<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0"
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
  xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

  <channel>
        <title>Custom Feed &#45; The BioLogos Forum</title>
    <link>http://biologos.org/resources/find/Video/any/Genetics,Randomness/sort&#45;by&#45;Newest?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</link>
    <description>This is a custom feed of BioLogos resources. Make a new feed at http://biologos.org/resources/find</description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2013</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2013-06-18T23:23:31-08:00</dc:date>    
    
    

            
            
        
      <item>
        <title>That’s Random!  A Look at Viral Self&#45;Assembly</title>
        <link>http://biologos.org/blog/thats&#45;random&#45;a&#45;look&#45;at&#45;viral&#45;self&#45;assembly?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</link>
        <guid>http://biologos.org/blog/thats&#45;random&#45;a&#45;look&#45;at&#45;viral&#45;self&#45;assembly?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</guid>
        <description>It should be noted that indeterminacy does not imply that God does not have foreknowledge of future events. Christians ought not to be uncomfortable with the idea of God interacting with his creation through chance.</description>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You hear it all the time: “That’s so random!” When used by people of my generation, the word “random” can simply mean “cool” or “surprising.” Or it can mean something like “disconnected,” as in the phrase, “I had a random thought” (which returns 189,000 hits on Google, by the way—random!).</p>

<p>Despite this usage, most of us know that randomness has something to do with probability, and that it often implies a lack of conscious intentionality. But what do mathematicians and scientists mean when they say something is random? Can a random process lead to an ordered, even predictable outcome? Is there evidence that God makes use of random processes to fulfill his creative purposes?</p>

<p>These are big questions, and we won’t address them all today. But I think randomness is an important topic to cover for two reasons: 1) it is integral to many processes in biology (and math, physics, chemistry, etc.), and 2) it is commonly misunderstood to be incompatible with Christianity.</p>

<p>As I said above, most of us know that randomness has something to do with probability. If you pick a card “at random” from a shuffled deck, you have a small probability of drawing an ace (4 out of 52, or a 7.7% chance). If you flip a coin, you have an equal probability of getting heads or tails.</p>

<p>Randomness also seems to imply a lack of intentionality or purposefulness. After all, you might hope for an ace when you draw a card, but you can’t choose one on purpose. You might call heads when you flip a coin, but you can’t know beforehand what the outcome will be. Thus the outcome is <em>indeterminate</em>, but is it purposeless? Not necessarily. Indeterminacy simply means the result cannot be predicted from the outset.</p>

<p>It should be noted that indeterminacy does not imply that God does not have foreknowledge of future events. Christians ought not to be uncomfortable with the idea of God interacting with his creation through chance. We often describe a seemingly-random (i.e. unplanned by us) sequence of events as being “providential,” or planned by God.</p>

<p>In biology, it is very hard or impossible to calculate precise probabilities for most processes, so when we say a process is random, we typically mean it is extremely unpredictable. Eventually we will discuss randomness within biological evolution, but first we must consider some simpler processes, like the self-assembly of a virus.</p>

<p>Viruses are remarkably efficient entities. Coiled tightly within a protein-based shell is a small amount of DNA needed for self-replication. The shell, called a capsid, is made of many repeating protein subunits and is therefore highly symmetrical (see figure). Important biomedical insights have certainly been gleaned from structural studies of viruses, but viruses also teach us about the emergence of order from non-order.</p>

<p>The virus life cycle has four main steps: 1) enter a host cell, 2) hijack the cell’s replication and translation machinery to make many copies of itself, 3) assemble into many virus particles, and 4) exit the cell to invade another host.</p>

<p>When I first learned about this process, I found it very hard to believe it just “happens.” The idea that a bunch of molecules bumping into each other inside a crowded cell could spontaneously assembly into a fully-functional virus seemed a bit far-fetched. Many viral capsids have over 100 protein subunits that must interact with each other in just the right way, or it won’t work. Surely there must be something driving this process, right?</p>

