Ok then, I will break it down to an elementary school level.
Does Owen’s common archetype theory predict nested patterns?
Yes, because the common archetypes in Owen’s theory are merely Platonic ancestors. Darwin merely modified the common archetype ancestor to be a common ancestor made up of matter and energy.
Now, if you are suggesting that an immaterial version of common ancestry means it does not predict nested patterns, then you are being arbitrary John and spouting nonsense.
Do humans make nested patterns?
Yes, but they can only be subjective like the classification of cars. However, this merely supports the predictions of Owen’s theory because humans are contingent beings that possess limitations.
God, on the other hand, would be a limitless non-contingent being, which is why we would expect to find objective nested hierarchical patterns.in nature.
This question is a bit of a misnomer. Archetypes are supposed to be abstract platonic objects or ideas in the mind of God that are objective in nature. If God created them, then they would be subjective or contingent upon the whims of God rather than exist eternally with God.
And are you saying that transcription binding is not necessary for gene regulation?
If not, are you just not convinced that transcription binding is an energy intensive process that requires high-precision binding sites or else the cell can’t function properly or at all?
To be clear, the lines of evidence that allow us to infer that the universal consciousness described by quantum mind theory is a human is:
The Genomes appearing to have “remarkable similarities to natural languages”. Moreover, this study was able to identify the cell as an embedded computing system and demonstrated that "systems biology shares many aspects in common with computer systems engineering”:
Both these observations of the cell give the appearance of common design.
Thus, we definitely can infer a human designer constructed the first cell.
No, I am not denying the data that supports it but the interpretation of it in the form of common descent. You are assuming that the common archetypes in which these groups within groups emerged from are actually common ancestors. There is no independent evidence for that assumption. It’s just in your imagination.
Many scientists apparently would beg to differ:
“Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth, and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation."
FYI, sudden appearances, stasis, and fully formed fossils are expected from creationists models. Plus, this issue existed before Darwin’s time.
I was talking about the species within a created kinds. I am saying we only see created kinds evolve into different breeds of the same kind (i.e. dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats)
I actually reject global flood theology or geology because I am convinced that the bible is referring to a worldwide/local flood. So although I accept and use their methods, I don’t include the assumptions of a global flood or a 10,000 year old world . So can you please provide another example?
Does Owen say this at all? And more importantly, does it make sense? Why should there be a nested hierarchy of Platonic ancestors? Absent common descent, there’s no expectation of any link between forms.
I’m suggesting that “an immaterial version of common ancestry” makes no sense except as an attempt to simulate actual common ancestry. Nor do I think that Owen said any such thing.
That was more gibberish, I’m afraid. None of the premises above are true, and none of the conclusions follow from the premises.
Additional gibberish. Why would God’s ideas be arranged in a nested hierarchy?
No. I’m saying nothing remotely like that.
No, nothing like that either, and it was more gibberish.
Quantum mind theory doesn’t describe a universal consciousness in the sense you mean it. And none of that shows that any universal consciousness is human. As I said, your conclusions don’t follow from your premises.
Again, your use of the word “thus” signals an imminent non sequitur.
Did these common archetypes have DNA genomes? Is the close correspondence between phylogeny and the fossil record an illusion? I’m afraid you are reduced to the position that God has simulated common descent for ineffable reasons of his own. Omphalism, more or less.
“Apparently”. Perhaps you don’t understand what Pagel was saying.
You understand that sudden appearance and stasis apply to individual species, right? That would be evidence that each species is a separate basic type. As S.J. Gould has said, transitions between higher taxa are abundant. As for “fully formed”, what exactly do you mean by that?
But I’m glad you refer to “creationist models”. What is the creationist model of earth history, and what would we expect to see based on that model? Please try being specific. Are you perhaps a progressive creationist? But why should creation be progressive, such that new taxa appear to derive from previous ones?
You dodge the question. Why don’t we see acts of basic type creation in the present day?
“Worldwide/local flood” is especially egregious gibberish.
More gibberish. You accept and use their methods while rejecting their methods. You both accept and reject the bible as a source of scientific knowledge. It’s impossible to proceed when you contradict yourself within a sentence.
You know, I find the fact that @John_Harshman is not particularly condescending in his attitude toward you, after all that has been said and done, quite surprising. But it is nowhere near as surprising as the belief you apparently hold that you can credibly condescend to him.
I know a good deal more than you do, clearly, about phylogenetics and about general biology. But if @John_Harshman told me that something I’d said on one of those subjects was mind-roastingly awful, I would be taken aback very sharply and I would try very, very hard to understand what it was that I had wrong. It is always possible, in such a case, that I am right and he is wrong; but it does contravene probability.
Well, it is more like a platonic ancestor for specifically vertebrates. I just wanted to illustrate how there was not much of a difference between the two theories so you can finally accept that both make the predictions. Stephen Jay Gould even acknowledged that his theory does predict those patterns as well :
“Owen used the time-honored comparative method by attempting to trace back the complexity of vertebrate limbs in a structural series of simplification, leading to the lungfish Lepidosiren and its minimal pectoral ray. Lest this series be rejected as a concatenation of heterogeneous objects, Owen presented a tripartite argument: (1) the structural series denotes a descent by simplification; (2) simplification occurs by “arrest of development,” bringing the reduced form closer to an embryonic state; (3) the embryo, following von Baer’s principles, reveals the generating archetype in a way that the complexly modified adult cannot.”
However, Stephen Jay Gould has also suggested this in his book:
“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” page. 326
I don’t get why you consider it to be a simulation of common ancestry. Instead, it is a simulation of common design where the designer uses blueprints of a potential design that the designer is planning to construct for a purpose. Even Stephen Jay Gould has recognized this difference:
" the entire geological history of vertebrates may be interpreted as a movement towards humanity, guided by natural forces ordained by God as secondary causes. Owen’s oft-quoted last paragraph provides a genuine expression of evolutionary views in this limited sense (transformations within an archetypal framework under unknown, but natural, laws established by God to implement His plans of progress)…"
“…Owen regards an archetype as a blueprint of myriad possibilities (made all the more intelligible by limiting their range to products of common elements in unvarying topological order). All realized examples on earth therefore include only a small subset of possible forms. Owen even felt free to speculate about the anatomy of life on other worlds, provided that the vertebral archetype can lay claim to universal status”.
