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. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/17/what-are-quantum-gravitys-alternatives-to-string-theory/#65bccaef7b1b
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)
‘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
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
Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 158102 (2010) - Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity (aps.org)
Cellular survival over genomic perfection | Science (sciencemag.org)
Glycolytic strategy as a tradeoff between energy yield and protein cost | PNAS
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 combined effects of pathogens and predators on insect outbreaks | Nature
Nociceptive Sensitization Reduces Predation Risk: Current Biology (cell.com)
Uterine Selection of Human Embryos at Implantation | Scientific Reports (nature.com)
The ecological significance of manipulative parasites - PubMed (nih.gov)
Mammalian phylogeny reveals recent diversification rate shifts (nih.gov)
Adaptive rewiring aggravates the effects of species loss in ecosystems | Nature Communications
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:
-
There are a number of biblically-literalist Christians who accept evolution (a number on this forum fall into this category).
-
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.
-
If the students are YEC, then it is likely that their problems with science go well beyond evolution: into geology, cosmology, etc.
-
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
Neither have you, BTW. Besides, I specifically said I familiarized myself enough
Well, it apparently does not matter that much according to this study:
“While prior literature suggests that religiosity and evolution acceptance are related due to specific religious beliefs that are incompatible with evolution (Scott, 2005; Winslow et al., 2011; Barnes et al., 2020), our study suggests that evolution acceptance and religiosity are also related because students perceive that evolution is atheistic.” [Emphasis added]
From the same study:
"We found that 56.5% of college biology students in our sample perceived that evolution is atheistic. Further, we found that having this perception predicted lower levels of evolution acceptance and comfort learning evolution as well as higher perceived conflict between religious beliefs and evolution among highly religious students. If the associations documented here are found to be causally related, then college biology instructors could increase evolution acceptance by teaching students that evolution does not disprove the existence of a God/god(s). " [Emphasis added]
Therefore, teaching the common design theory is one way teachers can teach students that evolution does not disprove the existence of a God/god(s) and ,thus, increase evolution acceptance.
The point of referencing the wikipedia page was to show how the current theory does not explain those problems. That’s it.
This is all that is needed to support the claim that the Common design theory explains it better because this theory existed well before the common descent model ever was proposed. This is why I did not feel compelled to go any further with my case here.
Again, 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.
Just because the method I used is historical in nature does not make a theory untestable and thus unsupported, as this article suggested:
“The problem with these attempts to divide science neatly into two piles is that, as Sober observes, a given science, and even a given scientist, can switch between approaches in the quest to address a single question. Geologists can plumb the oldest rocks on earth for evidence of the first life, but they can also go to the lab and recreate the conditions of early earth to test predictions of hypothesis about events billions of years ago. And those results from a modern laboratory will send researchers back to the field to test predictions about historical events generated in the laboratory.” [Emphasis added]
“Historical science” vs. “experimental science” | National Center for Science Education (ncse.ngo)
Thus, the digital information found in life (i.e. non-contingent), the origin of life simulation experiments showing how a common designer created and developed life (i.e. common designer) demonstrate a non-contingent human mind exists. Moreover, observations of alleged design flaws found to be optimal further support this as well.
FYI, the quantum-mind theory is " a group of hypotheses proposing that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness.[1] It posits that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain’s function and could explain consciousness."
The Orch-OR theory is just one proposal among the many, which would include the Universal Common designer theory. The reason why I reference it so much is because it is the only quantum mind theory that is heavily tested and supported:
“The Orch-OR proposal therefore stretches across a considerable range of areas of science, touching upon the foundations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, in unconventional ways, in addition to the more obviously relevant areas such as neuroscience, cognitive science, molecular biology, and philosophy. It is not surprising, therefore, that Orch OR has been persistently criticized from many angles since its introduction in 1994. Nonetheless, the Orch OR scheme has so far stood the test of time better than most other schemes, and it is particularly distinguished from other proposals by the many scientifically tested, and potentially testable, ingredients that it depends upon.” www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188?via%3Dihub
I also appeal to it to make it very clear that the Universal Common Designer theory is not an unscientific God of the Gaps argument because a fundamental aspect of it is taken seriously by scientists to be a legit “scientific” explanation. This seems to be the number 1 objection you guys’ constantly assert about my theory that cannot be true.
