Friday, June 5, 2009

The World Without Us

Alan Weisman's theory of the city without us is interesting. He stated that after only 36 hours without constant maintenance a subway system would fill with water. Eventually concrete would crack and rivers would form through the streets. As humans our everyday tasks keep nature from taking over our homes and cities. We do these things without even realizing. For instance if mildew grows in our bathtubs we have various sprays and chemicals to remove it. Without us here these molds would continue to grow. Alan Weisman states that nature would break down our skyscrapers and bridges within a few centuries. If we seized to exist, modern day Manhattan would eventually resemble the island as it was when Hudson saw it in the 1600’s. Personally I hope this is the case. If Human’s weren’t here I would hate for our cities to take up space that could benefit other organisms. However, he also stated that organisms that have adapted to our way of life, such as rats, would starve without our garbage as a source of food. This goes to show that humans do have an effect on the world surrounding us. Some species would fail without our existence. However, a great number of species would thrive. Many of us go about our day without realizing how our actions affect the world around us. Without us the world would not end….
Coming soon to a computer near you: the effect of human activity on the CO2 levels (and my opinion of course) STAY TUNED…especially if your name is Manders because I’m sure you’ll have some type of rebuttal

Monday, June 1, 2009

The Blind Watchmaker: Little Differences and Big Differences

"All of the DNA in each of our cells is addressed in the same sense as computer ROM.. is addressed. The exact numbers or names we use to label a given address are arbitrary, just as they are for computer memory. What matters is that a particular location in my DNA corresponds precisely to one particular location in your DNA: they have the same address. The contents of my DNA location 321762 may or may not be the exact same location as your locations 321762 . But my location 321762 is precisely in the same position in my cells as your location 321762 is in your cells... All of us, all human beings, have the same set of DNA addresses, but not necessarily the same contents of those addresses."

Sometimes I wish that all politicians would first understand science before philosophy. It is amazing that 6,706,993,152 people (world's population according to the CIA on June 1, 6:30 pm) share so much. Our outside appearances, our thoughts, our opinions, our so-called 'ideals', mistakes, achievements, failures; everything we're proud of about ourselves are all based on the minority. The major factors are the same. Each cell in our bodies contains the same set of instructions yet they act differently, different parts of the DNA are 'read' and 'processed'. Regardless, they all work together in harmony to keep the body running(most of the time). And here we are, as a species, with the same buildings and factories within us yet with an inability to see through the minor differences in paint color and lighting, and work together to keep this world running. I think that if a person ever wants to see the big picture in any aspect of human society, be it history, politics, law or teaching, he must first look at science. Because science has the power to topple nations and conquer more sans bloody wars and weapons.

Dawkins had made me think for the past week or so that I've been reading his work and question my beliefs and traditions. I've been reading works outside of his book to find arguments against them. I mean, not against evolution but against the idea of a nonexistent God. Yet, all the doors seem to be silent right about now. One argument that I've heard is that it's improbable that complex beings came about from random natural selection. But Dawkins points out that natural selection isn't random but rather it is quite planned (a whole Weasel program concept he has that explains it really well but will totally take me about 30 pages to write out. It pretty much illustrates how randomness can be coupled with cumulative selection for complex beings to arise.) Then, there's the argument that I always hear about complexity itself and how it is improbable that such complex creations can just be created without a guided hand. To that, here's his central argument:
Premises:
1. Humans are complex creatures.
2. For a creature to deliberately design another creature, it must have a greater or equal intelligence level as it.
3. Thus, each created being must have either been created or it must have originated from evolutionary processes.
Premises 1, 2 and 3 infer that:
1. God must be greater or equal in complexity to humans
2. God must have a creator or have originated from evolutionary sources.
Conclusion: The postulation of a creator god is pointless, as it either creates an infinite regress of creators, or requires an evolutionary origin somewhere along the chain.

I'm neither a good enough mathematician to counter the logic above nor a good enough religious philosopher. So, I guess at this point, I'm a little confused. I find everything else mentioned in this book amazing. How small changes over a course of time can lead to so many other changes in the grand scheme of things. How DNA copying and error rates can never be matched by human typists. How 6000 atoms (more than 2000 kinds) make up a "protein machine" that interact and choose the individual characteristics of this chemistry factory- the cell. But every time I read something else, I can't help think about this again. This topic of creationism/deism vs. evolution, a nonexistent but somehow relevant war.