discoveryinstitute--2020-04-01--Will the COVID-19 Pandemic Promote Mass Automation?

Will business managers seize on the coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) pandemic as a chance to automate away many workers jobs while they are ?
That concern was recently voiced at The Guardian : Almost half of company bosses in 45 countries are speeding up plans to automate their businesses as workers are forced to stay at home during the coronavirus outbreak .
Some 41 % of respondents in a survey by the auditing firm EY said they were investing in accelerating automation as businesses prepared for a post-crisis world .
PA Media , “ Bosses speed up automation as virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Due to the massive disruption of business , a record 3.3 million Americans filed for unemployment for the week ending March 21 , 2020 .
Analysts have noted that the key difference between the global coronavirus impact and past periods of economic distress is that “ it is sudden and impacts virtually every industry and business model around ” ( CNN , March 26 , 2020 ) .
How will automation help if there is hardly any business to automate ?
And if there is business out there , would automation help ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers : You can turn them off .
And , when you do , no one complains and no one files for unemployment .
In fact , a business would likely save money due to reduce power consumption and worker benefits .
Machines , provided they perform as promised , can enable a rapid response to market changes .
The coronavirus disruption , for example , has caused a historic drop in business demand .
The week before coronavirus really hit , only 300,000 Americans filed for unemployment— 90 % fewer .
Such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to absorb .
Worse ( from a strict dollars and cents perspective ) ceasing to pay an employee does not mean that the expenses stop .
Employees may have accrued vacation , sick leave , and other benefits owing .
All these put a strain on a business ’ s cash flow just when the cash stops flowing .
So—again , from a strict dollars and cents perspective—increasing automation as a hedge against a huge , sudden drop in demand makes sense for businesses .
But , does it make sense overall and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , I ’ ve covered many occasions in which automation failed to live up to the hype .
Here are a few : • Star self-driving truck firm shuts ; AI not safe enough soon enough ( The CEO was blunt about the problems . )
• AI is not ready to moderate social media content !
( Again , professionals admit that . )
• Can we outsource hiring decisions to AI and go for coffee now ?
( The history is not a promising one . )
• Pizza robots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t make good pizza . )
• Boeing ’ s sidelined fuselage robots : What went wrong ?
They created more problems than they solved .
The bottom line is , automation often works but it often fails too , often for unforeseen reasons .
While it can help humans do better , it can not replace them .
I understand the panic many business leaders experience as they try to stay solvent while customers evaporate .
Panic , however , is a poor teacher : AI-based automation will not only not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very well add to them .
AI is not a magic box into which we can stuff them and make them disappear .
We will get past SARS-Cov-2 ( COVID-19 ) Life , and business , will return to something more normal ( even if it is a new normal ) .
And it may be that we , all together , will need to create safety measures to better protect local businesses and their employees from world class catastrophes .
Further reading : Robot-proofing your career , Peter Thiel ’ s way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their discussion of what has changed—and what won ’ t change—when AI disrupts the workplace .
We will never go back to the pre-Covid-19 workplace ( Jonathan Bartlett )

Will business managers seize on the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic as a chance to automate away many workers jobs while they are ? That concern was recently voiced at The Guardian:
Almost half of company bosses in 45 countries are speeding up plans to automate their businesses as workers are forced to stay at home during the coronavirus outbreak. Some 41% of respondents in a survey by the auditing firm EY said they were investing in accelerating automation as businesses prepared for a post-crisis world. PA Media, “Bosses speed up automation as virus keeps workers home” at The Guardian
Due to the massive disruption of business, a record 3.3 million Americans filed for unemployment for the week ending March 21, 2020. Analysts have noted that the key difference between the global coronavirus impact and past periods of economic distress is that “it is sudden and impacts virtually every industry and business model around” (CNN, March 26, 2020).
How will automation help if there is hardly any business to automate? And if there is business out there, would automation help?
Machines have a significant advantage over human workers: You can turn them off. And, when you do, no one complains and no one files for unemployment. In fact, a business would likely save money due to reduce power consumption and worker benefits. Machines, provided they perform as promised, can enable a rapid response to market changes.
The coronavirus disruption, for example, has caused a historic drop in business demand. The week before coronavirus really hit, only 300,000 Americans filed for unemployment— 90% fewer. Such rapid changes are hard for any business to absorb. Worse (from a strict dollars and cents perspective) ceasing to pay an employee does not mean that the expenses stop. Employees may have accrued vacation, sick leave, and other benefits owing. All these put a strain on a business’s cash flow just when the cash stops flowing.
So—again, from a strict dollars and cents perspective—increasing automation as a hedge against a huge, sudden drop in demand makes sense for businesses.
But, does it make sense overall and will it work? Over the last year, I’ve covered many occasions in which automation failed to live up to the hype. Here are a few:
Star self-driving truck firm shuts; AI not safe enough soon enough (The CEO was blunt about the problems.)
AI is not ready to moderate social media content! (Again, professionals admit that.)
Can we outsource hiring decisions to AI and go for coffee now? (The history is not a promising one.)
Pizza robots get the pink slip (They didn’t make good pizza.)
Boeing’s sidelined fuselage robots: What went wrong? They created more problems than they solved.
The bottom line is, automation often works but it often fails too, often for unforeseen reasons. While it can help humans do better, it cannot replace them.
I understand the panic many business leaders experience as they try to stay solvent while customers evaporate. Panic, however, is a poor teacher: AI-based automation will not only not solve all their problems, it may very well add to them. AI is not a magic box into which we can stuff them and make them disappear.
We will get past SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) Life, and business, will return to something more normal (even if it is a new normal). And it may be that we, all together, will need to create safety measures to better protect local businesses and their employees from world class catastrophes.
Further reading: Robot-proofing your career, Peter Thiel’s way Jay Richards and Larry L. Linenschmidt continue their discussion of what has changed—and what won’t change—when AI disrupts the workplace.
and
We will never go back to the pre-Covid-19 workplace (Jonathan Bartlett)


