Viral Batteries: A Case for Evolution?

ICR ^ | April 13, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[GodGunsGuts]

Viral Batteries: A Case for Evolution?

by Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Researchers at MIT have invented a “greener” battery with the help of viruses. Three years ago, they engineered a virus that coats itself with material that serves as an anode, a structure within a battery that attracts positive ions. They have now engineered a virus (bacteriophage) that serves as a cathode, which indirectly links to the anode to help make the battery functional. The result is a battery with little impact on the environment.

National Public Radio (NPR) ran a report on its Morning Edition that compared the development of this battery with the processes of evolution, stating that if the lead researcher “didn't like any properties of the electrode, she just tweaked the DNA of the virus that was making it.”1 But does this research actually portray an evolutionary process?...

[ClearCase_guy]

I guess I'm not understanding you -- do you believe that Intelligent Design is responsible for the life forms we see around us?

This is a Yes or No question.

[ColdWater]

I guess I'm not understanding you -- do you believe that Intelligent Design is responsible for the life forms we see around us?

I guess you are not understanding me. I posted about the miracles of evolutionary life. Do you are do you not believe that the Designer used evolution to create the present life forms.

This is a Yes or No question.

[r9etb]

Do you are do you not believe that the Designer used evolution to create the present life forms. This is a Yes or No question.

Well, actually.... you demand a Yes or No answer, which is not the same thing as there actually being a Yes or No answer.

[ColdWater]

Well, actually.... you demand a Yes or No answer, which is not the same thing as there actually being a Yes or No answer.

Did you not read #41. I was merely throwing it back in his face.

[r9etb]

Well, no, I guess I didn't notice that they were different questions.

Both of them are based on the same false premise, however -- so even if I only quoted one, I directed the comment to both of you.

Maybe I killed two birds with one stone.

[ColdWater]

Both of them are based on the same false premise, however -- so even if I only quoted one, I directed the comment to both of you. Maybe I killed two birds with one stone.

No. Mine was not based on a false premise. The premise of my post was to show the false premise of his post by repeating it back to him. duh.

[r9etb]

So you didn’t actually mean your question? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

[ColdWater]

So you didn’t actually mean your question? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

It's a long story going back to early in the thread. Sometimes if you are not involved you miss the back and forth. My post was meant for only one person and it would take too long to explain right now.