<p>There is! Random motion. I had to see it to believe it. I distinctly remember sitting in class during my first year of graduate school when the professor demonstrated self-assembly of a virus using a 3D <a href="http://models.scripps.edu/" target="_blank">model</a> as shown in the following video. In less than 30 seconds, you can watch a jumbled heap of proteins become a beautifully ordered structure.</p>

<p align="center"><object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X-8MP7g8XOE&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;rel=0" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X-8MP7g8XOE&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480"></embed></object></p>

<p>As the narrator explains, sub-assemblies form and break apart en route to the most stable structure, the full capsid. As the sub-assemblies begin to form, further associations with free subunits become more favorable and as a result occur rapidly, while the final steps may take considerably longer. While the subunits in the model are rigid, in reality the proteins take on multiple conformations, allowing the capsid to “breathe.”</p>

<p>Amazing as it is, the system we just considered—one virus capsid in a jar—is pretty simple. One wonders how self-assembly can happen in a crowded cell, where there are countless other molecules diffusing around, potentially getting in the way. We can’t directly <em>see</em> how it happens in a cell, but we can reconstitute the process in a test tube using different combinations of constituent molecules.</p>

<p>Consider two viruses, where each protein subunit in one virus is the mirror image of the corresponding subunit in the other. Putting the two viruses together by hand would be pretty tricky, because the constituent parts look so similar. But random motion can do the job in short order:</p>

<p align="center"><object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YbpTusoDEgA&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;rel=0" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YbpTusoDEgA&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480"></embed></object></p>

<p>From this model, we can see clearly, in real-time, how distinct complex structures can arise from their parts randomly interacting with one another. Many large viruses also use special scaffolding proteins to assist in the assembly process, and some even use their own genomes as a scaffold. In addition, two closely-related viruses that happen to infect the same cell can exchange parts to create a new virus. This is one way viruses can evolve quickly to evade the host’s immune system.</p>

<p>Here we have seen how viruses demonstrate a principle inherent in God’s world—that order can emerge out of chaos from random processes. In my next post, we will look at some other biological processes that make use of—rather, depend on—randomness. This will set the stage for us to see that such processes can not only assemble a structure within seconds or minutes, but also generate complex, information-bearing molecules over billions of years. Even though the freedom inherent in nature sometimes produces <em>un</em>intelligently-designed structures (like viruses, which can kill us), we see that God has made, and continues to oversee by his providence, a <em>good</em> creation that, at least in part, is capable of creating itself.</p>

<p class="intro">Next weekend, we’ll continue this series about randomness and God’s divine will. Up next: how God created the body to heal itself, and how can random mutations can be both harmful and benign.</p>]]></content:encoded>
        <pubDate>Sat, 16 Mar 13 08:54:44 -0700</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Kathryn Applegate</dc:creator>
        <!--<dc:date>Mar 16, 2013 08:54</dc:date>-->
      </item>
            <item>
        <title>Randomness and Evolution: Is There Room for God? (Videocast)</title>
        <link>http://biologos.org/blog/randomness&#45;and&#45;evolution&#45;is&#45;there&#45;room&#45;for&#45;god&#45;videocast?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</link>
        <guid>http://biologos.org/blog/randomness&#45;and&#45;evolution&#45;is&#45;there&#45;room&#45;for&#45;god&#45;videocast?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</guid>
        <description>This BioLogos videocast addresses the idea of randomness as a part of natural selection, and whether it challenges the possibility of God using the evolutionary process as a means of creation.</description>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today we present the fourth entry in our on-going BioLogos videocast series. So far we have looked at the fossil record and genetic evidence for evolution, as well as speciation and macroevolution. The latest entry addresses the idea of randomness as a part of natural selection, and whether it raises questions about the possibility of God using the evolutionary process as a means of creation. The script was written by biology student Joy Walters, with help from BioLogos president Darrel Falk.</p>

