywhere in the world? Maybe they just don’t remember, it happens early (age 11-12 for me IIRC).
Similarly, and this is from two decades ago at this point, some basics of gene expression and cell differentiation were covered in my later biology classes, including some of the evolutionary steps. Details are of course fuzzy now. But I clearly remember that learning we share so many genes and so much cell chemistry with even basic bacteria threw me into a bit of an existential crisis when I was 17 — making me question what if anything is so special about humans.
When they were students, some people were simply unwilling to follow any train of thought that was unlikely to be test-relevant. The author almost admits as much: “Someone probably told me that every cell in my body has the same DNA. But no one shook me by the shoulders, saying how crazy that was.” That’s a perfectly fine way to approach school, I’m not judging. But then maybe don’t complain that you didn’t learn anything?
I should have loved biology in high school, had it been centered on evolutionary principles, rather than (in my US classes) seemingly disconnected materials with at most a week on evolution.
Because "controversy."
I noticed this essay doesn't used the word evolution at all, preferring "heredity."
Evolution is what ties the fields of biology together, from biochemistry and microbiology to anatomy, animal behavior, and ecosystems.
I didn't start to understand what I was missing in my biology education until I started reading Stephen Jay Gould essays in college.
Reflecting on this, I find it sad that I never really saw how to place this research into the much broader biological context in which it exists. This goes back to how we teach the subject as the linked article discusses so nicely. There is no sense of wonder. There are no questions that are posed to the reader, just "facts".
Consider this question - look outside at a tree. Where did all the carbon in the tree come from? You may have heard that carbon fixation in plants use a process called "photosynthesis" that involves iron ions. Where did the iron come from? If only we taught by using storytelling techniques and posing questions to students, perhaps we might have more engagement with science than we have today.