Consensus should determine what's taught in science classes. Why?

I really don’t think there’s any need to be more specific.

You claim that so many alleged design flaws have been found to be optimal designs that we should conclude that there is a perfect designer. I. Support you offer a blog post speculating that some of the examples might not be so poor. That’s not even one example. And any rational person can see that.

Similarly you have provided no real evidence that consciousness plays any significant role in quantum mechanics. Or for any of your other claims. It’s all wild speculation.

2 Likes

So either that ‘perfect’ human you spoke of is fictional, or you’ve completely forgotten it.

Oh dear. Well, at least it’s a genuine reference, though there’s no reason to believe @Meerkat_SK5 has actually watched it.

1 Like

This misses the issue.

Who exactly arbitrates whether or not a theory has meted burden of proof? I am convinced that biological evolution has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, and conversely, I do not believe ID theory has reached that standard. If I was selecting school curriculum, I would not include ORCH-OR hypothesis.

But I don’t think that the decision of what scientific theories are sufficiently proven should be in the hands of me, a Bio undergrad. I think it is BEST in the hands of an expansive panel of members of the public who are well-educated on the subject and free of conflicts of interest. In other words, the scientific consensus.

What I “mean” is that if you want to teach this in schools, it needs to be included in your hypothesis. You can’t say “I demonstrated ORCH-OR, therefore ALL of ID theory is supported.” That doesn’t follow.

As far as this video, it’s poorly supported and misleadingly cited. I don’t have time to go through every claim it makes, nor is that on topic, but for example:

Tracking down the sources for the quotes attributed onscreen, Hawks et al. 2000 is a paper comparing Australopithecine species to archaic H. sapiens. However the study doesn’t involve other Homo species such as ergaster, erectus, habilis, etc. Additionally, this video completely disregards genetic data from neanderthals, archaic humans, denisovans, and chimps.

Obviously if you compared africanus to sapiens without considering any other hominins or genetic data, your conclusion would be changes that are “sudden and not gradual.” You would get the same result if you compared chihuahuas to timber wolves.

The source cited for the second quote is not even from a journal. “Swanbrow” is not a scientist, she is a PR rep at U Michigan. I have no idea why they would include this quote, other than to pad out their presentation and make it look like they have more scientific support than they actually do.

This pattern is repeated throughout the video. And, frankly, a video is not evidence, empirical studies are evidence. I have recorded videos on youtube, too.

There are 15 families of dinosaur. Birds are theorized to have evolved specifically from theropods.

More importantly, dinosaurs are not the only families to die off completely. We tend to think of organisms in terms of the big cool ones in picture books. But in reality there are thousands of extinct families, mostly insignificant marine invertebrates. Over 500 families went extinct in the the Permian die-off alone.

Two things. The scope of this study is not attempting to demonstrate emergence of life. It’s testing the limits of an RNA self-replication system, which may be evidence for prebiotic emergence of life. But also, “This was done with researchers’ interference, therefore it cannot be done without researchers’ interference,” is an inverse fallacy, or denying the antecedent.

The paper absolutely did not show RNA molecules evolving into “complex living systems.”

Earlier in the thread you told me I could not make objections to ORCH-OR because I am not credentialed. Is this an informal discussion or not?

4 Likes

Useless traits being selected against is a prediction of evolution. if a system is not repurposed (vestigial) it is usually lost. We’ve talked about the Lenski experiment and that is a good example. Several e. coli strains underwent antagonistic pleiotropy, where they lost the ability to catabolize several substances due to mutation and selection.

Not all unutilized traits affect fitness. Non-coding regions of genomes are a good example of that, and knockout tests on mice show that large portions of non-coding regions can be completely deleted with no adverse affects.

This concept is just too non-specific to be meaningful. In the antagonistic pleiotropy example ; e. coli strains lost several catabolic processes to conserve resources. But if those strains were ever introduced to a new environments, they would struggle because without those catabolic processes they can no longer grow on many substances.

This trade off happens frequently; other examples are cave fish losing eyesight, or whales losing articulate hips. Evolutionarily this makes sense; selection has no foresight. But why would a designer create a process like this that could potentially cripple the organism in the future?

This definition doesn’t tell us where the line between “sufficient” and “poor” is. Is the human brain poorly designed because it is susceptible to mental illnesses (depression, anxiety, etc)? Are flowers a poor reproductive system because they are not resistant to drought? Are clownfish poorly designed because they cannot survive in saltwater?

