It revealed nothing of the sort. Pennisi is a borderline crank who shouldn’t be writing for Science, and many of the ENCODE participants have backed away from that original claim. This appears to be another subject you know nothing about but feel free to make claims about based on cursory reading of the popular literature. Copying crap from random sources is not an argument, incidentally.
I wouldn’t credit anything Mattick, the author of the dog’s-ass plot, has to say.
As far as I can tell, the RTB creation model has never actually been articulated.
What is that rationale, then? And what explains the nested hierarchy in which both pseudogenes and their gene homologs share?
What is that rationale?
What percentage of human ERV sequences does that paper cover?
Does that theory explain nested hierarchy? Does it explain, in particular, nested hierarchy of DNA sequences? Is there an archetype for cytochrome c?
Wrong question. Is it possible to explain homology apart from the evolutionary paradigm?
That is obviously not true. The claimed evidence for Orch-OR theory supposedly supports the mechanisms underlying it. But you deny those mechanisms and there is no reason to suppose that the same effects would be observed if quantum mechanics were dependent on the mind as you claim.
That really isn’t the same as largely agreeing on a rather obvious interpretation of the facts.
Actually that is not my claim. My claim is that higher education should be more open to speculative work, although fringe views should be kept back until after graduation (even those within science)
By the obvious reliance on falsehood and misrepresentation.
“Universal Common Design still better explains the fossil record, biogeographical distribution, and the origin of life or viruses.”
The Wikipedia page you cited does not say anything about biogeographical distribution. It mentions the fossil record only in the context of flowering plants. Your cited source does not support your point. I can’t put it any plainer than this.
But your comment suggests a possible reason for your misunderstanding. That page is titled “List of unsolved problems in biology”, and does in fact start:
1 General biology
1.1 Evolution and origins of life
The second line is a section title. It does not mean that “Evolution and origins of life” is an unsolved problem in biology. But perhaps you think it does.
Really? What non-ad-hoc explanation does “common design” have for e.g. the biogeographical distribution of lemurs and tenrecs?
I think you’re talking rot again. And in the absence of an explicit statement that you have read the articles you link to, I’ll assume you haven’t.
It should be noted that your standards and preferences include not only citing texts you have not read, but lying about what your actual source was.
You have been caught at least four times copying misquotes from creationist sites but linking to the original texts.
The issue I have with your citations is not the qualifications of the authors or the place of publication, but the strong possibility that you have never even looked at them. I don’t think expecting some-one to read a text before citing it is an unwarranted preference.
So what? He has researched Owen’s Theory and has far better understanding on it than anybody as well as access to the right experts within his organization to make sure his articles are accurate.
And creationists feel the same way about secular scientists, which is why I reject Consensus as a standard of proof or evidence for or against a proposition.
I agree, it is not the same thing. What’s your point? Just because I am using the term Common “design” instead of “archetype” does not mean I am referring to the intelligent design theory ID theorists proposed from Discovery.
Again, nonsense. You obviously did not bother to read the rest of the article I gave you:
"In his 1844 essay, Darwin had lacked Owen’s clear conceptual distinction between homologies and analogies. Darwin had known that the unity of type can be explained by common descent, but Owen’s anti-functionalist arguments helped Darwin to see that the unity of type is independent of adaptive considerations and why homologies but not analogies establish taxonomic relatedness…
Finally, Amundson hints at the fact that while Darwin is viewed as the founder of evolutionary biology, in the second half of the 19th century evolutionary morphology made scant use of the notion of natural selection, so that its comparative studies and phylogenetic explanations owed a good deal to Owen." [Emphasis added]
And Owen’s theory is not inconsistent with RTB’s or my theory:
"I never asserted that creation (or the appearance of a new or modified fauna) was not by law. But by what law? Not, I may say, of natural transmutation- not by turning fishes into reptiles, whales into pachyderms, or monkeys into men, in the way of natural generation, but by a higher law, of which we may reach the conception hereafter, as you have reached the conception of an archetypal form. But that conception does not mutilate (it rather magnifies and consolidates) our conceptions of final causes and of a Creator. " page 96
"Now, however, the recognition of an ideal Exemplar for the Vertebrated animals proves that the knowledge of such a being as Man must have existed before Man appeared. For the Divine mind which planned the Archetype also foreknew all its modifications.
…To what natural laws or secondary causes the orderly succession and progression of such organic phænomena may have been committed we are as yet ignorant. But … we learn from the past history of our globe that she [i.e. nature] has advanced with slow and stately steps … from the first embodiment of the Vertebrate idea under its old Ichthyic vestment, until it became arrayed in the glorious garb of the Human form” (p.317).
