Information News Origin Of Life

And then Bill Gates said, You’re fired!

Spread the love

A friend sends this gem from the literature;, it sounds totally oblivious of the information requirement for life:

It is now generally accepted that the emergence of increasingly complex eukaryotic life forms was accompanied by a corresponding increase in genome complexity, entailing both an expansion in gene number and more elaborate gene regulation.(22–24) Only DNA recombination in the form of gene or segmental duplications, exon shuffling, insertions, deletions, and chromosomal rearrangements can adequately account for this massive increase in gene number and the complexity of their regulation.(22–24). – Oliver, Keith R. & Wayne K. Greene (2009) Transposable elements: powerful facilitators of evolution BioEssays 31:703–714.

Kirk Durston, picking on the theme, offers a translation from the Darwinspeak:

The authors are blowing smoke here so far as thinking they are offering a scientific explanation. To illustrate, I’ve translated the paragraph to explain how the full range of personal computers has arisen. Here goes …

“It is now generally accepted that the emergence of increasingly complex personal computers was accompanied by a corresponding increase in the complexity of information required to build them, entailing both an expansion in the amount of memory required to store it all, and more elaborate instructions as to the assembly procedure. Only by recombining the information on the SSD by way of randomly duplicating small sections of information here and there, and shuffling it around and saving it in random spots here and there on an SSD can adequately account for this massive increase in the number of components needed to assemble personal computers and the complexity of how the parts are produced and assembled.”

Brilliant! Now we know how it all happened. Crystal clear! (Face-palm)

Question 1: If one of your students handed in an essay, the topic of which was to explain where full range of personal computers came from, what grade would you give the student for this brilliant explanation?

Question 2: If, in the early days of personal computers, a job applicant had presented this plan to Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, how much longer would the interview have lasted?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Just for fun:

18 Replies to “And then Bill Gates said, You’re fired!

  1. 1

    More Darwinist buffoonery. They are an entertaining bunch, I’ll give them that much. Poor lost souls.

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    The paper referenced in this OP is kind of old in research terms and it’s just one of the gazillion papers with click-bait titles that always miss to answer the fundamental question in serious science: where’s the beef? 🙂

    A much newer (2016) paper, which cites the above mentioned 2009 paper, deals with bunch of interesting things, but none that could support the idea presented in the 2009 paper. What else is new?

    Poor things.

  3. 3
    gpuccio says:

    Dionisio:

    Could you please provide the reference for the 2016 paper? Is it about eukaryogenesis? It’s a subject I am very interested in! 🙂

  4. 4
    Zachriel says:

    Only by recombining the information on the SSD by way of randomly duplicating small sections of information here and there, and shuffling it around and saving it in random spots here and there on an SSD can adequately account for this massive increase in the number of components needed to assemble personal computers and the complexity of how the parts are produced and assembled.

    Well, that does explain a lot about Microsoft Windows.

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    gpuccio: Is it about eukaryogenesis? It’s a subject I am very interested in!

    Check this out:

    Origin And Evolution Of Eukaryotes

    Perhaps one day you will do an OP on Eukaryotes and we can discuss. 🙂

  6. 6
    Dionisio says:

    gpuccio

    sorry, I forgot to include the link to the paper.

    however, it does not seem related to the subject you’re interested in:

    http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/3/649.full

    I just wanted to comment that this newer paper that references the one in this OP doesn’t seem to support the grand claims made in (or implied by) this OP paper.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis. – Tan, C. and J. Tomkins. 2015.
    https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-archaea-and-eukarya/

    Information Processing Differences Between Bacteria and Eukarya—Implications for the Myth of Eukaryogenesis. – Tan, C. and J. Tomkins. 2015.
    https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-bacteria-and-eukarya

  8. 8
    Dionisio says:

    gpuccio

    The paper referenced in this OP is also cited by this paper:

    Macas J, Novák P, Pellicer J, ?ížková J, Koblížková A, Neumann P, et al. (2015) In Depth Characterization of Repetitive DNA in 23 Plant Genomes Reveals Sources of Genome Size Variation in the Legume Tribe Fabeae. PLoS ONE 10(11): e0143424. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143424

    http://journals.plos.org/ploso.....ne.0143424

    This seems like a related paper:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/10278.full.pdf

  9. 9
    Dionisio says:

    gpuccio

    is this related to what you’re interested in?

    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/10278.full

  10. 10
    es58 says:

    zach @4: lol

    this is old, but, :
    https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&hl=en&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=764&q=what+are+we+browsers&oq=what+are+we+browsers&gs_l=img.3…6323.11900.0.13455.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0….0…1ac.1.64.img..0.0.0.2yqKSl_dYS4#imgrc=YkAWzwIuXRwqvM%3A

  11. 11
    gpuccio says:

    Dionisio and Mung:

    Thank you for the references. I will read them carefully.

    Yes, eukaryogenesis is a fascinating subject. After OOL, probably the greatest information jump in all natural history.

    An OP about that would be great. We will see… 🙂

  12. 12
    drc466 says:

    Actually, in terms of evolution-speak, I didn’t find the original summary all that bad – I would have re-written it thusly:

    It is now generally accepted that the emergence of increasingly complex [computer systems] was accompanied by a corresponding increase in [computer part] complexity, entailing both an expansion in [component] number and more elaborate [component design and manufacture].(22–24) Only [system redesign] in the form of [component] or [component system] duplications, [chip] shuffling, [chip] insertions, [chip] deletions, and [component] rearrangements can adequately account for this massive increase in [component] number and the complexity of their [design, connectivity, and production].

    The “insight” of the paragraph being (drumroll): merely modifying existing [chips and components] individually in their current positions isn’t sufficient (the RM of RMNS) – you also have to duplicate, delete, shuffle, steal from other systems, reposition, etc.

    What is amazing about this is not just that such hand-waving without explanation is considered insightful, but also that it has taken evolutionists so long to realize how extreme the changes required are to get from one type of lifeform to another, and that simple RM of DNA code-in-place isn’t nearly sufficient.

  13. 13
  14. 14
  15. 15
    Dionisio says:

    gpuccio

    I’m throwing in paper references that may not be exactly what you’re looking for:

    http://rstb.royalsocietypublis.....8/20140318

    http://www.cell.com/trends/mic.....15)00279-6

  16. 16
  17. 17
    Dionisio says:

    gpuccio:

    Disclaimer:

    Please, forgive me if some of the referenced papers are unrelated to the topic you’re interested in.

    It looks as though they all somehow deal with the eukaryogenesis topic.

    BTW, I agree that a serious OP on the eukaryogenesis topic should be highly welcome these days.

  18. 18
    gpuccio says:

    Dionisio:

    You are always forgiven! 🙂

Leave a Reply