The idea that every detriment has to benefit the organism or population holistically in some regard is simply unrealistic. It seems to me that it takes a lot of faith.

Sinister designs

I don’t know that any evolutionists believe ANY features function to directly impede the organism they belong to.

But competition both interspecific and intraspecific, parasitic symbiotes, and predation certainly impede other organisms. Interference competition is a name for traits that exist only to interfere with other organisms, and there are thousands of examples.

1 Like

Something that has been at the back of my mind whilst lurking on this thread is the following question:

Does the scientific consensus fully determine what is taught in science classes?

Given that there are whole libraries full of information that are in the scientific consensus, but not taught in science classes, the answer obviously has to be “no”.

The scientific consensus merely acts as an initial gatekeeper. The final gatekeepers would be science educators, most principally those who write science textbooks and science curricula.

This was made plain to me by a video posted by a science educator about a recent, controversial, The Guardian article on the Theory of Evolution.

The reason this educator was making a video about it, was that he’d been asked about it by a teacher who, whilst originally a maths teacher, had recently been tasked with teaching biology as well, and was concerned whether what she was teaching was still correct.

For such a teacher, if a topic isn’t in the textbook, or in the curriculum, there’s a good chance it won’t get taught. Even for a teacher with a background in biology, if it wasn’t something they were taught at school or university, or is in the textbook, or in the curriculum, there’s again a good chance it won’t be taught.

And I suspect that the science educators who write science textbooks and science curricula will tend to be extremely careful about what they let into their textbooks and curricula, given publishers’ page-limits, and the limited number of student tuition hours. They will be concentrating almost exclusively on what is needed to be taught in order to give students a basic understanding of the topic and the building blocks for further education in it. Anything extraneous to that, even if it is part of the scientific consensus, will be subject to considerable scrutiny, and harsh pruning.

The question then becomes, what is the chance that @Meerkat_SK5 can convince a science educator that their “Universal Common Design Theory” is not merely valid, but sufficiently crucial to a student’s understanding of biology, that room must be made for it (requiring other topics to be pruned to make room) in their textbook or curriculum?

2 Likes

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.

Where does Meerkat get the idea that there is all this leisure time hanging loose in science class? The breadth of new material to master hits a peak in first year university science. Failure rates already range from a soft 25 percent up to a brutal see ya, good luck with plan B. High schools science preparation cannot afford to indulge digressions.

3 Likes

By conflict of interest, I am referring to monetary or positional gain. I did not say “free of bias,” everyone has an ideology, that is unavoidable.

If you’re going to put words in my mouth then I don’t think you’re competent to have a discussion. I did not say “morally infallible,” either, I said “best.” You have yet to offer a better arbitrator for what theories meet the burden of proof than consensus, despite being asked several times. I am certainly not comfortable putting the decision in your hands.

Again, I said nothing about being true, I said “supported.”

And yes, most of my objections have nothing to do with the “scientificness” of ORCH-OR, because A) I don’t have the expertise to criticize it, and B) the title of this discussion is… “Why should consensus determine what is taught in science classes?”

I don’t have a problem with ORCH-OR being taught in science classes if the theory is supported. I do have a problem with you piggybacking ID in along with it. If you want ID to be taught in classes, your hypothesis and supporting evidence need to demonstrate ID theory (“11 creation events” and all), not ORCH-OR.

Per your list, if humans are a separate creation event, genus homo is extinct.

The paper did not show RNA molecules evolving into viruses, either.

Calm down. For ORCH-OR to be a capital T Theory, other theories of consciousness need to be invalidated. Which they haven’t been. “Hypothesis” isn’t some sign of disrespect from me.

Again, with the putting words in my mouth. I did not say “survive,” I said “no adverse affects.” The mice were unaffected by the deletions, according to over 100 separate tests of fitness that the researchers performed.

An example is not a more useful definition, which is what I asked for.

It’s strange to me that out of all the arguments I presented, including cited arguments regarding the video you sent me, antagonistic pleiotropy, and interference competition, the only one you actually chose to reply to is a throwaway sentence about faith. I’m not really sure how you got “fruitful scientific idea” from me calling your hypothesis unrelaistic, but okay.

1 Like

No, it’s your job to show that your theory actually does satisfy the conditions. So far, nothing.

I made no such assumption. I just said that it’s the best we have. You have suggested no alternative.

