Posted on 08/06/2009 8:22:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Internet search engines Google and Yahoo! have massive server farms that are all interconnected in a network configuration called “cloud computing.” These systems are engineered with fault tolerance features so that if one server breaks down it does not impair the operation of the whole, since another server has all the data ready to go in no time. Although mankind has learned through hard experience to structure networks this way, it turns out that biological systems have been equipped all along with their own disaster recovery backups...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ping!
An absolutely unproven conjecture, with not a shred of evidence offered.
The natural, random processes observed in the world are not capable of engineering such “robust” cellular machines.
An absolutely unproven conjecture, with not a shred of evidence offered.
Wasn’t this the subject of B Willis movie. “Live Free or Die Hard.”
Why would a bacteria under stress have a better chance at survival with a higher mutation rate?
That's actually a true statement. Where the Creationists are being dishonest this time is characterizing the cell as being solely the result of random processes. Oh well, more damage done to religion by GGG and his friends.
The theory of evolution relies on these key observations about the world:
1. Traits are inherited.
2. Errors occur in the transmission of traits.
3. Force of survivability — things that do not aid survival are selectively reduced in the population.
Evolutionists believe, often, that observations 1-3 are sufficient to explain evolution of life from its lowest forms, all the way to the present.
Creationists may not dispute 1-3, but believe that life began fully formed at a relatively recent time, because they claim that Biblical texts say so.
And there you have it. The whole “disagreement” summarized.
-- That's actually a true statement.
Nothing *whatever* in the way of reasoned argument has been offered to support the claim.
I’ll lay off you guys for a few days or so. Continue without me. You’ll evolve. (I mean, adapt.) :)
This company has developed a body suit that can lower the core body temperature faster and farther than any method used to date. The standard method for years has been to give the patient very cold saline solution via an IV. This would lower the core temp something like 1 degree centigrade per hour. This suit, that uses a bucket of ice and some tap water, can get the core temp down to therapeutic ranges (84-85 degrees c.) in less than an hour.
Anyway, one of the things they've learned is that cells that are dying give off a chemical that signals other cells it's time to check out. So as the cells begin dying from lack of oxygen it becomes a cascading effect. Not good.
TH appears to stop the cells from releasing the chemical and forces cells to die on their own, not prematurely because they're being told to by other cells.
We have yet to understand all of the miracles our Creator put in us! Every day we get new glimpses into just wonderfully created we really are!
I think you have it backwards. It seems you are asking people to have blind faith that nature can do anything. It is up to you to demonstrate that a given entity (nature) has the competence to perform a given function.
Taken to its logical conclusion, your position requires me to believe that the clothing I'm wearing is the product of blind natural processes with no intelligence involved. This is absurd. You need to delineate what nature (natural laws) can and cannot do, rather than having blind faith that it can do anything. Creationists and the ID camp are working on this intelligently, while evolutionists have been knee-jerk anti-intellectuals on this point, dogmatically insisting on blind faith in their belief system (i.e., the omnipotence of Nature).
Only if constrained to certain regions where it is 'safe' to tinker, and yet relevant to the environmental stress. A higher general mutation rate just leads to rapid error catastrophe and extinction of the organism in question. (After all, if a higher mutation rate 'helped' in a general sense then that would be _easy_ to evolve simply by taking out some elements of all the elegant quality control mechanisms found in DNA replication systems.)
The question is, how would the cell 'know' what DNA it is helpful to have mutate faster. It's a case of pre-adaptation, and that concept is inherently problematic for naturalistic-only solutions.
Actually, you left out a key assumption on the evolutionary side that makes it completely equal to the creationist side.
Evolutionists believe that the fact that life works as observed means that it 'evolved' such abilities. This is functionally equivalent to belief in a 'god'. Evolutionists typically omit this assumption because it shows that their beliefs are just as philosophically-based as the creationists.
Perhaps this was done through ignorance or simply a lack of critical-thinking ability.
Exactly correct.
The organism is 'searching a design-space' for alternate solutions that will allow survival. Assuming that this ability 'evolved' is the underlying belief that the evolutionists never admit.
No matter how many times this is explained to them.
Yeah, just some random process made that happen, huh? If we didn't create a backup process for machines, it wouldn't happen on its own, just like with biology. Entropy makes things go towards chaos as time goes on, not the other way around, unless some outside force interferes...
Why would an increased mutation rate ANYWHERE in the genome be of value to a bacteria under stress other than to produce genetic variation? What is the survival value of increased genetic variation?
Take for example a bacterial culture that is under attack from an anti-biotic. The anti-biotic operates by binding to an enzyme in the bacteria, preventing it from carrying out its intended function. So the bacteria DNA begins to rapidly mutate the nucleotides affecting the configuration of the binding site, leading to different 3D structures. Some are too different for it to work at its intended purpose. Others remain vulnerable to the anti-biotic. But one turns out to be sufficiently different to not be bound to the anti-biotic, but can still carry out its intended function with a 50% degradation of efficiency.
Things like this are happening all the time in the world of anti-biotic resistance, where a heightened mutation rate yields resistance, usually with some degradation of functionality in the 'defending' organism.
Wow. Natural selection of genetic variation leading to the evolution of an anti-biotic resistant population!
Who would have possibly expected such a result?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.