RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2007,23:14   

Gil Dodg'em is a leeeetle bit confused about his favorite theory:
A Practical Medical Application of ID Theory
(or, Darwinism as a Science-Stopper)

...Here’s a prediction and a potential medical application from ID theory: Design a chemical or protein which would require a triple CCC to defeat its toxic effects on a bacterium, and it will exhaust the probabilistic resources of blind-watchmaker mechanisms to counteract the toxic effects.

Such a success could and will only come from engineering and reverse-engineering efforts, not from Darwinian theory.

In the meantime, medical doctors should prescribe multiple antibiotics for all infections, since this will decrease the likelihood that infectious agents can develop resistance through stochastic processes. Had the nature of of the limits of Darwinian processes been understood at the outset, the medical community would not have replaced one antibiotic with another in a serial fashion, but would have prescribed them in parallel.

This represents yet another catastrophic failure of Darwinian presumption, which is based on hopelessly out-of-date 19th century scientific naïveté.

Let's sort this out.

Antibiotic resistance is seen to emerge by means of natural selection in response to particular antibiotics.

Gil therefore has made a brilliant suggestion: Devise a drug or protein antibiotic to which bacteria aren't capable of evolving resistance! No Darwinist could have thought of that!

But Gil thought of it because he is thinking in design theoretic terms. Why, we'll have to understand the bacterium and how it interacts with our wonder drug by means of engineering and reverse engineering, which means he gets to use "engineering" in a sentence, twice. Only ID advocates use "engineering" in sentences when describing the actions of researchers devising antibiotics. Plus the DRUG will be designed, too, which makes for another opportunity to use "design" in a sentence. Darwinists don't believe in design. Plus he gets to say "probabilistic resources." All that designing and engineering and probabilistic resourcing means that Darwinism is wrong.

Gil closes with a brilliant suggestion. Prescribe multiple antibiotics for all infections!

Good plan! Never mind that antibiotics apply selective pressures not only upon the targeted infectious agent, but upon other organisms as well. Antibiotic resistance sometimes arises in these collateral organism as well as the targeted agent, a nice application of the law of unintended consequences. But that's OK, because we can reverse engineer them all! Cool! Design! Probabilistic resources! Engineering!

Anyway, why should we wait years for such resistance to emerge in potential infectious agents, one by one? Let's begin applying all antibiotics in response to all infections, regardless how inappropriate, thus imposing selective pressures upon a huge variety of organisms all at once! In fact, we should just given 'em all to everybody. We'll train those bugs to resist ALL of our compounds in no time. Who knows what will emerge!

(I was thinking we could save some time by simulating all this on a supercomputer. To make it realistic, we'll need to infect the operators with multiple diseases.)

Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]