Look, none of that makes any sense. It’s word salad. If you have anything reasonable to say there you aren’t communicating it in clear language. No purpose is served by the word “universal”. Saying that the designer is a human mind is confusing, as you clearly don’t intend that the designer is human. “Orch-OR” is an obscure term. And why is the information in life necessarily digital? Etc.
No, it didn’t. Sure, you can encode human language in DNA. But that doesn’t make it language. And because you can represent DNA sequences digitally doesn’t make that information digital either.
But they don’t. Isn’t this just a reposting of your previous claims, unmodified in response to any of the criticisms?
Then we don’t expect nested hierarchy, unless you aren’t really contrasting design with common ancestry. Hard to know whether you meant to say what you said or imply what you implied.
Does it? Why? And you never say what the difference is. It isn’t clear what your example is supposed to show.
At this point I stopped reading, since you lose all connection to any thread of argument.
I specifically said ,at the end, that both definitions combine to make a Universal mind, which would be a quantum mind that is not contingent upon classical space-time physics or a prior cause and is the first cause from which all organisms now living on Earth have a common design or blueprint originating from this designer, which would be digital information.
I was merely referencing where I got my definition of a human mind from.
I am not sure what you are getting at here. I never suggested this. The information in life is both analog and digital.
I need you to be more clear here. What makes you say that? Please elaborate so I can respond adequately.
NO, I did modify and made the necessary changes after you guys made your critiques and even put you on notice. But, I did not see any meaningful responses on my latest changes so I decided to just move on and make this topic.
Correct, there is not supposed to be a big contrast between common design and descent. Common ancestry is still pervasive in this model just not “Universal”. This is why I did not feel compelled to go into detail in regards to the model . However, I can’t tell you exactly which species were designed separately, especially when science does not provide a clear definition of “species” and the bible does not provide a clear definition of “kinds”. It is just something that we will have to find out later through testing of this model in regards to which organisms were designed separately and reclassify them from that point on
No, I did. You just stopped reading at that point, Silly Billy. Here it is again…
According to all these studies, the systems would have similar functions and have similar parts used to construct species, but it is the specified complexity of the shapes, arrangements, and DNA that allows organisms to fit specific applications which gives them their separate uniqueness. This would explain why and how humans share the appearance of universal common ancestry, such as viruses being used to initiate design diversity around the globe.
Everything you type seems like gibberish to me. There are two possibilities: 1) Your thinking is as muddled as it appears; 2) Your thinking is fine, but you are so poor at communicating that it’s impossible to tell what you’re trying to say. I don’t see a third.
The fact that you can’t tell the difference between ancestry and separate creation should be instructive for you.
Shouldn’t “kinds” be obvious to inspection if they really existed?
How would you test that?
No, it explains nothing. It’s just a sentence assembled from random buzzwords.
Again, the functional systems between organisms as a whole and how you compare these fully functional systems between organisms to their respective environments are two key differences that separate it from common ancestry’s predictions.
For example, a study analyzed it and showed that the radial sesamoid bone (its “thumb”) is “one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems” among mammals. Following this publication, another study found that the giant panda and the red panda were not related even though both species possess the false thumb. The false thumb of the giant panda was intended to manipulate bamboo and the false thumb of the red panda was designed as an aid for arboreal locomotion, With the red panda secondarily developing its ability for item manipulation.
As you can see, the systems have similar functions and have similar parts used to construct species, such as viruses, but it is the system as a whole ranging from the shapes, arrangements, and DNA that allows organisms to fit specific applications in nature, which gives them their separate uniqueness.
What else is there to explain and understand?
Then, please do the honors of deflating my ego and show me how my test is nonsensical.
How that little story has anything to do with distinguishing design from common descent. Either your communication skills are not good enough to express your ideas or your ideas are nonsense. Or it could be both.
Hard to do, since it’s impossible to tell what your test is actually supposed to do.
Simple. The test was there to distinguish design from common descent. According to descent, we would expect there to be design flaws while under a common design model we would expect there to be NO design flaws. I already gave examples of what has been deemed a design flaw according to a divine design model at the start of this topic.
The other test involved showing how a divine intelligence was the primary cause for evolution rather than the environment.
The only examples of conscious design we have observed are those of humans and other relatively intelligent organisms. Guess what? Those designs are sometimes flawed, so your hypothesis test is practically useless. Of course, you might argue you mean “divine” design, but neither you, me or anyone else has observed anything like that, so you can’t tell whether divine design can be flawed or not.
If I played along though its darn obvious common descent wins. We have a GULO pseudogene, which is unable to help make vitamin C. Under a common conscious design framework that’s an unbelievably stupid design flaw. Under common descent, if an ancestral population lost the function of a gene due to mutations, and that defunct gene is passed on, we expect to see a fairly consistent distribution pattern for that defunct gene in extant descendants. Guess what again? That’s what we see for the GULO pseudogene, among primates including us, for example.
Continuously spewing junk like this will make others easily lose interest in the things you say.
I beg to differ. We can tell. According to the theory, we would expect this divine designer to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, which means we would not expect to see any design flaws.
The examples of supposed design flaws come in four forms. The first form encompasses suboptimal designs, which are optimized for their purpose but not completely optimized to exercise their full potential in achieving that purpose when compared to similar designs that show better optimization. The second form comprises bad designs, which are considered poorly made to achieve their recognized purpose.
The fundamental difference between a bad and a suboptimal design is that bad designs are designs considered not constructed well, while suboptimal designs are those considered not constructed well enough. The third form includes useless designs; designs without function, which probably had function in the past. Finally, the fourth form comprises sinister designs, in which organisms are designed in a way that seem to only bring harm and degeneration upon that organism or to other organisms.
