In This Case, Clueless Isn't

[vakkotaur]

In this followup to a comment in jmaynard's journal, there is a link to a very interesting review of the design of the human eye. But that's not all. There is a series of essays which are quite interesting.

Of the many, a few really got my attention (these are my titles, not the author's):

Ethics and Belief in God

Science and Engineering (and Theory vs. Conjecture)

Malaria, Sickle Cell Anemia, and Evolution

Pseudoscience: Understanding Without Understanding

Engineering

British and Americans: Same Show, But Not the Same

Comments

[melskunk.livejournal.com]

Well, they're NICE, but in at least one case, there's a bit too much speculation goin' on.
In "British and Americans: Same Show, but Not the Same"
Indeed, in some cases insubordination was institutionalized. "Stars and Stripes" routinely ran articles and cartoons making fun of officers (in general, but never in specific), not to mention making fun of the Germans and the British and the French and the newspapers and the politicians back home and nearly everything else. If the RA ever did anything like that I never heard of it.

The pride of my collection are a variety of British war-era cartoons, making fun of everything from the officers to the food. The British just aren't, well, as goofy, silly or wear-your-heart-on-your-sleve like Americans are, so that sort of cartooning and joking rarely left the confines of the actual military.

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

About those eye comments, I think the scientist is enamoured of his own ingeniousness. If our eyes were as light-sensitive as mollusk eyes, one direct look at the sun could blind us for life. Eyes all across our forehead would require a larger portion of our brains to decode and filter out all the redundant information. And I'd wager there's are hidden purposes woven into that 90% of DNA we don't understand yet.

It's an interesting thought experiment, but not a compelling argument of the nonexistence of God.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

Recent discoveries (which I don't have immediately at hand) show that there is indeed more to so-called junk DNA than just being junk. I used to quip that that was merely the comments in the code, or should be.

[kiwihunter8.livejournal.com]

Thanks for these links!

I'm not as science-savvy as I'd like to be, but I am a skeptic. This is perfect - language I can understand and all kind of connections I didn't realise. Seriously, thanks for posting this!!! I'm booking marking the site!