A Miracle?

A Greeley, CO. murder case solved after thirty years by matching an inmates DNA to blood on a piece of evidence, a sock, found near the crime scene is, says one interviewed (on nightly news, Channel 7), "a miracle of science".

What a contradiction of terms; modern science explains mechanisms, or utilizes them, to some ends--such as matching DNA; a miracle can be said to be the suspension of mechanisms and the natural laws that dictate them, such that though science can understand miracles in these terms, it cannot explain the suspension, how it occurred or was done.

Jesus 'restoring' (putting to health) a withered hand of a man who's been like that since birth, surrounded by all who have known the man since birth, is a miracle; matching DNA through mechanistic technology developed scientifically, is not.

Too often when someone is awed by the products of science, they call it a miracle; it is just as bad as when something extraordinary (extra ordinary)--uncommon--is acclaimed 'a miracle': the words spewed are evidencing the quality, and carelessness, of thought. Scientists, Philosophers, and Theologians often have some things in common: they have propensity to be irked by words used un- considered or poorly considered, or understood.

Little Sleep

This one is interesting; it is a discovery of a 'gene' that enables (or corresponds with) a lesser need for duration of sleep. Some are already speculating it as the beginning of a day where treated persons would need sleep less: that just tells me underestimation of the difficulty, indeed purposeful obstacles, to genetic safe (relative) modification.

It also tells me an ignorance of genetics and biology; for every perk there is a trade-off. There is a downside, probably many, somewhere in there. There are probably many who also need little sleep, and function (as these two found) with little, and also recover quickly without it, but nevertheless suffer other biological consequences; perhaps there are some with the genes for healing quickly, such as those persistent marathon runners: indeed that might mitigate some of those consequence--yet bring its own. Quick healing usually corresponds with fewer, or defunct, genetic checks, for instance: and should permit reasoning the consequent of higher rates of genetic errors and likelihood of cancer.

I don't know that it's genetic rather than custom, but when my health* is up I can live off about four hours of sleep with little issue: actually it's not just "can live off", but rather I wake without help, and stay wakeful without stimulants, minus those four hours; I go about, studying, working, exercising (heavily). When I was a young kid and teen it was different, but at twenty one I just started waking one day after four hours, on the dot. *(In the past few months I've been sleeping much more than eight hours for cause of antihistamines for hives.) I like this, it gives me a lot more time, and yet knowing what I do could be worrisome to wake knowing the time on the dot will be four hours past leaving wakefulness.

The point is this, that we should meddle with people who aren't broken: I don't care if they need twelve hours a night, so long as their health is well (that can be detrimental if gotten without necessity). In the event someone sleeps far too few hours, however, it could be a good idea to see about ratcheting their hours slept UP! Not too much...naturally the body seems to do worse* when it gets more than it wants naturally, but there could be such a thing as too few hours--the body needs time for its natural cycles and whatnot, for damage repair and healing, and for sorting information in the brain as well as repairing its tissues and connections. *(I, for instance, feel terrible for sleeping more than my usual needs: for doing so I feel drugged when trying to rise, but great if I just get up the first time I wake.)

An Example of (Superficial) Scientific Criticalness, Handgun Severing Finger - Myth Busters

Just a Critique of something I just saw at 7:45PM MST on The Discovery Channel; the "Myth Busters" used chicken bones and meat to simulate a myth that a hand gun's gases might, perhaps, sever a finger misplaced thereupon.

I have a problem with their methods. First, chicken bones (and avian bones in general) are not like human bones; they are structurally meant to be porous and light for flight (chickens do, in fact, fly, by the way--not far, but they do it).

[Expanding the above statement:]

Personally I'd prefer knowing the densities involved, as well as structural properties (comparatively) of the interwoven fibers in each bone type; for instance, animal bones are, typically, a weave, while human bones are stacked (they are like segmented tubes); deeper detail on avian bone structure than the aforementioned, particularly chickens, however, is a mystery to me.

To be more scientific I'd prefer a simulation utilizing an intact hand from a cadaver, what's more, from a recent cadaver, with the hand attached to the arm, since the force can be distributed through the point of impact down the course of matter to which it is most directly affixed; this is not ideal, (that would be a brave volunteer to mis-handle the gun at firing), but the results, quantified, as well as quantifying the parameters, along with a knowledge of the properties of the hand, its structure, chemical advantages, elasticities involved, etc., pertaining to a human hand, rather than a substitute "hand", would be excessively more accurate, and therefore preferable; even better if there are several tests repeating the experiment in the same, similar, and varied parameters.