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-01--How Biology Confirms Design

How Biology Confirms Design

As molecular biologist Douglas Axe recalls , the Greek philosopher Gorgias ( born about 483 BC ) spent a lifetime pondering the nature of existence .
At last he arrived at a firm conclusion : “ Nothing exists.
” In a presentation at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith , Dr. Axe used Gorgias to illustrate his point that “ expertise does not necessarily drive you in the right direction.
” Sometimes it does the exact opposite .
How could that be ?
When Dr. Axe was planning his book , Undeniable : How Biology Confirms Our Intuition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing as other scientists have done : distill a lot of technical literature down for a lay audience .
But he ultimately decided that that was to “ play into the hands ” of those atheists and materialists he was arguing against .
They would simply tell his lay readers that the readers were in no position to judge even an ultimate question like this — the origins of life — and must instead docilely confirm the majority or “ consensus ” view of people holding PhDs in the correct fields .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe you don ’ t need a PhD to decide whether we are cosmic accidents or not.
” Axe tells some of his own personal story , which I did not know .
As a high school student he dissected frogs in biology class and found that uninspiring .
It wasn ’ t until college at U.C .
Berkley and grad school at Caltech that he came to appreciate the wonders of life at the molecular level .
He realized , “ This is engineering , remarkable engineering , far beyond anything humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even without his background as a professional scientist , we all already know what we need to know to decide whether life reflects intelligent purpose .
This is an affirming and liberating message .

As molecular biologist Douglas Axe recalls, the Greek philosopher Gorgias (born about 483 BC) spent a lifetime pondering the nature of existence. At last he arrived at a firm conclusion: “Nothing exists.” In a presentation at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, Dr. Axe used Gorgias to illustrate his point that “expertise does not necessarily drive you in the right direction.” Sometimes it does the exact opposite. How could that be?
When Dr. Axe was planning his book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, he considered doing as other scientists have done: distill a lot of technical literature down for a lay audience. But he ultimately decided that that was to “play into the hands” of those atheists and materialists he was arguing against. They would simply tell his lay readers that the readers were in no position to judge even an ultimate question like this — the origins of life — and must instead docilely confirm the majority or “consensus” view of people holding PhDs in the correct fields. As Axe says here, “I firmly believe you don’t need a PhD to decide whether we are cosmic accidents or not.”
Professor Axe’s Personal Story
Axe tells some of his own personal story, which I did not know. As a high school student he dissected frogs in biology class and found that uninspiring. It wasn’t until college at U.C. Berkley and grad school at Caltech that he came to appreciate the wonders of life at the molecular level. He realized, “This is engineering, remarkable engineering, far beyond anything humans can do.”
But he explains why, even without his background as a professional scientist, we all already know what we need to know to decide whether life reflects intelligent purpose. This is an affirming and liberating message.


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-31--Did COVID-19 Virus Evolve by Natural Selection?

Darwinist biologist P.Z .
Myers writes about various theories about the designed or natural origin of the COVID-19 virus : @ @ @ @ @ theauthors note , to believe that the virus arose without human design .
From their @ @ @ @ @ Myers concludes : Myers , like thescientists , uses the scientific inference to intelligent design @ @ @ @ @ discount ) human intelligent agency .
Design science is at the forefront of research on @ @ @ @ @ Based on the available evidence and using the inference to design as a scientific hypothesis @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 virus seems unlikely.But there is another lesson about design and evolution to be learned @ @ @ @ @ virus .
Natural selection , if understood as undirected variation and differential reproductive success , @ @ @ @ @ Natural selection destroys biological functional complexity — it produces diseases cancer , and pandemics .
@ @ @ @ @ Natural selection does to living organisms what rust does to a machine .
Natural selection @ @ @ @ @ and plays no role in creating it .

