I am rather afraid that your memory is your problem.
I would say that the first claim is an exaggeration and plenty of physicists would disagree with the second.
And I really don’t think that apologetics videos with clickbait titles are an appropriate source when developing a school curriculum. That’s worse than Wikipedia.
Too shay 
Keep in mind guys that I am not arguing for one defintion of function over another. I am saying all are important in understanding why the ENCODE project results support Owen’s Theory… This is because his theory involves both top-down and bottom-up processes, which would include mechanisms like natural selection. My point is that there is no basis to exclude any of these definitions of function when it comes to evulateing whether Owen’s theory is validated or not. I think this article on the definition of function really illustrates my point quite nicely:
"…there is no universal definition of what constitutes function, nor is there agreement on what sets the boundaries of an element. Both scientists and nonscientists have an intuitive definition of function, but each scientific discipline relies primarily on different lines of evidence indicative of function. Geneticists, evolutionary biologists, and molecular biologists apply distinct approaches, evaluating different and complementary lines of evidence.
The genetic approach evaluates the phenotypic consequences of perturbations, the evolutionary approach quantifies selective constraint, and the biochemical approach measures evidence of molecular activity. All three approaches can be highly informative of the biological relevance of a genomic segment and groups of elements identified by each approach are often quantitatively enriched for each other. However, the methods vary considerably with respect to the specific elements they predict, and the extent of the human genome annotated by each" [Emphasis added]
Defining functional DNA elements in the human genome | PNAS
I fail to see how this is a valid analogy.
Yes, let me elaborate on what I said before. Again, protein surfaces are carefully structured to allow strong interactions between protein pairs while minimizing the strength of the unwanted interactions between protein “strangers.” However, a following study by Harvard scientists indicates that the concentration of PPI-participating proteins in the cell is also carefully designed. Protein structure and concentrations have to be precisely regulated to promote the PPIs critical for life…
As Fuz Rana suggested, “high-precision structures and interactions, exemplified by PPIs, are hallmark features of biochemical systems and, by analogy to fine-tuned human designs, point to the work of a Creator.”
Well, of course I did not make this up as I went. This is what Richard Owen’s archetype theory entails. He gave us many of the terms still used today in anatomy and evolutionary biology, including “homology”. In fact, Owen famously defined homology in 1843 as “the same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function.”
To take one example of homology: Structures as different as a bat’s wing, a seal flipper, a cat’s paw and a human hand nonetheless display a common plan of structure, with identical or very similar arrangements of bones and muscles.
Taking homology to its conclusion, Owen reasoned that there must exist a common structural plan for all vertebrates, as well as for each class of vertebrates that linked organisms together until they pinnacled in the creation of Mankind. He called this plan the archetype, which is an abstract idea inside the Divine mind from where God built all vertebrates in a progressive sequence that ended with Man. In other words, homological structures pointed back to a single conceptional design in the mind of God rather than a single ancestor.
Since the Genesis account inspired his work, the ideas laid out in the Genesis account represent the archetypes that God had in mind before the creation of Man. This leads me to answer your questions: How do these archetypes compare to basic types? Are they the same thing?
Basic types and Archetypes are NOT the same thing. Instead, Archetypes are the conceptional framework described in the bible from which basic types were constructed from. For example, in Genesis 1:20, the first creation was small marine life. In Hebrew, this is called:
Mayim Sherets (“Marine Creeping Things”) - The Hebrew word Sherets is often translated creeping thing, and is used with another Hebrew word Mayim meaning waters, thus effectively referring to small marine life. In Leviticus 11:10 the marine creeping things were specifically said to be everything without fins and scales in the seas and rivers. On the other hand…
Mayim Chay (“Marine Life”) - Chay is often translated “life”, whereas Mayim refers to waters, thus Marine Life. It appears a major category for fish and larger marine life. It is the 4th creation mentioned in Genesis 1 and was created the 5th day. (Genesis 1:21-22 ) It appears grouped together with 3 of the 4 previously mentioned categories (minus 'Owph) as Dagah Yam (KJV fish of the sea) later in the chapter. (Genesis 1:26-28 ) They appear to be defined as having fins and scales in Leviticus 11:9 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10 .