As you can see, the common archetype or design preceded common descent and was used by Darwin to help himself craft Common descent so it would not be “a disorganised pile of facts lying on the ground”.
This is why what you are suggesting here is NONSENSE. But, I guess this could not be helped since secular scientists have clearly indoctrinated you very well.
I was just giving context and background information on an issue. Besides, there has been a wealth of discovery after those initial results. Do you dispute or reject this as well?
That’s actually correct for the most part. Their model is essentially the same as mine but the predictions did not seem that novel or specific or relevant enough to showcase on here.
As Fuz Rana describes:
"The ceRNA hypothesis elegantly explains the functional utility of three classes of junk DNA: duplicated and unitary pseudogenes, plus long noncoding RNAs. As it turns out, the transcripts produced from these types of so-called junk DNA also harbor MREs. None of these transcripts codes for proteins yet they play an indispensable role in regulating gene expression. In fact, all three are much better suited for the role of molecular sponges precisely because they aren’t translated into proteins.
Of particular utility are duplicated pseudogenes due to their close structural resemblance to the corresponding coding genes. Duplicated pseudogenes not only exert a sponge effect but also serve as decoys that allow the transcripts of the intact genes to escape degradation and to be translated into proteins."
In addition, the ceRNA hypothesis provides an elegant explanation for the widespread existence of pseudogenes in genomes and their structural similarity to intact genes in regard to your second question.
"The structural and functional features of the preexisting ERVs (i.e., their capacity to copy themselves and move throughout genomes) are precisely what make these ERV sequences so useful. Their capacity for retrotranspositioning affords these sequences the means to disrupt the endogenization process of invading retroviruses. In other words, for the ERV sequences to operate as antiretroviral elements, they must resemble endogenized retroviruses.
If the creation model perspective on ERVs is valid, then it suggests that ERVs may protect the host cell’s genome from retroviral infections through other mechanisms, like competitive inhibition. Most ERV sequences, like retroviral genomes, consist of two noncoding regions on the 3´ and 5´ ends of the sequence called long terminal repeats (LTRs).
The ERV sequences also contain genes for reverse transcriptase and the proteins located in the virus capsule. If the ERV sequence is transcribed to produce ERV RNA and if the capsid proteins are produced, then both the RNA and the capsid proteins could inhibit the assembly of invading retroviral particles, through competitive inhibition, which would prevent the transmission of the invading retrovirus to other cells. In this scenario, the similarity of the ERVs to retroviruses is crucial."
It is unclear from reading it but it looks like it is 8%
Since the common archetype or design preceded common descent and was used by Darwin to help himself craft Common descent so it would not be “a disorganised pile of facts lying on the ground”, the answer is Yes. Here is the quote I gave to Tim again:
"Now, however, the recognition of an ideal Exemplar for the Vertebrated animals proves that the knowledge of such a being as Man must have existed before Man appeared. For the Divine mind which planned the Archetype also foreknew all its modifications.
…To what natural laws or secondary causes the orderly succession and progression of such organic phænomena may have been committed we are as yet ignorant. But … we learn from the past history of our globe that she [i.e. nature] has advanced with slow and stately steps … from the first embodiment of the Vertebrate idea under its old Ichthyic vestment, until it became arrayed in the glorious garb of the Human form” (p.317).
However, as Stephen Jay Gould suggested:
“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”
If that is the case, then , this question applies only to Darwin’s work on common descent because, Owen’s work was used and preceded Common descent theory.
No, I don’t. I think you misunderstood what I said before. What I actually deny is the methods in determining the existence of a Universal non-contingent consciousness that created contingent human minds. Instead, I think the observer effect and origin of life experiments can be used as evidence rather than Penrose’s proposed experiment.
However, I agree with their interpretation of the facts that suggests consciousness is by definition the collapse of the wave-function.
I agree that it should be this way, but this is not necessarily the case as it stands now.
Well, I view the gaps in the fossil record and the gaps distribution as essentially the same problem, which is why I added that into the mix. Of course, we can just omit that part of it if you disagree.
What makes you say that from reading the wiki page. I am still not following you here.
Since there are million year gaps in the fossil record, Common design suggests that they would be separately constructed from different locations and times around the globe.
That’s only because I am relying on secondary sources to break it down since I am not an expert in every field nor do I have access to the right experts like the authors of those secondary sources.
If they’ve never articulated a model how can you know that it’s essentially the same as yours? I agree that it’s the same in one way at least: you haven’t articulated a model either.
That didn’t answer the question and has nothing to do with nested hierarchy. As is so often the case, you confuse simple similarith with nested hierarchy. Your lack of understanding prevents you from responding coherently or recoginizing the meanings of things you quote or cite.
