You’ve said this before. It’s been refuted before. Yet here you are posting it again as if no-one had ever criticised it.
What you haven’t done is explain how there could be deep-sea vents on Earth before Earth formed.
All birds are one kind?
Seriously?
You don’t spend even one second thinking about the ramifications of your ideas before posting them, do you?
This.
The article clearly says:
Penrose turned the conscious observer around. Instead of consciousness causing collapse, wavefunctions collapsed spontaneously, causing a moment – a ‘quantum – of consciousness.
Hence this is in opposition to your views.
This is an obviously false accusation. Some aspects of agreement cannot negate a major disagreement.
You need more than an attempt to present a case to back up your claim. You need proof. And an empty case, contradicted by later arguments is nowhere near proof.
I have to show why irrelevant evidence added to contrary evidence doesn’t make positive evidence? That should be obvious to any rational person.
That you falsely claim that “prominent quantum physicists disagree” while referring to old material (the latest is from the 60s) which does not directly address the issue hardly helps you.
How did you manage to equivocate between “merely being transcribed” and “mere existence in the human genome,” Meerkat?
Do you even read before responding?
First off, evolution makes no predictions about how much junk DNA should be in any given genome. Nowhere in consensus science does it state that every genome should have lots of junk DNA in it. In fact, there are many well known examples of very compact genomes where the vast majority is functional. Examples include viral genomes and the bladderwort genome. It just so happens that the human genome does have lots of junk, and that is just a matter of history and contingency. As an analogy, we say that the solar system has 8 planets because that is what we observe. There is nothing in the laws of physics that requires 8 planets in our solar system. In the same way, the theory of evolution does not demand that the human genome be 90% junk DNA. It just so happens that it does.
If you are actually trying to support the use of the causal definition of function then you have practically given up your argument. Let’s use an analogy. I buy a television from a local store, and the shop cleark tells me it has a 3 year warranty, so if it stops functioning I can bring it back and get a replacement or my money back. I take it home, and 3 months after buying it the TV stops working. I hit the power button and the screen is just black. I take it back to the store for a refund. They tell me that the TV is still functioning just fine. I ask how that can be, because even the store clerk can clearly see there is nothing on the screen. The clerk tells me that the TV is still functional because it is able to bind dust that is in the air which means it is still interacting with the environment around it. Also, active air filters remove dust from the air, so this is a known function. This is the causal definition of function, and it’s stupid.
What you need to explain is how 90% of the genome can accumulate mutations at a rate consistent with genetic drift and not lose function. Is it because this function will always be present no matter how much the DNA sequence is changed? If so, how can the sequence have anything we could call function? Or, is there some mechanism that prevents any deleterious mutations from occurring in this sequence? Which is it? Why do we see no evidence of sequence conservation in these regions?
Finally, the constant false equivalence between non-coding DNA and junk DNA needs to stop. It is lying. No one has ever said that all non-coding DNA is junk. Functional non-coding DNA is well known and has been described since the dawn of molecular biology. Please stop. Finding a stretch of 1,000 base pairs of functional non-coding DNA does nothing to support the claim that billions of bases of junk DNA do not exist.
It is not opinion. It is a fact that sections of non-functional DNA will be transcribed at low levels because RNA transcription is leaky.
Then please show signs of actually doing that, because you have yet to even begin doing that.
Wrap your head around the fact that you cannot extract function from activity alone, because activity is expected of nonfunctional things. It gets even worse when we consider that things can be deliberately designed to be nonfunctional, yet will still be physically and chemically active.
So observing activity does simply not allow you to conclude function.
This is just completely unambigious and you have shown zero signs of understanding this.
That’s the only definition that makes sense. Under the causal role definition of function, even DNA sequences deliberately constructed to be nonfunctional (as they were in the reference I gave) will be detected as functional because they physically can’t be made to be completely inactive. So even on the hypothesis of intelligent design the causal-role definition is stupid.
If you use another definition than selected-effect then it renders the very concept of a distinction between function and non-function completely meaningless since all things have some degree of biochemical activity.