Mayim Chay and Sherets would be the conceptional archetypes… On the other hand, the sudden appearances of major species followed by a million-year gap of stasis revealed in the fossil record would be the materialized form of these archetypes called basic types.
This is where the common conceptional features that are mentioned in Genesis, AND the visual recognition of differences between plants and animals of living and extinct groups would be used as a basis for categorizing them.
So I did not randomly come up with the list I provided but gave you an educated informed list from trusted sources, such as Owen’s theory and the fossil record.
Relax, I was just providing an example of how the Hybridization method works in showing how multiple kinds from the same basic type are related. Now, it is true that an unsuccessful hybridization event would not by itself mean the two kinds are unrelated, but I fail to see why this undermines the method altogether.
Yes, you certainly do.
Couldn’t natural selection produce the same sort of thing?
No it isn’t. The archetype theory isn’t an explanation, just an observation of similarity. Yet it doesn’t predict nested hierarchy, just general similarity. Common descent, on the other hand, explains the data.
No you didn’t. You have given me several mutually contradictory lists, none of them supported by anything, and you still can’t identify any basic types other than humans. Owen’s theory appears not to cover basic types at all, just archetypes, and there seem to be archetypes within archetypes. You donj’t seem to have any coherent notion of what you’re saying. Please identify some basic types and tell me how you know.
You fail to see a lot. And you don’t seem to have any idea what’s a kind, what’s a basic type, and what’s an archetype. How many basic types are turtles? What are the basic types of turtles? How do you know?
Your point is wrong. There is every reason to exclude the causal definition of function because it is meaningless. Doing something is not the same as function.
Again, doing something is not the same as function. The biochemical approach outputs meaningless data with respect to function.
Assertion without evidence.
What Owen can’t explain is why these plans fall into a nested hierarchy.
Well, apparently, no if only 5-10% of the non-coding regions is considered functional or under selection
This is not true. As Fuz Rana suggested, The great debate among biologists back then related to whether “function” or “form” provided the theoretical framework to understand biological structures. At that time, while many scientists in Britain favored a teleological view (function), Owen preferred the transcendental view popular on the European continent. Owen’s goal was to come up with a theoretical framework that united both approaches, but he preferred “form” over “function.”
In Owen’s mind, the archetype represented teleology of a higher order. In his presentation to Royal Institution of Great Britain Owen stated, “The satisfaction felt by the rightly constituted mind must ever be great in recognizing the fitness of parts for their appropriate function; but when this fitness is gained as in the great-toe of the foot of man and the ostrich, by a structure which at the same time betokens harmonious concord with a common type, the prescient operations of the One Cause of all organization becomes strikingly manifested to our limited intelligence.”
Owen’s (and others’) conception of function and form were strongly theistic in orientation. According to Owen the archetype points to a “deep and pregnant principle…some archetypal exemplar on which it has pleased the Creator to frame certain of his living creatures.”
Again,The Katagenos Species Concept treats species like breeds. It defines a species as a breed within a kind with a specific set of reproductively connected characteristics that produce a recognizable pattern. It is able to reproduce with others of the same species and potentially able to hybridize with other breeds/species within a Kind. It focuses on the ability to breed, gives strong attention to form and morphology, and uses habitats and geography only as indicators of where species boundaries may occur. The Katagenos Species Concept generally assumes that current taxonomy is correct from the Family level down and ignores the Order levels and up. However, the exact boundaries do vary for each kind .
Now that you know how I am defining a species within a kind, here is the list of what and how many basic types of turtles there are:
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. 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
I beg to differ. We know that HGT from Viruses played a fundamental role in manipulating the life histories and evolution of their hosts in remarkable ways. We also know that they can mimic and destroy phylogenetic signals that would suggests. Yet, despite these compelling reasons to classify them as living organisms, Viruses are not considered a part of the universal tree of life.
