I am still waiting for you to demonstrate this.
I already gave @Andrew_Christianson the list of alleged design flaws that have been found to be optimal. If you want more examples, just ask.
Let me bring some context before I address this.
The rationale behind the approach I presented is based upon a principle regarding causation from past events, which was popularized by Charles Lyell who also influenced Charles Darwin and Stephen Meyer, of course. “Lyell argued that when scientists seek to explain events in the past, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question. Historical scientists should cite ‘causes now in operation’ or presently acting causes, which would be humans in this case.
This is because experiments and observations in quantum physics have shown that only the conscious observer has the ability to choose which aspect of nature his knowledge will probe. The participatory universe theory that was proposed and confirmed by John Wheeler and his delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment is an example of this:
"He was an early advocate of the anthropic principle, the idea that the universe and the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit the existence of life. For the past two decades, though, he has pursued a far more provocative idea for an idea, something he calls genesis by observership. Our observations, he suggests, might actually contribute to the creation of physical reality. To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; we are shapers and creators living in a participatory universe.
Wheeler’s hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well. To illustrate his idea, he devised what he calls his “delayed-choice experiment,” which adds a startling, cosmic variation to a cornerstone of quantum physics: the classic two-slit experiment."
Does the Universe Exist if We’re Not Looking? | Discover Magazine
This means that we are the conscious minds that are playing a significant role in quantum mechanics and have in the past. This was the backbone of my recent presentation. It also means that your response is nonsensical because you are a conscious being that plays a significant role in quantum mechanics right now while also claiming "no real evidence that consciousness plays any significant role in quantum mechanics. "
Now, I know you will respond by saying we are contingent beings and we don’t have evidence of a non-contingent consciousness. But, the origin of life simulation experiments I showcased that require a designer to produce life and the digital information harbored in life that is non-local would be the evidence of a non-contingent mind. Moreover, the alleged design flaws that have been found to be optimal designs would be the real evidence showing how this non-contingent consciousness played a significant role in quantum biology.
Not quite, I am saying we can and should infer that this designer has immutable characteristics and will even though it is a non-contingent conscious agent we are dealing with. It was in response to what @Dan_Eastwood said regarding the testability of common design theory.
For instance, we don’t have to worry about using an unfalsifiable theory that involves an omnipotent human because we have evidence that this human being is immutable and cannot violate his own nature in comparison to imperfect beings, which can change and violate those principles.
In other words, the immutable trait this particular designer possesses offsets the omnipotent trait this designer would also have to possess if true. This is what makes the difference on why we can treat an omni-potent God the same way as other intelligent agents (Neanderthals, modern humans, aliens,etc.) when we want to use an intelligent cause to explain a phenomena over a mindless force. Thus, all candidates are considered natural but immaterial causes that we can test because consciousness is supposed to be fundamental not classical physics.
Well that is just classic. First, @John_Harshman assumes without merit that the development of the scientific consensus on a topic is objective. Now, you are assuming without merit that the consensus in science is somehow morally infallible and free of bias or conflicts of interests.
Look, I can accept that the scientific consensus should probably be the gatekeepers of what should be taught in science classes in a vast majority of cases. However, in cases where there is strong metaphysical and religious implications and undertones like Darwinian evolution, we should definitely not give them the benefit of the doubt. Here is a quote to illustrate an aspect of my point:
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
[Billions and Billions of Demons - JANUARY 9, 1997 ISSUE]”
― Richard C. Lewontin
Well first off, It is not a hypothesis anymore, but a full-fledge theory. In fact, the Orch-OR theory has gone through everything this article has suggested that makes an idea a scientific theory. It just does not have consensus yet. That’s it. However, all this means is that not enough of the old school paradigm of scientists have died off or its just philosophical/religious bias according to my analysis.
Secondly, what you are saying actually does not follow. Theories in science don’t have to be demonstrated to be true, but instead, they need to be demonstrated to work and have practical application in order for it to be taught in science ( or at least it should be that way according to my position):
'The issue is not whether a scientific theory is settled, but rather whether it works. Any successful scientific theory must be predictive and falsifiable; that is, it must successfully predict outcomes of controlled experiments or observations, and it must survive tests that could disprove the theory.
A scientist advocating a particular theory must propose an experiment and use her theory to predict the results of that experiment. If the experimental results are inconsistent with her predictions, then she must admit that her theory is wrong. To gain acceptance for a theory, a scientist must be willing to subject it to a falsifiable test.
If an experiment produces results that are consistent with a scientist’s predictions, then that’s good news for her theory. Just one successful test, though, is not usually enough. And the more controversial a theory is, the more experimental verification is required. As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence .”
Wide acceptance comes from repeated, different experiments by different research groups. There is no threshold or tipping point at which a theory becomes “settled.” And there is never 100 percent certainty. However, near-unanimous acceptance by the scientific community simply doesn’t occur unless the evidence is overwhelming.’
Scientific theories aren’t mere conjecture – to survive they must work (theconversation.com)
The evidence I presented before was to demonstrate that the theory can and does work even though it involves a non-material, non-contingent conscious agent. So far, most of your objections have nothing to do whether the theory is unscientific or not and, thus, should not be taught in science classes.