An organism that dies will still be biochemically and physically degrading. There will be chemical reactions occurring in the constituents that make up all the tissues as they decompose. By your definition of “causal role function” a corpse of a person that’s been dead and buried for 3 months is still functional because the process of rotting away is itself a form of biochemical activity.
THINK MAN. THINK.
THIS.
That only works for the gene(s) being horizontally transferred and only among those closely related species between which they’re transferred. That’s the whole point there, that the probability that “biased HGT” will produce a phylogenetic pattern inadvertently decreases the more distantly related the species are, and that when and if HGT occurs it seems to mostly just reinforce the pattern of vertical inheritance because it happens mostly among closely related species that share the same environment.
So no, your reference does not support your case and does not explain why there is consilience of independent phylogenies among different genes, much less why the phylogeny should be consistent among increasingly distantly related organisms.
For the subsequent 250 HGT events, a bias in the selection of swapping partners was introduced, weighted in favor of shorter 16S rRNA distances between potential partners. For each type of TyrRS, biased HGT events resulted in an increase in the R2 of pairwise evolutionary distances (Fig. 3C and Fig. S2). The initial loss in correlation shows that unbiased HGT will destroy the phylogenetic signal originally present. The subsequent biased HGT simulations, beyond the vertical dashed line (Fig. 3C), show that, when biased by 16S rRNA relatedness, HGT can recreate patterns of vertical descent, represented by an increasing similarity between the ribosomal and TyrRS phylogenies measured as the R2 .
It would be nice if you actually understood the material you quote.
No, that paper just reinforces the point made by the previous one and only when the HGT is biased to closely related species can it produce and maintain a phylogenetic signal in the genes being transferred for those closely related species. It doesn’t and can’t explain why there is consilience of indpendent phylogenies among different genes for increasingly distantly related species that occupy different environments and different ecological niches.
Primarily from prokaryotes and protists, which are all extremely distantly related to all extant animals, and thus would not qualify for a valid source of biased HGT since (as your previous references explained) only when it is biased to be among closely related species does it create and reinforce the pattern of vertical inheritance, and when it isn’t biased to be between closely related species is instead expected to quickly destroy the pattern of vertical inheritance (and is therefore easily detected as HGT because it conflicts with the expected organismal phylogeny).
Do you even read the papers you quote? Do you understand anything about this?
This is the problem with arguing with people who debate by selective quotation only. You’re ignoramuses who appear to function by quoting from authority rather than by thinking for yourself and comprehending what you quote.
Doesn’t deal with gene sequences, still can’t explain consilience of independent phylogenies, and actually hasn’t been tested for any organisms.
Both can be true, and in this case both are true. The article got it wrong, and you got the article wrong as well.
Nothing but lame excuses there. If there were actually kinds, you should be able to identify them. Fitting them into a structure is irrelevant, as there should be no structure under your theory.
You call that a clear definition? You can’t define “kind” by reference to “kind” in the definition. But one can suppose you mean that a kind is a clade contained within another clade, while a basic type is a clade created separately from other basic types. But why, then, do you need the term “kind”? In your usage it isn’t a creationist term. Apparently.
So you can’t answer that question and are abandoning it. And your new example isn’t an example of what you were originally talking about.
Sorry. I thought that a “kind” meant something in creationist lingo, but I see now that to you it means nothing. You also seem confused about what it means. You may be confusing “kind” with “basic type”, the latter being your created unit.
That much has been clear from the beginning. To repeat: if there were in fact separately created “kinds” or “basic types” or whatever term you are using at the moment, we would expect there to be simple criteria by which they could be recognized. I have asked you for such criteria. You have not managed to come up with any. I take that as evidence that there are no such separate entities.
All this shows is that your ignorance is too great for you to be able to discuss the subject meaningfully. And that has been my underlying point from the beginning.
How so, exactly? The Genesis account offers very few clues. Still, since the ark carried both ravens and doves, by your criterion we must suppose that they belong to different basic types. Genesis 1 offers no guidance, except that there appear to be multiple basic types of flying creatures. You once more appear to know nothing about the criteria you claim to espouse.
