Re: Mara -- reply to come -- now, here
Posted by Sparrow on Jun 20, 2002 at 21:59
Re: Mara -- reply to come (Sparrow)
The most complex answers are often the simplest at the outset -- Occam's razor and all, y'know. Man's interventions and implementations far too often go awry because of imprecise understanding of the full complexity of things.
E.g.: The environmentalists here may or may not be aware of how good intentions collapse horridly because of poor understanding in the oft-told tale of the family who had a good-sized pond in their backyard and kept the area around it neatly groomed and pleasant-looking. Then environmentalists discovered that an endangered fish species lived in the pond and via the courts and protection acts asserted eminent domain to insist that the pond be allowed to go "wild" -- even though it was on private property. You may surmise what happened -- the pond overgrew, choking out the fish, who all died.
So what's the point? New ideas that are improbable (c'mon, now THREE strands of DNA? Really?) in replacement of an old improbable idea (the ONE strand theory) are not any more likely to be valid because the basic premise has been poorly understood -- 'a la the Pond illustration above. The new theory assumes that at least SOME aspect of DNA formation was valid to start. I'm sorry, but that's like building two additions onto a castle in the air. I could, myself, speculate that there were 18 DNA strands, but how would that be any more valid, if I can't even explain ONE?
I'm not jumping on you Mara, I've come to respect your opinion and input, and I know that you are sincere. But these scientists are stepping confidently out of their castle, and it's a million miles off the ground....
One can't even get out the door to discuss transcription translation and replication, y'know what I mean?
...and when new ideas are presented, don't delude your self that they'll be accepted and embraced on data alone, even with the best of data. The helicobacter pylorii/ulcer episode goes right up in the annals alongside with Semmelweis!
So, perhaps "waffles" was a less-than-best application. "Castles in the air" may be a better skeptic's remark.
The simplest answer, that God spoke it all into existance, is unsatisfying to the detective in us all, but maybe "Occam" is God's middle name?