Therefore, I am NOT relying on the Orch-OR theory to be correct or proven correct for my theory to be supported. Instead, I am relying on the Orch-OR theory to give my theory a scientific status that cannot be denied. Ultimately, it is the evidence that supports the quantum mind theory that matters.
It’s also very consistent with my theory except for the claim that the nature of this universal consciousness is a perfect human.
The blog post was just referenced to show that the common design theory has practical application and can aid in our understanding of evolution. That’s it. So let it go.
The difference being that I’m not the one making claims about quantum physics – you are!
No @Meerkat_SK5, basing your understanding on Youtube videos by an apologist with no expertise is not “enough”.
… hence my question about “books/textbooks on quantum physics, written by actual quantum physicists”.
Your repeated misrepresentation of sources on quantum physics is clear evidence that you have not “familiarized [your]self enough”. Your understanding of the topic has also been denegrated by the one physicist who has participated on these topics.
You are over-simplifying (and thus misrepresenting) a fairly nuanced study on a complex subject.
In particular:
- The study states:
Further, we found that writing that evolution is atheistic was associated with lower levels of evolution acceptance, particularly among the most religious students.
(My emphasis.) So yes, “whose faith” does matter.
-
The study found that 70% of students accept common ancestry (Table 4).
-
The study was focused on student perceptions. It is the perception that evolution is atheistic (whereas it is in reality agnostic) that is the problem. The most obvious solution is simply to change these perceptions.
As such, on a closer read, this study gives no support for teaching your “Universal Common Designer Theory”.
This statement is in no way suppported by the study.
You have provided no evidence that your “Universal Common Designer Theory” would allow “teachers [to] teach students that evolution does not disprove the existence of a God/god(s) and ,thus, increase evolution acceptance.”
As I stated before, we have nothing but your bald, unsubstantiated assertion that your “Universal Common Designer Theory” is “virtually the same as mainstream evolution and their theory.” This statement is in fact almost certainly false.
Evolution is, in Charles Darwin’s own words, “descent with modification”. Take common descent out of the theory and it is rendered incoherent. Descent is what everything else hangs off of, like a clothes-hanger or coat-track – without descent, biology is just a disorganised pile of facts lying on the ground.
Therefore any attempt to teach some version of ‘evolution’ with the claim that common descent was merely some sort of ‘optional extra’ would simply confuse students.
4 Likes
The current theory does explain the biogeographical record. It does explain the fossil record. Those are not listed as problems with the current theory on the wikipedia page you cited.
If you read that wikipedia page before citing it, you would know this.
The only question is whether you are misrepresenting what’s on that wikipedia page, or just don’t know what’s on that wikipedia page.
Poppycock.
Even if common descent didn’t explain biogeography, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that common design explained it better.
You might as well try to argue that Winnie-the-Pooh didn’t explain the four-colour theorem, so The Three Musketeers must explain the four-colour theorem better because it existed well before Winnie-the-Pooh.
That’s so obviously fallacious that no-one should even need to explain the fallacy.
3 Likes
I understand what the standard is, but we do not agree on whether or not ID theory meets that standard.
Who decides whether it has or has not? There needs to be an arbitrator no matter how objective the standard is, in the same way there needs to be a judge no matter how objective the legal code is. Can you offer a better option to arbitrate than consensus?
This is a false dichotomy fallacy. Disproving materialism does not demonstrate idealism. Physicalism is naturalistic, and not disproven.
Which modern apes, exactly? Sapiens is the only extant member of genus homo.
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.
I understand you want to draw a line there, but your definition still doesn’t answer the question of where exactly the line is.
Is antagonistic pleiotropy poorly designed because it cripples populations? 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 freshwater?
What exactly counts as “well enough?”
…Yes, I agree, the mice survived deletion of large portions of the non-coding regions of their genome with no adverse effects. That’s what I have been trying to explain to you. I was under the impression that you thought there WERE adverse affects when you told me:
You’re arguing that ID Theory should be taught in schools, with an alternative species concept and phylogenetic tree including 11 creation events. However your hypothesis and supporting evidence relate to ORCH-OR Theory. You can’t reasonably piggyback ID into schools on the back of ORCH-OR theory; you need to directly support ID with a hypothesis and evidence as well.
The reason I think this needs to be addressed is that almost everything you have provided as support is “lack of” evidence. You’ve pointed out that we haven’t observed self-replicating RNA systems arise without researcher intervention, that the LTEE experiment (in your estimation) did not demonstrate evolution without researcher intervention, and that there are “unsolved problems in biology.” (Wikipedia link.)
