Yes, let me clarify what I said before because I made a mistake in describing the nature of what I am arguing. When I suggested that the observer effect, origin of life experiments, the alleged design flaws shown to be optimal and quantum-mind theory were methods to confirm consciousness is the collaspe of the wave-function that created human consciousness"., I did not mean to say these are methods to confirm a universal coconsciousness.
What I actually meant to say is that I am using these empirical evidences to infer a universal consciousness in order to refute the objection that I am making an assumption based on the bible. In other words, I was saying it was proof in a philosophical sense via retrofitting existing data.
The actual scientific evidence that is supposed to support or confirm the predictions of this common designer theory is the junk DNA that was found to be functional in the genome and continues to reveal function.
Again, sorry for the confusion. I got disorganized over the course of our discussion.
Yes, but for whose theory: Darwin’s or Owen’s. As I told the others, your objections are arguing in light of Darwinian evolution rather than Owen’s Theory of evolution. You simply reject the causal definition in favor of yours for no other reason than that a causal definition falls short in the Darwinian evolutionary framework when determining function.
However, the same applies to the selection effect definition in light of Owen’s evolutionary framework when determining function. For example, awhile back, @Andrew_Christianson said that " 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."
My response was…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.
In the case of animals, they can potentially still fit different assorted niches better regardless of whether they survive or reproduce better because one of the designer’s motive is to fill the earth with life. We have evidence suggesting that this is most likely the case from the alleged design flaws that have been found to be optimal.
I feel like this ignores two important points that were raised by them and others: (1) biochemical noise costs energy; and (2) random interactions among genome components would be highly deleterious to the organism.
What is your response?
Hybridization is the best way to determine common ancestry. This is largely based on the observations that compatibility diminishes over time in related species due to [genetic drift]. The Bible states that God created organisms with seed in it, according to their various kinds . Therefore, the ability of genetically dissimilar species to mate successfully would seem to indicate that they are related.
Examining the structure, function, and ecology of both organisms is the best way to determine the absence of relatedness (i.e. common design).
We know from the bible that humans are basic types and I think that Canids would be considered basic types based on what is suggested in the fossil record.
Sure, I guess I could have just stuck with the term monobaramin used by creationist to describe a kind that evolved from a basic type. But, these are the only terms from the creationists literature I feel are relevant and parsimonious.
Look who’s talking… The morality of God’s genocides - Peaceful Science
Yes, I am willing to stand behind most of them being a valid criterion for deciphering monobaramins or clades. However, the fossil record is probably the only real way ,aside from some instances in the Bible, that can truly determine basic types.
As I told Andrew, the extinction of Dinosaurs would potentially be conflicting evidence because they would be considered a basic type that no longer exists. But, if birds evolved from them, then this would not be an issue for the theory. Contrary to popular belief, the Genesis account leaves out dinosaurs in describing the history of life.
That is not true. Humans are explicitly mentioned to be basic types. Herbivores and carnivores as well as flying creatures, etc. Anything outside of this is pretty vague I have to admit.
You misunderstood what I was trying to convey with the Panda example. It was to show how to recognize unrelated monobaramin or clades. The sudden appearances and stasis within the fossil record that show discontinuities between major species is the best way to recognize basic types. Common design would be the second best way to decipher basic types since we don’t have a complete list of established basic types. They may be more.