Different in degree or kind (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, December 21, 2013, 00:58 (3991 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But convergence entails variations on the same form ... which means genomes in different places respond in similar but often NOT identical ways to similar environmental demands. Doesn't this suggest individual responses rather than a universal programme handed down by the first living cells?- Wrong interpretation. You need to look up the term convergence as used in evolution-speak lingo and jargon: The development of an organ with the same purpose but with an entirely different design. I.e., six types of eyes.
> 
> dhw: As our next exchange clearly demonstrates, you cannot find proof beyond a reasonable doubt:
> 
> Dhw: I just find the scale and the inconsistencies of your divine preplanning hypothesis beyond the bounds of credibility ... but I guess that's faith for you.
> DAVID: Since you have never experienced faith, I'm sure it is new territory for you to try and understand.-I have found proof beyond reasonable doubt for me. Adler found it for him. And there are many others.
> 
> dhw:Your faith in your anthropocentric,preprogramming hypothesis has nothing to do with proof. -Of course not. My proof is the enormous number of scientific findings which offer me a proof I accept. Then faith appears.
 
> dhw: So maybe his plan was not what you thought it was.-Your problem is your misinterpretation of convergence, a major point Conway Morris makes. There are many organs life invents for one purpose but they are all different in design, making the point that life as designed in the beginning is very inventive, which is why the higgledy-piggeldy bush appeared. Accept that life is very experimental and much of my reasoning falls into plae.- 
> dhw: You must know that science takes you nowhere near your conclusion that evolution was anthropocentrically planned and preprogrammed from the start by your God. The very fact that most scientists don't even believe in your God has to cast a degree of doubt on the "reasonableness" of your hypothesis. I love the way you use science to illuminate the huge complexities of living systems, and to undermine the case for chance and hence for Dawkins-type atheism. This is scientific thinking at its best.-I've told you I have the right to my own conclusions about science findings-> dhw: But when you extrapolate nebulous hypotheses about God's intentions, and you impose your own system on a history that so often refuses to conform, I feel you have left science behind, and have entered a field of more than reasonable doubt. -It is just my own philosphy of science. That is the field to which you refer.