What happened in the Permian according to the common design model? Was there no extinction at all? And I believe I have pointed out previously that few of the supposed “basic types” you mention could even be considered taxa, and some of them contain others of them. It was, in other words, an incoherent list. Avalon is a place, the Cambrian and Ordovician are time periods, nekton is a lifestyle, odontodes vertebrates is gibberish, land vertebrates include everything after it except insects, placental mammals include genus Homo, and genus Homo includes “one human pair”. The Cambrian fauna is ancestral to the Ordovician fauna, which is ancestral to all the fauna after it. Further, you clearly have no criteria for inclusion in this list, and in fact there could be no sensible criteria for such a random assemblage. Incoherent.

2 Likes

This does not change the fact that you choose to cite a blog post which did not even demonstrate that even one alleged bad design wasn’t bad…

Which is not in fact sufficient to support your claim. The setup of the experimental apparatus dictates the possible results it may produce. That does not say that consciousness plays any particular part. If the apparatus was not consciously chosen would it make a difference ? Or is it merely - as many physicists would say - the setup of the apparatus that matters?

If it was nonsense you could provide the evidence. You have not.

So my point stands. The evidence for your claims is sadly lacking and that is one reason why your opinions - for that is all they are - do not merit a place in science classes.

1 Like

Yet your ‘explanation’ fails to support this point:

  1. This claim is false. And no @Meerkat_SK5, I am not interested in the citations that you (but nobody else) think supports your claim on this. I’ve gone down that rabbit hole far, far, far too many times with you on other threads.

  2. More importantly, you have provided no evidence that “design flaws” are a part of textbooks or curricula, let alone that the are a sufficiently “crucial” part of them that your rebuttal (even if you could convince anybody of its validity, which you have failed to do so as yet) would likewise be a “crucial” addition to them.

Articles suggest all sorts of strange and improbable things. The issue is not what some random article “suggests” but what the evidence states.

This statement appears to be a non sequitor.

@Meerkat_SK5 does not understand quantum physics.

  1. What is your formal background in physics?
  2. What is your formal background in calculus?
  3. What books/textbooks on quantum physics, written by actual quantum physicists have you read? (As opposed to Youtube videos by apologists.)

Until you can demonstrate sufficient understanding of quantum physics to even give a meaningful answer to the above questions (which is a low bar), I see no point in engaging with you on the topic, or giving your claims on the topic any credance whatsoever. So your above statement becomes simply:

But, at the end of the day, none of this matters. Neither I, nor the others on these threads, are the ones you have to convince. It is the writers of science textbooks and science curricula that you need to convince. But given that what you have in fact convinced me of is that you are unable to make a coherent argument, let alone a convincing one, I do not hold out any hope for your success at that task.

2 Likes

Actually, you were the one who put words in mouth here because I never said you mentioned this. I said you are assuming it when you said what you said. Conflicts of interests is a source of bias as well, BTW.

What do you mean? I just did recently and you commented on it. Again, proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the best standard, which entails that a proposition must have:

(A) Enough evidence that supports the actual claim being made or evidence proportional to the claim

(B) There can’t be other explanations that explain the evidence equally as well or better.

(C) There can’t be unexplained conflicting evidence, unaddressed objections, or untested predictions that are designed to falsify it.

This is not true. The Orch-OR theory has 20 predictions that show how the mind is non-physical. Although only 6 out of 20 predictions have been confirmed for a quantum mind, most of the 14 other predictions survived falsification from testing. According to Karl Popper’s falsifiability principle, a theory is truly tested when it has survived falsification. More importantly, materialism in general has been officially disproven and there is a consensus on this as well, which means materialistic assumptions do not have preferred status but violate Occam’s razor:

“…The violation of the classical weight structure is similar to the violation of the well-known Bell inequalities studied in quantum mechanics, and hence suggests that the quantum formalism and hence the modeling by quantum membership weights, as for example in [18], can accomplish what classical membership weights cannot do.” [emphasis added]

Experimental evidence for quantum structure in cognition (2009)
by Diederik Aerts , Sven Aerts , Liane Gabora

No, genus homo would just be an ancestor of modern apes rather than humans.

I don’t see a problem here since viruses are made up of RNA. In addition, they did not have other living organisms to be there as a host nor did they have the chemical constituents that would turn them into bacteria. Besides, there are studies showing humans creating viruses from scratch you know.

Well, “adverse effects” encompasses “survivability”.

Sure, let me break it down better. There are actually 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

What exactly did you want me to respond to that you felt needed a response here?

Sure, I can do this again to remind you.

What do you mean? I just did recently, and you commented on it. Again, proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the best standard.