On the other hand, Gene delivery can be seen as an artificial horizontal gene transfer, and is a form of genetic engineering. This means that the common archetype theory requires that viruses be considered as living organisms and the first life forms or else it would not be able to explain much of anything on a biochemical level in comparison to unguided common descent.
So hands down the common design theory not only predicts those patterns but explain them better than common descent precisely because common descent does not include virsuses include in the tree of life.
Again, I have already mentioned that “high-precision structures and interactions, exemplified by PPIs, are hallmark features of biochemical systems and, by analogy to fine-tuned human designs, point to the work of a Creator.” Then, I provided evidence here…
So, they do a lot more than something.
What high-precision structures are found in the regions that aren’t considered functional or under selection?
Are you quoting without proper attribution here? I have my doubts that you know enough to write all that yourself. Sorry, but Owen was wrong. “One cause” would be expected to link function and structure. That we see the same structure performing different functions is only explained by common descent. And notice that there’s no actual explanation for why things are the way they are, merely “it has pleased the Creator”, but what pleases the Creator is apparently whatever we see. No prediction, no expectation of any particular pattern. We should also expect mixing and matching of parts, as we see in human productions.
Don’t care. I wasn’t asking about species. I wasn’t asking what you call (confusingly) “kinds”. I was asking about basic types, none of which you have yet described.
…which you follow by a list of kinds, not basic types. To you, those are quite different things. Were you quoting without attribution again? Are they kinds or basic types? And the only criterion your apparently quoted source mentions is hybridization, which you have agreed doesn’t diagnose basic types. See why I keep accusing you of incoherence?
We know no such thing.
That was extreme gibberish. I will not ask you to explain it.
Another non sequitur. I despair that you will ever directly address anything I say.
On the other hand, if he ever DOES directly address anything you say, I predict that it will merely change the despair’s style and texture.
In the study, they specifically said " Protein complexes are functional only in a specific docked configuration. For each pair of proteins, which form a functional complex, we designate one of their docked configurations (of a total of 144 possible docked configurations of our model proteins, as explained in ref. 4 and Methods) as functional. Stable pair proteins (proteins 2 and 3, k = 1) have one functional surface each and participants in date triangles (proteins 4, 5, and 6, k = 2) have two distinct functional surfaces each (7)."
Let’s also not forget that natural selection merely influences the mutation rate not whether mutations are producing neutral, bad or good effects.
Well, I referenced Fuz Rana to indicate that some of this came from him. Anyhow, Owen did actually suggest “Why”… According to him, all vertebrates were derived from a common archetype from which each species would be ideologically modified in order to survive in its environment:
“The One in the Manifold,’ expressive of the unity of plan which may be traced through all the modifications of the pattern, by which it is adapted to the various habits and modes of life.”.
In fact, he even provided a natural mechanism to explain “how” it could account for such unity among the diverse vertebrates. First, vertebrae were homotypic by virtue of some “vegetative repetition of a single vertebral element” [3, p. 87]. Each of these serially repetitive vertebral elements could then be teleologically modified independently of each other until it became evident only to the most trained observer that certain of the parts are homologous.
Owen’s Vertebral Archetype And Evolutionary Genetics: A Platonic Appreciation (swarthmore.edu)
Not true, Owen demonstrated fossil evidence of an evolutionary sequence of horses, as supporting his idea of development from archetypes in “ordained continuous becoming” Richard Owen | Fossil Wiki | Fandom
No, the list I provided you were created kinds, which is the definition of basic types. According to this model, Species is the variation of that created kind or basic type. Sorry for the confusion but I wanted to use some of Linnaus classification to make it more familiar. So for instance,
The Carettochelyniabar is considered a created Turtle Kind but there are also 11 genera and 30 species of this kind according to traditional classification taxomony. Here are different examples.
The snake cognitum is recognized as a group of reptiles which are long, limbless,
without eyelids, a short tail, and an ear without an eardrum. Evolutionary taxonomy has
about 3,450 species in 24 families.
