Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2019 2:45 AM
21 online now:
dwise1, Heathen, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,532 Year: 12,568/19,786 Month: 2,349/2,641 Week: 304/554 Day: 2/104 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 31 of 136 (514898)
07-13-2009 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by greentwiga
07-13-2009 10:35 AM


Hyjacked gene duplications
Thanks greentwiga,

Then if A', B', and C' disappear, we are left with A,B, and C. Granted it wouldn't happen often, but we do see all these steps happening.

Exactly, it happens often enough that one cannot use the claim that such a system cannot evolve.

It also does not need to involve a whole gene, but just a patch that codes for a certain protein, say one that facilitates the consumption of a previously unused food source. This happens often, without it necessarily being a part of an "IC" system.

One can also say that the theory of evolution predicts the evolution of "IC" systems, as there is no reason to maintain A', B', and C' if they serve no purpose or their original purpose has been superseded by the new function/s.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by greentwiga, posted 07-13-2009 10:35 AM greentwiga has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 32 of 136 (514909)
07-13-2009 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by traderdrew
07-13-2009 4:10 PM


Sticking to the topic.
Hi again Traderdrew,

Once again, I have searched for a quote like this on the internet and in the Dover trial statements you provided in the other thread. Would you care to show us where it is and exactaly what Behe stated?

I'll have to get back to you on that. It was discussed on another thread here shortly after the cross examination of Behe, but the search engine is a little funky, presumably with the new board. A link that was supposed to be

quote:
EvC Forum: Behe and blood clotting
One of Behe's examples of supposedly un-evolvable irreducibly complex systems is .... In the Dover trial, even after presented with a mountain of evidence ...
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f... - Cached - Similar

Except it lead to http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=221&m=1

Curiously it doesn't change the fact that an IC system was seen to evolve in the Barry Hall experiment.

It is irrelevant to the discussion directly but other than that, I don't agree with the rest of that. First of all, plausibility suggests the best possible scenario. I have noted that the scientific process doesn't directly look for the truth; it looks for the best explanation by looking for what is false. Since we cannot go back and see how it all occurred, then we should look for the best explanation or conduct experiments that could support historical evidence.

Yes, but the plausibility of an argument is not sufficient on it's own to make a concept scientific, and your personal opinion of what is plausible (or not) is not science.

Irrelevant seems to be your favorite word so far but how does irrelevant information disprove any of the arguments that directly reference information in the main one?

Interestingly, it would not have been used if you had not posted irrelevant material. It is a common ploy of creationists to try to divert the argument with irrelevant material.

Vitamin C is another example of how evolution seems to have deconstructed a system ...

Which is another example of an argument that is not about the development of an IC system in the Barry Hall experiment. This is another diversion attempt. Evolution says natural selection can construct and deconstruct systems, and there is no mechanism known to prevent the construction of systems. That however is a matter for another thread.

You cannot show us how the flagellum evolved from the TTSS. Even my dog knows that you can't evolve the flagellum from a TTSS. The TTSS has 10 parts while the flagellum has 40. Pull out some logos and try to make a model of a flagellum with a model of a TTSS.

Another argument from incredulity. This is also trying to move the goal-post to a different IC system. (ie irrelevant to the specific issue of this thread).

Let's stick to the IC system in Barry Hall's experiment first, and then IF you can refute that an IC system did in fact evolve, we can discuss other IC systems.

You cannot explain in detail nor is there any evidence of a Darwinian step by step process that can produce an IC system.

Don't need to. What we have is an existing IC system (as defined by Behe) that was disabled, and a replacement system evolved. That replacement system just happened to also be an IC system (as defined by Behe).

I can illustrate this in the form of stepping stones. The first two stepping stones were resurrected from genes that divurged from the genome (Hall, 1999) and resurrected by a process known as natural genetic engineering. The stepping stones (mutations) were only made posssible with the inclusion of an artifical substance called IPTG. IPTG was obviously synthesized for specific experimental functions.

The stepping stones were mutations that occurred naturally and that were selected by natural selection within the environment the bacteria was grown in. It does not matter that IPTG was there, as it was not involved in the mutation, it was not involved in the natural selection, so it was not involved in the evolution of the IC system. All that it provided was the marginal survival of the bacteria long enough to take advantage of the lactose when a beneficial muation occurred.

Miller strongly implies that natural selection pieced together the whole pathway in Hall's experiments, but in fact it only replaced one component (and even then it could only replace the component with a spare near-copy of the original component). When two or more components were deleted, or when the bacterium was cultured in the absence of an artificial chemical (called IPTG), no viable bacteria could be recovered. Just as irreducible complexity would predict, when several steps must be taken at once, natural selection is a poor way to proceed. - Michael Behe

Curiously, it does not matter where the original DNA were before the mutation, as any mutation would occur on existing DNA.