<p>For more, be sure to read Randall Pruim's recent series <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/series/randomness-and-gods-governance">Randomness and God’s Governance</a>, Kathryn Applegate's post <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/thats-random-a-look-at-viral-self-assembly2">That's Random: A Look at Viral Self-Assembly</a>, and our FAQ <a href="http://biologos.org/questions/chance-and-god">How Do Randomness and Chance Align with Belief in God's Sovereignty and Purpose?</a>.</p>

<h3>Author's Note</h3>

<p>I am so thankful that I grew up in a Christian environment, which both kindled and nurtured my relationship with Jesus Christ. The Biblical instruction I received from my parents, pastors, and teachers has been invaluable as I walk out my love for the Lord from day to day. However, there was one specific topic growing up which was not fully addressed, namely evolutionary theory. </p>

<p>Coming from a conservative Christian background, evolution was given little or no thought because of its seeming contradiction to the creation story in Genesis. To me, evolution meant a monkey became a human, and as far as I knew, I had never seen that happen! So, of course, it appeared too improbable to hold any truth. When it was discussed, an inadequate picture of its ideas was often painted, which caused immediate suspicion and rejection of the theory. I don’t think this was intentional, but most Christians have never learned an unbiased, in-depth theory of evolution that is completely detached from societal agendas and philosophical conclusions. Therefore, their explanations of the theory are often misinformed. </p>

<p>My senior year of high school, I took AP Biology, and finally learned the scientific reasoning supporting this theory. I was surprised by how logical and obvious the mechanisms of change (such as mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, and so on) were that gave rise to new species. My subsequent response was, “No wonder people believe evolution occurred.” At that point, I was convinced that microevolution (evolution within a species) existed, but I was still questioning macroevolution.  </p>

<p>Now, being at Point Loma Nazarene University as an undergrad in the Biology-Chemistry major and a year-round, student intern at BioLogos, my understanding of evolution has expanded enormously. I have enjoyed critically thinking through the evidence for evolution and reading articles that tackle difficult issues at the interface of science and Christian faith. Ultimately, I know that God has created all things, but the processes he used surpass my small understanding. </p>

<p>My personal wrestling with evolution and quest for truth has led to times of prayer and studying God’s Word, which has deepened my love for him in ways I cannot express. The first chapters of Genesis, in particular, have come alive. My whole life, the creation story was a straightforward list of facts about the creation of the world; I never searched further. I didn’t even perceive the truths Genesis declared over my very identity and God’s character. The more I study his Word and handiwork, I glimpse the awesomeness and majesty of the Creator, who loves me much more than I know. There is still so much to learn, but I am confident that he will lead me into all truth as I seek him out.</p>

<p>I desire to give others the opportunity to see evolution accurately and to distinguish it from the traditional, philosophical, and personal conclusions that too often cloud the scientific theory. I believe these conclusions alienate Christians from evolution more than the scientific theory itself. Ultimately, I do not mean to convince someone about evolution, but simply to give them the freedom to understand it. </p>

<p>Therefore, my goal for this podcast is two-fold:</p>

<ul><li>First, to offer a new perspective on randomness within natural processes that removes its negative connotations (especially as it relates to evolution).</li>
<li>Second, to expose why evolution is powerless to support conclusions beyond the physical realm.</li></ul>

<p>This will hopefully encourage others to study evolutionary theory and draw their own conclusions about its meaning in the framework of their faith.</p>]]></content:encoded>
        <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 12 05:00:15 -0700</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Joy Walters</dc:creator>
        <!--<dc:date>Jun 15, 2012 05:00</dc:date>-->
      </item>
            <item>
        <title>Possibilities and Second Chances</title>
        <link>http://biologos.org/blog/possibilities&#45;and&#45;second&#45;chances?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</link>
        <guid>http://biologos.org/blog/possibilities&#45;and&#45;second&#45;chances?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</guid>
        <description>In today’s video, Dr. Rick Colling states that evolution is not merely the imposition of death and destruction and survival of the fittest. Rather, it is about second chances.</description>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p align="center"><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/37257770" width="570" height="321" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe></p>