The only source you have provided positively supporting an alternate species concept + phylogeny representing 11 creation events so far is a YouTube video, which as I pointed out had misleading citations (and a lack of citations in general).
So what I am hoping you can address here is the missing evidence for your version of ID theory being taught in schools. Can you provide support for your theory? And by support I do not mean more appeals that biologists have not observed something, have not demonstrated something, or have not solved something, or other grey areas, gaps, and negative spaces in biology. Support for a theory needs to be based in what we know, not what we don’t know. Do you have positive evidence that evolutionary phylogeny has missing gaps, and that 11 creation events happened?
2 Likes
Is it? And is it taught as fact? Though I will point out that schools are what we are discussing and the criteria for colleges will be at least a little looser.
That was not my point. My point is that your assertion - which contradicts the theory - is unsupported.
So you are trying to pretend that Orch-OR theory supports your views as part of the pretence that your views are scientific. Unfortunately the pretence is obvious and the claim is very easily denied, All you have is another apologetic based on misrepresentation and falsehood,
It was referenced as support for your - false - claim that many alleged bad designs had been shown to be good. Now, I guess you realise how embarrassing that was but I’m not about to stop pointing it out just because you don’t like it.
No, and in fact he’s admitted he knows nothing about the subject and is merely imperfectly regurgitating a list he found on a video.
2 Likes
I have already responded to this in other topics and not doing it again.
No, they did not specify only certain religious faiths unless it is atheism you are referring to here.
Please read this and enlighten yourself:
Accounting for Vertebrate Limbs: From Owen’s Homology to Novelty in Evo-Devo (umich.edu)
I actually forgot to put “the current theory does not explain those problems [as well as Design]”. This is what I suggested before.
What are you talking about? it specifically says, “List of unsolved problems in biology” and then mentioned “Evolution and the origin of life” down below. I am not following you here.
Common design does a better job at explaining the biogeography distribution because it does not depend on ad-hoc justifications.
For instance, traditional evolutionary explanations of biogeography, such as plate tectonics and migrations routes or land bridges, fail when terrestrial (or freshwater) organisms appear on an island or continent without any standard migratory mechanism for them to have arrived there from some ancestral population.
There have been models proposed to explain away these discrepancies within the common descent model, such as the “rafting hypothesis”, which is a type of oceanic dispersal method for species to migrate to other areas around the globe. But, they are considered unfalsifiable and implausible
The resurrection of oceanic dispersal in historical biogeography - ScienceDirect
No, I agree that consensus would be a good determining factor on whether a theory is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I specifically said to someone that 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 are strong metaphysical and religious implications and undertones like Darwinian evolution and String theory, we should definitely not give them the benefit of the doubt.
For example, As Fuz Rana suggested, ‘when Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, he made use of Richard’s Owen vertebrate archetype for support. Instead of the archetype serving as a blueprint in the mind of the “One Cause,” Darwin argued that homologous structures were physically instantiated. In doing so, Darwin replaced the archetype with the common ancestor.’
Ever since this happened, secular scientists have attributed homology and their findings as evidence for unguided evolution and common descent. They also all acknowledged including Darwin that there are serious gaps in the fossil record that have existed for more than 160 years. More importantly, their prediction that it’s just an artefact has continued to fail as Steven Holland has implied:
“Our exaggerated emphasis on the imperfection of the fossil record feeds the perception among scientists in general that the fossil record is an unusually poor data set. It isn’t. … We already know much about the structure of the fossil record.”
Structure, not Bias | Journal of Paleontology | Cambridge Core
My point is that Common design has already met the burden of proof regardless of who is the arbritator or which standard of proof you use. They just refuse to give the credit to Darwin’s predecessor based on purely metaphysical or personal bias and we know this is the case.
And this is cherry picking/strawman fallacy because I specifically provided a positive case for Idealism before, I provided a negative case for materialism to go along with it. I also never said physicalism was disproven.
Modern apes does not include humans or homo sapien sapiens in the model.
I am talking about well enough for a particular environment but potentially better in a different one. For example, contrary to what have previously expressed about the "bad design, " of the giant panda’s thumb, A study analyzed it and showed that the radial sesamoid bone (its “thumb”) is “one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems” among mammals.
Role of the giant panda’s ‘pseudo-thumb’ | Nature
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.
Evidence of a false thumb in a fossil carnivore clarifies the evolution of pandas - PubMed (nih.gov)
I am glad we are on the same page here then.