No, I mean you should present only things you can understand, period. You don’t appear to understand anything within your perspective either.
You think that because you understand neither what we’re saying nor what the papers you quote are saying. One of your main argument techniques consists of quoting without substantive comment from sources you don’t understand. Many people have pointed this out.
No, you are confusing the method I use to confirm the theory with the theory itself.
Again, I agree with their interpretation of the facts that suggests consciousness is by definition the collapse of the wave-function.and preceded life and human consciouness.
However, rather than Penrose’s proposed experiment, I am using the observer effect, origin of life experiments, and quantum-mind theory instead as methods to confirm consciousness is the collaspe of the wave-function that created human consciousness as well
Well, I have already provided the proof at the start of this topic. So you must be using a standard of proof besides “beyond a reasonable doubt” to make this claim… If so, then you are probably right but I don’t care because the standard I am using is the best as far as I know. You would need to argue why your standard is superior.
Based upon my standard of proof, Yes you do. You need to explain (NOT simply assert) how it is irrelevant evidence added to contrary evidence so I can adequately address why you are mistaken.
FYI, John von Neumann is considered one of founders of quantum mechahnics. More importantly, he 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.
So you cannot separate what happens at the detector with what goes on in the immaterial mind of the observer.
Well first off, you guys are making it seem like the selection effect definition has no problems of its own, which is not true. Even scientists who agree with you have pointed out how the selected effect definition underdetermines functional regions of the genome and how difficult it is to determine which sequences in a genome are under selection.
Secondly, as Mattick and Dinger pointed out, the genome’s regulatory regions are much more malleable than the selected effect idea suggests, retaining function in the face of mutational changes.
Thus, sequence conservation cannot be a valid marker of function. Mattick and Dinger propose and defend differential transcription, an alternative measure of function. They note that during the course of development, the vast majority of the human genome (and the genome of other mammals) is “differentially transcribed in precise cell-specific patterns” to generate RNA molecules with a regulatory role.
This happens to be what the causal definition of function entails, which means it relies on cause-and-effect relationships. This is incredibly important in demonstrating that there is a Universal Common designer at work in mutations. This is what the theory entails and has predicted ever since Richard Owen suggested that a Divine mind was the Final and primary cause for evolutionary change in his Common archetype/designer theory.
This is also why you guys continue to miss the mark on your objection because your objections are arguing in light of Darwinian evolution theory rather than Owen’s Theory of evolution. You simply reject the causal definition for no other reason than that a causal definition ignores the evolutionary framework when determining function.
As Fuz Rana pointed out…“In science, cause-and-effect relationships (which include biological and biochemical function) need to be established experimentally and observationally independent of any particular theory . Once these relationships are determined, they are then used to evaluate the theories at hand. Do the theories predict (or at least accommodate) the established cause-and-effect relationships, or not?”
Furthermore, as Mattick and Dinger suggested, these noncoding RNAs, when tested, "usually show evidence of biological function in different developmental and disease contexts, with, by our estimate, hundreds of validated cases already published and many more en route, which is a big enough subset to draw broader conclusions about the likely functionality of the rest.
It is also consistent with the specific and dynamic epigenetic modifications across most of the genome, and concurs with the ENCODE conclusion that 80% of the genome shows biochemical indices of function (Dunham et al. 2012). Of course, if this is true, the long-standing protein-centric zeitgeist of gene structure and regulation in human development will have to be reassessed (Mattick 2004, 2007, 2011), which may be tacitly motivating the resistance in some quarters."
You are also ignoring two other important points, which is that biochemical noise costs energy and random interactions among genome components would be highly deleterious to the organism.
Unfortunately, I don’t get the point of your objection. First off, I was just initially asked to provide a rationale for those patterns from a common design perspective NOT a fully worked out explanation that explains it better than common descent. Secondly, the Common Design theory accepts common descent but rejects Universal common descent. Lastly, if it quickly destroys the pattern of vertical inheritance, then we simply don’t have any confidence in claiming that universal common descent explains these patterns in light of these studies.