<p class="intro">Today's video is courtesy of filmmaker Ryan Pettey, director/editor of Satellite Pictures, and features Dr. Rick Colling, biologist and author of <em>Random Designer</em>.</p>

<p>In today’s video, Dr. Rick Colling states that one of the biggest difficulties in communicating compatibility between evolution and faith is a misunderstanding of what evolution is. Evolution is not, he says, about the imposition of death and destruction and survival of the fittest. Rather, it is about second chances. Our bodies contain thousands of genes, which duplicate like a computer back-up copy and can serve as raw material. When an organism encounters adverse environmental condition, this raw material can be used to help adapt and survive.</p>

<p>“God is so creative," says Colling, "that he’s actually put into place a mechanism to start doing these gene changes in advance before they’re even needed. And God has given us a second change through the evolutionary process of creating duplicate genes that give rise to new raw material that give rise to new possibilities, and that really more accurately describes the process of evolution. It’s redemption, it’s possibility, and it’s hope.”</p>]]></content:encoded>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 12 10:17:28 -0800</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Richard Colling</dc:creator>
        <!--<dc:date>Feb 22, 2012 10:17</dc:date>-->
      </item>
            <item>
        <title>Beginning with the End in Mind</title>
        <link>http://biologos.org/blog/evolutionary&#45;convergence?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</link>
        <guid>http://biologos.org/blog/evolutionary&#45;convergence?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</guid>
        <description>In today&apos;s video, Oxford physicist Ard Louis discusses the famous debate between renowned evolutionary biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris over the idea of evolutionary convergence.</description>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p align="center"><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/33680427?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="571" height="321" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe></p>

<p class="intro">Today's video is courtesy of filmmaker Ryan Pettey, director/editor of Satellite Pictures and features physicist Ard Louis.</p>

<p>In today's video, Oxford physicist Ard Louis discusses the famous debate between renowned evolutionary biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Simon Conway Morris. Gould believed (and wrote in his book <em>Wonderful Life</em>) that if the "tape" of evolution were rerun, the chance that anything like human intelligence would emerge is essentially zero. In other words, humanity is here through random accident. Gould pointed to the work of Morris and fellow scientists in their research of the Burgess Shale as evidence for this view.</p>

<p>However, Morris himself disagrees, pointing to what is called evolutionary convergence. As Morris notes, there are numerous examples of identical features evolving multiple times throughout the history of life independently. Morris believes that if the tape of life were replayed, we would see something like humans emerge. A Christian might say, it looks like we were planned.</p>


<p>Some Christians might find Simon Conway Morris' viewpoint, with its implicit teleology, more attractive. Others, perhaps motivated by a high view of providence, may find Gould's emphasis on contingency equally congenial to their faith.  What do you think?</p>]]></content:encoded>
        <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 11 05:51:27 -0800</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Ard Louis</dc:creator>
        <!--<dc:date>Dec 15, 2011 05:51</dc:date>-->
      </item>
            <item>
        <title>From Chaos to Order: The Random Process as the &quot;Precision Tool&quot;of God</title>
        <link>http://biologos.org/blog/understanding&#45;random?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</link>
        <guid>http://biologos.org/blog/understanding&#45;random?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</guid>
        <description>For many, the importance of apparent randomness in evolution can be a major stumbling block when considering whether God could have created through an evolutionary process.</description>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For many, the importance of apparent randomness in evolution can be a major stumbling block when considering whether God could have created through an evolutionary process. After all, if God created for a purpose, how could there be room for “unguided and purposeless” processes? Aren’t randomness and design naturally opposed?</p>