More non sequitur. Christians are supposed to be humble, and I would suggest as a first step trying to recognize the depth of your personal ignorance. Until that happens, it’s useless to respond to anything you say.
It’s obvious then, that the evidence for Orch-OR theory is evidence against your views, since none of it is expected if QM is dependent on the mind rather than vice-versa.
And no,the “observer effect” experiments are not at all relevant since they don’t demonstrate any special role for consciousness at all.
“So” Rana is a really bad source for understanding Owen’s work.
“So” the internet is full of people making wild claims about things well outside their area of expertise, and Rana’s just one more example of this.
“So” such sources have no credibility, either on this forum, or among science educators.
“So” @Meerkat_SK5still “do[esn’t] know a good source from a bad one”.
“So” @Meerkat_SK5still “cannot learn from their mistakes”.
Is that enough "what"s for you?
I would note that neither you nor Rana appear to have given a concise account of what you consider “Owen’s theory” to be. I would further note that the only “theory” that Rana explicitly discusses is Darwin’s own.
So no, I do not accept that Rana “has researched Owen’s Theory”.
The difference being that the scientific community rejects Creationism because it misrepresents the evidence, whilst you “reject Consensus” because you know sweet Fanny Adams about what it contains. You are presenting a false equivalence.
Case in point of your ignorance is your claim that:
Common Design theory that I described before is virtually the same as mainstream evolution and their theory.
Descent is at the core of evolution, so no, anything that rejects descent cannot be “virtually the same as mainstream evolution”.
Additionally, the “consensus” is not the evidence – the evidence fills whole libraries, and you are clearly ignorant of it. The consensus is merely the explanation of the evidence – in Rana’s own words “the only coherent model that accounts for these features”.
My point is that your passage yields no evidence whatsoever that Owen supported a “design” perspective. I merely gave the IDM as a “design” viewpoint that was sufficiently prominent to have yielded views from prominent Theist scientists on it. If you want a viewpoint specific to your own design claims, @Mercer is a theist scientist, and his opinion of your design thesis is:
What I am saying is that a theistic viewpoint in no way entails acceptance of design, therefore the passage that you quoted does not support your position.
And given that you were attempting to use Owen as supporting the view that evolution-with-design was coherent, you first need to establish that he supported design at all, as the very first step.
You obviously did not read, or at least did not comprehend, the passage that you just quoted at me yourself.
Nothing in that passage addresses whether evolution-with-design is coherent. Your highlighted passage simply states that, in Ron Amundson’s opinion, “19th century evolutionary morphology” relied more on Owen’s work than Darwin’s. This does not mean that even in the 19th century, they necessarilly agreed with Owen’s conclusions, let alone that modern evolutionary biology agrees with them. It is entirely possible that they simply reached their own conclusions based upon Owen’s published data.
Have you read Amundson’s essay? If not, then you are in no position to offer an opinion on how he thought Owen’s work influenced 19th century evolutionary morphology.
Given that these are but a few ambiguous and idiosyncratically-worded fragments out of the entire corpus of Owen’s writings, it is neither clear that they mean what you think that they do nor that they are fully representative of his views.
Further, they offer no evidence whatsoever that Evolution-with-design is coherent.
False
Your quotes make no mention of Darwin, so provide no evidence that Owen’s conclusions influenced Darwin’s work, let alone that Darwin accepted Owen’s conclusions, let alone that Owen’s conclusions are in any way compatible with modern Evolutionary Biology.
I will note that you have wasted an enormous amount of time, without even addressing the central question:
Is evolution with design substituted for descentcoherent?
None of your argumentation has addressed the issue of coherence. But given how incoherent your claims are, I have to wonder if you understand what the word means.
In the immortal words of Grytpype-Thynne, “You silly twisted boy, you!”
I am “indoctrinated” for taking the consensus of hundreds of thousands of actual experts, backed by mountains of data, over the half-baked claims of rag-tag charlatans who are continually tripping over their own contradictions, mispresentations, and incomprehension?
You just managed to overload every irony-meter within 10 Light Years.
If you want to avoid consensus/“secular” science, then I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong place, as that is the standard that all the scientists who are regulars here, even the ones who are Theists, are applying.
If you want a different standard, then you will have to find yourself a different forum.
That majority of the non-coding regions were found to be functional, as suggested by the Nature article:
“With the HGP draft in hand, the discovery of non-protein-coding elements exploded. So far, that growth has outstripped the discovery of protein-coding genes by a factor of five, and shows no signs of slowing. Likewise, the number of publications about such elements also grew in the period covered by our data set (1900 to 2017; see SI, Fig. S3a). For example, there are thousands of papers on non-coding RNAs, which regulate gene expression.”
"… There are now more than 30,000 papers per year linking SNPs and traits. A large fraction of these associations are in the once-dismissed non-coding regions (see SI, Table S3).