Darwinist biologist P.Z. Myers writes about various theories about the designed or natural origin of the COVID-19 virus:
I’ve been seeing some wild speculation that this pandemic is the product of genetic engineering — that it’s a biowarfare weapon that escaped from a lab somewhere. This is nonsense. I’ll refer you to an article in Nature Medicine, The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, which discusses a systematic analysis of the structure of SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to other coronaviruses.
There is good reason, the Nature Medicine authors note, to believe that the virus arose without human design. From their article:
While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not ideal and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to be optimal for receptor binding. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.
Myers concurs:
Yeah, see, if I were a nefarious super-villain, we already have an even better RBD we could yank out of other viruses, and I would have used that to build a deadly virus. But instead, the SARS-CoV-2 RBD is some clunky variation that came out of nowhere, by accident, without any other signs of intentional manipulation. They also consider the possibility that this was an accidental variation acquired in a lab — if you pass a virus through a lot of host cells in a cell culture system, it will continue to evolve, and you might imagine the RBD might acquire a random variation that allows it to thrive in those cells, and then it accidentally escapes the lab. This is also unlikely, because it shares a lot of similarities with the pangolin coronaviruses. It’s more likely to have arisen from an existing pool of related viruses in the wild, then either acquired its novel binding site there, or after infecting humans and experiencing selection for better binding to human cells.
Myers concludes:
Sorry, conspiracy theorists. The best explanation is evolution and natural selection, not Evil Intelligent Design.
Design and Evolution
Myers, like the Nature Medicine scientists, uses the scientific inference to intelligent design to search for (and discount) human intelligent agency. Design science is at the forefront of research on the emergence of coronavirus. Based on the available evidence and using the inference to design as a scientific hypothesis, intelligent design of the COVID-19 virus seems unlikely.
But there is another lesson about design and evolution to be learned from scientific research on this virus. Natural selection, if understood as undirected variation and differential reproductive success, is a destructive process. Natural selection destroys biological functional complexity — it produces diseases, cancer, and pandemics. It weakens and kills. Natural selection does to living organisms what rust does to a machine. Natural selection corrodes and destroys life, and plays no role in creating it.
Photo source: U.S. Air Force photo, by Senior Airman Rhett Isbell.


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-30--Approved by FDA Against COVID-19, Chloroquine Is Also Prominent in the Case for Intelligent Design

Yesterday , as a possible weapon against COVID-19 , the Food and Drug Administration rushed out approval for an anti-malarial treatment .
What does malaria , a tropical disease caused by a parasite , have to do with the viral infection rampaging across the globe ?
When an anxious public first learned about the chloroquine as a tool against the novel coronavirus , some of us with no experience of tropical medicine said to ourselves , “ Wait , I ’ ve heard of that before.
” Yes , chloroquine-resistant malarial parasites figure prominently in biochemist and ID proponent Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what unguided Darwinian processes can do .
He details that case in his book The Edge of Evolution .
Now , on a fascinating and very timely episode of ID the Future , Professor Behe talks with host Andrew McDiarmid about chloroquine and its role in demonstrating the need for intelligent design in the rise of complex life .
Behe discusses the history of the medication .
The story goes back centuries to the Spanish colonization of South America , where native people recognized the anti-malarial properties of the cinchona tree and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard before is a really clear explanation of how chloroquine works , on the malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum and , perhaps , on the SARS-CoV-2 virus .
As Behe says , they may provide a means of interfering with the virus ’ s ability to invade cells .
So the world waits as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are put to the test .
Dr. Behe provides a “ ray of hope , ” as Andrew rightly puts it , and welcome clarity in this sad and confusing time .
Download the podcast or listen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phosphate , now approved by the FDA for use against COVID-19 , by Joegoauk Goa , via Flickr .

Yesterday, as a possible weapon against COVID-19, the Food and Drug Administration rushed out approval for an anti-malarial treatment. What does malaria, a tropical disease caused by a parasite, have to do with the viral infection rampaging across the globe?
When an anxious public first learned about the chloroquine as a tool against the novel coronavirus, some of us with no experience of tropical medicine said to ourselves, “Wait, I’ve heard of that before.” Yes, chloroquine-resistant malarial parasites figure prominently in biochemist and ID proponent Michael Behe’s argument for sharp limits to what unguided Darwinian processes can do. He details that case in his book The Edge of Evolution. Now, on a fascinating and very timely episode of ID the Future, Professor Behe talks with host Andrew McDiarmid about chloroquine and its role in demonstrating the need for intelligent design in the rise of complex life.
Behe discusses the history of the medication. The story goes back centuries to the Spanish colonization of South America, where native people recognized the anti-malarial properties of the cinchona tree and its bark. Something I had not heard before is a really clear explanation of how chloroquine works, on the malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum and, perhaps, on the SARS-CoV-2 virus. As Behe says, they may provide a means of interfering with the virus’s ability to invade cells.
So the world waits as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are put to the test. Dr. Behe provides a “ray of hope,” as Andrew rightly puts it, and welcome clarity in this sad and confusing time. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Photo: Chloroquine phosphate, now approved by the FDA for use against COVID-19, by Joegoauk Goa, via Flickr.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-02--Viruses: An Intelligent Design Perspective

