If there were ANY validity to the concept that DNA coding structures just up and change any old time they want to, then this wouldn’t even be on the drawing board. Ergo, genetic evolution isn’t valid.

As per article…

But mutation could distort stored data. Tomita says data are stored in four places in the bacteria so the data stay intact, though Katsumi Doi, bacteria expert and Kyushu University professor, is skeptical.

The odds of the sequencing remaining unchanged enough over an extended period of time is a very small number approaching zero, hence the need for duplication in various places(you need to check each against the other for changes and that still might not give you the original imprinting because of the pliability of genetic material). Whenever mitosis occurs there are “mistakes” in the recombination. When ever the errors are too great the cell undergoes apoptosis as a general rule. Thus changes tend to be subtle and manifest themselves over an extended period. But change they do.

The article didn’t say but using an endospore could overcome that limitation though…

The closest anyone can come to proving evolution is that liberals sometimes truly progress, and become conservatives.

Freelancer on May 19, 2007 at 1:35 PM

Heh, that’s me!

RightWinged on May 19, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Maybe, but I’d put that in the class of adaptation, along with the majority of what passes for evidence of evolution among the ignorant or malignant.

The closest anyone can come to proving evolution is that liberals sometimes truly progress, and become conservatives.

with “moderates” as the “transitional forms”? heh.

“Many people never even thought about storing data for thousands of years,” Tomita said.

Those people that wrote stuff in stone thousands of years ago really wasted their time…

The scientists researching this concept have long since passed a point where they are concerned about genetic structures randomly shifting or altering, or else they wouldn’t be saying that the information contained therein would be reliable for extremely long periods of time.

If there were ANY validity to the concept that DNA coding structures just up and change any old time they want to, then this wouldn’t even be on the drawing board. Ergo, genetic evolution isn’t valid.

A dog is a dog, and never becomes a cat. A rat is a rat, and never becomes a mouse. A whale is a whale, and never came from a cow. The closest anyone can come to proving evolution is that liberals sometimes truly progress, and become conservatives.

Come now, it’s a joke.

I would preface things like that with a “joke” tag, but since I rarely take anything too seriously (doc’s orders) I will preface comments with “seriously though…” when I am not being a clown.

mojowire on May 19, 2007 at 9:19 AM

That’s cool, I just get frustrated when people try to paint creationists as some “fringe” group. People may not define themselves by that word, but poll after poll consistently shows that the vast majority of the public’s beliefs are the same as creationists.

First of all, you couldn’t be more wrong about “half”… The vast majority of the public doesn’t buy evolution.

Come now, it’s a joke.

I would preface things like that with a “joke” tag, but since I rarely take anything too seriously (doc’s orders) I will preface comments with “seriously though…” when I am not being a clown.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Because we tinkered with this bacteria, millions of years from now it will evolve into a sentient species where half will contend that they were created by “random molecules forming” and that there is no creator. The other half will simply be wrong.

mojowire on May 19, 2007 at 1:43 AM

First of all, you couldn’t be more wrong about “half”… The vast majority of the public doesn’t buy evolution.

What’s funny is scientists recognizing code, which would imply design to an objective mind. Interesting too that they would turn to something in nature to store information because it’s so advanced and designed to carry information, because modern technology still can’t match it, as it can’t in many areas. Scientists are constantly trying to mimic what is seen in nature, and constantly failing… yet with all of their knowledge and capabilities, they think the natural world that they strive to duplicate, just happened by chance.

Or are we the result of one, already?

(Cue: Theremin music.)

I’m all for the advancement of science, but I hope these guys who are doing all of this genetic engineering are taking multiple redundant safety precautions. Even then, there is always the freakish, against-all-odds accident to worry about, not to mention Murphy’s Law.

But mutation could distort stored data.

Like what Darwinism does with Creation?

Bacteria to the Future ?

William Amos on May 18, 2007 at 10:26 PM

Heh.

Actually this is a pretty cool idea, it’ll be interesting to see where it goes.

posted at 10:25 pm

Do you ever sleep? {Allahpundit} Great day on Hot Air today. You are a blogosphere Super Hero.

I wonder how that works with cheese?