# The Argument Clinic

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Comments\
**Created:** [November 22, 2022, 2:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561 "2022-11-22T14:16:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 19

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BenKissling](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/benkissling/32/3891_2.png) [@BenKissling](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/BenKissling)\
**Post date:** [February 23, 2023, 7:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/367 "2023-02-23T19:58:54Z")

</div>

> [@CrisprCAS9](#):
>
> Since you admit to actually have no clue about the current state of the field.

Do you recognize the difference between having read a few papers and understanding the basic issues and "having read every single paper in the field? Have you read every paper in the field? In any field? I don’t even know why I’m still talking to you. If there’s a paper or three you’d like to discuss, I’m willing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\
**Post date:** [February 23, 2023, 8:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/368 "2023-02-23T20:04:21Z")

</div>

I see no evidence that you have read any papers, or understand any of the issues. Your original claim required you to have read all of the papers, no claim I’ve made requires the same.

I keep asking you to name **any** papers you have read on the subject, you keep refusing. I’ll assume you haven’t read any until you demonstrate otherwise.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BenKissling](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/benkissling/32/3891_2.png) [@BenKissling](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/BenKissling)\
**Post date:** [February 23, 2023, 8:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/369 "2023-02-23T20:19:59Z")

</div>

I really don’t care what you think, and I don’t feel the need to prove anything to someone who is being completely unreasonable and uncharitable. My offer stands whenever you would like to change that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\
**Post date:** [February 23, 2023, 8:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/370 "2023-02-23T20:22:15Z")

</div>

I’ll take that comment as an admission. When you’ve actually read a single paper on the topic you’re trying to talk about, let me know.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 10:35am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/371 "2023-02-24T10:35:06Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > [@Roy](#):
> >
> > Are you suggesting that @Meerkat_SK5 might be _lying about his sources?_
> 
> No, since he never says what the sources are. Lying by omission, perhaps.

If he _did_ get those quotes from Uncommon Descent, he wouldn’t know what the sources were. Or whether the quotes are even genuine.

He hasn’t learnt.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 11:40am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/372 "2023-02-24T11:40:13Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Digital information is composed of abstract entities involving discrete mathematics or statements of logic that apply to and must exist in all possible worlds.

Complete bollocks. Mathematics and statements of logic didn’t always exist in this world, let alone all possible worlds.

> [@](#):
>
> It involves language that humans use to communicate with each other every day, such as phrases, signs, and symbols that are meaningful and personal.

Even more bollocks. Humans do not communicate by exchanging nucleotide sequences, nor are such things personal.

> [@](#):
>
> Analog information refers to continuous or redundant but orderly complex patterns of information reflected within the laws of nature

Bollocks cubed. Analogue information is rarely orderly and hardly ever redundant.

Stop blathering on topics you are completely clueless about.

Here are some more reasons to disregard your posts:

> [@](#):
>
> _Von nueman’s universal constructor theory_

It’s “von Neumann”. Lower case ‘v’, capital ‘N’, another ‘n’ on the end. You can’t even get his name right, let alone his ideas.

> [@](#):
>
> Viroids are reportedly free living organisms.

_ **Viroids** are small single-stranded, circular RNAsthat are infectious pathogens. Unlike viruses, they have no protein coating. **All known viroids are inhabitants of angiosperms** (flowering plants), and most cause diseases…_ ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viroid))

Viroids are _not_ free-living organisms.

> [@](#):
>
> Do you consider Sudan cars to be the modified form of vehicles with four wheels that descended from a common vehicle ancestor?

_ **Sudan** _ is a country, not a vehicle. A _ **sedan** _ is a vehicle, and the name derives from “sedan chair” which comes in turn from the Latin verb ‘to sit’, and is unrelated to the Arabic name for ‘black land’.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 12:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/373 "2023-02-24T12:32:06Z")

</div>

> [@BenKissling](#):
>
> I really don’t care what you think, and I don’t feel the need to prove anything to someone who is being completely unreasonable and uncharitable. My offer stands whenever you would like to change that.

What I find amusing is that you actually seem to believe writing the above accomplishes anything different from what would have been accomplished by being honest and writing “Yes, I lied and you caught me out. This makes me feel angry and embarrassed so I am going to leave this discussion now.”

