I can see all sorts of vagueness in your language (e.g., "biological factor"). The reason you seem to be hesitant to write out a definition of DNA I think is because you know that it is, in general, quite difficult to specify the precise perimeters of categories that we usually implicitly assume. It's quite hard even for things as simple as "water". It's really the same thing with male and female and all sort of other categories of macroscopic things.
Males and females have "specific characteristics" as you use here, they don't seem like particularly special categories and have some of the same issues as "DNA", "water", "tail" etc.
What makes you think that "male" and "female" are vulnerable to a philosophical argument involving ideas from some of categories/ambiguity/vagueness/truth while "DNA" is not?
Huh, how do you know you are not merely suffering from the problems associated with being "bad at dealing with continuums"? I mean, "DNA" isn't unambiguous at all...there are many many known closely related molecules that we could propose with simple chemical drawings that could match a DNA sequence. Isotopes, protonation states, oxidative damage etc....
I am now confused, you have introduced a notion of "ambiguity" which I did not. I specifically brought up your use of "inherent truth", "accurate descriptions" or "biological distinctions".
Aren't we imposing human preconceptions of order on a universe that simply doesn't care when we use a term like "DNA"?
Oh so you don't use these categories in your reasoning and communicating with others and for decisions on matters involving safety etc.? Hot stove, precancerous lump, man with gun, round ball...we're just imposing human preconceptions of order on a universe that simply doesn't care?
Ah so biological classification are arbitrary. Carbon, hydrogen, cells, proteins, lipids....teeth, hair, gorillas, ants, it's all just a big old fuzzy continuum and these categories don't tell you anything about reality. Got it.
.....so evolutionary biologists enjoy ignoring "inherent truth" (whatever the bloody hell that is) just so they can go toddle off to go make remarkable inferences on how life has evolved over hundreds of millions of years across numerous scales including at the levels of cells and molecules?
Do you honestly believe there aren't very natural interpretations to these categories that evolutionary biologists just didn't think of individuals who don't produce gametes for one reason or another?
I'm trying a nostr based pubpeer. Scientific paper commentary would be a fun thing for nostr to do....the development hurdles are higher than I thought they would be.
The benefits of the bacteria in this context are probably grossly overstated...but if it tastes kinda fizzy/sour from the fermentation, I'm all for it.
There was this brand of coconut drink I had ages ago that I got in NYC (I can't remember the name of the place off the top of my head). I could never find it again after I had it once.