Besides, there are other studies out there that provide evidence that there is horizontal gene transfer in higher plants and animals, which researchers think is mediated by viruses and single-celled pathogens transmitted from species to species via an insect vector. As Fuz mentioned, Because of transposons’ mobility within genomes, they readily take part in HGT events. As with microbes, HGT in higher plants and animals obfuscates the ability of evolutionary biologists to use transposons to establish reliable evolutionary relationships.
For example, researchers discovered that when they use two different classes of transposons, called BovB and Spin elements, to build evolutionary trees, absurd relationships resulted. Cows were more closely related to snakes than to elephants and geckos more closely related to horses than to other lizards.
Widespread horizontal transfer of retrotransposons | PNAS
As I said previously, Winston’s model does not need to explain everything because HGT ability to create AND destroy patterns of vertical inheritance would explain the rest.
Basic Types
An entire group of living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship by common ancestry. It is a grouping that contains all organisms related by descent, not excluding any. For example, [Humans] are basic types, but a group containing only [Caucasians] and [Negroes] is not a Basic type since it excludes other [races]. Another example would be [Canines], which is a basic type since [wolves], [coyotes], [domesticated dogs] and other canids are all descended from a basic type of Dog, and there are no other creatures that are genetically continuous with them. T
Evolved Kind
A group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. (A group comprising one entire Basic type or a portion thereof).
When a basic type is represented by a tree, one or more branches of that tree would be an evolved kind. For example, among humans, the Caucasians would be a kind of human . Or for the sea turtles, the five current types living in oceans around the world constitute a kinds. Individuals or groups may be referred to as kinds if they represent parts of a basic type.
Well, you have forced me to rely on YEC literature, which I never like doing because they will not let go or modify their traditions or some assumptions that I reject.
Keep in mind, Baraminology is still a work in progress. We know these things take time because Linnaeus’s classification took a long time to construct, and it continues to be expanded and refined. This is the best for now:
Genesis account (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics) has priority over all other considerations.
Hybridization. If viable offspring could be obtained from a cross between two different forms, this would be definitive of their evolved kind status. However, we realize today that the lack of known hybridization between two members from different populations of organisms does not necessarily by itself mean that they are unrelated.
Ontogeny, namely the development of an individual from embryo to adult. Comparative ontogeny followed hybridization in importance as a criterion for membership in a particular type.
Lineage. Is there evidence of a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.
Structure (morphology) and physiology (function). Structures may be macroscopic (large entities such as body organs), microscopic (small, and observed using magnification), and molecular (chemical) configurations.
Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers.
Ecology. It is important to comprehend an organism’s niche, that is to say the region where it lives and how it interacts with the environment including other living things.
Summary of the original kinds detailed in the creation account found within Genesis 1 .
How so? Why do you say that?
It’s a good marker for non sequitur when you say “thus” or “therefore”. Of course it doesn’t follow. Conservation is a valid marker of function even if it doesn’t always work. Conserved sequences are functional, but some (a few) non-conserved sequences are too.
That doesn’t work. There are many spurious transcription factor binding sites, and if the transcription factor in question is expressed in a certain pattern, whatever is affected by the spurious sites will be too, even if it’s junk. The part about a regulatory role is just assumed.
Now that’s a real definition. But it’s not operational unless you can present valid criteria for regognizing common ancestry and its absence, which you can’t do. How do you know humans are a basic type? How do you know canids are a basic type?
Which is to say a clade. Why do you need to invent new terms, especially one that has a quite different meaning to creationists?
I haven’t forced you to do anything. This is beyond your competence, so you resort to parroting someone else. Unfortunately, that someone else is also incompetent.
If that’s the best you can do, better just to say you have nothing. Are you willing to stand behind and argue for any of the seven criteria you quote here? I don’t think a one of them can be justified as a criterion for a “basic type”.