_Very_ amusing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 5:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/374 "2023-02-24T17:50:59Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> 47 respondents is a valid poll of physicists? Seriously?

It was actually over 150 respondents total. 81 of them believed the observer **Plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism**.

34 out of that 81 believed the observer **Plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness)**

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Can you also point to anywhere in the poll question where it says that ONLY consciousnesses are capable of collapsing wavefunctions?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the consciousness of the observer physically and directly caused the collapse _under measurement_ like some sort of ESP psychic power. Instead, it is to show that the conscious observer plays a fundamental role in causing the collapse. There is a difference.

On the other hand, the evidence confirming the Quantum mind theory goes a step further in establishing that the consciousness of the observer also has the distinguished role of collapsing the wave function because consciousness is quantum mechanical in nature. This is what they mean by having a _distinguished physical role_ from the measurement apparatus.

Thus, only the conscious observer has the ability to choose which aspect of nature his knowledge will probe, which is what the results of quantum physics experiments like “quantum erasure with casually DISCONNECTED choice” reveal. The non-local conscious mind is the only true measurement apparatus that performs measurements first on the brain to simultaneous cause a collapse to the wave function.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> How is HGT not doing the same thing?

Only human consciousness can construct RNA viruses and engineer them to perform HGT according to biochemical experiments. More importantly, human consciousness plays a fundamental role in creating and moving genetic material between [unicellular] and/or [multicellular organisms] according to quantum physics experiments.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> How is passing DNA across a sex pili between two bacteria a top down process using quantum physics? How is it a top down quantum process when a bacteria takes in naked DNA from its surroundings?

There are two types of causal interactions in nature: antecedent causation and simultaneous causation. Antecedent causation is where every event precedes another in time because they are material causes that operate under the principles of classical physics.

In contrast, simultaneous causation occurs where the cause exists with the effect inside the same event because they are non-local causes that operate under the principles of quantum physics.  
For instance, the choice of measurement in one lab really causes a change in the local wave-function in the other lab _instantaneously_ : “That is, according to the theory, the detection at one point must instantaneously collapse the wavefunction to nothing at all other points.”.

[Experimental proof of nonlocal wavefunction collapse for a single particle using homodyne measurements | Nature Communications](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7665)

Simultaneous causation is what makes it a top-down process.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> So where does this happen in HGT???
> 
> We can watch a sex pili join two bacterial cells, and then DNA is passed between them. This DNA can be replicated as an extra chromosome in the bacteria, or it can insert into another chromosome due to homologous recombination. Where do you think consciousness is involved in this process? How is this different from passing on a whole genome to a new cell, or the merging of two haploid cells?

There are other experiments that show how quantum entanglement helps prevent the molecules of life from breaking apart:

[How quantum entanglement in DNA synchronizes double-strand breakage by type II restriction endonucleases - PMC (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4746125/)

So I would say consciousness was part of the whole process.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Sedans don’t fall into a nested hierarchy.
> 
> Do you still not understand what a nested hierarchy is and why it is evidence for common ancestry?

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Why would that nature include separately created species that just so happen to produce the same pattern of homologous and divergent features that common ancestry would produce?

Vertebrates exhibiting the pentadactyl pattern in their forelimbs don’t necessarily possess that pattern because they inherited it from a common ancestor or material continuity, but because there exists functional requirements that the pattern satisfies.

Von Neuman proved this with his self-replicating automaton theory, which must consist of four functional components: a universal constructor (UC), a (instructional) blueprint, programmer and a supervisory unit. As I mentioned before, these functional requirements are required to produce successive generations of artificial life, which naturally produce nested patterns.

The common designer theory possesses all four components in the form of a DNA blueprint, ribosome, consciousness, and DNA replication:

> …we can now identify that all known life functions in a manner akin to von Neumann automata, where **DNA provides an (partial) algorithm, ribosomes act as the core of the UC and DNA polymerases (along with a suite of other molecular machinery) play the role of a supervisory unit** [[60](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#RSIF20120869C60),[61](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#RSIF20120869C61)].[7](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#fn7)  
> …The UC forms the foundation of von Neumann’s theory on self-replicating automata. However, an UC is a mindless robot, and must be told very specifically exactly what to do in order to build the correct object(s). It must therefore be programmed to construct specific things, and if it is to replicate then it must also be provided with a blueprint of itself.[6](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#fn6)

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Then how are humans able to design organisms that violate a nested hierarchy if it is a law of nature?

