Re: Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs



A previous copy of this message got my (A) and (B) reversed

On Jun 5, 10:46 am, Dr Umesh Bilagi <umeshbil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 5, 4:18 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 5, 4:12 am, Dr Umesh Bilagi <umeshbil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:32 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 2, 12:38 am, Dr Umesh Bilagi <umeshbil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 2, 5:22 am, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1 Mag, 16:46, Dr Umesh Bilagi <umeshbil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
linkhttp://umeshbilagi.blogspot.com/2007/04/intelligent-design-vestigial-...
Intelligent Design & Vestigial Organs
By
Dr Umesh R. Bilagi
Associate Prof of Medicine
KIMS Hubli
Karnataka
INDIA
umeshbil...@xxxxxxxxx
http://umeshbilagi.blogspot.com/
Topic :-Vestigial organs not necessarily proof of evolution for Darwin
This statement already sounds silly.
I would postulate that it is possible to have a vestigial organ
[ananatomical structure in organisms in a species, thought to have
lost its original function through evolution] without the process of
evolution. Let me illustrate this idea using an analogy drawn from
popular computer software.
Assuming, I have a reasonable amount of storage space on my computer
hard disk, if I first create an unformmated document using
Microsoft(MS) Word, and then a second MS Word document that I format
very rigorously, I do so because I consider MS Word software to be the
best option for my purposes, as opposed to using, say, the less
sophisticated Notepad software, where little formatting of documents
is possible.
Now, if you argue that there is a vestigial structure to the first MS
Word document (the capacity - in this case, unused - for
formatting)and that this only became functional in the second
document,ultimately concluding that the first document evolved from
the second document, you would be incorrect, since I am the creator of
both documents.
Irrelevant and bad analogy: you are conflating documents with
programs, and neither of them reproduce, thus they can't evolve
(unless you take into account cultural evolution, that requires human
intervetion, of course).
<snip rest>
From Dr Umesh R Bilagi
Machines can machines may even similiar machines, softare can also
may be one day
When you see machines or software that reproduce, and have inheritable
traits which are prone to error, then you will see evolution.
In the meanwhile, look at this:http://cognews.com/1178704895
Kermit
Specific syndromes of selective factors can create situations in which
groups are selected because they display group properties which are
selected-for. Some mosquito-transmitted rabbit viruses, for instance,
are only transmitted to uninfected rabbits from infected rabbits which
are still alive. This creates a selective pressure on every group of
viruses already infecting a rabbit not to become too virulent and kill
their host rabbit before enough mosquitoes have bitten it, since
otherwise all the viruses inside the dead rabbit would rot with it.
And indeed in natural systems such viruses display much lower
virulence levels than do mutants of the same viruses that in
laboratory culture readily outcompete non-virulent variants (or than
do tick-transmitted viruses since ticks do bite dead rabbits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection
this pargrph from wikiencyclopdia meaning of group selection points
to intellegent cause of survial by virus who dont have brain now how
can this happen with randum variation an commipitative natural and
only matierialist selection

Viruses survive only when they can spread from one organism to
another. Thus, the longer a rabbit is healthy enough to spread
copies of the virus to other rabbits, the better it is for the
virus. If the virus is too virulent and kills the rabbit too
soon the virus cannot spread. Consequently, viruses that allow
rabbits to live longer spread more.

Thus, this type of lowered virulence in viruses is a simple and
direct result of natural selection, because the viruses that
spread best will be selected. No intelligence is needed.

keep discussion alive I am getting people who are nice to be
discussed. please give your valuble opinion

Now how is that these same virusis become virulant in laboratory if
this is by random mutation then how is this not happening in rabit in
natural enivironment is it that something is preventaing them from
mutation to more virulant ones so that that host should not die we
dont expect any inteleigence for the virises

At this point it is important for me to say that I have never
taken a single course in biology in my entire life, so my
answer here may contain some errors of detail. If your
questions become too complex I may need to ask one of the
biologists in our group to give me some help. However, the
principle here is so simple and obvious that we should be OK.


Basically viruses spread in two kinds of environments that
create two completely different types of selective pressure.

The two environments are:

A- WITHIN body (between cell) spreading

B- Between organism (like rabbits) spreading


We have already discussed (B) spreading between organisms, and
I assume you understand that a viral line will not survive
well if it kills its hosts (like rabbits) too quickly.

However, WITHIN the body (A) the selective pressure is just the
opposite. Viruses replicate themselves by invading and taking
control of individual cells which it then uses to make copies
of itself. When a large number of copies have been made the
cell breaks open and the new viruses spread out to take
control of other cells and begin the process again. (Note that
the speed with which viruses take over and then destroy cells
is the basic measure of virulence.)


Here WITHIN the body (A) at least two factors select in favour
of viral lines that are more virulent (spread faster from one
cell to another cell):

1- It is to the advantage of viruses to spread quickly WITHIN
the body, before the body has a chance to mount an immune
response that will kill the viruses.

2- Viruses that make copies of themselves quickly will come to
dominate the population of viruses WITHIN the body.
(Obviously more virulent viruses will make more copies of
themselves, so soon there will just be more of them in the
body, and thus fewer of the less virulent viruses.)


Thus, natural selection is working in two opposing directions
for viruses:

A - WITHIN the body (between cells) virulent viruses are
favoured.

B - BETWEEN organisms (like rabbits) less virulent viruses are
favoured, because they give the virus more chances to
spread to a new host.

It is the balance between these two competing forces that
determines the actual virulence of a virus in any given
situation.

Again, no intelligence is needed.


Cordially;

Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com

--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------

.