RE: The only reason why organics function is for selfish benefit
February 17, 2014 at 3:11 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2014 at 3:11 pm by x2theone2x.)
(February 9, 2014 at 1:09 am)Chuck Wrote:(February 7, 2014 at 1:47 pm)x2theone2x Wrote: Why do you assume function requires design, and it doesn't even matter as any basic evolution lecture will tell you that it acts like design. The watch makers argument here isn't going to work for you... The human heart developed to aid the human, take that heart and place into another mammal and it most likely won't work. The reason why we still have vestigial organs is due to evolution, or the framework of evolution to not get rid of that coding in case we may need it in the future. We are referring to organics here not atoms or molecules. I am not confusing "perceived" outcome with intention, both are directly required in the decision making process in humans.
Take a oxygen atom out of a water molecule and try to put it into a molecule that doesn't react with oxygen, and it will be rejected. So what? It doesn't mean oxygen has a function in water. It just so happen to possess the capability to react with hydrogen.
Basic lecture is basic, it tries to enlist your intellectual foibles to give you a slight leg up in beginning to conceptualize complex concepts, in much the same way your bed time stories about Santa Claus might give you a slight leg up in conceptualizing appropriate conduct. So don't think everything as described in basic lecture really stands up to thorough scrutiny.
I would simply disagree. An oxygen atom will not function with your proposed molecule because it doesn't, and it's function won't allow it, for reasons we should observe, and through trials we may be able to alter.