Well, I was trying to show that this theory is scientific first. Remember, everybody was arguing that thia theory should not be taught in schools because it is unscientific. I am more than happy to show you that the theory works and has worked in the past. But, I am going to assume that you concede on the question of whether Common design meets the criteria for being a scientific proposition going forward.
An analysis of the fossil record reveals that the observed patterns, which is no evolutionary change punctuated by rapid biological innovations, do not match the patterns predicted if biological evolution accounts for life’s history and diversity.
Typically within this sort of “hurry up and wait” pattern, new groups appear suddenly in the fossil record and then experience no evolutionary change (stasis). Recent work by an international team of evolutionary biologists seeks to explain this pattern using mathematical modeling.
These researchers examined changes in body size for a group of reptiles (squamates), birds, and mammals, making use of data from historical studies, the fossil record, and species comparative analyses.
Using 8,000 data points, the investigators detected a familiar pattern in the data. Even though short bursts of microevolution occur over a time interval of 1 million years, no directional evolutionary change is observed. Instead, microevolutionary changes appear to be constrained, which explains why stasis is a dominant feature of the fossil record, as Fuz Rana suggested…
“It was also noted that over much larger time intervals (1 to 360 million years), evolutionary change is detected. But this change doesn’t accumulate gradually. Instead it happens suddenly, yielding what the team describes as a “blunderbuss” pattern.”
The scientists surveyed a variety of mathematical models in hopes of finding one that would generate the same pattern as observed in the data. They learned that the best model couples rare bursts of evolution with bounded fluctuations for the parameters that describe the trait.
The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts | PNAS
Secondary source: “Hurry Up and Wait” Pattern in the Fossil Record Supports Creation Model - Reasons to Believe
Furthermore, "over the past twenty-eight years, experimental evidence has revealed that family trees based on anatomical features contradict family trees based on molecular similarities, and at many points. They do not converge. Just as troubling for the idea of macroevolution, family trees based on different molecules yield conflicting and contradictory family trees. As a 2012 paper published in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society reported, “Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species”
Another paper, published the following year in the journal Nature, highlighted the extent of the problem. The authors compared 1,070 genes in twenty different yeasts and got 1,070 different trees."
Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals | Nature
Secondary source: Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design: Leisola, Matti, Witt, Jonathan: 9781936599509: Amazon.com: Books
Therefore, the Common Design theory explains the protracted periods of stasis followed by bursts of change, God created organisms with optimal designs. This activity would explain the sudden appearances in the fossil record and phylogenetic dissimilarities. Because they are optimal, these organisms undergo limited change for the duration of their existence, accounting for stasis.
No, this can include public colleges as well especially when canceling student loans could happen at any point now, which would force taxpayers to pay like what we see in schools.
Again, I was trying to show that this theory is scientific first. Remember, everybody was arguing that the theory should not be taught in schools because it is unscientific.
NO, I never said alleged bad designs were good but optimal, which is not the same thing. That is your gaff.
As I just told Andrew, when Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, he made use of Richard’s Owen vertebrate archetype for support. In doing so, Darwin replaced the archetype with the common ancestor. Ever since this happened, secular scientists have attributed homology and their findings as evidence for unguided evolution and common descent instead common design:
“Darwin had struck a blow to the heart of Owen’s system by substituting a flesh and blood ancestor, a concrete beastly thing, for the lovely abstract Platonic archetype”
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory on JSTOR
So the reason why I used laughing emojis is because you basically described what secular scientist are doing right now with Richard Owen’s theory when they attribute their findings and ideas to Common Descent, which would be considered, in your words, to be “based on misrepresentation and falsehood”.
Now, I guess you are realising how embarrassing that is but I’m not about to stop pointing it out just because you don’t like it.
Colleges - by their nature - have more room to go beyond the basics, and may spend time on more speculative work. Thus String Theory might pass muster there. But the fact that it is still significant as a part of mainstream scientific work is also important.
Well you’ve shown that it isn’t scientific.
And yet, just a little way above you say - as if it were fact:
Except that is not at all what they are doing. They aren’t - for instance - appealing to Richard Owen’s theory as you appeal to Orch-OR. So this i# just another of your falsehoods and misrepresentations.
3 Likes
Yes, but nobody on those threads found your responses to be even remotely credible.
Likewise nobody on those threads found your cited sources to even remotely support your claims.