Don’t forget!!! 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 created kind (including the number of genera/species):
Acrochordibar - File Snake Kind 1/3
Anilinibar - False Coral Snake Kind 1/1
Anomalepidibar - Dawn Blind Snake Kind 4/18
Aparallactiobar - African Rear-Fanged Snake Kind 10/50
Atractaspidiobar - Mole Viper Kind 2/22
Azemiopiobar - Fea Viper Kind 1/2
Bolyeribar - Split-Jaw Boa Kind 2/2
Boniobar - True Boa Kind 7/31
Calamariniobar - Dwarf Burrowing Snake Kind 6/87
Colubriobar - King Snake Kind 97/711
Crotaliobar - Moccasin Kind 18/188
Crotalubar - Rattlesnake Kind 2/38
Cylindrophinibar - Pipe Snake Kind 2/13
Dipsadiobar - Hognose Snake Kind 89/742
Elapiobar - Cobra Kind 46/285
Epictiobar - Slender Blind Snake Kind 6/50
Erpetonubar - Tentacle Snake Kind 1/1
Eryciobar - Sand / Rubber Boa Kind 4/16
Gerrhopilibar - Worm Snake Kind 1/15
Grayiniobar - African Water Snake Kind 1/4
Homalopsibar - Australo-Asian Water Snake Kind 12/52
Lamprophiniobar - African House Snake Kind 12/68
Laticaudubar - Sea Krait Kind 1/7
Leptotyphlopiobar - Thread Snake Kind 4/52
Loxocemibar - Mesoamerican Python Kind 1/1
Natriciobar - Garter Snake Kind 31/220
Pareatibar - Slug Snake Kind 3/18
Prosymniobar - African Shovelsnout Snake Kind 1/16
Psammophiniobar - African Sand Snake Kind 7/49
Pseudaspidiobar - African Keeled Snake Kind 2/2
Pseudoxenodontiobar - Mountain Snake Kind 2/11
Pseudoxyrhophiniobar - Malagasy Leaf Snake Kind 22/88
Pythonibar - Python Kind 9/40
Scaphiodontophiniobar - Neck-Band Snake Kind 1/2
Tropidophinibar - Dwarf Boa Kind 2/25
Typhlopibar - Blind Snake Kind 8/254
Ungaliophiniobar - Exiliboa Kind 2/3
Uropeltibar - Shield-Tail Snake Kind 8/51
Viperiobar - Adder Kind 13/91
Xenodermatibar - Odd-Scaled Snake Kind 5/17
Xenopeltibar - Sunbeam Snake Kind 1/2
Viruses manipulate the marine environment | Nature
I will put it in more concise terms then. Owen’s theory does predict those patterns as well because the parts used to construct animals, such as viruses, can mimic and destroy phylogenetic patterns .
It wouldn’t surprise me.
He’s definitely quoting without proper attribution here:
This is copied directly from here, without acknowledgement and, given the amount copied, probably in breach of copyright too.
Protein-coding regions are not junk DNA, and they certainly aren’t non-coding. How is it possible for you to be confused about this?
This is nonsense. Natural selection does apparently influence the mutation rate, but it mainly influences other sorts of characteristics.
When you are directly quoting, you have to indicate what’s a direct quote and what isn’t. Otherwise it’s plagiarism.
That explains nothing about why there are archetypes and it explains nothiung about why there’s a nested hierarchy.
What does that even mean? As far as I can see it means that whatever you see is meant to be that way. But how can you know that?
That’s a problem with unattributed quotes: sometimes they use terms in a different way than you use them, and that causes confusion. Please try to be clear, and please stop using unattributed quotes. And you still aren’t dealing with the important questions. How do you know there are 11 turtle basic types?
Another new term. How does a “cognitum” map to basic types? How can you tell? It seems to me that turtles would be a single cognitum, and yet you say they comprise 11 basic types. None of this is a real response. You’re just pulling out crap you read somewhere without regard to relevance.