Cellular function relies on weak and strong links between genetic material and proteins. Mapping out this network now complements the Mendelian perspective. Today, more than 300,000 regulatory network interactions have been charted — proteins binding with non-coding regions or with other proteins."
If you are referring to a predictive model of genomics or morphology that is very specific (rather than an explanatory model), then you are correct. They have not developed a model yet for either, which is why I have not done so as well.
No, it does because I was referring to teleology or final causation when I suggested it, which is very important for the Common Design model. This means that even though you were referring to a different type of causation, I technically still answered your question. Now, let me answer the way that you want it.
The pattern of similarities between species looks more like that arising when intelligent humans develop software or other technologies rather than Common descent (i.e. dependency graph of life):
"The evolutionary tree model requires, at least for complex life, that every species link back to a single most recent common ancestor (MRCA) with other species in the same group (clade). For instance, elephants and manatees are both members of the Afrotheria clade, so they are depicted as having a MRCA that was that clade’s first representative. And, each MRCA links back to a single MRCA for all members of clades at higher levels in the hierarchy. For instance, the MRCAs of the Artiodactyla and Carnivora clades share a single MRCA with all members of the Laurasiatheria clade. And all mammal species link back to a single MRCA that is the trunk of the Mammalia tree of life.
The corresponding dependency graph includes the same nested hierarchy as the purported evolutionary tree, but the relationships are interpreted not in terms of MRCAs but in terms of shared modules. For instance, elephants and manatees both use the Afrotheria module, and all mammals use the Mammalia module. Yet, in stark contrast to the common ancestry model, manatees, seals, and dolphins all use the marine module which is incongruent with the evolutionary tree. Likewise, bats and dolphins both use the echolocation module, while in the common ancestry model they are not closely related. "
Again, the Orch-OR theory is just one proposal within the quantum-mind theory that proposes 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."
My theory is also a theory that proposes that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness and posits quantum-mechanical phenomena. So, I don’t see how their evidence does not support my theory.
Correct, which is why I am combining the evidence produced by Orch-OR theory with the evidence produced by the observer effect experiments in order to show it does have a special role.
NO, Owen’s theory still involves common descent. It’s just not “universal”. This is the fundamental difference between the two.
Again, all you and secular scientists are doing is refusing to give credit to Owen theory based metaphysical bias. This has preceded Universal common descent and was used by Darwin himself to craft his theory.
Ok, then describe my position without strawmanning it and then tell me why Owen’s work conflicts with it. I don’t know how you are defining “design” anymore. How do you even know its the same RTB’s or mine. Seriously?
Oh please, all you are doing right now is strawmaning my theory to make it seem like you have a valid objection here, which shows you are getting really desperate now. This is not worth my time.
You have just committed the same mental error as John by presupposing that the consensus in science is synonymous with the amount of evidence that exists for a proposition, but this is not necessarily the case.
For instance, the famous philosopher and historian of science (as well as a physicist), Thomas Kuhn, in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” notes that scientific consensus occur through “replacement” where new scientists, attracted to the new paradigm, become open to its ideas, and old guards of the old paradigm, still unable to explain the quirks in their data, simply retire and naturally exit from the scientific community. Until that replacement happens, however, skepticism and opposition persists. Max Planck, the founder of quantum physcists, concurs:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
This principle, which was famously laid out by German theoretical physicist Max Planck in 1950 along with Thomas Kuhn, has actually been confirmed according to a study.
What evidence do you have that shows how consensus in science is Objective? Is there a consensus that even agrees with that statement?
I.e. they claim that quantum mechanics is the basis of consciousness, completely denying your claim that quantum mechanics admits idealism as the only possible answer.
So you don’t understand how evidence that your ideas are incorrect isn’t evidence that they are correct. That explains a lot. If you can’t understand that much you have no hope of producing a valid scientific proposal.
But they don’t show any such thing. Even in combination.
Given that neither you nor Rana have ever articulated what you wishfully call “Owen’s theory”, this claim remains completely unsubstantiated.
Further, even if this claim were true, it opens the question of whether there is sufficient descent in Owen’s theory for evolution to remain coherent.
Finally, we have only your word for it that your theory is in some way similar to Owen’s. Given that I have seen no evidence that you have either read Owen’s works (as opposed to cherry-picked quotes of him), or an explanation from a genuine Historian of Science of the full extent of his views, I am not willing to take your word for this.
“Secular scientists” have actual expertise in the topics at issue, and so trumps religious amateurs, such as Fazale Rana, ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ and yourself.
I have already challenged that claim:
Describing it in a single word: “incoherent”.
A more expansive description of it would be “a fanciful and disjointed grab-bag of unsubstantiated claims about quantum physics and biology.”