The COVID-19 virus is on a rampage in the world , killing thousands in the U.S. so far , shutting down whole countries ’ economies , and possibly altering aspects of modern life for the future , after the virus has waned .
What the complete impact will be is of course unknowable .
In the meantime , though , questions arise about this and other , related sub-microscopic entities .
Viruses seem so evil .
What is their place in life ?
And like other aspects of nature , do they give evidence of intelligent design ?
Certainly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is a subject that needs to be approached with sensitivity and humility .
It isn ’ t the purpose of this article to adequately address great philosophical questions .
That can wait for another occasion .
But before such questions can even be considered , it ’ s necessary to look at viruses dispassionately .
Then it will be helpful to evaluate whether they are , on the whole , beneficial or harmful .
Here are some scientific findings to help make those determinations .
There are viruses that look like lunar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look like alien spaceships .
They can locate and land on a cell membrane , puncture the lipid bilayer , and insert their genetic material through a tube with a twisting motion .
Most fundamentally , viruses carry and transmit information .
Or perhaps better put , they require pre-existing information-copying systems , such as those found in cells , in order to replicate .
Their “ capsules ” contain the genetic material — information-carrying genetic molecules , needed to hijack a cell ’ s machinery in order to make copies of themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , very clever little machines .
In some viruses the genetic material is entirely DNA , in others it is RNA .
These can then be broken down into single- or double-stranded DNA viruses , or single- or double-stranded RNA viruses .
RNA viruses are more efficient than DNA viruses because they can skip the process of transcription and their RNA molecules can be directly translated into proteins .
Single-stranded RNA viruses can be further broken down into two types : “ positive-sense ” RNA which can be directly translated into protein , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genetic information on a complementary strand .
The latter must first be converted to positive-sense RNA before it can be translated , however the former is most efficient because it can be immediately translated into protein .
The SARS-CoV-2 virus which is causing the current pandemic is the most “ efficient ” type : it is a positive-sense single-strained RNA virus .
Compared to DNA viruses , RNA viruses are also generally harder to combat through modern medicine .
This is because RNA replication error-checking machinery is less efficient than DNA replication error-checking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more prone to mutations , which makes it harder to develop a vaccine to target the virus .
After the viral genetic material enters a cell , it commandeers the translation machinery ( and in the case of a DNA virus , the transcription machinery ) , forcing the cell to make copies of the virus .
The cell then dies , splitting open to release hundreds of new virus particles ready to repeat the process on other cells .
Growth would be exponential were the immune system not prepared to attack them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viruses as enemy combatants in all-out war , and tempting to root for the immune system as a national defense program in a desperate attempt to stamp out the invaders .
Such personifications can be misleading , however , and should be avoided .
Even an enemy tank can show strong evidence of intelligent design .
Details of their construction can help determine if viruses pass the design filter .
The protein coat covering the viral genome often resembles a polyhedron , a geometrical solid comprised of polygons .
Think of a soccer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California at Riverside describes soccer ball geometry and expands it into the class of other polyhedra , including the icosahedron shape that some viruses build : The author , Iqbal Pittalwala , is interested primarily in the energetics of how viruses build their protein coats , called capsids .
Dr. Zandi studies them with her team in hopes of learning how engineers might mimic the production for nano-vehicles .
“ What makes them highly promising for drug delivery and gene delivery purposes is that they are stable , have a high uptake efficiency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she says .
Learning about their construction can also help pharmaceutical companies devise drugs to interfere with or block viral assembly .
Their lab has found that the capsids self-assemble very quickly , on the order of milliseconds .
On the way , the proteins have to circumvent many energy barriers .
The paper by Zandi ’ s team , published in ACS Nano , describes how the shells , even if disordered , can break apart and reassemble into symmetrical forms by physical forces like elastic energy .
As the proteins attract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by natural forces is interesting , but insufficient for detecting design .
Snowflakes , buckyballs , and other crystals can do that .
More instructive is how the viruses pack their DNA or RNA and inject it into cells .
In 2008 , Purdue University learned about a “ powerful molecular motor ” that packs the DNA into the capsid of a T4 virus ( a virus that infects and kills bacteria ) .
“ Parts of the motor move in sequence like the pistons in a car ’ s engine , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sounding more like an irreducibly complex molecular machine !
A more recent article ( 2014 ) from University of California at San Diego makes a capsid motor look smarter still .
The motor can relax when the density of DNA in the capsid gets too tight , allowing it to readjust so that the motor can continue .
Without that flexibility , the DNA could start tangling and forming knots .
The image shows the DNA neatly wrapped inside .
If a flagellar motor or ATP synthase is sufficient to conclude intelligent design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclude a capsid motor just because of the harm a virus might do .
The design filter does not concern itself with the purpose of a design , whether for good or bad , but just whether a purpose exists .
OK .
So it seems that viruses are intelligently designed .
In a timely podcast for ID the Future , Michael Behe shed light on why “ bad ” viruses like COVID-19 exist .
He compares them to storms at sea .
Most design advocates wouldn ’ t hesitate to say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That includes the oceans .
Sometimes , however , there are violent storms at sea .