Interestingly, the fact that a "spare near-copy" was used still ignores the fact that this specific DNA sequence was unable to provide the missing component without the mutation.

Fascinatingly, the fact that IPTG was used to keep the bacteria marginally alive while the process of evolution took place only means that it was part of the ecology the bacteria was living in, where mutation and natural selection for the use of lactose occurred.

Amazingly, when several steps can be taken in sequence, natural selection is a good way to proceed. This is, in fact, what has occurred.

Incredibly, knocking out two components violates the terms of an IC system as defined by Behe, and we now have almost any system you care to name, that can be so disabled.

Tellingly, we are still left with the fact that an IC system evolved.

Hall has not demonstrated how the lactose function in E. coli lacking both the lacZ and the ebg gene could really evolve from scratch. Where did those genes come from in the first place? Hall believes they existed in the genome 2 billion years ago.

Again, this is irrelevant. The issue is really very simple:

  • an e.coli bacteria could metabolize lactose using an existing IC system.
  • that IC system was disabled by knocking out one of the components (the element that makes it an IC system).
  • the bacterium was kept alive, barely, on a medium that provided just sufficient nutrients for survival, AND that provided lactose.
  • the bacteria evolved the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg),
  • then it evolved the control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present,
  • finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.

With this system now in place, the e.coli could once again metabolize lactose. The system is also an IC system because if you remove any one of the three elements, the e.coli cannot metabolize lactose.

Despite what I state here, Darwinists will always fall back on the same old excuse. "If we give organisms enough time and chance, they will evolve the same sophistication that we see in life today." Just look at the quote below from the above post.

Irrelevant: an IC system has been observed to evolve. That is the focus of this topic.

I think that this belief should be testable or falsifiable. Science has stated this correct? If it is testable in confluence of neo-Darwinism, then there should be evidence in some places in the past that support that belief. Perhaps rapid evolution at first with slow evolution in the last 500 million years but that is not what happened.

Once again, what you think has no - absolutely no - effect on reality, what actually occurred, nor on what is occurring now.

Aside from that point, most of them don't want to see the math (something I cannot do but I have seen) that shows us the chances of evolving complex biological systems. Never mind the necessity of multiple coherent mutations that compound the odds of creating an IC system. Never mind that natural selection would have to preserve those mutations and cannot initiate them. Never mind that the complexity in the cell would require pin point mutations. Never mind that those mutations would have been mutated in such a way as to provide specific functions. Never mind that sophisticated error correction mechanisms actually correct transcription errors 99.99999999% of the time.

And incredibly, in spite of that irrelevant ramble, and IC system was still seen, observed, confirmed, documented evolving.

In other words, your continued incredulity over what can and cannot evolve is not sufficient arguement to refute the fact that an IC system has been seen, observed, confirmed, documented evolving.

Once again, for the record:

  • an e.coli bacteria could metabolize lactose using an existing IC system.
  • that IC system was disabled by knocking out one of the components (the element that makes it an IC system).
  • the bacterium was kept alive, barely, on a medium that provided just sufficient nutrients for survival, AND that provided lactose.
  • the bacteria evolved the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg),
  • then it evolved the control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present,
  • finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.

With this system now in place, the e.coli could once again metabolize lactose. The system is also an IC system because if you remove any one of the three elements, the e.coli cannot metabolize lactose.

However, the concept of evolving doesn't contradict my belief system as an "assemblist". I am not a creationist. I am an assemblist.

Incredibly, I don't care what you call yourself, what you need to do is look at the facts that show that, yes indeed, and IC system evolved, and as such the existence of IC systems cannot be used for the god-of-the-gaps argument.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by traderdrew, posted 07-13-2009 4:10 PM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 9:08 AM RAZD has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3354 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 33 of 136 (514939)
07-14-2009 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
07-13-2009 10:09 PM


Re: Sticking to the topic.
Once again, what you think has no - absolutely no - effect on reality, what actually occurred, nor on what is occurring now.

What kind of reply is that? You can't be thinking that I think my thoughts are going to influence the outcomes of experiments like that, which are experiments of natural laws. It is important to be in tune with reality.

Your brief synopsis could be mistakenly construed as an example of neo-Darwinian evolution. It lacks details and leaves out many questions about the known complexities of the cell.

Natural selection only replaced one component with a 34% homogenous copy of the original component.

Natural selection didn't operate on a random mutation, it operated on NGE.