I was just going off the studies that were presented by Gunter Buechley on fossil discontinuities because I am not expert on the subject. So I am willing to grant that some of them should not be considered “basic types” according to the model and thus we can eliminate those examples from consideration.

Why does this matter to you so much, seriously? LOL

I actually agree with this, which is why I went a step further in my recent presentation to provide evidence that the conscious observer himself is quantum mechanical or non-material and can collapse the wave-function of the brain.

Again, the Orch-OR theory has 20 predictions that show how the mind is non-physical. Although only 6 out of 20 predictions have been confirmed for a quantum mind, most of the 14 other predictions survived falsification from testing. According to Karl Popper’s falsifiability principle, a theory is truly confirmed when it has survived falsification. More importantly, materialism in general has been officially disproven and there is a consensus on this as well, which means materialistic assumptions do not have preferred status but violate Occam’s razor:

"…The violation of the classical weight structure is similar to the violation of the well-known Bell inequalities studied in quantum mechanics, and hence suggests that the quantum formalism and hence the modeling by quantum membership weights, as for example in [18], can accomplish what classical membership weights cannot do. [emphasis added]

Experimental evidence for quantum structure in cognition (2009)
by Diederik Aerts , Sven Aerts , Liane Gabora

It should matter to you that your “evidence” is grossly inadequate. But if it doesn’t that rather proves that you are on the side of indoctrination.

That doesn’t seem to be what the theory actually claims. The collapse would not be caused by the observer, indeed the causation seems to be more the other way around.

1 Like

In fact you should admit that none of them should be considered “basic types”, that you have no criterion for recognizing basic types, that you know nothing about biology, and that your theory as applied to evolution has nothing to offer but ignorance and nonsense.

6 Likes

True. You do not even understand ID arguments against the fossil record, let alone the actual fossil record. It is abundantly clear that you are not an expert on any of the material you are presenting. Maybe it is time to share where are you coming from; what is your academic preparation in science?

3 Likes

Lets’ try a different approach.
Surely you understand that there are, and there have been a LOT of, lets say … unique claims out there that would be paradigm shifting if they were found to be true. There are people who insist that bigfoot, the loch ness monster, and the abominable snowman really exist. And then there are people who claimed that many diseases were caused by tiny infectious particles that were too small to be seen by a microscope. So those are two extraordinary claims. Only one won the “popularity contest” and earned a seat at the science table, and that was the one about the infectious particles which are now called viruses. The other is still sitting at a lonely table in woo-ville, with far fewer adherents than there used to be.
Now why do you suppose that is? Why did one extraordinary claim become mainstream, and not the other?

1 Like

Proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the best standard to evaluate whether the theory should be allowed in public schools. This entails that a proposition must have:

(A) Enough evidence that supports the actual claim being made or evidence proportional to the claim

I have already supported this in post 10 on this topic

(B) There can’t be other explanations that explain the evidence equally as well or better.

Although only 6 out of 20 predictions have been confirmed for a quantum mind, most of the 14 other predictions survived falsification from testing. Moreover, the Orch-theory has a lot of evidence supporting it from many other different fields, several predictions confirmed, and the rest have not been refuted after testing.

According to Karl Popper’s falsifiability principle, a theory is truly tested when it has survived falsification. More importantly, materialism in general has been officially disproven and there is a consensus on this as well, which means materialistic assumptions do not have preferred status but violate Occam’s razor. On the other hand, String theory has no evidence, failed predictions, lack of falsifiability, and an inability to explain the cosmological constant.

In regard to the common design model, this idea has been first proposed well over a 150 years ago by Richard Owens, which was before Darwin’s common descent model was ever proposed.

Universal Common Design still better explains the fossil record, biogeographical distribution, and the origin of life or viruses. List of unsolved problems in biology - Wikipedia

(C) There can’t be unexplained conflicting evidence, unaddressed objections, or untested predictions that are designed to falsify it.

The criticisms raised on Penrose and Hammeroff’s theory of consciousness have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in a highly prestigious journal. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.

For instance, although there are fraudulent articles that can and do get passed peer-review even in highly prestigious journals, Physics of life review has a special feature where additional experts can make up to 5 replies each after an article is published in which the editor informally reads those comments. In this particular case, the editor extended it to 7 replies from various outside sources and experts in which Penrose and Hammeroff adequately addressed all with replies of their own.