These unknown secondary causes or natural laws have been revealed by science to be proton tunneling, and quantum entanglement (i.e. quantum evolution). Moreover, the universal vertebral archetype is a virtually identical description of the Universal wave-function described in quantum physics, which is also experimentally confirmed:
"The universal wave function is the wavefunction or quantum state of the totality of existence, regarded as the “basic physical entity”[8] or “the fundamental entity, obeying at all times a deterministic wave equation.”
If you don’t know, wave-functions are possible configurations of matter or universes. Anyhow, it really is remarkable how much Owen’s theory resembles quantum physics or quantum mind theory. In fact, I see no contradiction between my theory and Owen’s but it is merely an expansion of it.
In that case, I will just refer you to this quote to better iillustrate why Humans do and can mimic nested patterns that nature produces but only in a subjective contingent manner:
"Although it is trivial to classify anything subjectively in a hierarchical manner, only certain things can be classified objectively in a consistent, unique nested hierarchy. The difference drawn here between “subjective” and “objective” is crucial and requires some elaboration, and it is best illustrated by example. Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically—perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc. The particular classification scheme chosen for the cars is subjective. In contrast, human languages, which have common ancestors and are derived by descent with modification, generally can be classified in objective nested hierarchies (Pei 1949; Ringe 1999).
“… In other words, certain types of characters must be weighted subjectively in order to classify cars in nested hierarchies; cars do not fall into natural, unique, objective nested hierarchies.”
My point is humans do produce nested patterns and it does not matter whether it is subjective or not.
Because God is by definition a perfect being with perfect knowledge of everything. As a result, we would expect his nature to reflect organized knowledge or digital information, consistentcy, and unity.
Then, I don’t know why you are arguing with me on this point. The ENCODE results do confirm the predictions of Owen’s theory according to the well-established causal role definition of function. Mattick and Dinger even recognized this in their article.
I never argued that quantum mind theory suggested it was human. Anyhow, I am just going to refer to a qoute from Fuz Rana to better convey this inference:
“The eerie similarity between logic gates and the structure and metabolism of DNA has profound implications that extend beyond possible technological applications. It can be taken as evidence that life stems from the work of an intelligent Agent. As I argue in The Cell’s Design, the hallmark characteristics of biochemical systems are identical to the features of systems and objects produced by human designers. And by use of analogy, this similarity logically compels the conclusion that life stems from the work of a Designer.”
Archetypes or wave-functions would indeed be or possess a possible respresentation of DNA genomes that God manifests within classic space-time.
Moreover, I reject your presumption of a close correspondence between phylogeny and the fossil record because it has been called into question by studies. Again, studies have shown that family trees based on anatomical features contradict family trees based on molecular similarities.
There are many more qoutes by experts in that field I can pull up from the link I attached with Pagel’s quote that corroborate what he said. So it does not matter whether I misunderstood his qoute or not. Just lel it go and accept the facts.
Yes, I am well aware of this and what I mean by “fullly formed” is just rapid bursts of change with no primitive or common ancestors beyond the family level (in most cases).
I have already gave you this model in post 76. You are going to have to tell me where you want me to be more specific on in that particular post.
Because it reflects God’s personal nature where he would be intimately involved in every part of the creation process. We would not expect this from an impersonal deistic God.
Then, I don’t understand the question or where you are going with it.
We went through this already in a different topic. If you read the bible correctly and use sound hermeneutics, it does not advocate for a global flood. Do you need me to copy and paste our previous conversation where I straightened you out on your flawed interpretation of the text?
One platonic ancestor doesn’t make a nested hierarchy, so you destroy your own point. And you misuse and misunderstand what Gould was saying. You will note that he says absolutely nothing about nested hierarchy there. He notes two themes: a progression toward humanity, the scala naturae I’ve been mentioning and you’ve been ignoring, and myriad variations. Not in any way the same thing as nested hierarchy.
Your attempt to equate Owen’s archetype theory with quantum theory is more gibberish.
Your quote contradicts your point, and I’m shocked, though not amazed, that you can’t see that.
None of that implies a nested hierarchy. Try again.
What is the causal role definition of function? You have never been able to provide it. What prediction of Owen’s theory are you talking about?
That’s exactly what you argued, so your point now is unclear. And Rana is also spouting nonsense.
Ah, because studies. There’s a powerful argument.
This sometimes happens, just as sometimes one gene contradicts another. But the contradictions are rare enough not to destroy the general pattern. Often, the contradictions are due to missing data on the morphological side. A fine example would be the discover of whale fossils with artiodactyl astragali, previously unknown.
That isn’t what “fully formed” means. And of course what you say just isn’t true.
That wasn’t a model, just a list of apparently random families and other taxa. It included a claim that all birds were a single basic type, which you have elsewhere rejected. It was incoherent and unsupported by any actual model.
Why would we expect a personal god to create by tinkering with previous designs in a hierarchical fashion? Other people think that a personal god just poofed everything into existence in a single week. Why are their expectations wrong?
It’s a simple enough question. If progressive creation calls for tinkering by creation of new basic types and new species throughout earth history, why can’t we see new species poofing into existence, even once in all history?
Why is a global flood necessary in order to interpret the story as involving “kinds” (=basic types)? It clearly says that Noah put one or seven pairs of every kind on the ark. Is that a misinterpretation? If so, why are you disagreeing with the baraminologists? You reject their method.
No, you just destroyed your point because Darwin’s original theory involved one last common ancestor that sprouted into many. Now, you are saying it never actually predicted a nested pattern. How classic this is…
What are you talking about. He specifically said:
“Owen used the time-honored comparative method by attempting to trace back the complexity of vertebrate limbs in a structural series of simplification, leading to the lungfish Lepidosiren and its minimal pectoral ray." [emphasis added]
"Comparative methods seek evidence for adaptive evolution by investigating how the characteristics of organisms, such as their size, shape, life histories, and behaviors, evolve together across species. They are one of evolutionary biology’s most enduring approaches for testing hypotheses of adaptation. Combined with information on the phylogenetic relationships among a group of organisms, comparative methods can infer ancestral states, timings of events of evolution, the tempo and mode of evolutionary change, and correlations between traits, and traits and environments. " Comparative Method, in Evolutionary Studies - ScienceDirect
Well, he never used the term “scala naturae” nor "nested hierarchy’ in that quote, but yet you are telling me he was describing the latter somehow. I think you are blowing smoke on me now.
Thats not what I did. I was just acknowledging how eerily similar his theory was compared to quantum physics today.
The quote specifically said:
“Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically—perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc.”
The highlighted part proves my overall point so what are you talking about again.
Why not? What are you getting at?
No, I specifically said at the start of this topic that…
The only real difference between the two theories is that the Common Design theory suggests that the Universal consciousness described in Orch-OR theory is a perfect human being.
Also, Rana demonstrated why we can infer it was a human and you did not offer any counter argument. As he suggested here:
"Researchers recognize that the beginning steps of DNA replication also operate as a logic gate—at the molecular level. They were able to modify the biochemical systems involved in DNA replication to engineer AND, OR, and YES logic gates that could respond to chemical inputs provided by scientists in a laboratory setting.
As a biochemist, it’s mind-boggling to me that the routine biochemical processes taking place in the cell can be used to construct computers in a laboratory setting. The direct correspondence between the structure and operation of these cellular systems and those of computers makes these applications possible." [emphasis added]
Here is a more detailed description of it offered by Manolis Kellis and his partners:
"The biochemical approach for identifying candidate functional genomic elements complements the other approaches, as it is specific for cell type, condition, and molecular process. Decades of detailed studies of gene regulation and RNA metabolism have defined major classes of functional noncoding elements, including promoters, enhancers, silencers, insulators, and noncoding RNA genes such as microRNAs, piRNAs, structural RNAs, and regulatory RNAs (50–53). These noncoding functional elements are associated with distinctive chromatin structures that display signature patterns of histone modifications, DNA methylation, DNase accessibility, and transcription factor occupancy (37, 54–66). For example, active enhancers are marked by specific histone modifications and DNase-accessible chromatin and are occupied by sequence-specific transcription factors, coactivators such as EP300, and, often, RNA polymerase II. Although the extent to which individual features contribute to function remains to be determined, they provide a useful surrogate for annotating candidate enhancers and other types of functional elements.
The ENCODE Project was established with the goal of systematically mapping functional elements in the human genome at high resolution and providing this information as an open resource for the research community (67, 68). Most data acquisition in the project thus far has taken the biochemical approach, using evidence of cellular or enzymatic processes acting on a DNA segment to help predict different classes of functional elements. The recently completed phase of ENCODE applied a wide range of biochemical assays at a genome-wide scale to study multiple human cell types (69). These assays identified genomic sequences (i) from which short and long RNAs, both nuclear and cytoplasmic, are transcribed; (ii) occupied by sequence-specific transcription factors, cofactors, or chromatin regulatory proteins; (iii) organized in accessible chromatin; (iv) marked by DNA methylation or specific histone modifications; and (v) physically brought together by long-range chromosomal interactions."
The prediction that majority of the junk in DNA is functional, as Mattick and Dinger have acknowledged themselves:
"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".
FYI, another paper on the subject, published the following year in the journal Nature , highlighted the extent of the problem that goes well beyond sometimes. The authors compared 1,070 genes in twenty different yeasts and got 1,070 different trees:
Are you kidding me? Even more studies support the frequent findings of discrepancies between molecular and morphological tree conflicts including the evidence of rapid burst of change:
The model was above the list I mentioned, but no problem. I will just copy and paste it here:
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 or blueprint, and chemical constituents to separately construct groups of basic types from different oceanic and terrestrial 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 species over long epochs of time.
We would expect this because we know based on observations that God’s intentions are to make sure groups of basic types survive, reproduce, and fill the biosphere.
Because, according to the laws of logic, the attributes of God have to work in accordance with each other in a logically consistent manner because he is who he is (i.e. the law of identity) and cannot not be who he is at the same time (i.e. law of non-contradiction). This means that God cannot make himself cease to exist because this would conflict with him being a necessary being. God cannot make a square circle because this would conflict with his omniscience. God cannot lie because it would conflict with his omnibenevolence. God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift because it would conflict with his omni-potency.
Most importantly, God cannot create and develop a world that does not have God intimately involved in the process every step of the way because it would conflict with his “Personal’ nature. Thus, God must be true to “all” his attributes, because to do otherwise would be to deny his own self.
Again, I reject some of their assumptions NOT the methods themselves.
Genesis was referring to Nephesh animals only. As mentioned by RTB, “All birds and mammals are part of the nephesh . A very few reptilian species—for example, crocodiles and alligators—are part of the nephesh . All other animals are not. As both Genesis and Job state, some nephesh creatures (for example, goats and sheep) are easy tame where other nephesh creatures (for example, hippopotami and crocodiles) are difficult to tame.”
Yes, I have already acknowledged this difference to John but you are missing the rest of the quote. The highlighted parts are the rest of it:
Although it is trivial to classify anything subjectively in a hierarchical manner, only certain things can be classified objectively in a consistent, unique nested hierarchy. The difference drawn here between “subjective” and “objective” is crucial and requires some elaboration, and it is best illustrated by example. Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically—perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc. The particular classification scheme chosen for the cars is subjective. In contrast, human languages, which have common ancestors and are derived by descent with modification, generally can be classified in objective nested hierarchies"
As suggested by the source in the quote, humans do in fact produce nested patterns even though they are only subjective. But, whether it is subjective, or objective is irrelevant to my overall point.
Please stop thinking you understand anything that anyone says. Darwin’s original theory did not in fact involve one last common ancestor; he was agnostic, at least in the Origin about whether there was “one or a few” original forms. But that’s not relevant to nested hierarchy, which involves what happens after that single ancestor. Do you know what a star tree is? There’s a single ancestor but no nested hierarchy.
What that describes is a linear series, not a nested hierarchy.
Note that it’s the phylogenetic relationships, which are not described as resulting from the comparative method, that create the nested hierarchy. You just don’t seem to know what your quotes are saying.
I think you are unable to read. The linear series, or scala naturae, is from the primitive vertebrate to humans, as Gould says. This is of course an illusion. One could as easily construct a linear series leading to trout or a toad.
It’s not eerily similar at all. This is your imagination.
No, it shows your point to be vacuous. Now in fact nobody actually does classify cars hierarchically. What the quote means is that anything could, if you liked, be classified hierarchically, and so the ability to be so classified is meaningless and has nothing to do with the true nested hierarchies found in life (and in languages too, for similar reasons).
I am getting at the fact that there is no connection between your premises and your conclusions. Perfect knowledge does not produce an expectation of digital information or consistency or unity. Perfect knowledge could as easily be of chaos.
Yes, and that’s a ridiculous claim.
No he didn’t, not in the slightest. You can tell that because he never draws any such conclusion. His conclusion is that DNA and other cellular systems are like a computer, which has nothing to do with God being a perfect human.
I asked for a definition. I assume there must be a pony in there somewhere. But note that it begins with “candidate functional genomic elements”. That means that nothing that follows necessarily fits any definition of “functional” at all. Nor does it present any sort of definition of “functional”. Your pony is not there.
Owen’s theory predicts no such thing. Mattick and Dinger say nothing about Owen. Note that they confuse “non-coding” with “putative junk”; so much for their competence to speak on the matter.
You will note that the differences among trees were slight. Or did you read that part?
Yes, there are rapid bursts of change; evolution does not proceed at a constant rate. The big problem was your claim of “no primitive or common ancestors beyond the family level”. Just plain wrong. And let me suggest that what phylogenomic conflict really coincides with is lots of speciation in a short period.
That’s not a model, and it doesn’t seem at all connected to the taxa you listed. And what happened to the supposed vertebrate archetype in that “model”?
Ability to survive, reproduce, and fill the biosphere has nothing to do with nested hierarchy or with tinkering. The obvious way to make the animals he wanted would have been to make them as desired from the beginning rather than by successive approximation.
That was a self-contradictory sentence which, even if you fixed it, would have nothing to do with my question.
Ah, but why does how he’s involved require endless tinkering in order to get where he wants to go? In the bible stories, he’s clearly involved all the time, but he still does creation in a week and never changes the “kinds” again. He’s involved in other ways, like smiting; a lot of smiting.
You appear to reject biblical exegesis as a source of basic types, though only sometimes. How do you pick that?
How is that relevant? I note that there are only two types of nephesh animals according to that claim: crocodiles and artiodactyls. I would point out that according to the definition given, many fish and insects are nephesh animals. Nor does that article provide any basis for supposing that the definition is in any way intended by the bible. This is not science, though you may think so.
Before I address your objections, I seriously need to fix your metaphysical premise so I can make sure we are on the same page here.
What is Objective Reality?
Realism is the view point that external things are real and exist independently of mind in the form of either materialism or idealism. Materialism is the viewpoint that material things shape our ideas and ideologies. In contrast, idealism states that ideas come first and then changes in material things are pursued in accordance with those ideas.
Substance dualism is the view that material things and ideas are both fundamental substances of existence (I.e. supernatural vs natural). Furthermore, this viewpoint states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot. Where the immortal souls occupy an independent realm of existence distinct from that of the physical world.
However, Substance dualism is unparsimonious or untestable and materialism has been disconfirmed so many times by quantum physics experiments that a consensus on the matter has developed [just ask for it].
This leaves us with a form of idealism that places digital information and consciousness as representing objective reality where space-time is influenced and emerges from.
According to John chapter 1:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. “…The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
The Greek meaning for “the Word” mentioned in John 1:1-3 is “something said; by implication, a topic, also reasoning or motive; by extension, a COMPUTATION; specially, the Divine Expression.” [emphasis added]
In other words, God is Digital information in the form of logical absolutes and mathematical language. This is where the quantum aspect of the human mind is relevant here since it is also digital information in the form of computation according to the quantum-mind theory. So, if you guys try to suggest that digital information is supernatural or divine and quantum physics does not involve this, then you would be wrong.
The natural vs. supernatural dichotomy is a hallmark of substance dualism, but the bible adheres to a form of idealism. Instead of the mind/information existing as or in the brain/matter via materialism, it is the brain/matter that exists within the mind of God as an information construct. This means that space-time would still be real but not “Objectively” real where matter and its effects are only real because the mind/information makes it real.
These are the lines of evidence that I presented before in post 10 that allows us to infer this metaphysical premise:
The evidence supporting the Quantum Mind theory:
Quantum structure is in cognition
Orch-OR theory
The wave-function is ontologically real
The evidence supporting the necessity of this being:
The interaction-free experiments Lenski experiment Metabolism-first experiments Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice experiment Pre-biotic experiments
The evidence supporting the universality of this being:
Experimental proof of non-local wave-function collapse
Quantum Non-locality at all speeds
Now, you are conflating LUCA with the origin of life. I thought they were not the same thing based on your model.
Keep in mind, others have acknowledged that Owen’s theory does imply and predict nested hierarchies:
"Although the archetype is a forgotten concept, this abstract blueprint was central to Owen’s views on homology. During his lectures and in his publications, Owen distinguishes between three kinds of relations of homology: special homology, serial homology and general homology. Special homology refers to the correspondence of body parts between species. Serial homology identifies the repeated elements within the body of an organism. General homology represents the correspondence of an element between a species and the archetype.
Both special homology and serial homology are in common use today, the former is particularly applied in systematics where it is translated into characters for phylogenetic reconstruction and is understood as similarity due to common ancestry. General homology, in contrast, together with the archetype are seldom mentioned today, if only when discussing the ideas of nineteen-century naturalists mostly in an historical context.
A crucial event in the history of these concepts is Charles Darwin’s famous transformation of Owen’s archetype into an ancestor:
If we suppose that the ancient progenitor, the archetype as it may be called, of all mammals, had its limbs constructed on the existing general pattern, for whatever purpose they serve, we can at once perceive the plain signification of the homologous construction of the limbs throughout the whole class. (Darwin, 1859: 435)2
This move allowed Darwin to align the greatest achievement of morphology, the Unity of Type, under the umbrella of evolution as the most important evidence of species common decent: “On my theory, unity of type is explained by unity of decent.” 3The switch from abstract archetype to material ancestor effectively relegated the archetype and the associated concept of general homology to proto-evolutionary historical curiosities. [emphasis added]
Even Josh does not appear to agree with you on this point as well:
"If Archetypes are ideas in the mind of God, then God might make new Archetypes using others as patterns. One can imagine a way of thinking that would produce nested hierarchies. That is the whole point of why it is attractive to some.
This is false. Some versions of the Archetype model make these predictions just fine, and with no more error than does evolution."
“Any set of objects, whether or not they originated in an evolutionary process, can be classified hierarchically. Chairs, for instance, are independently created; they are not generated by an evolutionary process: but any given list of chairs could be classified hierarchically, perhaps by dividing them first according to whether or not they were made of wood, then according to their colour, by date of manufacture, and so on. The fact that life can be classified hierarchically is not, in itself, an argument for evolution. (Ridley 1985, 8.)”
Thank you for just reaffirming and acknowledging my point that humans can and do make nested hierarchies all the time. Again, it does not matter whether these patterns are subjective or objective.
This is not true John. Owen was known to promote an idealist biology based on German Naturphilosophie . It is a form of idealism called “transcendental idealism”, which happens to be what I went over at the start of this post.
Let me show you this quote from Theobald to bring context before I address this objection:
"The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of [Markov processes and Markov chains]. Using Markovian mathematics, it can be rigorously proven that branching Markovian replicating systems produce nested hierarchies. For these reasons, biologists routinely use branching Markov chains to effectively model evolutionary processes, including complex genetic processes, the temporal distributions of surnames in populations, and the behavior of pathogens in epidemics.
if common descent is true, then in some time frame we will always be able to observe a nested hierarchy for any given character. Furthermore, we know empirically that different characters evolve at different rates (e.g. some genes have higher background mutation rates than others). Thus, if common descent is true, we should observe nested hierarchies over a broad range of time at various biological levels.
Therefore, since common descent is a genealogical process, common descent should produce organisms that can be organized into objective nested hierarchies." [emphasis added]
Remember what I said at the start of this post. Digital information and consciousness are what represent objective reality where space-time is influenced and emerges from. Moreover, God is Digital information in the form of mathematical language (i.e. Universal wave-function).
Most importantly, Life itself is fundamentally algorithmic and hierarchical in nature:
“We note, however, that there may be several different mechanisms for top-down causation, which come into play at different hierarchical scales in nature [24]. As we have presented it here, the key distinction between the origin of life and other ‘emergent’ transitions is the onset of distributed information control, enabling context-dependent causation, where an abstract and non-physical systemic entity (algorithmic information) effectively becomes a causal agent capable of manipulating its material substrate”. [Emphasis added] The algorithmic origins of life | Journal of The Royal Society Interface (royalsocietypublishing.org)
Now, let me address your objection. Nested hierarchies in nature are discovered to be objective, consistent, etc. (versus subjective nested hierarchies made by humans) because it is what we would expect from a transcendent conscious agent. Also, your claim that perfect knowledge could easily be of chaos does not apply to living organisms ,as the article suggested, because they are inherently digital in nature.
Let me refresh your memory. He specificallly said:
"The direct correspondence between the structure and operation of these cellular systems and those of computers makes these applications possible.
The eerie similarity between logic gates and the structure and metabolism of DNA has profound implications that extend beyond possible technological applications. It can be taken as evidence that life stems from the work of an intelligent Agent. As I argued, the hallmark characteristics of biochemical systems are identical to the features of systems and objects produced by human designers. And by use of analogy, this similarity logically compels the conclusion that life stems from the work of a Designer."
From Dan and Fuz:
Causal definition: According to Graur’s team, “for a trait, Q, to have a ‘causal role’ function, G, it is necessary and sufficient that Q performs G.”5 In other words, the causal definition ascribes function to sequences that play some observationally or experimentally determined role in genome structure and/or function.
This is pure gibberish. I can’t make out what you are getting at here. It seems totally irrelevant to my point.
Again, they specifically said that:
“Most data acquisition in the project thus far has taken the biochemical approach, using evidence of cellular or enzymatic processes acting on a DNA segment to help predict different classes of functional elements. The recently completed phase of ENCODE applied a wide range of biochemical assays at a genome-wide scale to study multiple human cell types”
As suggested, they were able to find function based on that definition. Case closed!!!
Based on that reasoning, we can say the same thing about Darwin’s theory of evolution because it did not predict anything that happened on a biochemical level either.
What I meant was that Fuz Rana’s model of Owen’s original theory of common archetypes does predict it. But, we can’t say the theory came from Fuz though because he was not the first, which is why I mention Owen instead.
I think I see what you were getting at before:
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
formed וַיִּיצֶר֩ (way·yî·ṣer)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular Strong’s 3335: To mould into a, form, as a, potter, to determine
According to the definition of “formed” in Genesis, God constructed living things within the earth like a clay potter NOT by “poofing everything into existence” in a single creation week. However, this was not a tinkering design process either according to Genesis 1:11-30. Instead, as Randy from ICR has pointed out:
“…organisms were programmed to adapt to fill environmental niches. This information is previously encoded in the entire organism—not just the genes—to control embryonic development. Reproduction transmits the entire system to the next generation.”
In other words, "…the reproductive and adaptive capacity or ‘seed’ of an organism was always programmed ‘in itself’ to reproduce ‘after its kind’ so that the organism could be ‘fruitful [divide/branch into diverse progeny] and multiply’ to deliberately pioneer or “fill” environments of “the earth.”
This is supported by observations showing how life itself is inherently a Top-down process “where an abstract and non-physical systemic entity (algorithmic information) effectively becomes a causal agent capable of manipulating its material substrate”, as I referenced before.
More importantly, the stasis we find in the fossil record further supports this creation process because fossils and its living counterpart show remarkably little change. This means that the transitional forms between higher taxa that Gould mentioned represents common ancestors NOT primitive ancestors.
You are going to have to tell me exactly where you want me to be more specific.
Criterion for recognizing and grouping basic types
Hybridization and Ontogeny
Comparative ontogeny followed hybridization (where if two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind) is an important criterion for membership in a particular type. . For example…
According to Todd Elder, “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”.
However, “Unsuccessful hybrids are less conclusive as many barriers exist to inhibit reproduction or it could be a simple matter of an unsuccessful attempt at mating. One of the greatest barriers is a large geographical distance which would cause the animals to never, or seldom, meet. Similar to this is the distance of time as fossils cannot be used in hybridization studies.”
Cognitum and Genesis
According to Todd Elder, “the word ‘cognitum’ comes from the Latin word ‘cognosco’ which means ‘know’ or ‘recognize’. Within Baraminology, a Cognitum is a grouping of creatures that seem to naturally go together by use of the senses. However, this type of grouping can be both inside and outside of a kind. … 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. For instance, consider the differences between the appearance of turtles and snakes”.
Furthermore, “when comparing the three primary sources, the Genesis 1 account of Creation (a good framework), and the two Mosaic Law chapters about clean and unclean foods (which shows how distinctions are made within these categories and names specific families within) in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 . These references reveal two broad categories of plants, and eight categories of life.”
Both of these methods provide a basis for grouping organisms and testing hypothesis within baraminology.
Criterion for distinguishing basic types
Lineage discontinuities
Discontinuities are described as large scale morphological gaps. This means that there are big differences in appearance and there is no distinct ancestral line from which it came to connect it with something else among either or both fossil and living forms. For example, the sudden appearances of major species followed by a million-year gap of stasis revealed in the fossil record would be one example, according to the Vertebrate Class Period Time of Origin:
Jawed fishes Ordovician 450 million years ago
Lobe-finned fishes Silurian 410 million years ago
Amphibians Upper Devonian 370 million years ago
Reptiles Upper Pennsylvanian 310 million years ago
Birds Upper Triassic 225 million years ago
Mammals Upper Triassic 225 million years ago
Structure (morphology) and physiology (function) and Ecology
Similar basic types will have a common design and characteristics that can be seen on a Linnaean Classification chart. . However, the differences between them will be due to the different design requirements that each of them will need for their environment. For example, as mentioned before…
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. 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.
I’m sorry, but what follows is incoherent gibberish with no support from either empirical evidence or logical argument. Fortunately, it seems irrelevant to biology.
True, but separate first forms would give rise to separate LUCAs, so the difference is, for the current discussion, moot. More importantly, LUCA is not relevant to the current discussion either.
No, you are just misunderstanding the quote. It’s not good enough to find “homology” and “phylogenetic” in the same sentence. And wasn’t Owen’s archetype the vertebrate archetype, not the mammal archetype?
Again, the things you quote don’t say what you think.
He disagrees with me on a different though related point. Note that he offers no reasons why God might do the thing he says.
It may be, but who said it? You have stripped the reference. And the response is devoid of information.
Once again you misunderstand what your source says. In this case you mistake a claim of possibility (“can be”) for a claim that anyone actually does so. I’ll just bet that Ridley goes on to explain how the real nested hierarchy of life is quite different from the arbitrary nested hierarchy of cars in such a way that it is evidence for evolution. But I suspect you can’t tell me, since you have never seen Ridley, only that exact bit quote-mined by some creationist. True?
It matters a great deal, as I am certain Ridley explains right after the quote-mined bit.
You have not shown any reason for such an expectation. Nor are organisms digital. Seriously, you have no idea what you’re talking about, and this is your principle handicap in communicating your ideas.
…a quote in which Rana draws an analogy between DNA and a computer, thus between nature and human designs, and thus presumes that there is a “designer”. But he doesn’t say that the designer is human, much less a perfect human. Once again you misunderstand your sources. I have to ask at this point whether you are LDS.
As I pointed out, this definition of “function” uses the word “function”, and therefore is not useful.
Is it the pony that confuses you? It’s the old story: A giant pile of manure is delivered to a girl’s front yard, and she grabs a shovel and starts digging. Asked why, she answers “with all this horse-s***t, there must be a pony in here somewhere”. I keep looking for the pony in your words but fail to uncover it.
You still haven’t managed to state a definition. If it’s “ability to be acted on by cellular or enzymatic processes”, then the entire genome is funcitonal by definition, as it’s all replicated by cellular and enzymatic processes. A useless definition.
More irrelevant gibberish.
Not that you have shown so far. I’m just going to ignore the rest of that nonsense. Note that merely cutting and pasting stuff you have posted before, without regard to whether it actually responds to anything I say, is not helpful.
Notice that neither of the criteria mentioned actually diagnose basic types. Hybridization is not useful because species that don’t hybridize can still belong to the same basic type. Cognitum is not useful because things that look somewhat similar can belong to different basic types. If those are your criteria, you have nothing. And you will note that the question that spurred this regurgitation wasn’t even about basic types but about archetypes.
What does it even mean to group organisms within baraminology? You appear not to understand even your creationist sources.
Sorry, but you misunderstand that time-table also. There is no gap of time between jawed fishes and lobe-finned fishes. It’s just that the first jawed fish appear in the fossil record some time before the first lobe-finned fishes. But the intervening time is filled with various sorts of jawed fishes, some of which become increasingly similar to lobe-finned fish over time. The same is true of all your other supposedly isolated taxa.
What the heck is that? This is roughly the age of the oldest dinosaur fossils. The oldest bird fossil is 70 millions years later, and of course there are intermediates at all scales. Another pointless, misunderstood cut-and-paste from you. And none of this seems to be a method for discovering basic types.
This seems to be confusing basic types with archetypes and similarity with nested hierarchy, which you do a lot.
How is that in any way relevant to recognizing basic types, or archetypes, or nested hierarchy, or anything we’re talking about?
Alright, here is another source that I know will finally show you in a clear-cut manner that Owen’s theory does predict and entail nested hierarchy NOT the Great chain of being. Plus, it should provide even more evidence that Darwin merely copied and slightly modified Owen’s theory of evolution to make it seem like his theory had any merit. Please read this carefully:
"Owen’s Platonism, as we have seen, is fully compatible with Cuvier’s fragmentation of the Great Chain of Being into diverse “embranchments,” placing new emphasis on individual species. Upon this structure, Owen was able to superimpose his theory of archetypes and other modifications which had been formulated to explain the lacunae in the chain’s continuity [7].
Owen explained that each section of the chain had its own archetype and does not have to be temporally complete. Certain intermediate species may exist either in the past or the future: ‘The possible and conceivable modifications of the vertebrate Archetype are far from having been exhausted in the forms that have hitherto been recognized, from the primaeval fishes of the Paleozoic ocean of this planet up to the present time.’