Because different humans have different purposes that they want to achieve besides reproduction, survival, and adaptation. In other words, humans are contingent beings that produce nested hierarchies that are subjective. A Divine human is a non-contingent being that produces nested hierarchies that are objective in nature.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> First, how in the world do you determine where the gaps are in the fossil record? Why would you say that there is a gap between two specific species, but not two others? On top of that, how do you explain the fossils that DO fill those gaps, such as transitional hominid fossils? From where I sit, the only way that there would be gaps in the fossil record is if common ancestry is true. Only through common ancestry could we identify where future fossils should fit into the distribution of similarities and differences in species groups.

For further research, evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, ecologists, and molecular biologist will need to look for morpho-molecular dissimilarities and/or lack of fossil intermediates among order and family level taxa. Then, they need to use the two-step ecology criteria I described to confidently conclude common design, which would be separate creation. Moreover, phylogeneticists will need to use Bayesian inferences to find out whether the common design model better fits the data than common descent when it is applied to the list of suspected created kinds and basic types.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Separate creation of archetypes also does not explain the nested hierarchy because there is no reason why separately created archetypes would need to fit into a nested hierarchy.

You are forgetting that I am arguing that the orders and family animal groups emerged from slim molds rather than animals. This is what I mean by _separate creation_. So there is no reason why separately created archetypes would NOT fit into a nested hierarchy.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Why is ERV sequence necessary to trigger interferon production? What sequence in ERV specifically is required to trigger interferon, and how many ERV’s have this sequence?

The study was less about ERV’s and more about the p53 protein. So I don’t know.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> I’m going to abandon that topic, since it’s going nowhere. Just understand that everything you say is gibberish.

One last thing on this point. Keep in mind, Von Neuman was not trying to simulate or emulate Darwinian processes but was just trying to create a machine from the Alan Turing model that can self-replicate. Moreover, his model was formulated before the discoveries of modern molecular biology, including the structure of DNA and the ribosome.

This is one reason why you can’t claim that his model was simulating common descent. He was actually simulating human designs and simply added self-replication to the mix.

More importantly, his machine required a conscious agent to direct the process, which is why the analogy between the UC model and common descent breaks down.

This leads me to reiterate my point on why common design is another process that can produce and explain nested patterns apart from common descent…

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> But that’s not an explanation. An explanation needs to provide a reason why that pattern would be expected rather than some other pattern or no pattern. “God” is not such a reason and offers no expectation of nested hierarchy.

Vertebrates exhibiting the pentadactyl pattern in their forelimbs don’t necessarily possess that pattern because they inherited it from a common ancestor or material continuity- but because there exists functional requirement that the pattern satisfies.

As I mentioned before, Von Neuman proved this with his self-replicating automaton theory, which must consist of four components: a universal constructor (UC), a (instructional) blueprint, programmer and a supervisory unit. These functional requirements are required to produce successive generations of artificial life, which naturally produce nested patterns.

The common designer theory possesses all four components in the form of a DNA blueprint, ribosome, consciousness, and DNA replication:

> …we can now identify that all known life functions in a manner akin to von Neumann automata, where **DNA provides an (partial) algorithm, ribosomes act as the core of the UC and DNA polymerases (along with a suite of other molecular machinery) play the role of a supervisory unit** [[60](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#RSIF20120869C60),[61](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#RSIF20120869C61)].[7](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#fn7)  
> …The UC forms the foundation of von Neumann’s theory on self-replicating automata. However, an UC is a mindless robot, and must be told very specifically exactly what to do in order to build the correct object(s). It must therefore be programmed to construct specific things, and if it is to replicate then it must also be provided with a blueprint of itself.[6](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#fn6)

But, of course, you will simply accept the evidence while closing your eyes to the conclusion on this very point.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> His theory explains neither. You can’t just claim that and be done with it, and your quote from some unspecified source doesn’t explain either.