<p>While these are indeed complex questions, some of the problems do stem from misunderstandings about what randomness means in a scientific sense and what role it plays in evolution. To help clarify some of these details, we offer these resources.</p>

<p align="center"><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/22675654?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="533" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>

<p>The “Randomness” installment of our Distinctions series (first posted earlier this year) looks at some of the basic misconceptions about the role of randomness in evolution. While it is understood by many simply to mean blind, undirected and purposeless, in truth, randomness is far more complex and awe-inspiring than this overly-simplified definition. Whether through genetic mutations or the combinations that occur between sperm and eggs, these processes can be seen as the continual unfolding of something that is decidedly not random--creation itself. Randomness, in essence, generates certainty.  This is further illustrated in the second video. </p>

<p align="center"><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/25365944?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="533" height="300" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen allowFullScreen></iframe></p>

<p>In the clip “Randomness” from the upcoming film <em>A Leap of Truth</em> by Ryan Pettey, Richard Colling, Ard Louis, and John Polkinghorne offer several examples of random processes leading to order rather than disorder. As Dr. Louis points out, the scientific definition of “randomness” is quite different from our everyday understanding of the word. In fact, random generation is the most efficient way to generate complexity. Polkinghorne further notes that we live in a world where the balance of random mutations is almost perfectly tuned for fruitful life on Earth.  This, we learn, is God's process:  Randomness given time, can lead to that which is nearly certain.  </p>

<p>This is beautifully illustrated in the following re-post from last year.  Here, in a blog called "That's Random,"  Kathryn Applegate offers two examples of random motion leading to certainty in the process of assembling a virus.  Because random processes can lead to that which is almost certain, it is not at all surprising that this has frequently been used by God over billions of years to create order out of chaos--God's creation, by God's way, in God's time. </p>

<h3>That's Random</h3>

<p>You hear it all the time: “That’s so random!” When used by people of my generation, the word “random” can simply mean “cool” or “surprising.” Or it can mean something like “disconnected,” as in the phrase, “I had a random thought” (which returns 189,000 hits on Google, by the way—random!).</p>

<p>Despite this usage, most of us know that randomness has something to do with probability, and that it often implies a lack of conscious intentionality. But what do mathematicians and scientists mean when they say something is random? Can a random process lead to an ordered, even predictable outcome? Is there evidence that God makes use of random processes to fulfill his creative purposes?</p>