A ship caught in a storm might perish just because of the way the laws of nature operate in a designed biosphere that needs oceans .
COVID-19 has been quietly at work in some animals , Professor Behe says , but made the jump to humans , perhaps through mutations that expanded its affinity for other species .
Our immune systems were caught off guard and have not had time to develop immunity .
Even more interesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for beneficial functions in viruses .
Biologists tell us that our bodies carry 10 times more microbes than our own cells .
That number is even higher for viruses by two orders of magnitude .
And yet we usually thrive in this ocean of viruses we move about in .
For one thing , our immune systems become adjusted to viruses and know how to keep them in check .
Another more design-friendly finding is that “ viral DNA ” in the human genome — once thought to represent invasions that became established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transcribed .
This suggests that these retrotransposons are actually beneficial .
If so , another kind of “ junk DNA ” should be viewed as “ gems ” that help us in ways we can not imagine .
In 2011 , Elizabeth Pennisi , writing for Science , opened the door to a positive attitude about viruses .
Microbiologists already know that a class of internal viruses called bacteriophages help us by destroying invasive bacteria .
Phages are , in fact , essential to our health .
So there is one known benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might discover other benefits of viruses .
Could they provide local information and protection as we move about into new habitats ?
Could they act as checks against unrestricted growth of other threats ?
Could they keep our immune systems in peak condition ?
While it tests our ability as human beings to think from a larger perspective , perhaps we can start considering viruses as essential partners , welcoming our numerous passengers along as we seek to weather the current storm .
Photo : Bacteriophages help us by destroying invasive bacteria , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The COVID-19 virus is on a rampage in the world, killing thousands in the U.S. so far, shutting down whole countries’ economies, and possibly altering aspects of modern life for the future, after the virus has waned. What the complete impact will be is of course unknowable. In the meantime, though, questions arise about this and other, related sub-microscopic entities. Viruses seem so evil. What is their place in life? And like other aspects of nature, do they give evidence of intelligent design?
Certainly, in a context of global anxiety, this is a subject that needs to be approached with sensitivity and humility. It isn’t the purpose of this article to adequately address great philosophical questions. That can wait for another occasion. But before such questions can even be considered, it’s necessary to look at viruses dispassionately. Then it will be helpful to evaluate whether they are, on the whole, beneficial or harmful. Here are some scientific findings to help make those determinations.
Overview
There are viruses that look like lunar landers from the Apollo era. Others look like alien spaceships. They can locate and land on a cell membrane, puncture the lipid bilayer, and insert their genetic material through a tube with a twisting motion. Most fundamentally, viruses carry and transmit information. Or perhaps better put, they require pre-existing information-copying systems, such as those found in cells, in order to replicate. Their “capsules” contain the genetic material — information-carrying genetic molecules, needed to hijack a cell’s machinery in order to make copies of themselves.
Viruses are, to all appearances, very clever little machines. In some viruses the genetic material is entirely DNA, in others it is RNA. These can then be broken down into single- or double-stranded DNA viruses, or single- or double-stranded RNA viruses. RNA viruses are more efficient than DNA viruses because they can skip the process of transcription and their RNA molecules can be directly translated into proteins. Single-stranded RNA viruses can be further broken down into two types: “positive-sense” RNA which can be directly translated into protein, and “negative-sense” RNA which carries genetic information on a complementary strand. The latter must first be converted to positive-sense RNA before it can be translated, however the former is most efficient because it can be immediately translated into protein.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus which is causing the current pandemic is the most “efficient” type: it is a positive-sense single-strained RNA virus. Compared to DNA viruses, RNA viruses are also generally harder to combat through modern medicine. This is because RNA replication error-checking machinery is less efficient than DNA replication error-checking machinery. That means RNA viruses are more prone to mutations, which makes it harder to develop a vaccine to target the virus.
After the viral genetic material enters a cell, it commandeers the translation machinery (and in the case of a DNA virus, the transcription machinery), forcing the cell to make copies of the virus. The cell then dies, splitting open to release hundreds of new virus particles ready to repeat the process on other cells. Growth would be exponential were the immune system not prepared to attack them. It’s easy to imagine viruses as enemy combatants in all-out war, and tempting to root for the immune system as a national defense program in a desperate attempt to stamp out the invaders. Such personifications can be misleading, however, and should be avoided. Even an enemy tank can show strong evidence of intelligent design. Details of their construction can help determine if viruses pass the design filter.
Construction
The protein coat covering the viral genome often resembles a polyhedron, a geometrical solid comprised of polygons. Think of a soccer ball. News from the University of California at Riverside describes soccer ball geometry and expands it into the class of other polyhedra, including the icosahedron shape that some viruses build:
An icosahedron is a geometrical structure with 12 vertices, 20 faces, and 30 sides. An official soccer ball is a kind of icosahedron called a truncated icosahedron; it has 32 panels cut into the shape of 20 hexagons and 12 pentagons, with the pentagons separated from each other by hexagons…. “A viral shell is highly symmetric,” [Roya] Zandi said. “If one pentagonal defect forms in the wrong location, it breaks down the symmetry. Despite this sensitivity, viral shells are often assembled into well-defined symmetric structures.” [Emphasis added.]