I say “adequately” because the editor informally peer-reviews it himself. They also have been bringing their theory in front of skeptics in conferences to be scrutinized even more. I have already gave you the source that verifies all this. In fact, here is a recent review article on their work that does not suggest there is a criticism or objection they failed to adequately address:

The finer scale of consciousness: quantum theory Tianwen Li,1,# Hailiang Tang,1,# Jianhong Zhu,corresponding author1 and John H. Zhangcorresponding author2

When it comes to the Common Design model, I guess I will continue to address whatever objections you guys have in order to satisfy this condition. I have already mentioned how the predictions that are designed to falsify it have been tested already, such as the metabolism-first experiments and Lenski’s experiment. Lastly, I can’t think of any evidence in the literature that would conflict with the model or can’t be explained. For instance…

The extinction of Dinosaurs would potentially be conflicting evidence, but it can be explained by suggesting that birds evolved from them. On the other hand, the model lacks an explanation for sequence similarities among close relatives, but this is not necessarily considered conflicting evidence. I will leave it up to you guys to point out any other examples.

Again, as you even mentioned, 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. However, I made the effort to familiarize myself enough on the subject to where I can spot false and inaccurate objections that their theory. I also quote experts whenever I can to support my contentions.

Oh ok, this clarifies what you said before about what constitutes something that is crucial to their success. In that case, teaching the common design model along with common descent is crucial to their success because common descent is considered deeply incompatible with their faith. This compels them whether it’s the kids or their parents to reject the teaching of evolution altogether. Including common design in the textbooks would not only EASILY remedy this problem, but it would potentially accelerate their learning of evolution:
Should Christians Study Evolution? - YouTube

No, your example does not apply here I am afraid.

As I said mentioned to someone else, I can grant that the scientific consensus is probably a reliable method for determining 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. For instance…

Despite no evidence, failed predictions, lack of falsifiability, and inability to explain the cosmological constant, String theory is still considered a theory of everything and the most popular quantum theory of gravity. On the other hand, the Orch-theory has a lot of evidence supporting it from many different fields, several predictions confirmed, and the rest have not been refuted after testing. Most importantly, its touted to explain the cosmological constant, which is one of the biggest problems in physics. Despite all this, it is not even mentioned as a potential candidate for a quantum theory of gravity or theory of everything among many others. What Are Quantum Gravity's Alternatives To String Theory?

On the other hand, String theory is still taught in public colleges and is respected by the majority of physicists. The only reason it is not taught in public high schools is because it requires a much deeper understanding of quantum mechanics that is too deep to comprehend at that level, as Dan alluded.

Now why do you suppose that is? Why did one mindless materialistic claim about nature become mainstream, and not the claim about a universal consciousness?

Correct, even though their theory is essentially the same as my theory, I am going about it a little differently when it comes to supporting the existence of a non-contingent mind that created contingent minds. For instance, I am not relying on Penrose’s proposed experiment that confirms the additional postulation that a universal mind governs the entire universe from the Orch-OR theory to be correct or proven correct for my scientific support for God to work.
Penrose interpretation - Wikipedia

Instead, I am relying on the Orch-OR theory’s support of human consciousness that is primarily pioneered by his co-partner Hammeroff to support my theory because it is a very well tested and is used by other scientists for their work , as I showed everyone before. Basically, I combine the Orch-OR theory’s findings with the findings coming from the observer effect results, which include the origin of life experiments and optimal design observations, to argue that a non-contingent conscious agent created and governed life on earth.

This leads me to address your other comment…

Fine, I will just give you the whole list of design flaws that have been found to be optimal:

Useless designs

Definition:

A design that apparently no longer has a function.

A wealth of discovery built on the Human Genome Project — by the numbers (nature.com)

Biofilms in the large bowel suggest an apparent function of the human vermiform appendix - ScienceDirect

Global human mandibular variation reflects differences in agricultural and hunter-gatherer subsistence strategies | PNAS

‘Dead’ Enzymes Show Signs of Life | Science (sciencemag.org)

Sexual selection targets cetacean pelvic bones - Dines - 2014 - Evolution - Wiley Online Library

Mitochondrial genomes are retained by selective constraints on protein targeting | PNAS

The gut flora as a forgotten organ | EMBO reports (embopress.org)

Brain glycogen – vestigial no more | SpringerLink

A three-headed plantaris muscle: evidence that the plantaris is not a vestigial muscle? | SpringerLink

Bad designs

Definition:

A design that appears to be poorly constructed to achieve a particular goal involving the survival and reproductive capabilities of that organism.