Richard Owen’s archetype theory uses the same functional requirements as common design. So his theory does explain and produce those patterns as well:

_Universal common designer theory_

1. DNA blueprint
2. Ribosome
3. Common designer or consciousness
4. DNA replication

_Universal common archetype theory_

1. Archetypical Blueprint
2. Metagenics
3. Consciousness
4. Vegetative replication

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> No, but of course cars aren’t von Neumann machines.

What makes you say that? Again, Von Neuman machines require a conscious agent to replicate those machines just like Sedan cars. So I don’t see the difference.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Enjoy it. But it’s still true, and the occasional typo does nothing to dispel its truth.

We are all incompetent about something. Are you a competent or incompetent chemist, quantum physicist, baraminologist, etc.?

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> That was just one example out of many. The “reptile to bird” transition is as well documented. _Archaeopteryx_, all by itself, neatly fills the major gap.

Todd Wood refuted that claim already:

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02208.x](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02208.x)

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> More incoherence. In what way to donkeys and zebras change over time while horses do not?

Environmental acclimation and reproductive isolation

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> What is a “recognizable base form”? What is a “similar base form”?

I made a mistake in our discourse. I did not mean to claim that created kinds exist today. Let’s start over on this point. Baraminology is a scientific field in which scientists attempt to determine which species belong to the same created kinds. Horses, zebras,and donkeys are species that stem from a created kind. Tapirs and rhinos are also species but both came from distinct created kinds.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Now, I understand that you are a very busy person who may not have the time or patience to read a question posed to them and compose a response to match it, when they can instead just copy and paste a wall of text from someplace else, as indicated by the presence of a citation “[5]”, that matches no actual reference, and the fact that said references start their count at eight, rather than one, as they normally would.

Sorry, I did not know you already read that post I gave @T_aquaticus nor did I think my post did not adequately address what you said.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Why do you say that wave-function collapse occurs specifically because of “conscious observership”? What even is “conscious observership”, and what physical experiment could we hypothetically perform in the hopes of testing whether or not it (what ever it is) has an impact on the persistence or collapse of wave-functions?

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the consciousness of the observer physically and directly caused the collapse _under measurement_ like some sort of ESP psychic power. Instead, it is to show that the conscious observer plays a fundamental role in causing the collapse. There is a difference.

On the other hand, the evidence confirming the Quantum mind theory goes a step further in establishing that the consciousness of the observer also has the distinguished role of collapsing the wave function because consciousness is quantum mechanical in nature. This is what they mean by having a _distinguished physical role_ from the measurement apparatus.

Only the conscious observer has the ability to choose which aspect of nature his knowledge will probe, which is what the results of quantum physics experiments like “quantum erasure with casually DISCONNECTED choice” reveal. The non-local conscious mind is the only true measurement apparatus that performs measurements first on the brain to simultaneous cause a collapse to the wave function.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Please, propose a definition of “conscious observership” sufficient to differentiate experimentally between your claim, that it be among the things that induce wave-function collapse, being an accurate descriptor of natural fact and said claim not being an accurate descriptor of natural fact.

Self-collapsing wave-function or a causally disconnected choice

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 6:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/375 "2023-02-24T18:00:26Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> To be clear, I am not suggesting that the consciousness of the observer physically and directly caused the collapse _under measurement_ like some sort of ESP psychic power. Instead, it is to show that the conscious observer plays a fundamental role in causing the collapse. There is a difference.

You are claiming that ONLY a consciousness can collapse wavefunctions. Where is the evidence for this claim?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> On the other hand, the evidence confirming the Quantum mind theory goes a step further in establishing that the consciousness of the observer also has the distinguished role of collapsing the wave function because consciousness is quantum mechanical in nature.

Again, that is not an accepted theory in physics.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Only human consciousness can construct RNA viruses and engineer them to perform HGT according to biochemical experiments.

Based on what evidence?

Also, we can observe bacteria performing HGT.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> There are two types of causal interactions in nature: antecedent causation and simultaneous causation. Antecedent causation is where every event precedes another in time because they are material causes that operate under the principles of classical physics.
> 
> In contrast, simultaneous causation occurs where the cause exists with the effect inside the same event because they are non-local causes that operate under the principles of quantum physics.  
> For instance, the choice of measurement in one lab really causes a change in the local wave-function in the other lab _instantaneously_ : “That is, according to the theory, the detection at one point must instantaneously collapse the wavefunction to nothing at all other points.”.
> 
> [Experimental proof of nonlocal wavefunction collapse for a single particle using homodyne measurements | Nature Communications](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7665)
> 
> Simultaneous causation is what makes it a top-down process.

