Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)

wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:52:47 GMT, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:


wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



your biggest failure is your handwaving about a 'genetic programmer'.
you use an ANALOGY to something we KNOW exists with CLEARLY DEFINED
PROPERTIES AND MECHANISMS to handwave into existence something you
think has properties that are

magic.

that's why intelligent design is a failure


Your antibiotic resistive pump is also a function that results from a
*loss* of specificity.
The original, non-corrupted pump has specific controls that limit what
and how much it pumps out of the cell.


and it couldnt pump out an antibiotic. so its limits expanded. it
developed new complexity


The corrupted pump has lost these controls and pumps


?? if the antibiotic never existed in the environment before then it's
the environment that's 'corrupted'. the pump has ADDED complexity to
meet the imcreased complexity of the environment.

exactly as evolution predicts

, willy-nilly, thus

pumping out the antibiotic as well as other important things. The cell
loses function, loses specificity, but gains antibiotic resistance.


it gains by losing?

oxymoron.


I used the example of the computer that gains anti-virus protection by
losing the ability to connect to the internet. It loses a function and
gains another. No oxymoron there.

But, can you build complex functions that way? Can your mechanism of
"gain through loss" add all the functions required to get from soup to
man? I think not. Again, in Spetner's immortal words, "It's like the
businessman who lost money on each transaction, but thought he could
make it up on volume."

.

Relevant Pages