As I pointed out, this contradicts your previous list of basic types, assuming that a biblical kind is equivalent to a basic type, as you had previously claimed that birds are a single basic type. Further, it says some things that are not basic types, but it doesn’t say anything about what things are basic types. You have to stop argument by cut-and-paste of irrelevant crap.
Because it’s true. Previously the question was about how you recognize a basic type, using the example of a whale and a hippo, assumed by you to be the same basic type. You were unable to respond, so you launched into an unrelated spiel about claimed sub-optimal organs in different sorts of pandas. Nothing to do with recognizing basic types.
Still, we can salvage the example. How do you know giant pandas and red pandas belong to the same basic type?
The “method” seems to consist solely of you making false assertions. Needless to say I do not f8 d that convincing,
No,you didn’t.
No. I am using a standard of proof other than “some nutter says so”. Because that is the only standard you’ve met.
And since I see no purpose in going over already covered ground - and since you are obviously not going to present any decent argument for your case we can leave it there. Your so-called theory can’t be taught in science classes because it is nutty religious apologetics, lacking any serious evidential support.
Excellent observation, and grounds for a hypothesis.
Yes, let me clarify what I said before because I made a mistake in describing the nature of what I am arguing. When I suggested that the observer effect, origin of life experiments, the alleged design flaws shown to be optimal and quantum-mind theory were methods to confirm consciousness is the collaspe of the wave-function that created human consciousness"., I did not mean to say these are methods to confirm a universal coconsciousness.
What I actually meant to say is that I am using these empirical evidences to infer a universal consciousness in order to refute the objection that I am making an assumption based on the bible. In other words, I was saying it was proof in a philosophical sense via retrofitting existing data.
The actual scientific evidence that is supposed to support or confirm the predictions of this common designer theory is the junk DNA that was found to be functional in the genome and continues to reveal function.
Again, sorry for the confusion. I got disorganized over the course of our discussion.
Yes, but for whose theory: Darwin’s or Owen’s. As I told the others, your objections are arguing in light of Darwinian evolution rather than Owen’s Theory of evolution. You simply reject the causal definition in favor of yours for no other reason than that a causal definition falls short in the Darwinian evolutionary framework when determining function.
However, the same applies to the selection effect definition in light of Owen’s evolutionary framework when determining function. For example, awhile back, @Andrew_Christianson said that " Not all unutilized traits affect fitness. Non-coding regions of genomes are a good example of that, and [knockout tests] on mice show that large portions of non-coding regions can be completely deleted with no adverse affects."
My response was…The argument for function within non-coding DNA does not depend only on whether the organism would survive or not survive without this functional activity but can still be useful regardless. For instance, I can eat a bowl of cereal without a spoon but with a spoon I can eat my food more efficiently.
In the case of animals, they can potentially still fit different assorted niches better regardless of whether they survive or reproduce better because one of the designer’s motive is to fill the earth with life. We have evidence suggesting that this is most likely the case from the alleged design flaws that have been found to be optimal.
I feel like this ignores two important points that were raised by them and others: (1) biochemical noise costs energy; and (2) random interactions among genome components would be highly deleterious to the organism.
What is your response?
Hybridization is the best way to determine common ancestry. This is largely based on the observations that compatibility diminishes over time in related species due to [genetic drift]. The Bible states that God created organisms with seed in it, according to their various kinds . Therefore, the ability of genetically dissimilar species to mate successfully would seem to indicate that they are related.
Examining the structure, function, and ecology of both organisms is the best way to determine the absence of relatedness (i.e. common design).
We know from the bible that humans are basic types and I think that Canids would be considered basic types based on what is suggested in the fossil record.
Sure, I guess I could have just stuck with the term monobaramin used by creationist to describe a kind that evolved from a basic type. But, these are the only terms from the creationists literature I feel are relevant and parsimonious.
Look who’s talking… The morality of God’s genocides - Peaceful Science
Yes, I am willing to stand behind most of them being a valid criterion for deciphering monobaramins or clades. However, the fossil record is probably the only real way ,aside from some instances in the Bible, that can truly determine basic types.
