Origin of Life: early land life (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, August 07, 2013, 14:38 (4127 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: The alternative is a form of consciousness whose origin is inexplicable, and whose power is great enough to create and manipulate a whole universe. That for me is as incredible as believing in chance.
> 
> You've made no comment on this, but it has the same force in my thinking as the acknowledgement of the engineering. I can't believe in chance, and I can't believe in a spontaneously generated and infinite form of creative consciousness. Acceptance of either hypothesis requires a degree of faith I do not have.-Because to me it is a degree of certainty that does not require much in the way of faith. If I see engineering then there is an engineer. I don't have to see the engineer, or know every detail about them to know beyond doubt that they exist. -> TONY: Why are you hung up on the dodo? I never hear you question the ostrich, emu, chicken, or other flightless birds. Because of humans, we will never really know what their role was in that ecosystem.
> 
> Once again, I'm talking about extinction, i.e. wastefulness. That's why I often talk of dinosaurs and dodos. You are convinced that dodos and other extinct forms of life played a role in the ecosystem, and without them there could have been no humans. I am not. I see it as wastefulness, supporting my 2) and 3) versions of your God (as opposed to 1)).
> -The dodo, and a great number of other species simply did not 'go extinct'. We killed them off. Don't attribute humanity's choices to wastefulness on God's part. As for those creatures that DID go extinct naturally, I can think of two very good reasons why that is not 'wasteful'. First, if they have served the purpose they were created for, then it is not wasteful, they have merely fulfilled their purpose and been retired (I am not asserting that is what happened, just musing on the subject.) Secondly, the creation of a group does not necessarily guarantee that every offshoot of that group would endure forever. Secondly, the major 'kinds' or families have, except in the case of a catastrophic event or human intervention, not gone extinct. Certain lineages may have died out, but the kinds do endure. -In terms of stars going nova, even that serves a purpose. The ejected material goes into the formation and dispersion of new materials into the universe and the energy and gravity wells left behind help shape and maintain the balance of the universe. You seem to think that just because something, as a whole, doesn't last forever that its creation was wasteful. -
>DHW: Nor have I ever once said you said that! You have overlooked what I wrote under "Topsy-turvy evolution" when questioning how your separate creation works: "I don't know how you can separate creation of "kinds" from the countless innovations that combine to make those "kinds". Are you saying that God invented vision, hearing, lungs, livers, nervous systems, digestive systems etc. etc. all at the same time, as it were 'in vacuo', and then incorporated them into the first mammals, fish, reptiles, birds, which were then left to evolve into their various species?" I take mammals etc. to be your "kinds", with different species as your variations. Meanwhile, I would love to know your answer to my question.-Yes, I think that the generic blueprint for the individual organs were made with the same type of model that the creatures themselves were, which is to say that the are allowed to very within tightly controlled specifications in a self-correcting system that allows for ongoing sustainability without direct intervention. Even beyond 'mamals' I personally think of 'kinds' in terms of the next subset down, i.e. canine, feline, ursine, bovine, equine, etc. It is even possible that there is a more narrow spec that we simply have not thought to use of as a categorization that would, in retrospect, make the distinctions even more clear. So a 'Labrador' or a 'Collie' are mere variations on the overarching 'canine' kind. I do not think we will ever get a successful breeding of a canine and feline.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.