RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubeI found this to be an very interesting takedown of ID from an unexpected angle (fair warning, it's heavy on the molecular bio-speak): Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Everyday Chit Chat
Intelligent Design
[10 posts] [8 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
Cookie
Flyntonville
Login to Send PM
-
Manatee
The eternal present
Login to Send PM
The first thing that struck me is the subjectivity of attempting to decide what "works" at a genetic level, and what doesn't. I mean, in some ways it might seem obvious, but in other ways... we just don't know everything, and so to assume that we know if a particular genetic combination "works" in the long run over evolutionary time... that's pretty sketchy to me.
Very interesting article, though, lots to think about.
Posted 2 years ago # -
misskitty
Columbus
Login to Send PM
I know it’s a huge debate about what should be taught in school when it comes to creationism and evolution. I don’t think studying one is at all helpful. I think it would be awesome if at the high school level they had a life studies course that you could pick as an elective. Instead of focusing on just two points why not study all religions and theories from around the world to have a large perspective on the different ideas. This way nothing is left out and it’s not bias towards one idea or another. Also since the student could pick the class as an elective then it would not be forced. Sorry for the derail it's just been on my mind
Posted 2 years ago # -
Rick Carraway
Login to Send PM
-
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
Manatee wrote >>
The first thing that struck me is the subjectivity of attempting to decide what "works" at a genetic level, and what doesn't. I mean, in some ways it might seem obvious, but in other ways... we just don't know everything, and so to assume that we know if a particular genetic combination "works" in the long run over evolutionary time... that's pretty sketchy to me.
Very interesting article, though, lots to think about.I believe in the article "works" is defined as simpler system that consumes much less energy at a molecular level to perform its defined task. Since molecular processes are unlikely to have a philosophical debate about which is better amongst themselves, it's a mistake to define them by our standards when the scope of inputs and outputs is much more limited. Also, since you can in fact build molecular biological systems in the laboratory now, it's entirely plausible that it's not a mere statement that human molecular processes could be known factually to be inefficient and needlessly complex.
@misskitty - there's a world of difference between the theory of evolution and religious origin myths. I'm for putting religion back into philosophy classes and keeping it out of science laboratories.
Posted 2 years ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.