Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design
- From: "Scooter the Mighty" <Greyguy3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Jan 2006 13:10:34 -0800
> The standard method of anti-virus protection is through the development
> of specific methods to combat specific threats. New viruses are
> constantly being developed and defenses are being developed almost as
> fast to keep your computer safe - it's intelligence vs. intelligence.
>
> If this was how a cell developed antibiotic resistance, then yes, you
> could argue that a *gain* in functionality and specificity had been
> developed.
>
> But this is *NOT* how a cell develops antibiotic resistance. What the
> cell "develops" is a problem. Generally the specific place within the
> cell that the antibiotic attaches to gets corrupted and the antibiotic
> can no longer attach there - rendering it harmless.
>
> In our analogy, this is more likened to your phone line getting cut, or
> your network card malfunctioning and your computer sufferring the loss
> of an internet connection as a result. This also works as an anti-virus
> - but unfortunately it was through a *loss* of functionality.
> If evolution can only gain an advantage by destroying specificity, then
> it cannot account for the gain of complex functions required to get from
> soup to man.
I think it would be clearer if you said "destroying one function to
create another" which is what it sounds like you're talking about.
It's true that antibiotic resistance mutations often make a bacteria
"weaker" in some sense, but it's not always true, and it's not
necessarily true in the long run. An easy example might be a bacteria
that evolves a beta-lactamase gene, and then passes it on to another
bacteria with a wild-type penicillian binding protein profile. That
bacteria now makes normal PBPs and can degrade penicillian as well.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Creationism in California - more on the Lebec area ID class
- Next by Date: Re: Governor Fletcher - Statement on Intelligent Design in 2006 Stateof the Kentucky Commonwealth
- Previous by thread: Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design
- Next by thread: Dover Opinion Now at the Archive
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