What do you, right there, mean by “kind”? Is it too much trouble for you to be consistent in your terminlogy? And it seems to be yet another unattributed quote. Even if these are supposed to be basic types, a list is useless. It tells me nothing about how these kinds, or basic types, or whatever they’re supposed to be, are recognized.
Ah, so that was another unattributed quote. But what does it mean? The abstract tells me nothing.
Even if that’s true, which I doubt, the paper you dubiously cited in support of this talks about HGT between closely related species, not different basic types. It explains nothing relevant. You remain incoherent.
Let’s try this again shall we. According to this study, it seems to be the Intron regions:
“To correlate binding measurements with the genomic motif composition, we analyze the intron regions of the mouse genome, which constitute ∼750 Mb or nearly 30% of the total genomic DNA. Introns are ideal for detecting binding-related evolutionary constraints because (i) they are largely devoid of local selective pressures that would complicate the analysis (e.g., protein coding-related selection in exons) and (ii) they reside in genic regions and are thus generally accessible to binding factors.” [Emphasis added]
Yes, when I did this, one of you guys accused me of not properly quoteing Fuz by using single quotations instead double quotations
This is why I left the single quotations out whenever I was dealing with primary sources within secondary sources. I will just go back to it again. But, it is not my fault everyone’s has certain
preferences or demand while I am engaging in discourse with them.
Well obviously back then this might have been the case for Owen’s theory. But, creationists over the course of history have expounded on Owen’s work that explains why we have archetypes and nested hierarchy (just like Darwin’s theory of evolution)
Again, as I mentioned before, “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”
Since DNA harbors the central blueprint of all life and Viruses posses the abiity to mimic AND destroy phylogentic signals, animals exihibit those similar patterns because there exists some functional requirement that the pattern satisfies. Here is an article that seems to support my point:
“Because tree analysis tools are used so widely, they tend to introduce a bias into the interpretation of results. Hence, one needs to be continually reminded that submitting multiple sequences (DNA, protein, or other character states) to phylogenetic analysis produces trees because that is the nature of the algorithms used.” [Emphasis added]
(Michael Syvanen, “Evolutionary Implications of Horizontal Gene Transfer,” Annual Review of Genetics, 46:339-356 (2012) (emphases added).)
This is why we apparently have archetypes and nested patterns.
Yes, but I provided other studies that do suggests it happens with different basic types as well:
“In higher organisms such as vertebrates, it is generally believed that lateral transfer of genetic information does not readily occur, with the exception of retroviral infection. However, horizontal transfer (HT) of protein coding repetitive elements is the simplest way to explain the patchy distribution of BovB, a long interspersed element (LINE) about 3.2 kb long, that has been found in ruminants, marsupials, squamates, monotremes, and African mammals. BovB sequences are a major component of some of these genomes. Here we show that HT of BovB is significantly more widespread than believed, and we demonstrate the existence of two plausible arthropod vectors, specifically reptile ticks.” [Emphasis added]
Widespread horizontal transfer of retrotransposons | PNAS
It means you were wrong when you said, “We know no such thing”. Here is another article that supports my point that HGT from Viruses played a fundamental role in manipulating the life histories and evolution of their hosts in remarkable ways:
Major viral impact on the functioning of benthic deep-sea ecosystems | Nature
What is an archetype ( or common blueprint or design)?
An abstract conceptional framework described in the bible from which basic types were linked together and constructed from in a progressive sequence that ended with man. In other words, homological structures pointed back to a single conceptional design in the mind of God rather than a single ancestor.
What is a basic type (or holobaramin)?
a created kind is the materialized form of archetypes that has similarity in form/ design due to similarity in function and common designer but no common or primitive ancestors
What is a species (or monobaramin)?
a breed within a kind with a specific set of reproductively connected characteristics that produce a recognizable pattern. It is able to reproduce with others of the same species and potentially able to hybridize with other breeds/species within a Kind. It focuses on the ability to breed, gives strong attention to form and morphology, and uses habitats and geography only as indicators of where species boundaries may occur.