How in the world do you think that answers my question???

Here it is again.

How is passing DNA across a sex pili between two bacteria a top down process using quantum physics? How is it a top down quantum process when a bacteria takes in naked DNA from its surroundings?

Here’s a picture of the process in action:

![image](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/9/95d49a6f2241f01a30d81213cead520ba4adca3a.png)

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> There are other experiments that show how quantum entanglement helps prevent the molecules of life from breaking apart:
> 
> [How quantum entanglement in DNA synchronizes double-strand breakage by type II restriction endonucleases - PMC (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4746125/)
> 
> So I would say consciousness was part of the whole process.

That doesn’t even begin to address what I wrote.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Vertebrates exhibiting the pentadactyl pattern in their forelimbs don’t necessarily possess that pattern because they inherited it from a common ancestor or material continuity, but because there exists functional requirements that the pattern satisfies.

That doesn’t answer the question.

Why would that nature include separately created species that just so happen to produce the same pattern of homologous and divergent features that common ancestry would produce?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Because different humans have different purposes that they want to achieve besides reproduction, survival, and adaptation. In other words, humans are contingent beings that produce nested hierarchies that are subjective. A Divine human is a non-contingent being that produces nested hierarchies that are objective in nature.

What does contingency have to do with it? Why couldn’t separately created species violate a nested hierarchy?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> For further research, evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, ecologists, and molecular biologist will need to look for morpho-molecular dissimilarities and/or lack of fossil intermediates among order and family level taxa.

Between which families and orders? Just any random two? How do you determine which families or orders have a gap between them?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> You are forgetting that I am arguing that the orders and family animal groups emerged from slim molds rather than animals. This is what I mean by _separate creation_. So there is no reason why separately created archetypes would NOT fit into a nested hierarchy.

Why would that produce a nested hierarchy between families and orders?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 6:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/376 "2023-02-24T18:23:02Z")

</div>

Anatomy of a quote mine:

@Meerkat_SK5 quotes, though he does so at third or fourth hand and has no idea of the actual source or even the author’s name, from George Gaylord Simpson. 1945. The Principles of Classification and the Classification of Mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:i-xvi, 1-350.

The quoted part consists of pieces of two paragraphs (in italics below), separated by a long and unmarked ellipsis. The final sentence of the quote-mine, with a marked ellipsis, does not appear at all in the original publication.

> [@](#):
>
> The change in the assumed basis of classification came with general acceptance of the theory of evolution. The belief that different animals, even very unlike animals, were actual flesh-and-blood relatives and had common ancestors suggested that it would be more natural, or philosophically preferable, to define groups by community of origin. This radical change, much the most revolutionary in the whole history of taxonomy, had extraordinarily little immediate effect on the general nature and aspect of formal classifications. _From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not_, and classifications intended to be phylogenetic differed as much among themselves as they did from frankly archetypal classifications.
> 
> This was partly because the superficial aspects of classification do not necessarily change when the underlying meaning changes — we still use the Linnaean hierarchy and nomenclature (in essentials), although we have rearranged and multiplied his categories and give them a totally different significance. More particularly, in this transition period and, in decreasing extent, almost up to the present, the reason for so little evident change in classification was that the evolutionists and non-evolutionists followed the same procedures. The evolutionists continued to group animals by the number and kind of characters that they have in common, but they explained the possession of these characters by community of inheritance, while the nonevolutionists explained them by a subjective pattern. By substituting “common ancestor” for “archetype” the same classification could be considered phylogenetic or not, at will. _The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles_.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 6:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/377 "2023-02-24T18:50:42Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> One last thing on this point.

…and further gibberish. I will allow that part of the problem may be your lack of control over language usage, but most of it seems to be simple incoherence of the underlying thought.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Vertebrates exhibiting the pentadactyl pattern in their forelimbs don’t necessarily possess that pattern because they inherited it from a common ancestor or material continuity- but because there exists functional requirement that the pattern satisfies.