As I told Andrew, the extinction of Dinosaurs would potentially be conflicting evidence because they would be considered a basic type that no longer exists. But, if birds evolved from them, then this would not be an issue for the theory. Contrary to popular belief, the Genesis account leaves out dinosaurs in describing the history of life.
That is not true. Humans are explicitly mentioned to be basic types. Herbivores and carnivores as well as flying creatures, etc. Anything outside of this is pretty vague I have to admit.
You misunderstood what I was trying to convey with the Panda example. It was to show how to recognize unrelated monobaramin or clades. The sudden appearances and stasis within the fossil record that show discontinuities between major species is the best way to recognize basic types. Common design would be the second best way to decipher basic types since we don’t have a complete list of established basic types. They may be more.
Deflection at its best. The causal role definition has orders of magnitude more problems than the selected effect definition. The causal role definition is stupid because “does something” is not the same as “functional”. The trash in your kitchen trash can releases odor molecules into the kitchen. It does something. That doesn’t make the trash functional. The causal definition is stupid.
I think we all agree that we are missing a few percentage of functional DNA because selection can be difficult to detect. However, that is no reason to conclude that 90% of the genome that shows no evidence of sequence conservation will be functional. It’s ridiculous.
That’s stupid, too. We would expect non-functional DNA to be transcribed at different times during development and to be differentially transcribed in different tissues.
That’s like saying we don’t like Flat Earth theory because it ignores gravity.
Of course we don’t like conclusions that ignore one of the most well evidenced and well supported theories in science. That should go without saying. What they need to explain is the difference in genetic change between areas of the genome. Why do we see that?
What are “these noncoding RNA’s”? What percentage of the genome do the proven functional noncoding RNA’s cover? A handful of percent? Less?
Again, you are conflating “noncoding RNA’s” with junk DNA. Those are not necessarily the same thing. There are noncoding RNA’s with known function, but they comprise a tiny percentage of the genome.
We would expect non-functional DNA to be modified like that seen in the ENCODE project.
Where is the evidence that the fitness cost of junk DNA outweighs the selective costs needed to remove junk DNA. superfluous transcription, superfluous transcription factor binding, and superfluous epigenetic modification? Just as one example, you would need a whole host of proteins that would scour the genome for sequences that would bind transcription factors in non-functional sections of the genome without modifying those same sequences in functional DNA. How would such a system evolve, and where is the strong selective pressure to evolve them?
No, I reject a causal definition because it’s useless. If random sequences are functional, there’s no point in distinguishing between functional and non-functional. If being occasionally transcribed is function, why isn’t being replicated also function?
You undermine your own claim. Greater efficiency is subject to selection. Selection is more than just survival. Everything you say about selection is gibberish.
But does it cost significant energy, such that the variation in genome size within a population is subject to selection, or is it effectively neutral given most population sizes? Is the assertion regarding random interactions actually true or is it purely speculation?
Why?
You have just destroyed your argument. If compatibility diminishes over time, species with common ancestry will lose the ability to hybridize. And you can’t use the bible as support for a claim; it’s not science.
That’s a vacuous claim. What is it about the structure, function, and ecology of cats and dogs that tells you they aren’t related? What is it about the structure, function, and ecology of, say, a raccoon dog that tells you it’s related to a dingo?
The bible isn’t a source for science. And of course the bible says that plants were created before the sun was. Do you accept that claim too? As for canids, what exactly is suggested in the fossil record?
Not understanding your point here.
So you both are and are not willing to stand behind the criteria, and the fossil record is really the only one, except that the bible is too. Can you see how incoherent that was. Let’s talk about the fossil record, then. How do you recognize a basic type using the fossil record?
Humans are pretty much it. None of the others are credibly considered to be claimed by Genesis as basic types, and in fact you yourself contradict that claim when you say that canids are a basic type. Further, why should the bible be considered a credible source for any of this, even when it’s explicit?
And yet you said nothing about that.
You need to show some real examples of the use of these criteria. That would however require you to have at least some familiarity with the data and to make your criteria specific enough to be operational. And it’s clear you will never do any of those things. It’s not within your ability.
