Quality Control the Gold Standard

You seem to have your facts confused.There is a computer sitting in my office, that has been running continuously, never rebooted, for 396 days. It does around 1 billion operations per second. No errors after 396 days. That makes your one error in a billion look bad by comparison.The six sigma quality control standard is for complete products, not for individual operations within those products. In terms of biology, it would be like saying that only 3.4 pregnancies in a million would result in spontaneous abortions or in children born with birth defects. Biology does not come close to meeting that standard.If you thought you were giving an example that biology is so great that it must be intelligently designed -- then I'm afraid you missed badly.

I'm not sure why that would matter.The particular system I had in mind is a server that handles email, DNS lookups, a database manager, many student logins per day, much compiling of C and C++ programs by students. That seems to be a tad more than "OS routines". The particular system has ECC memory (error correcting). The operating system (solaris) logs hardware errors. There have been no such errors logged during the stated period (396 days).There have, of course, been minor software errors, such as students running buggy C++ programs. Your insults were unwarranted.

Solaris logs these. Rereads due to data errors are logged on solaris. In the case of corrections, the log reports whether the data was refreshed or was relocated to an alternate track. That depends on what is meant by "operation". For comparison with your assertions regarding base pairs, it ought to mean a 1-bit operation, whether setting, toggling or copying that one bit. Many 1-bit operations take place in each machine cycle. Incidently, the particular computer has two CPUs. I have examined each days logs on this machine from the time it was first installed.

This probably off-topic. But it is a reply to the originator of this topic. The reasonable conclusion is that the intelligent designer is just the some omnipotent God of creationism. That is, ID is merely creationism in disguise.It seems that ID proponents can't help themselves, they just keep admitting that it is really creationism. More than 90% of the American public doesn't even understand relativity. And the degree of "universal support" for QM would be even less.

It might be more honest to compare exposure to relativity theory with exposure to evolutionary theory, and to compare exposure to all things evolutionary with exposure to all things relativistic. Those attributes would better characterise your post. I have just pointed out some of the distortion. Most of the "evolutionary dogma" that they see comes from creationists, and is wrong. Now what was that you were saying about "distortion, inuendo, half-truths and illogical argument."Most evolutionary scientists would prefer to spend their time in the lab doing science, where the public would rarely hear from them.