Look what Michael Behe wrote:

Miller also writes, "the ebg gene is actually only 34% homologous to the gene whose activity it replaces (meaning that about 2/3 of the protein is quite different from the galactosidase gene whose function it replaces)". Yet he knows as well as I do that 34% general sequence homology makes it virtually certain that the three-dimensional structures of the two enzymes are essentially identical. And since the active sites (the business end) of the enzymes are much more similar (they are identical in 13 of 15 residues), the ebg enzyme is pretty much a spare copy of the lac enzyme. Thus it seems to me that the taking over of lac galactosidase function by ebg hardly even rises to the level of microevolution.

Once again Miller shows his deceptiveness. Maybe you should be lecturing Miller (not me) on reality.

I don't want to debate or argue about the subject any further. I think we have both stated what we could state.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2009 10:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2009 10:37 PM traderdrew has responded

    
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 136 (514940)
07-14-2009 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
07-13-2009 7:49 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
RADZ writes:

Let's stick to the IC system in Barry Hall's experiment first, and then IF you can refute that an IC system did in fact evolve, we can discuss other IC systems.

RADZ, no-one knows how life works. What you are saying here is that because an organism rises after a kick in the guts that that it is a dimensioneless, undirected, random evolution. If God made orgamisms that had no ability to adjust then there would be no life at all. Did Hall's organism evolve into another kind of organism?


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2009 7:49 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 11:02 AM LucyTheApe has responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3354 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 35 of 136 (514941)
07-14-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by LucyTheApe
07-14-2009 10:38 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
If God made orgamisms that had no ability to adjust then there would be no life at all. Did Hall's organism evolve into another kind of organism?

I would say that this is a good point but according to RAZD's logic, this is irrelevant.

However, all of us might be simply talking past everyone. Why do I say this?

I can't find anywhere where this example says that the particular irreducibly complex system in the E. coli wasn't already an irreducibly complex system to begin with.

Essentially, it seems to me that an irreducibly complex system (that was already in place) was tinkered with and mutated into a similar irreducibly complex system.

If this is the case, Intelligent Design wins again despite what anyone says. Hands down!!!

Edited by traderdrew, : I just made a small correction to the "intelligently designed complex specified information" in the post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 10:38 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 11:26 AM traderdrew has responded
 Message 37 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 11:27 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 136 (514943)
07-14-2009 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by traderdrew
07-14-2009 11:02 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
traderdrew writes:

Essentially, it seems to me that an irreducibly complex system (that was already in place) was tinkered with and mutated into a similar irreducibly complex system.


A system which was thought to be irreducibly complex had an element removed, and it did not cease functioning but rather mutated into a working arrangement. Thus, it was proven not to be irreducibly complex.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 11:02 AM traderdrew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 11:49 AM Phage0070 has responded
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 07-14-2009 11:54 AM Phage0070 has responded
 Message 42 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 12:01 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2009 9:02 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 136 (514944)
07-14-2009 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by traderdrew
07-14-2009 11:02 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
traderdrew writes:


Essentially, it seems to me that an irreducibly complex system (that was already in place) was tinkered with and mutated into a similar irreducibly complex system.

But why tinker with a system that already knows how to deal with the situation Traderdrew, that's how it was designed.

Edited by LucyTheApe, : Spell


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 11:02 AM traderdrew has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 12:01 PM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 136 (514945)
07-14-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phage0070
07-14-2009 11:26 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
Phage0070 writes:


A system which was thought to be irreducibly complex had an element removed, and it did not cease functioning but rather mutated into a working arrangement. Thus, it was proven not to be irreducibly complex.

We do the same thing with computer storage sytems, it seems miraculas but it's not. If you arrange a number of things in a certain order then it doesn't matter if one goes down. Consider the order 1,2,3,4,5 that's an arrangement. If 3 goes down then you can reconstruct it. That's the amazing reality of Reality.

All's it takes is a bit of intelligence.

Edited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 11:26 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 11:54 AM LucyTheApe has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 136 (514946)
07-14-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by LucyTheApe
07-14-2009 11:49 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
LucyTheApe writes:

Consider the order 1,2,3,4,5 that's an arrangement. If 3 goes down then you can reconstruct it.


Umm... we can reconstruct it because we know what should go in the order. It does not reconstruct itself, or mutate a new number that can go there. Finally, it isn't even a system since it does not do anything. It is equally effective with or without the number, or even with a mutated new number.

Honestly I don't even know what, if anything, you were trying to get at there. Perhaps you could try again?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 11:49 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 12:07 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8851
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 40 of 136 (514947)
07-14-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phage0070
07-14-2009 11:26 AM


IC or not
A system which was thought to be irreducibly complex had an element removed, and it did not cease functioning but rather mutated into a working arrangement. Thus, it was proven not to be irreducibly complex.

I might be a bit confused but I think you have this wrong:

There are two issues that are on topic for this thread. Are the systems being examined IC or not and did they evolve into place or not.