Circulating mitochondrial DAMPs cause inflammatory responses to injury | Nature

The evolution of pelvic canal shape and rotational birth in humans | BMC Biology | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 158102 (2010) - Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity (aps.org)

Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 054502 (2008) - How Bumps on Whale Flippers Delay Stall: An Aerodynamic Model (aps.org)

Cellular survival over genomic perfection | Science (sciencemag.org)

Despite slow catalysis and confused substrate specificity, all ribulose bisphosphate carboxylases may be nearly perfectly optimized | PNAS

Glycolytic strategy as a tradeoff between energy yield and protein cost | PNAS

Case of coexisting, ipsilateral nonrecurrent and recurrent inferior laryngeal nerves | The Journal of Laryngology & Otology | Cambridge Core

Covariation between human pelvis shape, stature, and head size alleviates the obstetric dilemma | PNAS

A bad boy comes good | Nature

Role of the giant panda’s ‘pseudo-thumb’ | Nature

An optimal bronchial tree may be dangerous | Nature

Perfect use of imperfection | Nature
Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy | Nature

Sinister designs

Definition:

A feature of an organism that is allegedly designed to impede on that organism or other organisms’ ability to survive, reproduce, and fit an environmental niche.

The sicker the better: nematode-infected passalus beetles provide enhanced ecosystem services | Biology Letters (royalsocietypublishing.org)

The combined effects of pathogens and predators on insect outbreaks | Nature

Nociceptive Sensitization Reduces Predation Risk: Current Biology (cell.com)

Frontiers | Unconventional Care: Offspring Abandonment and Filial Cannibalism Can Function as Forms of Parental Care | Ecology and Evolution (frontiersin.org)

Uterine Selection of Human Embryos at Implantation | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Predator control of ecosystem nutrient dynamics - Schmitz - 2010 - Ecology Letters - Wiley Online Library

Predators indirectly control vector-borne disease: linking predator–prey and host–pathogen models | Journal of The Royal Society Interface (royalsocietypublishing.org)

The ecological significance of manipulative parasites - PubMed (nih.gov)

Elevated Extinction Rates as a Trigger for Diversification Rate Shifts: Early Amniotes as a Case Study | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Mammalian phylogeny reveals recent diversification rate shifts (nih.gov)

Biophysical feedbacks between the Pleistocene megafauna extinction and climate: The first human‐induced global warming? - Doughty - 2010 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Adaptive rewiring aggravates the effects of species loss in ecosystems | Nature Communications

Degradation and remobilization of endogenous retroviruses by recombination during the earliest stages of a germ-line invasion | PNAS

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not familiar with Quantum Physics.

Watching Youtube videos by apologists who have no expertise in quantum physics will not improve your understanding, hence my question about “books/textbooks on quantum physics, written by actual quantum physicists”.

Quoting out of context from sources that very frequently are saying the exact opposite does not “support [your] contentions.”

This is why I will continue to give no weight to any claim you make on the subject.

This is a badly constructed argument.

To start with, it raises the immediate question of whose “faith”?

If you are talking about biblically-literalist students that raises a whole list of other issues/questions:

  1. There are a number of biblically-literalist Christians who accept evolution (a number on this forum fall into this category).

  2. The number of biblically-literalist Christians in the US is falling (currently 20% of the population), and they are typically more likely to send their children to private Christian schools or home-school them. This means that it is unclear what proportion of students are affected.

  3. If the students are YEC, then it is likely that their problems with science go well beyond evolution: into geology, cosmology, etc.

  4. It is not clear that your Universal Common Design Theory, would aid in students understanding of biology, nor that it would aid their preparedness for further study in the subject.

There is nothing “easy” about this. As I stated in the previous thread:

Nothing in that video comes even close to supporting this contention.

Likewise, we have nothing but your bald, unsubstantiated assertion that:

None of this passes muster even on an internet forum. The level of scrutiny applied by science educators who write textbooks and curricula will be far higher.

4 Likes

I note that your example is String Theory, which to the best of my knowledge is not taught in schools. Are you suggesting that it is unfairly excluded?

Aside from the radical difference I noted. Which is your main assertion. And which is therefore still unsupported. You can’t appeal to Orch-or theory to support an idea that fundamentally disagrees with it.

Well that explains why you relied on a blog post that didn’t even provide one example. Your complete list isn’t much better.

2 Likes

Neither of those sources mentions the biogeographical record, neither of them says anything about problems explaining the fossil record, and of course neither of them mentions common design, let alone says it is a better explanation for virus or life origins.

As usual, @Meerkat_SK5’s sources are so at odds with his description of them that it is unlikely he has even read them.

2 Likes