How are archetypes recognized?
This is where the common conceptional features that are mentioned in Genesis, AND the sudden appearances of major species followed by a million-year gap of stasis revealed in the fossil record would be the materialized form of these archetypes.
How are basic types recognized?
The visual recognition of differences between plants and animals of living and extinct groups would be used as a basis for categorizing them.
How are species recognized?
The hybridization method would be used as a basis for categorizing them within a kind.
Try to be coherent. What’s happening in introns that supports something you claim? That introns aren’t junk? But in that study, introns were chosen precisely because they’re junk.
That’s no excuse for not marking quotes at all. Might I suggest you use the quote markup, especially for long quotes? That makes it quite clear. And of course you have to say what the source is too. Still, that isn’t your biggest problem, which is your incoherence.
Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Your premise isn’t true, and your conclusion wouldn’t follow from it even if it were true.
Emphasis on “seems”. You have no idea what Syvanen actually meant. I also doubt you read more than that quote, which I suspect you found in some other source that only included that quote. Am I wrong?
You have explained neither.
You will note that it doesn’t confound phylogeny. Also, you can’t say this is transfer between basic types until you identify the basic types, which you have yet to do.
You know no such thing, since you have only the abstract to show.
Are you sure? That article seems to say that viruses cause disease and death in benthic ecosystems. How is that relevant?
I smell another unattributed quote. And mostly irrelevant to my question too. We know you can cut and paste, but that’s the lowest form of discourse. Try responding directly to questions, in your own words. That would work better, if you are indeed capable of it.
Here is the only relevant bit:
But that’s incoherent. You can recognize basic types because they look different? Even you must realize that this is useless as a criterion.
You still haven’t managed to explain nested hierarchy among basic types and among archetypes. You still haven’t managed to identify even one basic type or even one archetype. Stop with the quotes, especially the unattributed ones.
I think you’re right.
@Meerkat_SK5’s cited source gives the page numbers as “Vol. 46:341-358 (Volume publication date December 2012)”.
@Meerkat_SK5 gives the page numbers as “46:339-356 (2012) (emphases added)”
Note the difference.
Evolution news cites it as “46:339-356 (2012) (emphases added)”, which is the same page numbers, format and comment as given by @Meerkat_SK5. They also give exactly the same extract and emphasise exactly the same words as @Meerkat_SK5.
Coincidence?
That article is not about HGT. It’s about carbon recycling.
No, indeed. And that’s a phylogenetic signal, there! I am reminded of the marvelous Nick Matzke paper which traces the phylogeny of crackpot legislation.
No, no, no, the actual point I have been trying to make here is that biochemical activity is not just noise or doing something trivial. But, it plays an important role on a molecular level despite not being under selection:
"We identify two major consequences of nonfunctional protein-DNA binding. First, there are interference effects , where such binding can disrupt various molecular processes [10], including transcription [11], gene regulation [12], replication [13,[14]](Phys. Rev. X 6, 041009 (2016) - Genome-Wide Motif Statistics are Shaped by DNA Binding Proteins over Evolutionary Time Scales), and mutational repair [15,[16]](Phys. Rev. X 6, 041009 (2016) - Genome-Wide Motif Statistics are Shaped by DNA Binding Proteins over Evolutionary Time Scales)…
…Second, there is a titration effect , where nonfunctional binding of a regulatory protein titrates copies of the protein away from its functional sites, thereby reducing the efficiency of gene regulation [17]…
…By correlating in vitro measurements of DNA binding with genome-wide word statistics, we show that genomes have evolved to reduce the occurrence of weak binding motifs. We demonstrate that the distinct set of DNA binding proteins coded in each species’ genome imposes a large set of global, evolutionary constraints that have ubiquitously shaped genome-wide motif statistics. We show that a hallmark signal of this process can be detected in all available genomes. We introduce a mathematical model of this process and use it to infer the time scales over which evolution under DNA binding constraints has shaped genomic motif composition across all domains of life."