It doesn't really matter if the system which was broken was IC or not but it happens that it was. That is why the removal of part broke it. I think you are wrong that the system did not cease functioning. It was IC and it broke.

The system that evolved to replace the function of the broken original system was not the same one. The original one did not "mutate into a working arrangement". Something different evolved. The new system which evolved is IC.

The fact that an IC system was shown to evolve removes the use of IC as an argument that they can not evolve by Darwinian evolution. It only takes one counter example. It is done, finished, caput and a very dead parrot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 11:26 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 12:07 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 46 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 12:13 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 136 (514948)
07-14-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by LucyTheApe
07-14-2009 11:27 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
LucyTheApe writes:

But why tinker with a system that already knows how to deal with the situation Traderdrew, that's how it was designed.


Wow, the entire thread appears to have whooshed right over your head. Let me summarize here: Some people believe (for a variety of stupid reasons) that organisms were designed, and to try to find proof of this they suggest that organisms are irreducibly complex. A system that it irreducibly complex is suggested to be a system where removing one part of it will cause the entire system to stop working; the significance being that this would prevent it from having developed gradually over time.

This was shown not to be the case for bacteria who had a chunk taken out of their metabolic system, and yet managed to acquire a new piece to go there that the previous strain did not. Thus, the metabolic pathway was not irreducibly complex as it previously appeared.

Furthermore, the entire concept is rubbish because evolution can produce systems which fail if a portion is removed. This makes irreducible complexity a failed argument for creation anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 11:27 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 3354 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 42 of 136 (514949)
07-14-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phage0070
07-14-2009 11:26 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
A system which was thought to be irreducibly complex had an element removed, and it did not cease functioning but rather mutated into a working arrangement.

I disagree with you on two things. I believe it did cease functioning. It has to cease functioning for a least a brief amount of time since those biochemical repairs don't occur at the speed of light.

1. As I had already stated, when you remove a part of any IC system it has to cease functioning. The questions are, How long did it cease to function? Did Barry Hall have to keep these strains of E. coli alive when the part was removed? Could this only be done using IPTG?

At this point it is important to discuss the use of IPTG in these studies. Unless otherwise indicated, IPTG is always included in media containing lactose or other B-galactoside sugars. The sole function of the IPTG is to induce synthesis of the lactose permease, and thus to deliver lactose to the inside of the cell. Neither the constitutive nor the inducible evolved strains grew on lactose in the absence of IPTG. (Hall 1982b)

2. Was the system of the E. coli not irreducibly complex to begin with? It would seem to be a yes or no question. Other than that, did the complexity increase? If so, by how much? But then again, so what? If it did increase by a little bit, then it was done with intervention. If the person who was conducting the experiment didn't intervene, then E. coli would not have been able to hydrolyze lactose. At least it would have not been done without simultaneous multiple coherent mutations and that would arguably be entering into the realm of metaphysical miracles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 11:26 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

    
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 136 (514950)
07-14-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Phage0070
07-14-2009 11:54 AM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
Phage0070 writes:


Honestly I don't even know what, if anything, you were trying to get at there. Perhaps you could try again?

Ok, I'll try again Phagey. We have complete storage systems that know what has to be there. Not because it has it's own intelligence but, because that's they way they were programmed. When you turn on your computer, how does it know what to do?


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 11:54 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Phage0070, posted 07-14-2009 12:11 PM LucyTheApe has responded
 Message 47 by traderdrew, posted 07-14-2009 12:21 PM LucyTheApe has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 136 (514951)
07-14-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by NosyNed
07-14-2009 11:54 AM


Re: IC or not
NosyNed writes:

It doesn't really matter if the system which was broken was IC or not but it happens that it was. That is why the removal of part broke it. I think you are wrong that the system did not cease functioning. It was IC and it broke.


It ceased functioning in the way it used to function, but it did end up functioning in a different manner. One portion of the metabolic pathway was removed and yet the rest of the pathway was perfectly functional with the addition of an alternate piece.

Does irreducible complexity demand the removal of one portion without the addition of a substitute? Either way, the argument is dead.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by NosyNed, posted 07-14-2009 11:54 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 136 (514952)
07-14-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by LucyTheApe
07-14-2009 12:07 PM


Re: Irreducibly Complexity and a True Acid Test
LucyTheApe writes:

We have complete storage systems that know what has to be there. Not because it has it's own intelligence but, because that's they way they were programmed. When you turn on your computer, how does it know what to do?


When you turn on your computer it reads magnetic polarities off of a platter in your computer's hard drive. This storage system does not know what has to be there, rather it retrieves what we put there. Those polarities can and do become corrupted and that will cause the computer to function incorrectly.

Perhaps you don't know enough about computers to draw such analogies Lucy-poosy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 12:07 PM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by LucyTheApe, posted 07-14-2009 1:38 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019