The limitations of science (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 12, 2010, 21:28 (5184 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Well, specifically I was referring to some biochemical mechanisms that exist that actually have much shorter and more direct synthesis pathways; yet nature chose a more convoluted path. In these cases there is nothing gained in the convoluted path other than the consumption of more resources. In this instance; if humans can design something better than the UI, than the UI isn't really a UI. Or to put it more bluntly; if we can do something better than nature, than what does it say about nature?
> 
> But the final question is: can we do better. we haven't so far.-I will have to dig back a few years, but I recall that there were pathways dealing especially with energy production/consumption that nature follows that are inefficient compared with pathways built in the lab. A question was raised on why nature didn't go down these pathways. To my recollection this was never revisited in class. This is why I raised the question. If we can design a simpler and more efficient chemical pathway that isn't biologically harmful, then we are smarter than God, if he does in fact exist.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"