The author, Iqbal Pittalwala, is interested primarily in the energetics of how viruses build their protein coats, called capsids. Dr. Zandi studies them with her team in hopes of learning how engineers might mimic the production for nano-vehicles. “What makes them highly promising for drug delivery and gene delivery purposes is that they are stable, have a high uptake efficiency, and have low toxicity,” she says. Learning about their construction can also help pharmaceutical companies devise drugs to interfere with or block viral assembly.
Their lab has found that the capsids self-assemble very quickly, on the order of milliseconds. On the way, the proteins have to circumvent many energy barriers.
“Our study shows that if a messy shell forms because of the high protein concentration or strong attractive interaction, then, as the shell grows larger, the cost of elastic energy becomes so high that several bonds can get broken, resulting in the disassembly and subsequent reassembly of a symmetric shell.”
The paper by Zandi’s team, published in ACS Nano, describes how the shells, even if disordered, can break apart and reassemble into symmetrical forms by physical forces like elastic energy. As the proteins attract,
the key for the disorder–order transition in both en masse and nucleation and growth pathways lies in the strength of elastic energy compared to the other forces in the system including protein–protein interactions and the chemical potential of free subunits. Our findings explain, at least in part, why perfect virions with icosahedral order form under different conditions including physiological ones.
Motor Activation
The self-assembly of symmetric geometrical capsids by natural forces is interesting, but insufficient for detecting design. Snowflakes, buckyballs, and other crystals can do that. More instructive is how the viruses pack their DNA or RNA and inject it into cells.
In 2008, Purdue University learned about a “powerful molecular motor” that packs the DNA into the capsid of a T4 virus (a virus that infects and kills bacteria). “Parts of the motor move in sequence like the pistons in a car’s engine,” the researchers found. Now this is sounding more like an irreducibly complex molecular machine!
Other researchers have determined that the T4 molecular motor is the strongest yet discovered in viruses and proportionately twice as powerful as an automotive engine. The motors generate 20 times the force produced by the protein myosin, one of the two proteins responsible for the contraction and strength of muscles. The virus consists of a head and tail portion. The DNA-packaging motor is located in the same place where the tail eventually connects to the head. Most of the motor falls off after the packaging step is completed, allowing the tail to attach to the capsid. The DNA is a complete record of a virus’s properties, and the capsid protects this record from damage and ensures that the virus can reproduce by infecting a host organism.
A more recent article (2014) from University of California at San Diego makes a capsid motor look smarter still. The motor can relax when the density of DNA in the capsid gets too tight, allowing it to readjust so that the motor can continue. Without that flexibility, the DNA could start tangling and forming knots. The image shows the DNA neatly wrapped inside.
DNA is a long, unwieldy molecule that tends to repel itself because it is negatively charged, yet it can spool tightly. Within the heads of viruses, DNA can be packed to near crystalline densities, crammed in by a molecular motor. “These are among the most powerful molecular motors we know of,” says Douglas Smith, a professor of physics whose group studies them.
If a flagellar motor or ATP synthase is sufficient to conclude intelligent design, there is no good reason to exclude a capsid motor just because of the harm a virus might do. The design filter does not concern itself with the purpose of a design, whether for good or bad, but just whether a purpose exists. OK. So it seems that viruses are intelligently designed.
What Good Is a Virus?
In a timely podcast for ID the Future, Michael Behe shed light on why “bad” viruses like COVID-19 exist. He compares them to storms at sea. Most design advocates wouldn’t hesitate to say that the Earth is well-designed for life. That includes the oceans. Sometimes, however, there are violent storms at sea. A ship caught in a storm might perish just because of the way the laws of nature operate in a designed biosphere that needs oceans. COVID-19 has been quietly at work in some animals, Professor Behe says, but made the jump to humans, perhaps through mutations that expanded its affinity for other species. Our immune systems were caught off guard and have not had time to develop immunity.
Even more interesting, Behe adds, is growing evidence for beneficial functions in viruses. Biologists tell us that our bodies carry 10 times more microbes than our own cells. That number is even higher for viruses by two orders of magnitude. And yet we usually thrive in this ocean of viruses we move about in. For one thing, our immune systems become adjusted to viruses and know how to keep them in check.
Another more design-friendly finding is that “viral DNA” in the human genome — once thought to represent invasions that became established as useless junk — is actually being transcribed. This suggests that these retrotransposons are actually beneficial. If so, another kind of “junk DNA” should be viewed as “gems” that help us in ways we cannot imagine. In 2011, Elizabeth Pennisi, writing for Science, opened the door to a positive attitude about viruses.
In the past decade, scientists have learned that the vast bacterial world inside the human body plays a role in regulating the energy we take in from food, primes the immune system, and performs a variety of other functions that help maintain our health. Now, researchers are gaining similar respect for the viruses we carry around. For a start, the variety and sheer number of viruses that inhabit us put our bacterial companions to shame. Many of the viruses prey on the bacteria in our bodies, altering their numbers and diversity and shuffling genes — including genes for antibiotic resistance — from one bacterium to another.
Microbiologists already know that a class of internal viruses called bacteriophages help us by destroying invasive bacteria. Phages are, in fact, essential to our health. So there is one known benefit. More research from a design perspective might discover other benefits of viruses. Could they provide local information and protection as we move about into new habitats? Could they act as checks against unrestricted growth of other threats? Could they keep our immune systems in peak condition?
While it tests our ability as human beings to think from a larger perspective, perhaps we can start considering viruses as essential partners, welcoming our numerous passengers along as we seek to weather the current storm.
Photo: Bacteriophages help us by destroying invasive bacteria, by Dr. Graham Beards / CC BY-SA.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-02--Coronavirus: Triage if Necessary, Health-Care Rationing, Never