Given (i) your position is incoherent, and (ii) neither you nor Rana have given a concise articulation of what you believe Owen’s position or “theory” to be, this would seem to be an impossibility.
I was not mischaracterising your Theory. I was simply pointing out that (i) I have presented a prima facie case (based on Darwin’s own words) that Evolution-without-descent would be incoherent, and (ii) that you have failed to address this.
Hand-waving about Owen’s writings (which you have not read) and his “theory” (which you have not articulated) are utterly irrelevant to this question as Owen’s writings in question were written before Darwin published On the Origin of Species, let alone before his theory of “descent with modification” was fully understood (let alone further expanded upon).
No @Meerkat_SK5, it is you who is wasting my time. You are doing nothing but playing Pigeon Chess.
You are ignorant of Biology, you are ignorant of Quantum Physics and you are ignorant of Richard Owen’s place in 19th Century science.
[my emphasis]
We can add Reading Comprehension to the list of subjects that @Meerkat_SK5 knows sweet Fanny Adams about.
That is also an actual Straw-man argument for your information, as I had just explicitly distinguished between the consensus and the evidence:
O dear!
People who are ‘hoping for a revolution’ in science have perennially been citing Kuhn since that book came out in 1962. The predictions of a revolution have outweighed the number of actual revolutions by several orders of magnitude.
Predictions of the demise of evolution have been frequent (and actually predate Darwin), but Evolutionary is still with us and still as strong as ever:
Even if the current Theory of Evolution were replaced, its replacement would still have to explain the same mountain of evidence as the current version, and so would be indistinguishable from the original to a layman.
The mountain of evidence that has been published in scientific journals for the last 160 years.
What evidence do you have that your ‘theory’ is anything more than the incoherent rantings of a crank?
Given that you have failed to make a coherent argument, and are failing to even address the substance of my comments, I think now is the time to leave you to ‘Rant In Peace’.
The internet, and vanity presses, are full of the works of self-proclaimed ‘experts’, who claim to have disproven or ‘corrected’ evolution. Nobody remembers them five minutes later, and nobody cares. The same applies to your ‘theory’.
Yes we dispute that “the majority of the non-coding regions were found to be functional” because there just isn’t any good evidence that is true.
All that was identified by ENCODE is effectively just regions where, occasionally, a transcription factor might bind and some RNA transcript be produced.
But that is simply an unavoidable consequence of how transcription factors bind to DNA, and it has been shown that DNA synthesized deliberately to be random and non-functional will nevertheless be “expressed” in a similar way because it will by chance contain areas where transcription factors will bind and initiate transcription:
So it just isn’t enough to show merely that a transcription factor binds and produces an mRNA transcript somewhere to show that the locus is functional. You have to show what the function of that transcript is by showing it’s phenotypical effect on the organism.
Is biochemically active or has an effect on transcription levelsis a result expected from nonfunctional junk DNA, so merely observing that it is active or has such an effect cannot be used to distinguish function from junk. This is just logically unassailable.
I prefer not to omit it, but to retain it as another demonstration that you misrepresent your sources, and so nothing you write should be believed.
No, that’s not the reason. Lots of honest people rely on secondary sources. They don’t cite works they haven’t read. They cite those secondary sources, rather than pretending to be using the primary ones. They don’t lie about their sources like you do.
But there’s another lie here. All four of the texts I caught you lying about using are actually available online. You did have access to them. You even linked to them. So don’t pretend you had to copy misquotes from creationist sites because the original texts weren’t accessible to you. That’s demonstrably untrue.
Again, and as usual, you misread your source, which says no such thing. This isn’t entirely your fault, as the article does manage to confuse “non-coding” and “junk”, which are not the same thing. But while non-coding DNA makes up around 98% of the genome, only around 90% of that genome is junk.
No, that’s not what I mean by a model. I refer simply to a description of what creation events happened, and when, of what the separate created kinds are, and of how they may be recognized and distinguished from other kinds. Neither they nor you have anything of the sort, and yet one would suppose that if there were separate kinds, this would be easy to do.
Ah, Ewert. He’s been taken apart here and elsewhere many times. Once again you quote what you don’t understand, purely because you think it agrees with you. In this case, unlike most, you at least understand the attempted point. Ewert’s “modules” are nothing more than ad hoc assemblies of gene families with no functional dependency. There is no demonstrable “marine module”, which was presented in a hypothetical explanatory figure only, corresponding to nothing real. These “modules” just don’t exist. If they did, of course you could probably recognize different kinds, which Ewert makes no real attempt to do. And so you don’t either.
We’re still back at square one: you know nothing about biology and are just quote-mining sources you don’t understand for little bits you think you can use to advance your nebulous claims. You can’t actually defend or even clearly articulate those claims. Give it up.
