|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1708 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Designed Virus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1708 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
MIT Builds Batteries with Viruses
By Ed Oswald, BetaNews April 7, 2006, 12:49 PM By manipulating a few genes within the virus, researchers were able to get the organism to grow and then assemble itself into a functional electronic device. They hope to be able to build a battery that could be as small as a grain of rice. In the process created by MIT researchers, the viruses were engineered to create the anode by collecting cobalt oxide and gold. Since these viruses have a negative charge, they are then layered between oppositely charged synthetic polymers to create thin sheets. Batteries made with this process could store two to three times the energy of traditional batteries that size, meaning a longer-lasting charge. While the researchers did not specify any early applications of the technology, it would likely first appear in Defense Department work. The project was funded by the Army Research Office, MIT said. The group's work is expected to appear in this week's issue of Science. Thus the viruses do something new and novel as a result of intelligent design - we know this because it was done by intelligent design humans. The point is that viruses are an easy proven means to implement designed elements into organic systems, so why don't we see design improvements being delivered by various viruses? In fact every mechanism that transmits a disease - whether mosquitos or kinky sexual behavior - is a possible means to deliver new design information, but the evidence is that all such "information" that is so delivered corrupts or harms the recipient and the only beneficial result is for the recipient to become immune to further delivery ... if it survives. If this is design for a purpose, it is a curious, if not a silly1, purpose. So, how does "Intelligent Design" explain all the bad design carried by viruses and other {vector\delivery} systems? Enjoy. . (ID forum)1 The pictures are back, thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1708 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The Fall of course. Original sin. This is of course the YEC reason for bad design. This means that using it for ID equates ID with YEC. Thanks. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1708 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
-- if IDers believe in the Fall and as I said I thought I'd seen that they do. If not, my mistake. But I've agreed with many things IDers have written here. There is lots of overlap between ID and YEC. Whether they do or not is irrelevant to how ID explains the question. If it needs to 'fall back' on a stock YEC answer, then it has nothing to add to the argument, and it is a waste of (your and my) time. The basic concept of ID is that we can see the evidence of design without needing to know the designer - it could be any god and it could be an evolved alien - in a scientific manner. Therefore to be a valid ID argument it needs to stand without reference to any creationist position, and be based on a logical evaluation of the evidence -- the ID answer must allow the full spectrum of "possible designers" in the answer. What is the evidence for design in bad designs carried by viruses and other {vector\delivery} systems? Enjoy. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1708 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Pinch-hitting for absent IDers. Thanks holmes. Unfortunately IDers seem to be fewer than ever ...
1) It is not imperative that the designers use mechanisms we think are the best to employ, perhaps there are better ways we do not know of as yet. But that doesn't explain how counterproductive systems are allowed to interfere with the design process then. This points to a certain lack of competence, eh?
2) It is possible that we have simply not seen the virii used by the designers, and it just so happens that many (and indeed most) free range virii are capable of doing all sorts of bad things, including mutation to harmful entities we need protection from. In other words the lab "lights are on but nobody's home" answer? Given that we can trace viruses back to the beginning of life, or at least to time of the split of the three major divisions of life that puts them in a major position to be a force majeure in the process control arena. The structure of a thermophilic archaeal virus shows a double-stranded DNA viral capsid type that spans all domains of life (click for the full PNAS article):
Of the three domains of life (Eukarya, Bacteria, and Archaea), ... The sequence of the circular double-stranded DNA viral genome shows that it shares little similarity to other known genes in viruses or other organisms. By comparing the tertiary and quaternary structures of the coat protein of this virus with those of a bacterial and an animal virus, we find conformational relationships among all three, suggesting that some viruses may have a common ancestor that precedes the division into three domains of life >3 billion years ago. This means that either (a) the designers are incompetent at preventing them from acting against their design processes or (b) they are design mechanims but haven't been used in some time and thus have become corrupted by lack of quality control, and that this has been going on for some time.
3) It is possible that the "bad" virii are in fact serving a purpose of the designers, even if from our point of view they are doing it inefficiently. This is a "god works in mysterious ways" cop-out, and is - of course - an unfalsifiable precept (and hence is not scientific), and one that only works (as does most of ID) on continued ignorance of {who\what\when\where\why\how} (otherwise known as the rest of the story ...). So we are left with:
If someone was to come upon these virii, and see this behavior, should they conclude that this was a result of normal mutation to a virus or the result of design? If they could not rule out normal mutation as a process then that leaves them with a real challenge eh? It would be interesting to see if any of their design identification concepts could be applied to this virus and show significant differences from other viruses. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1708 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Perhaps because the unknown designer and/or implementer(s) don't want to carry out any improvements at this point in time. At a time when global warming trends are changing habitats around the world and while human effort is causing massive habitat destruction on an equally global scale, to the point where species extinction rates have risen noticeably? Maybe they just want to get rid of failed experiments (gets back to competence issues)? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1708 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... and the other designer could be a devil or a competing ... yes, but did he publish? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1708 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
These seem to be very human (or maybe Earth) centric concerns. How do we know they are of concern to the designer? Well now, this may be the biggest problem in the whole concept of ID, eh?
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." What is the probability that a designer would be interested in this little backwater world on the outer arm of a rather insignificant galaxy? It's certainly not the center of the universe eh? Certainly there is no major "universety" nearby for aspiring designers to have their abilities improved, honed and tested ... refined. Or is this where the rejects go? (which explains the incompetence ...) Adding to the list started in Message 30 we now have:
For all we know they could be the whole point of the exercise! Perhaps it's all some kind of "designer bingo" game - in which case it is more in line with The Silly Design Theory. Enjoy. This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*10*2006 08:43 PM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1708 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Isn't it possible that the designer singled out, as you said, "this little backwater world" in order to prove his own existence to the beings he/she/it created? How does that work? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just walk up and introduce yourself, and then do a few miracles?
If there was life existing as obviously as it does on Earth in numerous other planets, wouldn't that be very strong evidence for evolution, because it proves that the existence of life is complete random chance, there for it should be able to occur elsewhere besides earth? No. It would just be harder for the IDests and Creatortionistas to make the silly (and invalid) probability argument. Identical life forms on planets around different stars that had no means of communication would be strong evidence of interference in natural processes (whether alien or supernatural would be the question then eh?) I would think it would be better evidence of a creative universe if life existed on virtually every single little rock in the universe and a lot of really diverse environments (acidic atmosphere anyone?).
... the existence of life is complete random chance, there for it should be able to occur elsewhere besides earth? And if it's built into the way materials come together in the right environment there may be little "random chance" about it ... other than finding the right environment, eh? Look at all the organic molecules in deep space: {Building Blocks of Life} column. It's like the difference between me winning the lottery and someone winning the lottery: one has low probability, the other has high probability. Welcome to the fray, Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1708 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
However it seems to me the sort of arguments you are advancing rely on a level of knowledge of the goals of the putative IDer that simply isn't available and as such don't hold too much water. I think of it more as looking at the concept of ID (and the assumption of interest in life here) and seeing where the conclusions lead. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025