With the raging coronavirus pandemic threatening millions with infection , people are rightly worried that we could face the awful circumstance in which there are insufficient life-saving medical resources available for all catastrophically ill patients needing care .
If that dark day comes , decisions will literally have to be made as to who among the seriously ill will be given an optimal chance to fight for life under intensive medical care , and who may have to face a likely death , albeit under palliative care .
All over the country , doctors , bioethicists , policymakers , hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to make such extremely difficult decisions if they become necessary .
That ’ s proper and fitting .
As the old saying goes , hope for the best and plan for the worst .
Moreover , it is wise to create a well-thought-out plan that can be followed consistently in awful contingencies to prevent ad hoc approaches that invite life-and-death decisions to be based on cronyism , discrimination , or other unjust non-medical factors If doctors must refuse needed care , morality and maintaining the people ’ s trust require that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistent with upholding the equal moral worth of all patients .
In other words , decisions to withhold or withdraw treatments — chance for life or likelihood of death — should never be predicated on invidious distinctions , such as race , sex , wealth , age , sexual orientation , disability , etc .
Or to put it another way , each patient who enters the regrettable to treat or not to treat decision-making process must do so as the inherent equal of every other patient .
In this regard , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is ethical — and “ health-care rationing , ” which , as I use the term in this article , is not .
Triage involves doctors or other medical professionals assessing the differing chances for survival among patients who would all be eligible for extensive treatment , but all of whom can ’ t be served because of resource limitations .
In that circumstance , those patients with the greater likelihood of surviving the crisis because of the intervention will receive priority in receiving treatment over those more likely to die even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ triage is a medical determination , not an ideological one .
It treats all patients as equals and bases hard decisions on the same objective criteria of assessing survivability regardless of the personal characteristics of each person .
A subset of survivability has to do with the number of years a patient is likely to live if they receive the care .
Assume three patients arrive at a hospital emergency room who are all likely to survive with an intensive intervention , but there is only one available ICU unit .
The patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 80 .
In this awful circumstance , all other factors being equal , the 10-year-old should receive the intervention because he or she is likely to live more years than either the 45- or 80-year-old .
Now assume that two coronavirus patients need ICU care , with only one such bed available .
Both are equally likely to benefit .
One has terminal cancer and will probably die within a year , while the other patient is otherwise healthy .
In all likelihood , the healthy patient would receive the care over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthy patient ’ s life is deemed to be more important but because of the likelihood that patient will experience more years of living after recovering .
Note , we are not talking about judgments based on the supposed quality of those years .
A disabled 10-year old would still receive priority over the able-bodied middle age and elderly patients unless the disability were so severe that it would limit the patient ’ s odds of survival .
In this way , the judgments are based on objective criteria , not decisions about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , let ’ s contrast the triage approach with discriminatory health-care rationing .
Rationing is a very broad concept , of course , but as I am using the term in this article , it means medical discrimination , e.g.
, offering medical care to some patients but withholding it from others based on an ideological approach that sees some lives as being more important or as having greater value than others .
Age-based rationing is a classic example of this unethical approach .
Thus , in parts of Italy , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly being refused intubation — regardless of the likelihood that the treatment would save the life of a particular patient .
This is inherently discriminatory and unethical .
As Dr. Daniel Sulmasy wrote recently in the New York Daily News : The “ QALY ” system of rationing also should never be allowed because it is inherently discriminatory and crassly utilitarian .
QALY stands for “ quality adjusted life year , ” a system that presumes that all lives are not equal .
Here ’ s a brief — and very simplified — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operate in the current crisis : Let ’ s say Mark and I both need ICU care to survive the virus , but there is only one bed available .
At age 70 , I am able-bodied and generally healthy , and if I survive the crisis , I could be expected to live another 10 years .
Under the QALY system , my 10 years of physical life expectancy might be measured as , say , eight QALYs ( with a two-year demerit for the potential losses associated with advancing age ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark is 65 and has diabetes currently being successfully treated .
A few years previously , he was injured in an auto accident , which left him using a wheelchair and in continual pain only partially controlled with medication .
Under a QALY approach , his life could be deemed of lower “ quality ” than mine because of his illness and disability .
Even though coronavirus treatment would be expected to give him more years of life than me , he might be denigrated as having only five QALYs if he survives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the discriminatory method of measuring to be of lower quality than mine .
Under a proper triage system , assuming only one of us could be cared for , Mark would receive priority because while we would both survive with the needed intervention and he would be expected to live longer — an ethical objective criterion for choosing .
If the same decision were made via a discriminatory quality of life rationing system , I would probably receive the intervention because my QALY assessment is higher based on a discriminatory mindset that devalues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the middle of a pandemic , there is another factor to consider .
Should health-care workers receive priority over other patients , all other things being equal ?
Normally , the answer would be no .
But in this time of emergency , I think the American Medical Association is correct when it suggests , No one ever said any of this was going to be easy .
We are passing through a dire time in which normally unacceptable actions might have to be taken out of sheer necessity .
If that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is certainly reason to hope it can be avoided — let us decide beforehand and in the light of day how those excruciating decisions will be made by following an approach that gives equal value to all of us .
That means triage if — and only if — we must .
But we should never countenance invidious health-care rationing .