Except that they are not valid grounds for that inference. We have no evidence that conscious choice is any different from a “choice” made randomly. If quantum mechanics produces consciousness then quantum mechanics must be more basic than mind.
This is not the first time I’ve made these points.
I don’t remember you making these points. Nevertheless, this is not what present observations and experiments suggest. For instance, the acceleration of the expansion rate from inflation is supposed to be produced from an explosion or collision of quantum fluctuations of particles called the “cosmological constant” that permeates the entire multi-verse where a billion (plus one) of positive particles and a billion of negative particles come into existence at once.
The cosmological constant is placed at a precise measurement of 10 to the 120th power, and when scientists trace the expansion back one second after the Planck scale of our universe, the degree of precision becomes an astounding value of 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power.
Hypothetically, this means that if our universe’s expansion rate had different values with larger amounts of dark energy, the sample size of those universes created in the expansion that try to clump together to form planets and stars, where life of any kind might evolve on (or evolve at all), would have most likely blown the cosmic material apart instead. If our universe’s expansion rate had different values with smaller amounts of dark energy, the sample size of those universes created in the expansion would have most likely collapse back into a singularity before it ever reached its present size.
Apparently, this is why no physicist believes this was an accident and thus justifies the inference of a universal consciousness:
The Cosmological Constant - absolute proof that God created the universe for a purpose - YouTube
Again, Owen’s common archetype theory has preceded Darwin’s universal common descent and was modified by Darwin himself to craft his theory of evolution.
All you and secular scientists are doing is refusing to give credit to Owen theory based on metaphysical bias.
Again, the ENCODE Project did more than just assign function to sequences based on its mere existence in the human genome. 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.
The only response I got from you guys on this point was that it " is not enough to infer function exactly because biochemical activity is a result expected from nonfunctional junk DNA". But again, this is merely relying on a theory-laden definition of function that fits Darwin’s theory NOT Owen’s theory. Do you have a better response that is more in line with Owen’s theory of evolution and its implications?
According to studies, it does appear to be true. Scientists from Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology determined that protein structure is carefully optimized to suppress promiscuous interactions, allowing them to readily find their biochemical companions.
Robust protein–protein interactions in crowded cellular environments | PNAS
Without minimizing these disruptive interactions, biochemical processes in the cell would most likely grind to a halt. It is reasonable to think that the same considerations would apply to transcription factor binding with DNA.
No, it just means that there are limitations with this method, and we would need to develop or use different methods to find those hidden relations.
My point was that we don’t need to be experts in a field to be able to discuss these topics in a productive and meaningful manner.
Ideal Archetype Exemplar
This version of Archetypical forms is a variation of the Adam Test and the creation events described in the Genesis account where simple visual recognition of differences between plants and animals are used as a basis for categorizing them. Common Archetype concept shows that the individuals within the group have a common or shared characteristic such as bilateral symmetry, red feathers, or being (i.e., common blueprint)
For the purpose our discussion, I am using the archetype in place of higher level Taxa (primarily Class and Order) because they are terms people are familiar with. For example, the Class Reptilia are animals grouped together because of the common features of scales and lungs for breathing air. After that, the similarities between different reptiles start disappearing quickly.
However, the Archetype concept I am using will NOT be a classification unit. Instead, it is a grouping of animals, plants, fungus, etc. by a common feature or design and the million-year gaps or major discontinuities revealed in the fossil record (with some exceptions, such as dinosaurs and marine mammals that don’t have a separate archetype despite being created at a different time and place):
Other Taxa
Prokaryote Archetype
Fungus Archetype
Plant Taxa
Flowering Plant Archetype
Fern Archetype
Animal Taxa
Aquatic Invertebrate Archetype
Fish Archetype
Amphibian Archetype
Insect Archetype
Bird Archetype
Carnivore Mammal Archetype
Herbivore Mammal Archetype
Reptile Archetype
Elder’s Model of Created Kinds (modified version)
A testable hypothesis regarding the
taxonomic relationships of plants and
animals based on the core concept of limited
ancestry
Morphology
a recognizable base form and structure that
does not change over time
Original Appearance:
Phenotype
limited variation in surface features over
time
Speciation:
Environmental Acclimation:
Genotype
Reproductive discontinuity between kinds;
Reproductive continuity within a kind.