According to the common descent model, Yes but not the common design model…
Which group of organisms are considered basic types?
There is 11+ groups of basic types, which involve…
Avalon, Cambrian fauna, Ordovician, Nekton animals, Odontodes vertebrates, Land vertebrates, Insects, Dinosaurs/birds, Placental mammals, Genus Homo, and one Human pair.
So were you suggesting that no animals exist today that branched off these groups?
You are making the same mistake that you made when you defined “species” according to the common descent model in order to make an objection. The Common Design model defines the first life in the form of RNA viruses NOT bacteria. Let me show you the model again so you don’t get confused:
Universal Common Design Model
Before the leftover meteorites were clumped together to form the primitive earth 3.8 billion years ago, virus-like RNA molecules were created within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the earth. Then, some of these virus-like RNA molecules were naturally selected into different species of unicellular organisms and they underwent a heavy amount of HGT from the viruses that were created within the deep-sea oceans.
Then, the designer re-used these microbes, modules, and chemical constituents to separately construct basic types of animals from different locations and times around the globe. These basic types would be able to adapt to changing environments and diversify into kinds over long epochs of time.
This would involve the designer employing many familiar mechanisms, such as HGT, to facilitate this process and address a common set of problems facing unrelated organisms that are undergoing natural selection. As a result, we would see biochemical and morphological similarities among all living things that naturally give the appearance of Universal common ancestry.
No, I never said it can’t be done by unguided processes. I am saying we don’t have any evidence that they were done by unguided processes. We only have evidence that they were guided:
Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications
That’s because you have shown you are not competent enough to make that judgement on their theory and you had your chance in the last topic.
When you claimed that it was a “hypothesis”, you continued to show that you have not the done the research on it. But, you don’t have to be an expert to go look up whether your claims on the theory are accurate because I am certainly not an expert nor did I ever pretend to be one.
Correct and a prediction of the common design model is that they have a function.
I don’t get the objection or see how this is relevant to my theory. The argument for function within non-coding DNA does not depend only on whether the organism would survive or not survive without this functional activity but can still be useful regardless. For instance, I can eat a bowl of cereal without a spoon but with a spoon I can eat my food more efficiently.
Well, faith is a crucial part of the scientific method because making predictions about a theory will always require a form of faith. Nevertheless, thank you for demonstrating that the theory is a very fruitful scientific idea.
Let me give you an example then. In animals, injury can lead to long-lasting distress, whereby frequent exposure to pain-producing stimuli causes a progressively amplified response well after the injury has healed. This phenomenon has been referred to as “nociceptive sensitization.” Biomedical researchers have long viewed nociceptive sensitization as maladaptive because, in humans, it is associated with anxiety (Crook et al., 2014).
However, Crook et al. (2014) studied nociceptive sensitizations in squids and concluded that heightened sensitivity to pain helps these creatures evade predation. Squids are an outstanding laboratory model because they undertake a precise sequence of defensive behaviors when threatened by a predator.
For instance, when endangered, squids fully recovered from a previous injury reacted sooner than those that had not been injured. Conversely, the previously injured squids exhibited a slower response to predatory threats when the scientists used anesthetic to block the pain immediately after injury, thus preventing nociceptive sensitization.
Since nociceptive sensitization is pervasive, it likely serves a similar benefit among other animals, as well. Thus, these results indicate that pain (or suffering) plays a key role in enhancing the survival of animals following an injury and recovery.
Nociceptive Sensitization Reduces Predation Risk (cell.com)
Sure, let me breakdown further. There are actually both alleged bad designs and suboptimal designs in nature.
First, suboptimal designs 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. On the other hand, bad designs are considered poorly made to achieve their perceived purpose (i.e. design tradeoffs). 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.
An example of suboptimal designs is the bronchial system in the human lung, which is not optimally designed to produce maximum efficiency in distributing air with minimal dissipation and it is relatively oversized. However, it has been suggested that the design actually is optimal when one considers physiological variability: a more optimal design of the bronchial tree would result in many more humans suffering from asthma and other lung disorders (Mauroy et al., 2004).
An optimal bronchial tree may be dangerous | Nature
An example of a bad design would be the energy metabolism which invovles tradeoffs between conflicting design goals (Flamholz et al., 2013; Stettner & Segrè, 2013).
Glycolytic strategy as a tradeoff between energy yield and protein cost | PNAS
I have already explained why it is crucial to a student’s understanding of biology. Again, 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. In fact, an article has even suggested that this current evolutionary framework and perspective is actually impeding scientific advancement and causing practical difficulties.
This realization solidifies the grounds for using modeling formalisms from the engineering subdisciplines and apply them to biological systems.
Also, quantum mechanics is the basis for current and future jobs right now as this article suggested:
High School students tackle quantum physics at summer camp (aisd.net)
Are you kidding me? The only thing that the teacher would need to do is point out that there is another explanation, called common design, that has been proposed to better explain the discrepancies in the fossil record, phylogenetic trees, biogeography distribution, and apes and humans. That’s it.
Now, when it comes to the mechanisms being brought forth to explain it. The only three mechanisms they would need to teach at that level is natural selection, proton-tunneling, and quantum entanglement. That’s it.