Center on Human Exceptionalism
The mission of Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism is to affirm and uphold the intrinsic nature of human dignity, liberty, and equality. In resistance to a growing movement against unique human personhood, we aim to revitalize a commitment to the traditional Western view of human rights and human responsibilities — summed up by the term “human exceptionalism.” Read more


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-01--Masks and Scarves and Overdraft Protection with Arnold Kling

This week I sought out Arnold Kling to learn more about some of his innovative ideas to deal with the health , economic and social fallout from the Covid-19 crisis .
Arnold , who blogs at arnoldkling.com/blog , author of “ Specialization and Trade ” and “ The Three Languages of Politics ” and with a PhD in Economics from MIT is one of America ’ s more original and penetrating thinkers .
Some of what we talk about : “ Masks and Scarves ” How do we know that we are getting the right data and smart science from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relying on computer models , not real world experiments .
The best evidence we have of what slows/halts the virus spread , is what ’ s happened in Hong Kong and Taiwan .
Rather than lockdowns , they have limited the disease ’ s spread by allowing people to go to work and school wearing surgical masks that help prevent sick people from infecting others .
If the purpose of social distancing is to keep sick people from infecting others , you could accomplish the same thing by mandating that everyone wear a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the blunt instrument of lockdowns .
“ Less Fiscal Stimulus , Instead Overdraft Protection ” Mandated stay at home lockdowns have shuttered the U.S. economy creating personal and business liquidity problems .
We ’ re not in a typical business-cycle recession that requires fiscal or monetary stimulus .
The solution : every bank account in the U.S. , personal or business , would have added to it a line of credit , at low interest , backed by the federal government .
“ It would work like government-backed overdraft protection .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could get and gets relief directly to those who most need it.
” “ Normal is not an option ” “ We have to resist the temptation to benchmark the future economic outlook against “ normal , ” where normal means what would have happened had the virus never appeared .
Pre-crisis , our patterns of specialization and trade were optimized for efficiency at the expense of fragility .
Expect supply chains , especially in our trade with China , to have a lot more redundancy and to be less driven by cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a smaller new “ normal ” economy or a different economy ?
“ I think a different economy .
I like to use the analogy of the Second World War as an example of what ’ s the economic precedent for this ?
So the Second World War we had to reallocate a lot of resources very quickly , both getting into the war and then at the end of the war as these millions of troops , the GIs come home and the factories no longer need to produce tanks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ relatively painless that readjustment was .
That aspect makes me fairly optimistic .
”

This week I sought out Arnold Kling to learn more about some of his innovative ideas to deal with the health, economic and social fallout from the Covid-19 crisis. Arnold, who blogs at arnoldkling.com/blog, author of “Specialization and Trade” and “The Three Languages of Politics” and with a PhD in Economics from MIT is one of America’s more original and penetrating thinkers.
Some of what we talk about: “Masks and Scarves” How do we know that we are getting the right data and smart science from our health authorities? We’re relying on computer models, not real world experiments. The best evidence we have of what slows/halts the virus spread, is what’s happened in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Rather than lockdowns, they have limited the disease’s spread by allowing people to go to work and school wearing surgical masks that help prevent sick people from infecting others. If the purpose of social distancing is to keep sick people from infecting others, you could accomplish the same thing by mandating that everyone wear a mask and stop killing the economy with the blunt instrument of lockdowns.
“Less Fiscal Stimulus, Instead Overdraft Protection” Mandated stay at home lockdowns have shuttered the U.S. economy creating personal and business liquidity problems. We’re not in a typical business-cycle recession that requires fiscal or monetary stimulus. The solution: every bank account in the U.S., personal or business, would have added to it a line of credit, at low interest, backed by the federal government. “It would work like government-backed overdraft protection. It’s administratively about as simple as you could get and gets relief directly to those who most need it.”
“Normal is not an option” “We have to resist the temptation to benchmark the future economic outlook against “normal,” where normal means what would have happened had the virus never appeared. Pre-crisis, our patterns of specialization and trade were optimized for efficiency at the expense of fragility. Expect supply chains, especially in our trade with China, to have a lot more redundancy and to be less driven by cost minimization.
So do we end up with a smaller new “normal” economy or a different economy? “I think a different economy. I like to use the analogy of the Second World War as an example of what’s the economic precedent for this? So the Second World War we had to reallocate a lot of resources very quickly, both getting into the war and then at the end of the war as these millions of troops, the GIs come home and the factories no longer need to produce tanks. It was amazing how rapid and how relatively painless that readjustment was. That aspect makes me fairly optimistic.”