Thus, it may be considered junk or non-functional because you are presupposing the selection-effect definition and completely disregarding the causal definition. But, this study shows that the biochemical activity that you consider to be noise or trivial is actually playing a crucial role in the so-called non-functioning regions.
Can you give me an example of what you mean by “quote markup” and how you do it? Tim told me I should do this as well but I was not sure what he meant at the time.
HGT does not need to also mimic phylogenetic patterns among distant relatives in order for it to have explanatory power because those studies also show that it destroys phylogenetic patterns that are assumed to reflect common descent.
What is not true about the premise? DNA possesses the Digital information or instructions to build organisms. Does it not?
Let me restructure what I said then. The digital information in DNA used to construct organisms and Viruses ability to mimic AND destroy phylogenetic patterns explain why we have archetypes. More importantly, it explains nested patterns as well because it suggests that those patterns of relatedness are merely an illusion from the practical consequences of using mechanisms and having motives that happen to satisfy that pattern.
For example, Design advocates have suggested that: "The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are specified design processes.
The US Army is structured as a nested hierarchy- by design.
Transportation can be structured as a nested hierarchy- land, air or sea- with the different types specified under each. Each set having specifically defined characteristics which also include the definitions of all the levels above it. 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."
No but what’s wrong with relying on secondary sources to interpret primary sources?
It certainly does not sound like it was referring to something harmful from the abstract: “Our results indicate that viruses have an important role in global biogeochemical cycles, in deep-sea metabolism and the overall functioning of the largest ecosystem of our biosphere.” [Emphasis added]
No, it is my words and I was just trying to make sure I was being clear as much as I can so we can continue to make progress in our discourse
Then, here is a more detailed description of this method called BDIST from Matthew and Joel on it:
“BDIST is a quantitative method of comparing both living and fossil specimens based on phenetics (i.e. observable traits). The software calculates the pairwise correlation and baraminic distance of the species under examination based on the character data set used as input and outputs these values into a matrix. It then maps out a statistical graph of how these creatures relate to one another on a baraminic distance correlation matrix. Optimally, species within a given baramin are highly similar (higher correlation, lower distance) to one another and dissimilar to species from another baramin (lower correlation, higher distance). Three-dimensional coordinates can also help depict species relationships in three dimensions.”
Baraminology methods - creation.com
Lobbed-finned fishes from the Silurian era would be an example of an archetype because of the million-year gaps between these fishes and Jawed fishes and Amphibians.
A basic type from a bird archetype would be Aegithal
How would each of those NOT be under selection? In your own words, please.
Pretty much everything, as it’s a hallmark of shallow pseudoscience and sloppy thinking.
Real scientists use the secondary literature (reviews) as an introduction to the primary literature, not a substitute for it, not a conclusion.
That makes no sense. How can a role be important unless the sequence is under selection? What do you mean by “important”?
It shows no such thing. It shows that there can be deleterious mutations in junk DNA, and that these deleterious mutations can be selected against. That has nothing to do with function.
You use the string [quote] before the quote and [/quote] after it. They both have to have their own lines. It shows up like this:
How is that relevant? And you exaggerate any effect, which is local to particular bits of DNA out of the whole genome.
Viruses do not mimic or destroy phylogenetic signals to a degree sufficient to prevent phylogenetics from working. Nor, if it happened, would it explain archetypes. Nor would it explain nested hierarchy.
But that’s wrong. Common descent is a known process that generates nested hierarchies. If you’re going to quote, you need to identify the speaker better than just “design advocates”. Whoever said that is being nonsensical.
Sorry, not comparable. That’s an arbitrary nested hierarchy, not one driven by features of its elements. You can force anything into a nested hierarchy, but that’s not what we’re talking about in biology. The fact that you bring up such things demonstrates that you have no understanding of the subject.
It’s quote-mining. And it’s dishonest when you don’t cite the secondary source instead of the primary one. Finally, how do you know the secondary source’s interpretation is correct?
