Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Anything I Remove Without Causing Immediate Catastrophe Must Be Junk

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I was in the server room with my system administrator the other day, discussing how we could cut costs in the server room.

I told him that the budget for the server room was too big, and we needed to implement some cost-saving measures. He said that everything he bought was necessary. That is so like a system administrator – to overbuy and just pretend that it is necessary.

What I told him is this – if I can remove it and the servers still function, then it was a waste and we can at least resell the extra pieces.

So, I took a big bin with me and started walking around. The first thing I noticed was that every server was plugged into the wall twice into different circuits. Not only that, but the machines themselves had two power supplies. So I went to each machine and physically removed one of the power supplies and put it in the bin. The machines continued to run, so I was satisfied with what I had done. In fact, removing one power supply from each machine opened up an entire circuit path on each rack, so that was removed as well.

Then, I went to the an area labelled “backups”. There was a giant, expensive-looking machine that was moving tapes back-and-forth. There were numerous servers, each sucking up a huge amount of electricity. I asked the system administrator if this data existed anywhere else. “Yes,” he said. “Well, then we don’t need it.”

I unplugged all of the devices. I put all the servers in the bin. The tape library was too big for the bin, but I had some people remove it and take it to the curb.

Next, I noticed that the cables connecting everything were attached to various nodes. I asked the system administrator, “what do these things do?” “Cable management” he said. Cable management? “Do the wires carry the same amount of data without cable management?” “Yes.” “Then get rid of them.” So we removed all of the armatures and supports of the cabling.

Then, I got to a section that had an endless array of batteries. “What do these batteries power?” “Right now, nothing” said the system administrator. “So why did we buy them?” I said angrily as I threw them into the bin. I also noticed an unused generator in the corner. I told the men carrying out the tape machine to get the generator as well. “What is that, from the 1800s? We’ve been connected to the grid for years, and that generator is just sitting in the corner doing nothing. Get rid of it.”

Then I realized – I had been concentrating on the center of the room. There was all sorts of equipment on the outer walls of the room as well. “What are these big units? How much data do they process?” “They don’t process any data, sir” said the administrator. “They are air conditioners” he said. I responded, “the building is already air-conditioned! You don’t need special air conditioners just because you are well-paid.” So we removed the air conditioners.

“Is there anything else that can be removed?” I asked. “Well,” the administrator said nervously. “The hard drives are in a RAID configuration. That means that at least one hard drive from each machine can be removed.” So we went around and removed a hard drive from each machine.

Then there were a bunch of machines labelled “staging”. “What do these do?” I asked. “They are the machines that we use to test code before we release it.” “Get rid of them.” I said.

Then I noticed a lot of machines labelled “Secondary”. There was a “Secondary DNS” machine, a “secondary database” machine, and so forth. “Are these needed?” “Only if the main one goes down.” “So they just sit here and eat up electricity and bandwidth without doing anything?” Get rid of them.

I then called up to the operations center and had them test all of our systems to make sure they are all still online. “Yes, sir!” They said. “In fact, you are using significantly less electricity as well – sounds like you are doing a great job over there!”

So, pleased with my work, I told the system administrator – “see, I told you that we could cut this stuff down. We removed over half of the server room and it is still functional!”

(note – this post is a more satirized version of a comment I made on a previous post)

——————–end of story

I should also note that instead of removing the secondary DNS and secondary databases, we actually could have removed the primary DNS and the primary database without any immediate issue if the site was not under load. Additionally, if the hard drives were in a RAID5 configuration, removing a hard drive would actually increase performance.

In case you didn’t notice, the goal of this is to illustrate the idiocy of saying that the “functional fraction” of the genome is equivalent to the amount of the genome for which there are no detrimental effects to removing or to mutation. Under this criteria, all of the things that we removed from the server room would not be considered “functional”.

And yes, if the server is well built, you can remove active power supplies and hard drives from running servers without them even hiccuping.