And nobody on those threads found your ‘theory’ to be even remotely coherent, let alone credible.
“Doing it again” would therefore do you no good – as you are doing everything wrong. Yet you insist on “doing it again” by citing new sources that again fail to support your claims – see below.
You should have read it yourself, as you clearly are ignorant of its contents – it argues that it is erroneous to suggest that “Owen was primarily engaged in a debate between special creation and evolution rather than between form and function.”
It further states:
Owen did not view the Platonized archetype as an idealistic version of the argument from design. For Owen argued explicitly that a difference between human inventions designed for a purpose and morphological organization in nature is that an artifact is directly adapted to its purpose, so that different artifacts are independently designed and exhibit no common plan.
In the Origin of Species, Darwin used Owen’s work on the unity of type to argue against the idea that species are independently created, as the argument from design of the Paleyites had it.
This paper therefore gives no support whatsoever for your claim that your “Universal Common Designer Theory” is “virtually the same as mainstream evolution and their theory.” It does however give support for the suspicion that Fazale Rana grossly misinterpreted Owen’s work in claiming that it was supportive of design.
We can therefore add the work of Richard Owens to Quantum Physics, as a subject you know sweet Fanny Adams about.
You have also failed to even address my point that:
Evolution is, in Charles Darwin’s own words, “descent with modification”. Take common descent out of the theory and it is rendered incoherent. Descent is what everything else hangs off of, like a clothes-hanger or coat-track – without descent, biology is just a disorganised pile of facts lying on the ground.
Therefore any attempt to teach some version of ‘evolution’ with the claim that common descent was merely some sort of ‘optional extra’ would simply confuse students.
You are still left where all this began, with nobody accepting your interpretation of your sources, or the validity of any of your claims, let alone any aspect of your ‘theory’. No progress.
7 Likes
EVIDENCE FOR A UNIVERSAL COMMON DESIGNER
The term “random” means “not directed toward improvement,” implying that the tendency toward improvement in evolution comes from selection only (Dawkins, 1986). However, some studies suggest otherwise and show how the designer maintains life to generate traits that fit the environments organisms occupy across the biosphere:
Most mutations occur in neutral, non-coding regions of the genome, which has been labeled “junk DNA” by some scientists and perpetuated as such ever since (Ohno, 1972). The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project revealed that most, if not all, of these non-coding regions play an important role in the accurate functioning of the DNA (Pennisi, 2012).
While these results apply only to the human genome, later studies discovered large portions of functional elements within animal and plant species as well (Burgess & Freeling, 2014; Bai et al., 2015). In fact, ever since the ENCODE results, there have been many more examples such as these, revealing specific functions for non-coding DNA . A wealth of discovery built on the Human Genome Project — by the numbers (nature.com)
It is noteworthy that there is controversy surrounding the ENCODE results (Eddy, 2012; Graur et al., 2013). One of the foremost criticisms relegated at ENCODE has to do with its use of a causal definition of function to determine gene functionality, and critics have suggested a more viable definition of function, called the “selection effect definition”, where sequences in genomes can be considered useful only if they evolved under evolutionary processes to perform a particular function.
However, Mattick & Dinger (2013) addressed these criticisms. They showed the many weaknesses in the selection effect definition and responded to the objections made against the definition used by ENCODE: “Assertions that the observed transcription represents random noise…is more opinion than fact and difficult to reconcile with the exquisite precision of differential cell- and tissue-specific transcription in human cells.”
The extent of functionality in the human genome | The HUGO Journal | Full Text (springeropen.com)
ENCODE skeptics also argue that the project results do not comply with the C-value paradox, which suggests that an organism’s genome largely consists of DNA that does not code for proteins or regulate gene expression and explains why organisms less developed than humans can have larger genomes; genome size is due to non-coding DNA, and is not related to an organism’s complexity. However, as Mattick and Dinger indicate, the large genome sizes of relatively simple organisms seem to stem from duplications of extensive genome regions.
Lastly, it’s important to point out that 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. As I told @Andrew_Christianson, it can still be useful without it involving survivability or reproduction.
EVIDENCE FOR UNIVERSAL COMMON DESIGN
As Fuz Rana suggested, "The RTB creation model picks up where Owen left off, viewing the shared features in the genomes of organisms as manifestations of genomic archetypes…
…In the case of shared pseudogenes, the RTB creation model predicts that:
-
Nonfunctional sequences, such as pseudogenes, have functional utility that explains their presence in genomes.