What evidence do you have for this questionable claim? How does it relate to “a reason why that pattern would be expected”? More gibberish.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> As I mentioned before, Von Neuman proved this with his self-replicating automaton theory,

Again, nothing relevant and nothing coherent. It’s difficult to argue with you when your argument is incoherent.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> But, of course, you will simply accept the evidence while closing your eyes to the conclusion on this very point.

What evidence? What conclusion? You are not making sense.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Richard Owen’s archetype theory uses the same functional requirements as common design. So his theory does explain and produce those patterns as wel

You are simply repeating the same gibberish over and over. Archetype theory had nothing to do with functional requirements. Your repetitive nonsense has nothing to do with nested hierarchy.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> What makes you say that? Again, Von Neuman machines require a conscious agent to replicate those machines just like Sedan cars. So I don’t see the difference.

You don’t see the difference because you understand nothing. Von Neumann machines replicate themselves using instructions they contain and that are replicated with them. They are in that way just like organisms. Cars, whether sedans or Sudans, do not do any of that. It’s the common descent resulting from self-reproduction that causes nested hierarchy, though for a proper nested hierarchy there must be inherited changes in the instructions, i.e. mutations.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> We are all incompetent about something. Are you a competent or incompetent chemist, quantum physicist, baraminologist, etc.?

I’m a competent evolutionary biologist and phylogeneticist, which is what a baraminologist would be if baraminologists were real scientists. I disclaim special knowledge of chemistry or physics. But you seem incompetent in all subjects as well as being incompetent in basic reason. Most especially, you are incompetent in the subject under discussion here.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Todd Wood refuted that claim already:

I don’t believe you’ve read that paper. But it doesn’t refute anything. We could discuss that if you had actually read, or were capable of reading, what Wood did.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Environmental acclimation and reproductive isolation

You are incapable of a coherent response to any question. Should we give this up?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I made a mistake in our discourse. I did not mean to claim that created kinds exist today. Let’s start over on this point. Baraminology is a scientific field in which scientists attempt to determine which species belong to the same created kinds. Horses, zebras,and donkeys are species that stem from a created kind. Tapirs and rhinos are also species but both came from distinct created kinds.

This seems to have implicitly abandoned your definitions of species and created kind while managing to clarify nothing. If species belong to created kinds, then created kinds do exist today in the person of their included, extant species. But what about extinct species? Do you still deny that there is or can be any such thing?

So horses, donkeys, and zebras are the same sort of thing, and thus “recognizable base form” is not different from “similar base form”? Or perhaps you are using “horse” in two different ways, to refer to the species _Equus caballus_ and also to the family Equidae, without noticing when you switch between meanings?

Consistency is beyond you. Clarity is beyond you. Sense is beyond you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 7:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/378 "2023-02-24T19:02:30Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> > [@John\_Harshman](#):
> >
> > No, but of course cars aren’t von Neumann machines.
> 
> What makes you say that? Again, Von Neuman machines require a conscious agent to replicate those machines just like Sedan cars. So I don’t see the difference.

If it wasn’t bad enough that @Meerkat_SK5 doesn’t seem to understand that cars don’t have babies, he has flirted once again with dishonesty by deleting the answer @John_Harshman had already given (“_The latter have literal descent._”) and pretending it wasn’t there.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 7:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/379 "2023-02-24T19:51:03Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Anatomy of a quote mine:
> 
> @Meerkat_SK5 quotes, though he does so at third or fourth hand and has no idea of the actual source or even the author’s name, from George Gaylord Simpson. 1945. The Principles of Classification and the Classification of Mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:i-xvi, 1-350.
> 
> The quoted part consists of pieces of two paragraphs (in italics below), separated by a long and unmarked ellipsis. The final sentence of the quote-mine, with a marked ellipsis, does not appear at all in the original publication.

Denton gives _two_ citations for the quote in [EATIC](https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Evolution_Theory_In_Crisis.pdf), the second one being

> Simpson, G.G. (1953) _Life of the Past_, Yale University Press, New Haven, p96

So I suspect that the ellipses aren’t just being used to mark a gap in the text, but to mark a switch to another book on a different topic written years later.