Comments
Bob O'H: It should have been: In what sense we know what it does? Referring to your statement: Fortunately we do know what a lot of the junk DNA is, and what it does (SINEs, LINEs and the like Then you wrote: "a lot of research has been done on them, e.g. sequencing and functional work." True. But still a lot is to be understood, I believe. So, do you agree with Sal, That SINEs and LINEs are functional?gpuccio
July 17, 2017
July
07
Jul
17
17
2017
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
Bob O'H: If that research was done in the style described by johnnyb in his OP or in my comments posted @12, 14-17, 19, then we can sweep and mop the floor with all those tests. Ok?Dionisio
July 17, 2017
July
07
Jul
17
17
2017
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Dionosio - a lot of research has been done on them, e.g. sequencing and functional work. You could start by reading the wikipedia article.Bob O'H
July 17, 2017
July
07
Jul
17
17
2017
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
Bob O'H @37:
gpiccio @ 35 – I’m afraid I can’t parse your question, can you re-pharse (or chase away any tyops)?
Huh? Say what? :) [emphasis added]Dionisio
July 17, 2017
July
07
Jul
17
17
2017
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
Bob O'H @32: "Fortunately we do know what a lot of the junk DNA is, and what it does (SINEs, LINEs and the like)." Do we? Really? How? Using the ridiculous approach so well described by johnnyb in the OP or by the airline analogy comments posted in this thread?Dionisio
July 17, 2017
July
07
Jul
17
17
2017
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
gpiccio @ 35 - I'm afraid I can't parse your question, can you re-pharse (or chase away any tyops)?Bob O'H
July 17, 2017
July
07
Jul
17
17
2017
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
LocalMinimum @25: You referred to Seversky @ 22 but shouldn't it be Seversky @ 24 instead? Or maybe johnnyb inserted a couple of posts before 22 and shifted the numbers up? Anyway, this quote seems taken from Seversky @ 24: "...the designer had a very different approach to the process than contemporary human designers." Duh! Of course! The Designer made the human designers! The Maker made us in Imago Dei. That is with rational creative minds. But who knows more about design, the Creator or His creatures? The first Designer or the product of His design?Dionisio
July 17, 2017
July
07
Jul
17
17
2017
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Bob O'H: In what sense we know what id does?gpuccio
July 17, 2017
July
07
Jul
17
17
2017
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
johnnyb @30: "The tests used for determining that something is junk are beyond ridiculous." Exactly.Dionisio
July 17, 2017
July
07
Jul
17
17
2017
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
johnnyb @30: "The point is that the test being used to determine function or non-function – whether or not the object continues to function upon removal – is completely irrational." Exactly.Dionisio
July 17, 2017
July
07
Jul
17
17
2017
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
TWSYF @ 8 & EricMH @ 10 - Fortunately we do know what a lot of the junk DNA is, and what it does (SINEs, LINEs and the like). johnnyb @ 30 - why do you think 75% is a ridiculous figure?Bob O'H
July 17, 2017
July
07
Jul
17
17
2017
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT
Seversky: "I would assume that with any knock-out experiments sufficient time is allowed for any delayed effects to become apparent." What about a few million years? Those are evolutionary times, you know.gpuccio
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
Seversky - the issue isn't whether "some" of it is - there probably is some somewhere. The issue is a matter of degree. According to Graur and others, the minimum amount of junk is 75%. That is, quite simply, a ridiculous figure. There would be no argument if the question was over 1%. It wouldn't necessarily be correct, but who would really care? critical rationalist - you missed the point. The point is that the test being used to determine function or non-function - whether or not the object continues to function upon removal - is completely irrational. It is simply not a valid test of function. There *may* be junk, but you won't find it this way. It isn't a matter of whether or not biologists allow for redundant systems in their thinking. The fact is that the tests don't allow for this. Someone (possibly on a different thread) mentioned timeframe. The problem is, we don't know what timeframe we should be looking for. If a given mechanism operates on timeframes of a thousand years, we won't be able to determine this using ordinary fitness tests. The default assumption, given what we know about biology, should be function. The tests used for determining that something is junk are beyond ridiculous.johnnyb
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
The deeper we look into the biological systems, the more we know about them, the more they look designed. That's an undeniable fact.Dionisio
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Our engineering may look a lot different once/if we ever get there.
Unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us from achieving it is knowing how. Current day 3D printers can already print some of their parts. And this trend will continue. It happens in organisms because the requisite knowledge necessary is present there. So, it's a matter of knowledge. Unless we chose not to create the necessary knowledge or do not create it in time needed to prevent the human race from going extinct, it will happen.critical rationalist
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
In case you didn’t notice, the goal of this is to illustrate the idiocy of saying that the “functional fraction” of the genome is equivalent to the amount of the genome for which there are no detrimental effects to removing or to mutation. Under this criteria, all of the things that we removed from the server room would not be considered “functional”.
The flaw in your argument is assuming that cells are actually an equivalent to server rooms or that all server rooms are actually well built and maintained by professionals. Unfortunately, I've seen my fair share of "server rooms" that are organically built by amateurs (such as the owner's son) which has plenty of equipment that can be removed or optimized. In many cases, functionality incrementally gets pushed into the cloud until, eventually, the number of services actually in use on a server goes to zero and the server becomes redundant. Yet, it's still sitting there drawing power. For example, design department moves file sharing to Dropbox or engineering moves repositories to GitHub instead of an on site server. This can happen without informing IT, so hardware ends up going unused until, if your systems administrator is good, they notice traffic has gone to zero due to monitoring logs. Furthermore, RAID arrays and DNA repair mechanisms in a cell are both means of dealing with errors. I don't think that biologists would say that the latter is not a function. So would means of storing energy for potential shortages or the ability to use multiple sources for energy, if one becomes scarce, etc.critical rationalist
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
Seversky @ 4 has a good point. It is likely that due to genetic entropy some parts of the genome have been damaged and are no longer functional. If these had no or little immediate impact they could have been fixed by genetic drift.This is consistent with ID or YEC.aarceng
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
Seversky @ 22:
All that says about design is that, if it was designed, the designer had a very different approach to the process than contemporary human designers.
We cannot make any designs that are independent of an external infrastructure, which is primarily composed of and even still almost completely operated by humans, and thus is subject to our external infrastructure (the general ecosystem). So, humans haven't reached a level of engineering that can emulate the wind-up-and-go reliability/independence of biology, as we cannot build anything that doesn't constantly rely on it. Our engineering may look a lot different once/if we ever get there.LocalMinimum
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Truth Will Set You Free @ 8
Seversky @ 4: Your analogy breaks down at almost every point, as if you have no idea about how DNA works or how miserably a/mats failed when trying to use the junk DNA myth against design arguments. I don’t hear many a/mats talking about junk DNA anymore, save for a few diehards (like yourself?) still clinging to the myth
"Junk" DNA is hardly a myth. You have only to read Larry Moran's blog to see the concept is taken seriously in evolutionary biology. There is certainly debate about the how much of the genome is "junk" but there is little doubt that some of it is. It's inevitable. DNA is vulnerable to damage from a number of different causes. That damage can disable genes permanently in spite of sophisticated repair mechanisms. That's why we are no longer able to manufacture vitamin C internally. It's reasonable to assume that over billions of years there will be a gradual accumulation of no-longer-functional genetic material and it will stay there so long as it doesn't become an insupportable burden to the organism. All that says about design is that, if it was designed, the designer had a very different approach to the process than contemporary human designers.Seversky
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
I would assume that with any knock-out experiments sufficient time is allowed for any delayed effects to become apparent.Seversky
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Are you saying that the OP is junk?Seversky
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
Mung, you are an artist. :)gpuccio
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
This OP could be removed without causing immediate catastrophe.Mung
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
@15 follow-up Please, note that in both cases, the right test wasn't done. Sometimes it may be very difficult to figure out every possible situation or scenario to test. Also, the functional effect of different components of a system --or of their combinations-- may vary depending on the circumstances. Basically, the old Harvard University "look at the fish" anecdote comes to mind, doesn't it? Keep studying the system, refrain from drawing conclusions prematurely.Dionisio
