Design and Nested Hierarchies

Design proposes mind as the mechanism behind complex adaptions. We already know a mind can create complex sequences. Simply asserting that it is not an explanation is not an argument.

Let me repeat. We have a mind behind the origin of new complex reproductive cellular structure and common descent behind extending some of the diversity we are observing.

Bill if you want to believe MAGIC! did it that’s your right. Just don’t be surprised your science-free blithering hasn’t swayed a single scientifically literate person.

Pity you have not one tiny shred of evidence for the “design” part.

But to humor you, tell us which parts of the phylogenetic tree of life you think are common descent and which parts are “design”, and why.

Psst…hey Bill…“mind” by itself is still not a mechanism no matter how many times you repeat the falsehood.

This is you continuing to misunderstand everything. I’m not going to explain again; if you must, just reread the previous post. Try one word at a time, then try to fit those words into a structure of meaning.

Still not coherent. I think you’re denying that common descent happens beyond some undefined but fairly shallow taxonomic level. But the vague term “design” communicates nothing about what you actually mean.

It does no good to repeat incoherent statements. How far down does common descent go? What explains nested hierarchy beyond that level?

Bill made this cryptic claim on another thread:

He’s been asked multiple times to explain but seems to have lost his voice. I strongly suspect like most Creationists he just makes it up as he goes. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

I simply exposing the weakness in your explanation. Common descent does not do what you are claiming it does.

Design means a mind is ultimately a direct mechanism behind what we are observing.

Design or mind as a mechanism explains the complex adaptions we observe in the hierarchal structure.

Since you seem not to be aware of what I’m claiming it does, there seems no way to address your claim here.

You don’t see how vague and meaningless that claim is?

And back to word salad.

Fixed it for you Bill. :slightly_smiling_face:

This is what we are down to. I see it is a important claim for science to acknowledge. I see physics may hit this same wall soon as they are now modeling atoms with computational capability. The empirical evidence eventually leading to mind as a mechanistic explanation for the universe is fascinating.

It is really no more vague than claiming matter curves space time.

Oh dear. Bill Cole says scientists have been doing science wrong for 200 years.

Whatever will science do now? :wink:

1 Like

Data can’t mutate. DNA does.

However, yes, there is functional constraint, but there is no correlation between that and functional information. I’m glad we seem to agree that @gpuccio’s assumption is objectively false.

There is correlation by definition. If less than 100% of the possible sequences are functioning in their specific function than there is functional information. This is what functional constraint is telling us.

All this being said I think your suggestion for more refined correlation work is a good one.

Hi Bill,

So what you have described and what everyone else, including me, has described are completely different things. Rather than get upset, I’d like to provide a detailed enough explanation that you will be able to understand why they are completely different.

Before I spend time on it, though, I just want to make sure you feel like you’re in the right mindset. Sometimes when I get into a “robust” discussion, I get stubborn and stop listening to what others are saying. I’m not asserting that you’re in that mindset right now. If you feel like you need 24 hours to cool down, just say the word and I will wait.


1 Like

I am interested in your ideas here. I just cannot guarantee I will agree but good discussion enhances understanding and so far our brief exchange has been useful to me.

1 Like

No, there is no correlation between functional constraint and functional information. Muscle proteins illustrate that beautifully. Again, I note your total lack of interest in the relevant evidence.

There is no correlation in the amount. @gpuccio’s assumption is simply objectively, wrong.

My suggestion is not for “more refined correlation work.” My point is that the assumption is simply false, therefore the entire house of cards collapses.

Usually, careful people try to test their assumptions before claiming to have made some great discovery. This assumption is trivially easy to test. Why do neither of you have any interest in testing it?


I have seen your assertions and you have provided no support that I can see. I think you are dead wrong here as if there was no correlation the mutation rate of proteins would be equal to neutral mutations and it is not.

I have made this point and you have not addressed it. If you just keep repeating assertions where are you going with this?

Your accusation that I have provided no support is patently false.

As I mentioned multiple times, the support is in the sequence conservation vs. functional information of muscle proteins. There is no correlation.

You’re afraid to look, I think.

Not at all. What is your specific claim?

That there is no correlation between sequence conservation and functional information for muscle proteins (and other proteins), for the umpteenth time.

You’re clearly afraid to look. You showed that you could do an alignment for one of them (actin). What is preventing you from doing the others?