<p>These are big questions, and we won’t address them all today. But I think randomness is an important topic to cover for two reasons: 1) it is integral to many processes in biology (and math, physics, chemistry, etc.), and 2) it is commonly misunderstood to be incompatible with Christianity.</p>
<p>As I said above, most of us know that randomness has something to do with probability.  If you pick a card “at random” from a shuffled deck, you have a small probability of drawing an ace (4 out of 52, or a 7.7% chance).  If you flip a coin, you have an equal probability of getting heads or tails.</p>
<p>Randomness also seems to imply a lack of intentionality or purposefulness.  After all, you might hope for an ace when you draw a card, but you can’t choose one on purpose.  You might call heads when you flip a coin, but you can’t know beforehand what the outcome will be.  Thus the outcome is <em>indeterminate</em>, but is it purposeless?  Not necessarily.  Indeterminacy simply means the result cannot be predicted from the outset.</p>  
<p>It should be noted that indeterminacy does not imply that God does not have foreknowledge of future events.  Christians ought not to be uncomfortable with the idea of God interacting with his creation through chance.  We often describe a seemingly-random (i.e. unplanned by us) sequence of events as being “providential,” or planned by God.  A good introduction to the way divine action could drive physical processes can be found in this <a href="http://biologos.org/questions/evolution-and-divine-action/">Question</a>.</p>
<p>In biology, it is very hard or impossible to calculate precise probabilities for most processes, so when we say a process is random, we typically mean it is extremely unpredictable.  Eventually we will discuss randomness within biological evolution, but first we must consider some simpler processes, like the self-assembly of a virus.</p>
<p>Viruses are remarkably efficient entities.  Coiled tightly within a protein-based shell is a small amount of DNA needed for self-replication.  The shell, called a capsid, is made of many repeating protein subunits and is therefore highly symmetrical (see figure).  Important biomedical insights have certainly been gleaned from structural studies of viruses, but viruses also teach us about the emergence of order from non-order.</p>  
<p>The virus life cycle has four main steps: 1) enter a host cell, 2) hijack the cell’s replication and translation machinery to make many copies of itself, 3) assemble into many virus particles, and 4) exit the cell to invade another host.</p>
<p>When I first learned about this process, I found it very hard to believe it just “happens.”  The idea that a bunch of molecules bumping into each other inside a crowded cell could spontaneously assembly into a fully-functional virus seemed a bit far-fetched.  Many viral capsids have over 100 protein subunits that must interact with each other in just the right way, or it won’t work.  Surely there must be something driving this process, right?</p>
<p>There is!  Random motion.  I had to see it to believe it.  I distinctly remember sitting in class during my first year of graduate school when the professor demonstrated self-assembly of a virus using a 3D <a href="http://models.scripps.edu/" target="_blank">model</a> as shown in the following video.  In less than 30 seconds, you can watch a jumbled heap of proteins become a beautifully ordered structure.</p>
<p align="center"><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X-8MP7g8XOE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X-8MP7g8XOE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object></p>
<p>As the narrator explains, sub-assemblies form and break apart en route to the most stable structure, the full capsid.  As the sub-assemblies begin to form, further associations with free subunits become more favorable and as a result occur rapidly, while the final steps may take considerably longer.  While the subunits in the model are rigid, in reality the proteins take on multiple conformations, allowing the capsid to “breathe.”</p>
<p>Amazing as it is, the system we just considered—one virus capsid in a jar—is pretty simple.  One wonders how self-assembly can happen in a crowded cell, where there are countless other molecules diffusing around, potentially getting in the way.  We can’t directly <em>see</em> how it happens in a cell, but we can reconstitute the process in a test tube using different combinations of constituent molecules.</p>
<p>Consider two viruses, where each protein subunit in one virus is the mirror image of the corresponding subunit in the other.  Putting the two viruses together by hand would be pretty tricky, because the constituent parts look so similar.  But random motion can do the job in short order:</p>
<p align="center"><object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YbpTusoDEgA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YbpTusoDEgA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object></p>
<p>From this model, we can see clearly, in real-time, how distinct complex structures can arise from their parts randomly interacting with one another.  Many large viruses also use special scaffolding proteins to assist in the assembly process, and some even use their own genomes as a scaffold.  In addition, two closely-related viruses that happen to infect the same cell can exchange parts to create a new virus.  This is one way viruses can evolve quickly to evade the host’s immune system.</p>
<p>Here we have seen how viruses demonstrate a principle inherent in God’s world—that order can emerge out of chaos from random processes.</p>]]></content:encoded>
        <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 11 22:00:20 -0700</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Ryan Pettey</dc:creator>
        <!--<dc:date>Sep 13, 2011 22:00</dc:date>-->
      </item>
            <item>
        <title>Distinctions.  Part 1: Randomness</title>
        <link>http://biologos.org/blog/distinctions&#45;part&#45;1&#45;randomness?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</link>
        <guid>http://biologos.org/blog/distinctions&#45;part&#45;1&#45;randomness?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</guid>
        <description>In our first Distinctions video &#45;&#45; featuring biologists Sean Carroll and Kerry Fulcher, Smithsonian Human Origins Program director Rick Potts, and Old Testament scholar John Walton &#45;&#45; we look at the concept of randomness.</description>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<!--<p align="center"><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/22675654?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="533" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>-->