Not quite, they are arguing for a new kind of physics altogether that violate quantum mechanics. More importantly, they are also arguing for a non-contingent consciousness that directly created finite conscious agents rather than indirectly from an evolutionary process:
“Mainstream science and philosophy assume that consciousness emerged at some point in the course of evolution, possibly fairly recently, with the advent of the brain and nervous systems. But Eastern spiritual traditions, panpsychism, and the Objective Reduction theory of Roger Penrose suggest that consciousness preceded life.” [Emphasis added]
I think the confusion here is that this proto-consciousness that Penrose describes as preceding life is NOT the same thing as our actual consciousness:
“Our criterion for proto -consciousness is OR . It would be unreasonable to refer to OR as the criterion for actual consciousness, because, according to the DP scheme, OR processes would be taking place all the time, and would be providing the effective randomness that is characteristic of quantum measurement. Quantum superpositions will continually be reaching the DP threshold for OR in non-biological settings as well as in biological ones, and usually take place in the purely random environment of a quantum system under measurement.”
And this is cherry picking/strawman fallacy because you overlooked this part of what I said:
"…classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness and posits quantum-mechanical phenomena. "
Again, I specifically provided a positive case for Idealism before I provided a negative case for materialism to go along with it.
And you have yet to show or explain how they don’t show any such thing. Prominent quantum physicists would disagree with you anyways:
"In his 1932 book The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann argued that the mathematics of quantum mechanics allows the collapse of the wave function to be placed at any position in the causal chain from the measurement device to the “subjective perception” of the human observer. In 1939, Fritz London and Edmond Bauer argued for the latter boundary (consciousness).[1] In the 1960s, Eugene Wigner[2] reformulated the “Schrödinger’s cat” thought experiment as “Wigner’s friend” and proposed that the consciousness of an observer is the demarcation line that precipitates collapse of the wave function, independent of any realist interpretation. See Consciousness and measurement. The mind is postulated to be non-physical and the only true measurement apparatus.[3]
‘The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse.’
The problem with this objection is that ,for what I gathered online, we don’t have a great enough understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype. Until we have that understanding, it would be hard to use that approach for determining whether regions of the genome have function or not.
Fuz Rana argues:
“But it is hard to argue that this is the case for the ENCODE project. The project’s investigators carefully and specifically chose assays to detect biochemical activity (transcription, binding of transcription factors, histone binding, sites where modified histones bind, methylation, and three-dimensional interactions between enhancers and genes) with well-established function. Biochemists have known for some time that the biochemical activities cataloged by the ENCODE Consortium are important for gene regulation and gene expression.”
What is your response?
Again, the ENCODE Project did more than just assign function to sequences based on its mere existence in the human genome, but employed a causal definition of function. The ENCODE Project focused on experimentally determining which sequences in the human genome displayed biochemical activity using assays that measured:
transcription,
binding of transcription factors to DNA,
histone binding to DNA,
DNA binding by modified histones,
DNA methylation, and
three-dimensional interactions between enhancer sequences and genes.
I don’t see how I misread the article here because it specifically said “… There are now more than 30,000 papers per year linking SNPs and traits. A large fraction of these associations are in the once-dismissed non-coding regions (see SI, Table S3).”
The large fraction they are suggesting is over 71% according to their results.
In that case, I have already done this but I guess I can be more detailed in some areas. So here it is again , but more refined:
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, information modules, and chemical constituents to separately construct basic types of organisms (or created kinds) from different locations and times around the globe.
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, these basic types would be able to adapt to changing environments and diversify into kinds over long epochs of time.
Criterion for recognizing and distinguishing “kinds”
Hybridization: If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind. However, the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind, since this may be the result of mutations.
Structure (morphology) and physiology (function) and Ecology: Similar kinds from a basic type will have a common design that can be seen on a Linnaean Classification chart (i.e. hippos and whales). However, the differences between them will be due to the different design requirements that each of them needs for their environment.
LIst of basic types or created kinds
The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the “Family” level of classification in the [taxonomic hierarchy]; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level:
Whoa, hold up John. You just asked for a rationale on the patterns of similarities NOT a fully worked out explanatory model.
As I mentioned in previous topics, since viruses can be manipulated to produce more than one process for more than one motive, they explain the biochemical similarities AND the phylogenetic patterns from distant relatives, which would also include pseudogenes and ERV’s. So the CERA hypothesis I mentioned before does in fact offer the rationale that you asked for as well.
On the other hand, because HGT does not go far enough to explain the phylogenetic patterns from close relatives, we can use Winston’s model to explain those patterns instead. In other words, we don’t need Winston’s model to explain all the data but just the portion that HGT cannot explain. This is one reason why his model would not be ad-hoc since it is merely an attachment of the overall model.