Variation:
Mating:
Extinction:
Taxonomy
taxonomic comparison averages near the
Family level
Natanzera Classification System:
Methods of Determining Baramin from Cladistics
The field of Baraminology is working to determine what the original created kinds were as well as connect different species within a kind today. The strongest method of study in this work deals with reproduction and hybridization, which are very strong indications that two plants or animals are related.
For example, in the case of turtle kinds, current evolutionary taxonomy places turtles and tortoises in the Order of Testudines which contains 14 families and 328 species. These are quickly reduced to 11 kinds due to known hybridization. There is no easy way to get turtles re-classified this way in the current classification system and definitions. Therefore, I am going to list these kinds individually and use currently existing taxonomic roots where only the ending has been changed to clearly designate this grouping as a kind. Following the 11 kinds shown by known hybridization (including number of genera/species) we get:
Carettochelyniabar - Softshelled Turtle Kind 11/30
Chelibar - Australo-American Side-Neck Turtle Kind 13/52
Chelydribar - Snapping Turtle Kind 2/2
Dermatemyidibar - River Turtle Kind 1/1
Emydibar - Pond Turtle Kind 9/50
Geomydibar - Asian River and Box Turtle Kind 9/70
Kinosternibar - Musk and Mud Turtle Kind 4/25
Pelomedusibar - Afro-American Side-Neck Turtle Kind 2/19
Platysternibar - Big-Headed Turtle Kind 1/1
Podocnemibar - Madagascar Big-Headed Turtle Kind 3/8
Testudinibar - Tortoise Kind 15/60
emock int 05 arc (wordpress.com)
Discontinuity Systematics
Discontinuity Systematics is one of the more useful methods of distinguishing Baramin where discontinuities are described as large scale morphological gaps where there are big differences in appearance. In addition, there is no distinct ancestral line from which it came to connect it with from either or both fossil and living forms. This method of checking for discontinuity opens up many questions about possible outcomes and predictions. One of the larger questions it raises is where to draw the line between having a large kind with much variation and where to find multiple kinds with a common design element.
Why? Isn’t existence a function? All the things you mention can happen in random sequences, and in fact are expected to happen in random sequences. That’s why none of them are enough to determine function. All those things are sometimes important but are also sometimes just noise.
No, but neither do I have a response that’s more in llne with the phlogiston theory.
You understand that this is a simulation, right?
Sorry, but it’s not reasonable, and based on the data it doesn’t appear to be true.
Depends on the field and on the abilities of the person discussing it. In the current case, it’s clear that you know nothing about it and are incapable of discussing it meaningfully. That’s why you come up with all these non sequiturs and word salad.
There is no “Adam Test” described in Genesis. And this is kindergarten-quality systematics: “ducky”, “froggy”, “doggy”. You can’t expect anyone to take you seriously. “Bilateral symmetry” and “Red feathers”? Seriously?
How do these archetypes compare to basic types? Are they the same thing? It just seems as if you have randomly come up with a list that gets divided more finely as it gets closer to you. A single archetype for all prokaryotes, but eukaryotes get divvied up. One for all fungi, one for all plants, but many for animals. One for insects, but many for vertebrates. One for fish, but many for tetrapods. This is why nobody can possibly take you seriously.
Wait, aren’t turtles members of the Reptile kind above? You have to stop the random and mutually contradictory quotes. And you have already agreed that lack of hybridization doesn’t tell us that two species do not belong to the same basic type.
It seems obvious that you are unable to come up with a coherent defense or even a coherent expression of your ideas on biology. You have no idea how to recognize a basic type and can’t even consistently name any of them except for “humans”, and even there you probably can’t consistently say where in the fossil record humans end and apes begin. Pathetic.
Darwin was the person who discovered the mechanisms which produced the hierarchy of features. That’s the whole point.