July 16, 2017
July
07
Jul
16
16
2017
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
Seversky: Yes, junk exists within engineered, maintained systems. Even should we locate actual "junk" DNA, we still would have to determine if it wasn't degraded, previously functional DNA. Good contribution to Johnny's post.LocalMinimum
July 15, 2017
July
07
Jul
15
15
2017
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
@14 follow-up Please, note that in the current johnnyb's thread several things are knocked out and one test is performed: the server runs. In the example @14, one thing is knocked out and several tests are performed. Several knocked outs with one test One knocked out with several tests In both cases the conclusion is wrong. The lack of comprehensiveness seems like a common issue here. Isn't it?Dionisio
July 15, 2017
July
07
Jul
15
15
2017
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
@11 & @13 addendum Here's the example:
Testing for functionality could be misleading in some cases. For example, let’s assume we don’t know what the small dark screens attached to back of many airline seats in economy class (mainly long routes) are for. Now let’s say we want to thoroughly test their functionality regarding several important criteria: 1. The airplanes capability to take off and land. 2. The fuel efficiency of the airplanes. 3. The maximum number of passengers that can be transported on every flight. 4. The maximum altitude the airplane can reach. 5. The maximum speed the airplanes can fly at. 6. The easiness of boarding and deplaning at the terminals. 7. The ruggedness and reliability of the cockpit instruments. 8. The experience of the pilots. 9. The flight schedules. 10. The airport fees. At the end of the thorough examination -performed redundantly by several teams of experts- we conclude -without any doubt- that the small dark screens attached to the back of the economy seats are definitely non-functional. Would such a conclusion be accurate?
Dionisio
July 15, 2017
July
07
Jul
15
15
2017
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
@11 follow-up The same example was posted @24 in this thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-highly-engineered-transition-to-vertebrates-an-example-of-functional-information-analysis/#comment-613466Dionisio
July 15, 2017
July
07
Jul
15
15
2017
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
@11 addendum: This comment was posted @1029 in the thread titled “A third way of evolution?”
I would refrain from classifying anything as either functional or non-functional prematurely. One thing is clear, though: had we stayed in Eden, there wouldn’t have been any non-functional parts. However, that’s not the case, hence it is expected that some messy/noisy stuff resides in the biological systems. Actually, it’s possible that more garbage is being added these days. Still, the presence of that undesired stuff testifies to the robustness of the biological systems, which can operate under adverse thermodynamic noise in stochastic environments.
Dionisio
July 15, 2017
July
07
Jul
15
15
2017
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
Spetner says that when determining the minimum amount of DNA needed for a living thing to survive, one has to take into account that the elimination of code may make the organism less robust and unable to adapt to changing conditions. Although the experiment he refers to speaks about 'gene' elimination, one wonders what regulatory effects non-gene coding DNA would have upon genes and their proper function. He writes - “There is experimental evidence that there are DNA sequences that have no effect on the functioning of the organism under ordinary circumstances but which play a role under extraordinary conditions. An experiment was performed on yeast in which each of its 6,000 genes was deleted, one by one (Hillenmeyer et al. 2008). Of these 6,000 genes, 34% were found to be necessary for the proper functioning of the cells under normal conditions because their deletion was either lethal or led to growth defects. The remaining 66% of the deletions showed no effect under normal conditions! Almost all of these (63% of the total), however, showed growth defects under various environmental changes! The remaining 3% showed no effects in this experiment. It is possible, though, they would have shown some growth defects under some other environmental conditions that were not tested. Thus, some two-thirds of the genes studied are likely to be the part of the genome containing the yeast cell’s built-in ability to adapt to environmental changes. There is thus good evidence that a significant fraction of the genome is dedicated to adapting the organism to changing environmental conditions.” Quoted from - ‘The Evolution Revolution: Why Thinking People are Rethinking the Theory of Evolution’ by Dr Lee Spetner.Kal
July 15, 2017
July
07
Jul
15
15
2017
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply