Miscellany (General)

by David Turell , Saturday, May 22, 2021, 15:36 (1279 days ago) @ dhw

Species differentiation

dhw: For the definition, I was thinking in terms of eagle versus elephant versus herring versus ant….What would your own definition be?

DAVID: Yours are obvious. Finch beak size silliness is the point.

dhw: I have agreed. That is why I illustrated my preferred definition with obvious examples.There is no dispute here. I've asked you for your own definition of species in the hope that you might have a better idea than organisms with the ability to interbreed.

I was inferring the concept of splitters vs, lumpers. Genome study may be the best way. Appearance can fool.

Giant black hole
DAVID: […] dhw has wondered in the past why God created all these events when all He wanted was humans. I don't know and I don't wonder. I assume God did this for His own reasons and they are a reasonable part of the process.

dhw: This is the process whereby someone has a theory and “assumes” that everything will be found to fit in with it, which of course is the process behind preconceptions and prejudices. In relation to God, it raises the question you asked so eloquently elsewhere: “Why do humans guess at God's designs before they have the full story?”

DAVID: I am prejudiced for God. I prefer to wait for research to explain the questions.

dhw: Your belief in God is not the subject of our current disagreements, because all my objections to your theory of evolution, and all my alternatives, allow for his existence. I object to your theory of evolution because you are adamant that your God must have had a logical reason for designing “de novo” the 99% of life forms that had no connection with the only form he wanted to design, and he must have had a “good” reason for designing the “bad” bacteria and viruses. These are your “guesses”, nothing will shake you from your belief that they are correct, and yet you ask: “Why do humans guess at God’s designs before they have the full story?”

Not my purpose. I point to example guesses that the appendix was vestigial; its not, and the retina wrongly designed, until research showed it was superb design. This shows guesses against God's design should wait for research to explain, if it can. My expectation is that God knows how to design and declaring something is wrong before fully studied is the wrong approach.

Fungi helped plants

DAVID: How did plants latch onto fungi? Luck or design? Looks designed to me.

dhw: […] Whether God designed the original cells or not, it seems to me that the basis of plant and animal evolution has been cooperation between cells. In view of your occasional “full” acceptance that some of our fellow animals are actually “very intelligent”, I’m surprised that you cannot bring yourself to accept that maybe – it’s only a theory – the earliest forms of life (e.g. plants, fungi, bacteria) might also be intelligent, albeit on a far lower level.

DAVID: And I believe God designs and speciates and provides intelligent information for organisms to use.

dhw: I have never understood the difference between information and “intelligent” information, and I have no idea what you mean by the latter. Could it mean that he provides the intelligence (my proposal) to organize cooperation and solve problems, or does it mean that he provides detailed formulas for all cooperation, and detailed solutions to every single problem that every single life form has faced and will face throughout the thousands of millions of years of life’s history past present and future?

I throw in 'intelligent' to indicate it is God's information that makes organisms look and act as if intelligent.

Gamma rays
DAVID: as with yesterday's entry, it shows the universe is filled with dangerous activity. And luckily where we live the Earth is tucked into a safe spot in our galaxy. I still presume God knows what He is doing and don't question it.

dhw: If God exists, I would also presume he knows what is doing. What I question is your fixed belief that in the context of evolution, you know precisely what he wanted to do and did, and you refuse to question your illogical presumptions about his purpose and his method of achieving it.

I don't have to question my conclusions based on logical thought. I am convinced as noted above we are/were His goal.