…In his first major work, Memoir on the Pearly Nautilus, he defended Cuvier’s theory of embranchments against those notions of Geoffroy St. Hilaire, who envisioned a strictly linear chain [8, p. I]. Owen envisioned many chain segments, each having its own archetype, and he considered the pearly nautilus to be “the living, perhaps sole living, archetype of a vast tribe of organized beings, whose fossilized remains testify their existence at a remote period” [8, p. 2]. According to Owen, the straight chambered shells (such as Orthoceras) represented now only as fossils had been produced by a gradual uncoiling of the archetype nautilus [9, p. 806].
These derived species are higher on the scale of nature than the archetypal species, and this concept of descent from a primitive species and modification by environmental necessities sounds like an anticipation of Darwinism. But the similarity exists more in vocabulary than mechanism. Owen’s continuity was that of type, not descent. His species were degenerations of the ideal archetype, not the product of natural selection. In Owen’s plan, Platonism is a major element, and in the majestic conclusion to The Nature of the Limbs Owen’s Platonic system is seen in fully glory". [emphasis added]
It was Josh that said it. I gave you the link already regarding this.
Not to my point it does not. It is not relevant at all to what I was arguing.
Well, I have already explained why we would expect to see nested hierarchies between closely related species in regards to HGT. Moreover, I rejected your claim that these nested hierarchies extend pass the family level because of the numerous studies that show frequent gene conflicts between morphology and molecular similarities. These gene conflicts provide support for the hypothesis that independent hierarchies emerged from archetypical blueprints in the mind of God (even if containing nested hierarchies within them).
More importantly, I have made it very clear that God does not simulate universal common descent in the history of life. Instead, Owen’s theory is based on an inference from observing nature, such as the fossil record that shows progressive creationism or saltations and the common personal experience of seeing living things evolve after its kind. Lastly, we see a nested hierarchy of archetypical patterns because there exists some functional requirement commonly associated with algorithmic systems that the pattern satisfies.
What else is there to explain?
No, I don’t think this is the reason despite how you or @RonSewell@Rumraket@Mercer feel about the situation. We just have two different perspectives on the same data. I think @AJRoberts said it best when she came on this forum for the same reasons:
"As part of my work for RTB, I occasionally venture onto science-faith and apologetics online discussion sites. One site, called Peaceful Science, seeks to bring scientists from all faith persuasions into discussions about various origins models, including RTB’s progressive (old-earth) creationism model and evolutionary mainstream models. Needless to say, we don’t interpret some scientific data the same way, especially when it concerns origins. Discussions can be challenging!
One complicating factor is that it is often difficult to understand someone’s model from their vantage point when it seems incongruent with one’s own worldview model. Consider evolution, which says all life, extinct and extant, has developed through neutral and adaptive mutations and eons of common descent (with or without God’s preprogramming or tweaking the system along the way).
And then consider the progressive creation model, which says God created distinct “kinds”—introducing them, in due course, over long epochs of creation. Now, add 280 years of observations by scientists and naturalists who have classified organisms into various taxa according to the Linnaeus system of naming and classification (i.e., taxonomy). How does one begin to talk coherently across these two origin models? Where do we find grounds for clear communication?"
He specificaly said, “the hallmark characteristics of biochemical systems are identical to the features of systems and objects produced by human designers”
Just because he does not say specifically say “Human” Designer when he made his conclusion does not mean he was not still referring to a human designer.
Besides, you never explained why it was an unsound conclusion to infer that it was a human designer from that observation.
ENCODE (5) defines a functional element (FE) as “a discrete genome segment that encodes a defined product (for example, protein or non-coding RNA) or displays a reproducible biochemical signature (for example, protein binding, or a specific chromatin structure).”
Again, this approach is consistent with how scientists operate routinely where they perform experiments to determine cause-and-effect relationships. As Fuz Rana suggested:
“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?”
I have already explained how and why this is important when it comes to confirming Fuz’s model and Owen’s theory.
Remember what I said before. There is no one method for determining basic types but it is a holistic approach that uses a diverse range of methods to determine basic types. Moreover, some methods are better at determining species within a basic type but still can be used to possibly determine basic types, such as the Hybridization or Lineage methods.
So what. My point was mainly referring to the fossil discontinues between major species NOT the time differences.
I don’t know what to say about this actually. It is potentially conflicting evidence as I admitted before, but it is irrelevant to my overall point.
Not really because basic types are just the materialized form of archetypical blueprints.
I was just providing context for what I said afterwards.
You should read it carefully. It doesn’t mean what you think. I have to question your ability to read.
That’s silly. If they’re closely related species, we would expect to see a nested hierarchy with or without HGT. That’s irrelevant to the question of nested hierarchy between basic types (or what you might claim were basic types, if indeed you ever made any coherent claims).
I see you’re still confusing similarity with nested hierarchy. And your rejection is without merit. It’s also still incoherent. You seem to claim that Owen predicts nested hierarchies, and that Owen was right, and also that these hierarchies don’t exist. Self-contradiction is ubiquitous in your writings.
Everything, since you have never explained anything so far.
Well, she could start by presenting an actual model, which RTB has never managed. What are the “kinds”? How do you tell? They’ve never said, and their attempts have been as self-contradictory as you are. Clear communication begins with clarity, and that has not been forthcoming. And you continue that tradition.
True, but it doesn’t mean he was either. And it’s clear from other things RTB says that they don’t consider God to be human. Are you LDS?
That’s nice, but it begs the question, since it doesn’t define “functional”. They avoid any question of whether all sites that bind proteins are functional by declaring them functional. What’s the point of that?
You think you have, but I assure you that you have not.
Great, but if none of that range of methods actually works, you are left with a holistic method that is less than the sum of its parts. Useless.
What fossil discontinuities? You haven’t mentioned any so far, just treated differences between the first appearances of major taxa as if they were gaps between them. I would also note that you have introduced yet another term, “major species”, to add to your confusing array of archtypes, basic types, kinds, and species, none of which you are able to differentiate clearly or present consistent examples of.
Everything is irrelevant to your overall point. I just pointed out one feature of your supposed evidence that’s of particular interest to me as an ornithologist. The rest is just as absurd.
So now basic types and archetypes are congruent? Previously you had claimed that archetypes include multiple basic types. Does the vertebrate archetype now correspond to a basic type? You are incapable of coherent claims.