However, upon further inspection, it has been repeatedly found that what initially seemed to be design flaws caused by an unguided process instead of a divine agent turned out not to be flaws at all with increasing understanding of the design (just ask for the list). In future, it will be paramount for scientists to reexamine the remaining claims of design flaws by looking at the organism as a whole, even if it exhibits some features that may be perplexing, rather than make an argument from ignorance or personal incredulity. This would confirm the theory each time we find another alleged design flaw to be optimal. This leads me to the next thing you said…
The researchers concluded in the study I referenced below: “transcribed pseudogenes are a significant contributor to the transcriptional landscape of cells and are positioned to play significant roles in cellular differentiation and cancer progression.”
There are design flaws in biological systems and one that sorely sticks out is the GULO pseudogene. That pseudogene horrendously falsifies your useless hypothesis.
The GULO pseudogene falls into the third and fourth categories.
We have a good understanding of the GULO pseudogene (GULOP). We also know that the inaction of GULOP has led to the death and suffering of millions of people who cannot access vitamin C in their diet.
That’s a terrible design flaw.
The effects of having a GULOP are pretty obvious. In fact, when we knock out functional version of GULO in mice, they end up with scurvy, and have to be rescued by dietary supplementation with vitamin C just like us. Again its a terrible design flaw.
This paper is of no relevance to GULOP whose nonfunctionality within the context of vitamin C biosynthesis has been empirically demonstrated using laboratory and clinical data.
GULOP is a design flaw and it falsifies your hypothesis.
Yeah. Even if GULOP serves some other function, the absence of a functioning GULO gene in humans is bad design. (Unless, of course, scurvy is part of the design. As certain ID proponents tell us, we can’t presume to know the goals of the inscrutable Designer.)
Well, of course most of the human genome is transcribed occasionally. That’s why mere transcription is not good evidence of function. There’s a lot of spurious transcription. You have to go much farther than that to demonstrate function.
For future reference, when quoting verbatim or heavily from abstracts or other sources in general, it’s good practice to indicate the quotes and cite the source. You sometimes do the latter, but often fail to do the former.
4 examples from your OP:
Strongly paraphrasing from:
Thus, it seems that, whereas the false thumb of the giant panda probably evolved for manipulating bamboo, the false thumbs of the red panda and of S. batalleri more likely evolved as an aid for arboreal locomotion, with the red panda secondarily developing its ability for item manipulation and thus producing one of the most dramatic cases of convergence among vertebrates.
Copied almost verbatim from from the abstract:
Here we report that viral production in deep-sea benthic ecosystems worldwide is extremely high, and that viral infections are responsible for the abatement of 80% of prokaryotic heterotrophic production. Virus-induced prokaryotic mortality increases with increasing water depth, and beneath a depth of 1,000 m nearly all of the prokaryotic heterotrophic production is transformed into organic detritus. The viral shunt, releasing on a global scale approximately 0.37-0.63 gigatonnes of carbon per year, is an essential source of labile organic detritus in the deep-sea ecosystems. This process sustains a high prokaryotic biomass and provides an important contribution to prokaryotic metabolism, allowing the system to cope with the severe organic resource limitation of deep-sea ecosystems. Our results indicate that viruses have an important role in global biogeochemical cycles, in deep-sea metabolism and the overall functioning of the largest ecosystem of our biosphere.
Paraphrased from abstract:
Phenotypic alterations in parasitised hosts modify host population ecology, apparent competition processes, food web structure and energy and nutrient flow between habitats, as well as favouring habitat creation.
Quoted verbatim from:
Researchers from the University of Connecticut discovered through modeling studies that horizontal gene transfer among microbes has the same genetic signature as common ancestry. Horizontal gene transfer encompasses any mechanism that transfers genetic material to another organism without the recipient being the offspring of the donor.
Putting things in your own words instead of slightly restructing sentences from abstracts (or just being clear about what is quoted) generally gives people mroe confidence that you understand the subjects you’re talking about.
By the way, this quote is a little misleading. It makes it sound as though the study analysed the sesamoid and concluded that it’s “one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems” among mammals. In other words, that the study concluded it was extraordinary in the sense that it is especially good in some way that contradicts the idea of “bad design”.
The way in which the giant panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca, uses the radial sesamoid bone - its `pseudo-thumb’ - for grasping makes it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution.
Clearly, the authors are expressing that the mere fact that the giant panda uses its sesamoid for grasping is “extraordinary” - they’re not expressing any kind of evaluation of its effectiveness. The last sentence of abstract is a more appropriate sentence to quote for that:
The radial sesamoid bone and the accessory carpal bone form a double pincer-like apparatus in the medial and lateral sides of the hand, respectively, enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity.
All this is quite irrelevant though, because to my knowledge the “bad design” argument about the Panda’s thumb has never been “the radial sesamoid provides no dexterity” - it is closer to “surely a designer would simply create a 6th finger instead of modifying a wrist bone”. I think it’s quite obvious that however dextrous the panda’s hand is with the enlarged radial sesamoid, it would be certainly more more dextrous with a 6th finger (or with a 6th and 7th finger, if you want also consider the accessory carpal).
Even if these two options were equally dextrous, the argument goes that evolution is a tinkerer that is expected to make such unusal modifications, similar to the way some orchids modify preexisting petals into traps rather than generate entirely new structures out of nowhere, as noted by Darwin.
Of course, the paper you link shows that some transcriptional activity from pseudogenes can often result in differentiation into cancer cells, which can definitely be argued to constitute a considerable design flaw.