-
A rationale exists for the sequence similarity between genes and their pseudogene counterparts.
…Again, the RTB creation model predicts: (1) that ERV sequences—just like pseudogenes—are functional, serving a vital role, and (2) a rationale exists to account for their similarity to viral genomes."
For example, a study published by a team from Stanford University validates these two predictions. “This team has demonstrated that ERV sequences in the human genome are expressed in the early stages of embryonic development and serve a key role in ensuring a successful pregnancy.”
Intrinsic retroviral reactivation in human preimplantation embryos and pluripotent cells | Nature
Go read this source to get all the sources containing the studies that show functional ERVs and pseudogenes as well as their commentary from them:
Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) Protect Early-Stage Human Embryos - Reasons to Believe
Yes, they are actually. They are appealing to certain aspects of Owen’s theory, such as homology or vestigials and then claiming it supports unguided common descent by Darwin. I am doing the same here with the Orch-OR theory.
I will just ask you the question I asked Dan and @T_aquaticus since this is similar to what they said, and I have not gotten an answer from them yet.
How do you know that including the Orch-OR theory into the textbooks would require a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics than Quantum information science and, thus, incomprehensible for kids that age because that is mainly why String theory is not taught in high school.
How so? And what makes you think Richard Owen’s theory was considered unscientific even though Darwin used it to support his theory.
No, it not so much that. You guys just have certain preferences in regards to what you find to be a valid source for a particular claim that don’t align with my standards and preferences. For example, I don’t think that every article must be peer-reviewed, a study, or be written by an author that has a formal degree in the subject in question in order for it to be a valid source of information or useful.
I will just allow Fuz Rana defend himself here:
'In his day, the great debate among biologists related to whether “function” or “form” provided the theoretical framework to understand biological structures. At that time, while many scientists in Britain favored a teleological view (function), Owen preferred the transcendental view popular on the European continent. Owen’s goal was to come up with a theoretical framework that united both approaches, but he preferred “form” over “function.” In Owen’s mind, the archetype represented teleology of a higher order. In his presentation to Royal Institution of Great Britain Owen stated, “The satisfaction felt by the rightly constituted mind must ever be great in recognizing the fitness of parts for their appropriate function; but when this fitness is gained as in the great-toe of the foot of man and the ostrich, by a structure which at the same time betokens harmonious concord with a common type, the prescient operations of the One Cause of all organization becomes strikingly manifested to our limited intelligence.” 5
Owen’s (and others’) conception of function and form were strongly theistic in orientation. According to Owen the archetype points to a “deep and pregnant principle…some archetypal exemplar on which it has pleased the Creator to frame certain of his living creatures.’
Archetype or Ancestor? Sir Richard Owen and the Case for Design - Reasons to Believe
Which is why I refer to experts almost every time to break it down, unlike you.
Fuz Rana goes on:
"When biologists consider: (1) the diversity and geographical distribution of life on Earth; (2) the fossil record; and 3) properties such as homology, which refers to shared anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic features possessed by organisms that group together, the only coherent model that accounts for these features—they claim—is biological evolution.
Yet, sixteen years before Darwin published his seminal work, The Origin of Species, biologist Sir Richard Owen delivered a discourse during the evening of February 9, 1849, at the meeting of the Royal Institution of Great Britain entitled On the Nature of Limbs. This presentation stands as a classic analysis of the shared features of vertebrate limbs.
In this study (and elsewhere), Owen proposed an interpretation of homologous features that did not rely on the notion of common ancestry. Instead Owen explained shared anatomical features using the idea of an archetype (original pattern or model).2
The theoretical framework presented in Owen’s work On the Nature of Limbs demonstrates that it is possible to understand features like homology apart from the evolutionary paradigm. Owen’s ideas have far-reaching implications as they provide the historical context for a contemporary design/creation model that strives to account for anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarities among organisms often touted as the most compelling evidence for common ancestry.’
No it doesn’t. Not anywhere, ever, has the word ‘random’ meant that.
4 Likes
You have no “standards”!
Reasons for rejecting your sources include:
-
That they have no expertise whatsoever in the topic they are discussing – examples include Fazale Rana on Biology and History of Science (more on this below), or your Youtube apologist ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ on Quantum Physics. Related to this would be your citation of a paper on ORCH-OR from a journal whose stated area of expertise is the unrelated field of Translational Medicine (meaning that the journal has no expertise whatsoever in peer-reviewing the paper).