It’s not context. It’s irrelevant verbiage. That you can’t tell the difference is instructive.
How many sources do I have to bring out to make it very clear that Owen’s theory predicts nested patterns?
This will be the last one here. If you come back with the same response, I will just assume that you want to stay willfully ignorant of the topic based on personal pride:
"Like Owen’s postulated vertebral archetype, all the genes for hemoglo- bin and myoglobin throughout the vertebrate subphylum show serial, special, and general homology. They can be related to an archetypal structure from which they all descended. Similar conclusions have been reached with numerous other proteins such as immunoglobins and serine proteases [14, p. 70].
……Both Richard Owen and modern molecular biologists acknowledged a unity of form throughout the organisms they were investigating. It is therefore not too surprising that they would develop the same mode of explanation to account for the production of diversity out of unity. To be sure, the archetype of the modern biologist is far different from Owen’s notions. Whereas Owen’s vertebral archetype was a Platonic ideal organism whose modifications were preordained by the Creator for its survival, the archetype of the molecular biologist is a sequence of nucleic acid from which other sequences evolved in a trial-and-error encounter with the changing milieu of both organism and environment. " [Emphasis added]
Not necessarily, it all depends on what is considered a closely related species versus distant related ones. From researching online, I found that the Genus level and up is considered closely related, which is very close to what the creation model would expect.
I agree, I was just listing all the points I made before that provided a full explanation for Nested patterns from the progressive creation model.
No, I am not. Where did you get this idea? All I did was provided studies that showed gene conflicts between those similarities. I also fail to see why those studies do not suggest persistent gene conflicts.
The hypothesis states that independent phylogenies emerged from archetypical blueprints in the mind of God, which contain nested hierarchies within them).
This means that these nested patterns don’t exist below the level of Order from the supposed universal of tree life (or only exist by appearance). But, no one is saying they don’t exist at all. Here is an example of what I mean:
Forget about what they think for now. Just explain why it is an unsound conclusion to infer that it was a human designer from the observation they said, which is:
“the hallmark characteristics of biochemical systems are identical to the features of systems and objects produced by human designers ”
"Cummins defines the functional role of a component of a system to be the causal effect that the component has on the larger containing system. For example, the heart has the actual causal role of pumping blood in the circulatory system; therefore, the function of the heart is to pump blood. "
Now, what you need to do is explain why transciption binding is not responsible gene regulation. If you don’t object to this, then you are conceding my argument and we can move on from this point.
Well, I have already explained how those methods worked in the past and continue to work today. So I don’t know what you are getting at here.
Marine Plants
Land plants
Fish
Invertebrates
Amphibians
Insects
Dinosuars/birds
Small Reptiles
Mammals
Humans
Yes, my mistake. Groups of basic types are the degradation form of the ideal archetype for them not materilized from. When I said similar basic types will have a common design and characteristics, I was referring to the similar morphology and function between them.
No, it is relevant in explaining and showing exactly how that particular method for determining basic types work. First, it requires that we recognize the function between animals that look similar in morphology. Then we see how those functions are being used in their perspective environments.
Why would this produce a nested hierarchy? You can use the same gene in separately created kinds and without producing a nested hierarchy, so why do we see a nested hierarchy, the very pattern we would expect from shared ancestry? A designer could produce diversity in these sequences without producing a nested hierarchy.
Why would the introns in these genes differ more than the exons when we compare them across many vertebrates? Again, evolution can answer this question, but Owen’s theory can not.
Why would we see more transitions than transversions when we compare the SNP’s between these genes? Again, evolution can answer this question but Owen’s theory can not.
Why would we see a higher rate of synonymous mutations than non-synonymous mutations in exons when comparing exons to introns? Again, evolution can answer this question but Owen’s theory can not.
Only one, as long as it actually says that, which none have done so far.
You have to understand that “from which they all descended” doesn’t mean hierarchical structure. I ask again if you know what a star tree is.
Again, nothing about nested hierarchy. I also think the quote is silly.
I don’t know where you think you found this, but it’s nonsense. There is no technical meaning of “closely related”, and you will find the term used frequently about the level of genus. It’s really a relative term; two taxa are closely related relative to others under discussion. And of course that doesn’t addres the problem either.
So you agree that everything you’ve said is irrelevant to the matter under discussion. But it isn’t an explanation for nested patterns at all.
You confused it in that very paragraph. Of course conflicts between genes do exist. I’m not sure what you mean by “persistent”; once they arise, they certainly don’t do away, but you seem to mean something else. We do expect a certain amount of conflict, especially when branches are short. You are just exaggerating its extent.
What do you mean by “independent phylogenies”? Why should the mind of God contain nested hierarchies?
Why do you choose the level of Order? (By the way, by convention, “below” is in the other direction; families are below orders, classes are above.) How do you distinguish a real nested pattern from the appearance of a nested pattern?
If that’s an example of what you mean, what do you mean?
That’s what we call an analogy. IDers use similarities between life and human products to infer that they were both designed by some intelligence, not that they were both designed by humans. The people you are quoting don’t intend what you think.
That’s nice, but that doesn’t mean that every effect is a function, only that for those things with functions, the function is the effect. Of course the heart has other causal roles not mentioned here: it uses energy, for example. Is the heart’s function to use energy?
I think you left something out of that sentence. But of course transcription factor binding is one thing that’s responsible for gene regulation. But not every binding site regulates a gene. You don’t seem to understand the difference.
You have explained nothing.
That’s just a list of taxa. Some of them aren’t even taxa. That explains nothing whatsoever.
Is it too much to ask for you to give a coherent explanation of something, anything? Can you identify at least one archetype? Can you identify at least one basic type? Can you explain how you tell that they are archetypes or basic types?
What particular method? And what basic type are you talking about? Are pandas a basic type? Two basic types? Parts of two basic types?
If you want to convince anyone of anything, you will have to start making a coherent statement, and linking several coherent statements together into a coherent argument. So far you haven’t managed the first step, even once.
Most things in nature cannot be arranged into a nested hierarchy. Minerals can’t, as Linnaeus found out the hard way. Chemical elements can’t. Radiation can’t. Islands can’t.
Did god slip up with those?
(Astronomical bodies and rivers arguably can, but in such a very different way from living things that it doesn’t help).