<p>Today we are happy to introduce the first in a new series of videos from The BioLogos Foundation called “Distinctions”. These short videos look to clarify some of the important scientific questions at the heart of the science and faith dialogue. In our first video -- featuring biologists Sean Carroll and Kerry Fulcher, Smithsonian Human Origins Program director Rick Potts, and Old Testament scholar John Walton -- we look at the concept of randomness. While it is understood by many simply to mean blind, undirected and purposeless, in truth, randomness is far more complex and awe-inspiring than this overly-simplified definition. Unlike our previous posts for the Conversations series, we won't be including a full summary, as we feel the videos speak for themselves.</p>

<p>There are certainly more resources addressing the topic of randomness, however. For further reading, be sure to check out our <a href="http://biologos.org/questions/chance-and-god/">FAQ</a> on chance and God's sovereignty, Ard Louis’ scholarly essay <a href="http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/louis_white_paper.pdf" target="_blank">“How Does the BioLogos Model Need to Address Concerns Christians Have About the Implications of its Science?”</a>, and the series of blogs by BioLogos program director and cell biologist Kathryn Applegate, beginning with her posts <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/thats-random-a-look-at-viral-self-assembly/">“That’s Random!”</a> and <a href="http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-randomness/">"Understanding Randomness"</a>.</p>

<p><strong>Credits:</strong> This video was directed by Loretta Cooper, President of <a href="http://claritymediacoaching.com/" target="_blank">Clarity Media Strategies</a> and was scripted by Loretta Cooper and BioLogos Program Director, Kathryn Applegate.</p>]]></content:encoded>
        <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 11 12:58:07 -0700</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Loretta Cooper</dc:creator>
        <!--<dc:date>Apr 21, 2011 12:58</dc:date>-->
      </item>
            <item>
        <title>Uncertainty is Uncomfortable</title>
        <link>http://biologos.org/blog/how&#45;evolutionary&#45;science&#45;reveals&#45;gods&#45;character?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</link>
        <guid>http://biologos.org/blog/how&#45;evolutionary&#45;science&#45;reveals&#45;gods&#45;character?utm_source=RSS_Feed&amp;utm_medium=RSS&amp;utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication</guid>
        <description>Scientists become fairly comfortable with a certain level of uncertainty within scientific data, notes Kathryn Applegate, but that is not the case for most people, especially where faith is concerned</description>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[<!--<p align="center"><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/10464667?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0" width="533" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>-->

<p>In this video “Conversation,” BioLogos Program Director Kathryn Applegate points to evolutionary science as a way to gain a richer understanding of the glory of God.</p>

<p>Scientists become fairly comfortable with a certain level of uncertainty within scientific data, notes Applegate, but that is not the case for most people.  Uncertainty—especially where faith is concerned—can be scary for people who want a black and white answer. Yet science has all of the subtlety of a beautiful painting that is hard to encapsulate in a sound byte.</p>

<p>God speaks through the Bible and all sorts of other things that comport with the Bible, says Applegate.  “Science is another way of studying what God does.  How he created and how he continues to create. God is active and involved. We see that through the means of a continuous creation through evolution,” she says.</p>

<p>That is really exciting and allows us to better understand the character of God.  God is infinitely creative and infinitely good.  Looking to Genesis for scientific data is like looking at the notes on the page of a symphonic score without ever hearing the music—you miss all the richness. “Not that the notes aren’t important,” says Applegate, but they do not offer the complete picture and it isn’t the primary purpose of those texts.</p>


<ul><li><a onclick="toggle_visibility('embed');">Get Embed Code</a><br />
<div id="embed" style="display:none;">&lt;iframe class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="560" height="340" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b2DZVgRathI?rel=0" frameborder="0"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;</div></li></ul>]]></content:encoded>
        <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 10 14:38:23 -0700</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Kathryn Applegate</dc:creator>
        <!--<dc:date>Nov 03, 2010 14:38</dc:date>-->
      </item>
      

      

    
  </channel>
</rss>