Skip to comments.What Defines an Organism? Biologists Say 'Purpose.'
Posted on 12/10/2009 8:12:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Why are you telling me that, instead of her?
It was just a rhetorical comment..
Because then it can’t be construed as a personal attack and then one can’t get in trouble for it.
You can still get the dig in and claim to not have violated forum rules.
Being responsible for getting people banned from FR really warms your heart, eh?
Hang around FR long enough and you, too, can become a Master (or Mistress) of the Art of Insult while Totally Ignoring the Etiquette of FR.
Seriously...some people speak without knowing the facts.
No skin off my nose, Hon.
But thanks for the posts. You're a goodhearted lady.
So, what you are saying is that XCAMEL is an ORGANISM that had a PURPOSE?
It seems to be easier for humans to stick to either a totally ‘religious’ or totally ‘scientific’ answer as the ‘truth’, than to admit that we don’t know.
LOL! Maybe so.
I guess that's the part of the thread that caught my attention in the first place.
They defined an organism as an entity made up of parts that cooperate well for an overall purpose, and do so with minimal conflict.
The problem is, who gets to define what is 'purposeful' and who exactly sets decides the threshold of too much 'conflict'.
“It seems to be easier for humans to stick to either a totally religious or totally scientific answer as the truth, than to admit that we dont know.”
Yes, exactly. There is some kind of personal insecurity suffered by most people that makes them believe they must have some kind “universal answer for everything,” which usually turns out to be some accepted authority, religion, “science” so-called, or some political-philosophical authority.
The few who can be comfortable with the fact that for some things, like origins, whether of life or the universe, at present, we just don’t know.
Glad somebody gets it. Thanks of the comment.