That’s not a problem with my objection at all. That’s a blathering response.
It simply doesn’t follow from us some times having a poor understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype that my objection has any problems because of this. My objection, which is based on the fact that we can’t infer function merely from the fact of expression, is actually just made all the more pertinent by such relationships being difficult to elucidate. That, in fact, just casts all the more doubt on the extrapolation of function merely from expression.
Complete own goal there mate.
My response is that your quote isn’t a response to what I wrote at all. Yes the assays used by ENCODE were chosen specifically do detect biochemical activity. But that is the very thing I am saying is not enough to infer function exactly because biochemical activity is a result expected from nonfunctional junk DNA.
It’s like you didn’t even read what I wrote and have just been trying to find some random crap you thought sounded relevant to respond with. This is exactly why I said to begin with in your previous thread that arguing with you is a waste of time. You’re just mindlessly throwing quotes, referenes, and titles of subjects you don’t even half-way understand back. Without having even tried to comprehend how or even whether it’s relevant, or how it is supposed to rebut or answer the points being made.
Why are so many of you ID-creationists completely incapable of critical thinking? Why don’t you have any sense of professional embarrassment? Why do you guys just say shit back reflexively as if this is some sort of performative act, or dance? “Come let’s try to sound and look like we’re scientists debating stuff.” What the hell is wrong with you?
As I said, part of the problem isn’t your fault. Here they confuse non-coding DNA with putative junk DNA. Just not right. Your problem is that you interpret this as meaning there is no junk, which the authors do not claim.
No, it’s only your ignorance of biology that lets you think you have done anything like what I asked for. That you think your expanded “explanationi” actually means anything is more evidence.
Why? Can you defend this claim?
So, not a test.
That meant nothing at all. What’s the difference between a kind and a basic type? Which one was created? What is the common design feature between hippos and whales?
Can you justify the claim that kinds are families? How can you tell whether kinds are at the level of families, orders, or something else? I note that your list has a lot of subfamilies in it. Why? Why is Aves, a class, considered a single kind? That was a senssless list that once again reveals your complete ignorance of the subject.
True, but a rationale at least has to make sense, and you should present only things you understand.
No, it does not. This is another thing you that shows your ignorance of biology.One hallmark of the crackpot is the inability to entertain the idea that he might be a crackpot. The extent of your ignorance cannot be overemphasized.
No they don’t. That just doesn’t follow at all. You don’t even seem to understand what an explanation is. Explanations are not assertions, or mere declarations that it is so. An explanation is something that says WHY something is a particular way. Something that gives reasons and causes from which certain things follow.
Why does the temperature drop during night time? Something about the rate of heat loss from the atmosphere into space, the oceans, and the ground, being greater than the rate at which heat enters into the system, and the rates are different at night because the sun is shining on the other side of the planet. We can see how there are reasons and causes, something that actually explains why.
Saying “poodles are known for being intelligent dogs” does not explain why it gets colder at night. It’s a disconnected fact. Nothing relates it to the question being asked. Even if we introduce something that at least has something to do with temperature that does not guarantee that the question is answered. Saying “a radiator has a shape designed to increase the transmission of heat to the air” also doesn’t explain why it gets colder at night. Even though radiators at least have something to do with temperature.
Your “explanation” for the nested hierarchy is no such thing.
The mere fact that viruses can be “manipulated to produce more than one process for more than one motive” does not offer any such explanation for the nested hierarchy. It’s a disconnected fact.
NO, I am just trying to understand your objection so I can properly address it because you guys are speaking from a secular science perspective that the common design theory rejects . That’s why I am asking you questions and trying to figure out whether your objections to the theory are based upon evidence or based on an A-Priori assumption that unguided universal common descent theory is true.
For example…
Yes, I would agree if you are referring to the selection effect definition, which is:
“the functions of a trait or feature are all and only those effects of its presence for which it was under positive natural selection in the (recent) past for which it is under (at least) purifying selection now. They are why the trait or feature is there today and possibly why it was originally formed.”
However, the causal definition of function that ENCODE used is what closely relates to the common designer theory that we theists have been pushing for decades while your definition works better for the theory you adhere to from a secular science perspective. I think Mattick eloquently makes my point:
"There may also be another factor motivating the Graur et al. and related articles (van Bakel et al. 2010; Scanlan 2012), which is suggested by the sources and selection of quotations used at the beginning of the article, as well as in the use of the phrase “evolution-free gospel” in its title (Graur et al. 2013): the argument of a largely non-functional genome is invoked by some evolutionary theorists in the debate against the proposition of intelligent design of life on earth, particularly with respect to the origin of humanity.