-
Sources that are blatantly partisan – it is a complete waste of time to be citing the advocacy of ORCH-OR’s two main partisans as ‘evidence’ that the theory has widespread acceptance in the scientific community.
-
But the biggest reason is that you cite sources that simply do not support your claims, and in fact, not infrequently on a closer reading directly contradict them – this was the case with your source Brigandt (2009) above. This also leads many in these threads to question whether you have actually read your sources.
These reasons for rejection are not idiosyncratic. If you were trying to convince some science educator to include your theory in some science curriculum or textbook, you would not find them any more permissive – likely you would find them far far stricter.
You have been (repeatedly) told that these are bad sources, you have been (repeatedly) told why they are bad sources, yet you still continue to provide bad sources. The obvious conclusion to draw from this is that @Meerkat_SK5 cannot learn from their mistakes, and so that their theory therefore will not improve.
Let me stop you right there!
As I have already pointed out to you, Fazale Rana has no expertise whatsoever relevant to Evolutionary Biology or the History of Science.
Therefore, when you say “Fuz Rana”, I will immediately substitute “an apologist with no expertise relevant to Evolutionary Biology or the History of Science”.
I will just allow [an apologist with no expertise relevant to Evolutionary Biology or the History of Science] defend himself here:
Why should I care what such a non-expert says in their defense?
Add to that, Creationist apologists have a long history of claiming safely long-dead scientists (who are therefore in no position to complain or sue over misrepresentations of them) as proto-design-advocates (or perhaps crypto-proto-design-advocates). This renders a further such claim highly suspicious, particularly lacking any confirmations from a genuine expert in History of Science.
Further adding to my disinterest I, as I suspect do a number of other skeptics, view apologists as those whose vocation is that of stating bad arguments with perfect confidence – which renders me skeptical of anything they say.
On this basis I will therefore state that:
Any further invocation of Fazale Rana, outside his genuine areas of expertise in “chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry” and “the biophysics of cell membranes”, will be read as simply an admission from @Meerkat_SK5 that (i) they still don’t know a good source from a bad one, and (ii) that they still cannot learn from their mistakes.
ROFLMAO100
The reason that you know sweet Fanny Adams about these subjects is because you insist on basing your understanding on inexpert apologists like Fazale Rana and ‘Inspiring Philosophy’.
[Addendum] Added to this, Richard Owen was such a complex, idiosyncratic and ambiguous figure in 19th century science, that I would expect even a trained and skilled Historian of Science to have difficulty encapsulating him. I would not trust a rank amateur like Rana with this task. The Wikipedia article on Owen has this to say about him:
Owen’s detailed memoirs and descriptions require laborious attention in reading, on account of their complex terminology and ambiguous modes of expression. The fact that very little of his terminology has found universal favour causes them to be more generally neglected than they otherwise would be.
-
When you are quoting somebody else you need to indicate it by putting it in quote-marks, using the forum’s quotation mark-up, etc.
-
That Owen’s conception was “strongly theistic” does not mean that he was a design advocate. Many strong critics of the Intelligent Design Movement are strong theists.
-
Given his lack of expertise in the subject under consideration, and my previously made point about Creationist apologsts’ tendency to make false claims that long-dead scientists were proto-design-advocates, what he “goes on” about has no credibility whatsoever.
-
Even if his claim was credible, it is completely irrelevant to my point, which is about whether ‘Evolution/Biology with design substituted for descent’ would be coherent – an issue that Rana fails to rebut – in fact he admits without dispute that the scientific consensus is that “the only coherent model that accounts for these features—they claim—is biological evolution.” Nothing he says thereafter in any way argues that ‘Evolution/Biology with design substituted for descent’ would be coherent – he simply (inexpertly) claims that Owen advocated for design, without making any attempt to demonstrate whether that would render Evolution/Biology incoherent or not.
I will conclude by stating that you last reponse has made no progress in addressing the issues I have raised, and that my point has still not been addressed:
Evolution is, in Charles Darwin’s own words, “descent with modification”. Take common descent out of the theory and it is rendered incoherent. Descent is what everything else hangs off of, like a clothes-hanger or coat-track – without descent, biology is just a disorganised pile of facts lying on the ground.
Therefore any attempt to teach some version of ‘evolution’ with the claim that common descent was merely some sort of ‘optional extra’ would simply confuse students.
(See how easy it is to clearly indicate that something is a quote?)
3 Likes