Maybe you should have read more.
See how your use of unattributed and unmarked quotes poisons all your attempts at communication? There’s no way to know who’s talking at any particular spot. Anyway, it’s still all irrelevant to the matter under discussion.
That’s a fine example of cargo cult science, imitating surface features without any real justification. I defy anyone to use it to delimit basic types or show that it does so accurately.
More gibberish, I’m afraid. You disagree here with Owen, who saw a vertebrate archetype, not a “Silurian lobe-finned fish” archetype separate from “jawed fished and amphibians”. And of course, lobe-finned fish are jawed fish, so that’s even more gibberish. I’m also going to assume that your last sentence cut off in the middle, and you were going to call “Aegithalidae” a basic type. If so, why?
This is fundamental incompetence at many levels.
He doesn’t even know that the secondary source’s quotation is correct. At least four times it hasn’t been, and he’s ‘quoted’ text his ‘source’ doesn’t include.
Yeah but, I am not a real scientist, and this forum is not a professional journal or an academic institition or formal in anyway. It’s just an informal discussion forum. Nevertheless, even though I don’t see your point, I still try to comply with everyone’s subjective demands as much as possible because I want the feedback regardless of their expertise. I mean what I am trying to do here essentially reflects the whole point of why this forum even exists.
And again, this was not my fault in the first place. You guys have certain demands and preferences that have discouraged me from properly referencing those sources.
See this is what I was referring to early about you guys having different rules, prefernces, desires, etc. when it comes to how you want me to approach our discourse. Awhile back, when I gave you the secondary source, you ridiculed me for doing this and wanted the primary source instead even though it referenced the primary source. You guys are inconsistent with your demands.
According to your personally preferred definition of function, No it does not. But, it does when it comes to the causal definition of function, which seeks to establish cause-and-effect relationships experimentally and observationally independent of any particular theory .
You need to explain in your next response why these studies I provided don’t show enough to infer function from these observations and experiments even under the causal definition of function. Otherwise, I will just conclude that you don’t have the expertise to properly determine whether Owen’s theory is validated by these studies findings.
I never said it did prevent it from working.
Among distant relatives or independent phylogenies, this would be correct but only because Owen’s theory makes different predictions in regards to phylogenetics. For instance, we would expect family trees based on anatomical features will contradict family trees based on molecular similarities, which this study has revealed:
I agree. It is not the best example. Here is a better example coming from Johnathan Witt:
"A Tesla and a Cadillac share many features — four wheels, synthetic rubber tires, brakes, two axles, windshield wipers, headlights. But of course, none of that means that Teslas blindly evolved from Cadillacs, or vice versa. Designers re-use design features proven to work for specific engineering needs, even while they innovate in alternative directions, as Tesla CEO and engineer Elon Musk has with his electric cars.
We see this pattern even across disparate technology platforms. In one case, the wheel is used and adapted for a water mill. In another case, for a gear in a watch. In another case, for a bicycle. In still another case, for a pizza cutter. In yet another, for a truck. "
Common Descent or Common Design? | Evolution News
This is exactly what Owen’s theory entails, which means it does predict nested patterns just as much as Darwin’s theory of evolution. Except, as I said before, Owen’s theory also predicts phylogenetic conflicts as well.
Is that really going to be your respose? it sounds like nothing more than personal bias. Although the BDIST method has its strengths and weaknesses, its apparently been a useful tool that continues to be improved on every year. How is this any different than phylogenetics methods, which has been around for much longer and has many more scientists that are perfecting?
He is just using differnet terminology. That’s it. Also, I am not saying they are completely separate designs or blueprints but were created separately as revealed in the fossil record. There is a difference. Again, it is a nested pattern where there are groups within groups that point back to a universal common design plan.
I can’t believe you are calling Ernest Mayr fundamentally incompetent. 
FYI, I got these data points on the fishes in Mayr’s book called “What Evolution is” on page 95 Chapter 3.