In essence, the argument posits that the presence of non-protein-coding or so-called ‘junk DNA’ that comprises >90% of the human genome is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionary debris by blind Darwinian evolution, and argues against intelligent design, as an intelligent designer would presumably not fill the human genetic instruction set with meaningless information (Dawkins 1986; Collins 2006).
This argument is threatened in the face of growing functional indices of noncoding regions of the genome, with the latter reciprocally used in support of the notion of intelligent design and to challenge the conception that natural selection accounts for the existence of complex organisms (Behe 2003; Wells 2011)."
Therefore, when you say that it is " not enough to infer function exactly because biochemical activity is a result expected from nonfunctional junk DNA." , This is “more opinion than fact and difficult to reconcile with the exquisite precision of differential cell- and tissue-specific transcription in human cells”, as Mattick suggested in their article.
In that case, you can’t say I misread the article because you are saying the article itself got it wrong. Also, I never said it was junk but said it was functional. I think you are probably making the same mistake that @Rumraket has just made where he seems to use a theory-laden definition of function in order to successfully refute my theory.
No, the real problem is that you guys are speaking from a secular science perspective. RIght now, you are trying to pin me down into how I can take biblical kinds and stick it into a taxonomical structure that assumes universal common descent, which is a misnomer on YOUR part.
A basic type is an original created kind
A kind is an evolved kind that can be traced back to an original created kind.
I am going to provide a different example that better suits what I am trying to convey here regarding the structure, function, and ecology of organisms…
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.
Following this publication, another study found that the giant panda and the red panda were not related even though both species possess the false thumb. The false thumb of the giant panda was intended to manipulate bamboo and the false thumb of the red panda was designed as an aid for arboreal locomotion, With the red panda secondarily developing its ability for item manipulation.
As you can see, both pandas have the false thumb and both are from the same original kind. But, what makes them different is the application of those similar parts and function that fit better in different environmental niches, which give them their separate uniqueness.
Why does this need to be defended since it is similar as to how you define species? And it’s just a criterion that you asked for.
BTW, Lineage is another way to determine same kind, which is whether there is evidence of a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.
Are you looking for a specific testable prediction from what I am saying here or something, I don’t know what you are getting at here?
The general criterion for determining which animals are basic types/created kinds is a mix between the fossil record and the Genesis account. Unfortunately, I can’t find a source right now that would allow me to decipher which groups of animals show discontinuities in the fossil record. Those discontinuities are what presumably would justify the claim that most created kinds are families.
The Genesis account is what helps us creationists determine this.
You mean I should present only things that I can understand within YOUR model or perspective that you are trying to impose on me.
Nested hierarchies through HGT:
“ We have shown three lines of evidence for preferential gene transfer having the potential to create phylogenetic patterns comparable with those generated by shared ancestry. These transfers are characterized by the preference of taxa to exchange genes with partners more similar to themselves rather than rare HGTs that may occur randomly and indiscriminately.”
I have got another paper by the same authors that reiterates my point and refutes what you guys are saying:
“Organisms that frequently exchange genes become more similar, and transfers between these groups may then be categorized as HGTs with a bias reflecting overall relatedness, even though the initial transfers may have been biased by other factors. We have previously shown that biased gene transfer CAN CREATE and maintain phylogenetic patterns that resemble the signal created through vertical inheritance [16].”
Now, it’s important to point out that these studies were only referring to prokaryotes in which HGT was common and promiscuous at the time. However, this study was published before another study showing that HGT is much more pervasive among metazoans than previously thought:
“Although observed rates of acquisition of horizontally transferred genes in eukaryotes are generally lower than in prokaryotes, it appears that, far from being a rare occurrence, HGT has contributed to the evolution of many, perhaps all, animals and that the process is ongoing in most lineages. Between tens and hundreds of foreign genes are expressed in all the animals we surveyed, including humans. The majority of these genes are concerned with metabolism, suggesting that HGT contributes to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.” [Emphasis added]
Nested hierarchy through the dependency graph model:
"Designing agencies can anticipate functional requirements. They also understand one does not have to re-invent the wheel every time a new car is being designed.
'Structural homology at a higher functional level, dictated by functional demands, may exist independently of its particular material substrate, because intelligent designers are not bound by the constraints of what might be called physical transmission or continuity. …
In precisely the same way, diverse vertebrates exhibiting the pentadactyl pattern in their forelimbs and hind limbs may possess that pattern not because they inherited it from a common ancestor- that is, not because of material continuity- but because there exists some functional requirement that the pattern satisfies.- J. Wells and P. Nelson, “Homology in Biology”, Design, Darwinism and Public Education , 319-20, 2003’