Previously, the longest ellipsis I knew about was from Don Batten\[1\], with [a leap of 108 pages](https://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossil-record.htm) (3 chapters) in this ‘passage’ reproduced from Darwin’s _Origin_:

> “…innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? …why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory”

If Denton did in fact concatenate two fragments from page 4 of “_The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals_” with half a sentence from page 96 of “_Life of the Past_” he has shown that IDers far surpass YECs in this regard, and Batten’s 108-page leap has been obliterated by Denton’s vault of **442 pages, 4 books and 8 years** \[2\].

I knew Denton’s book was bad, but this is staggeringly awful.

* * *

1. Or some-one he was copying from. 

2. For comparison purposes this can be classed as either 1317 or 1430 pages, depending on which of Simpson’s 1953 books was published first

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 7:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/380 "2023-02-24T19:56:34Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Denton gives _two_ citations for the quote in [EATIC](https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Evolution_Theory_In_Crisis.pdf), the second one being

So is Denton the original quoter? Can we further refine the phylogeny by determining where the “George” was lost?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 8:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/381 "2023-02-24T20:01:18Z")

</div>

Denton cites the books as by G G Simpson, so it was never there. Perhaps the UD denizens thought “Gaylord Simpson” was a double-barrelled surname.

(I’m still recovering from uncovering Denton’s deception)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 8:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/382 "2023-02-24T20:03:58Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Denton cites the books as by G G Simpson, so it was never there.

Well, it was there in embryo. This isn’t Denton’s fault.

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Perhaps the UD denizens thought “Gaylord Simpson” was a double-barrelled surname.

Perhaps, having been burned over Simon Conway Morris, they were deceived into hyper-correctness.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 8:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/383 "2023-02-24T20:16:05Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Perhaps, having been burned over Simon Conway Morris, they were deceived into hyper-correctness.

I’m not aware of that one. Do you have a link?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [February 24, 2023, 8:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/384 "2023-02-24T20:39:51Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> > [@Gisteron](#):
> >
> > Why do you say that wave-function collapse occurs specifically because of “conscious observership”? What even is “conscious observership”, and what physical experiment could we hypothetically perform in the hopes of testing whether or not it (what ever it is) has an impact on the persistence or collapse of wave-functions?
> 
> To be clear, I am not suggesting that the consciousness of the observer physically and directly caused the collapse _under measurement_ like some sort of ESP psychic power. Instead, it is to show that the conscious observer plays a fundamental role in causing the collapse. There is a difference.

Alright, fine. What’s the difference?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> On the other hand, the evidence confirming the Quantum mind theory goes a step further in establishing that the consciousness of the observer also has the distinguished role of collapsing the wave function because consciousness is quantum mechanical in nature. This is what they mean by having a _distinguished physical role_ from the measurement apparatus.

When you say “evidence confirming the Quantum mind theory”, what specifically are you referring to? As far as I’m aware, Quantum mind is a series of currently still untested hypotheses, positing that the mind/consciousness (what ever that means in this context) cannot be accounted for with classical physics alone. That quantum effects should play a role in some or all operations of a chemical superstructure such as the brain is far from an extraordinary claim on the face of it, but before we can take the claim seriously, that quantum mechanics is necessary or helpful in describing the mind, I believe we first need to agree on what the mind even is, and then formulate some concrete experiment whose outcome can indicate one way or the other, whether or not quantum mechanics is, in fact, needed or suited to describe some or all of what ever we agreed “mind” is. I suspect that part of the reason these hypoetheses remain untested lies in just such a lack of predictions one could experimentally test.  
That being said, perhaps this is not what you meant by Quantum mind theory, and, in fact, it would appear that this evidence you mention the existence of would be exactly the sort of thing I had inquired for: A test of the claim - and successful, if your impression is to be believed - that “conscious observership” has some part in collapsing the wave function. Perhaps if you were to share some of those publications, I could come to better understand why you say the things you say, and what you mean by them.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Only the conscious observer has the ability to choose which aspect of nature his knowledge will probe, which is what the results of quantum physics experiments like “quantum erasure with casually (sic) DISCONNECTED choice” reveal. The non-local conscious mind is the only true measurement apparatus that performs measurements first on the brain to simultaneous cause a collapse to the wave function.

If this is what that article reveals, then why is it that this is not a conclusion expressed or hinted at by the authors in _any_ portion of the text? The very second sentence in the abstract explains that the “choice” is done “by performing a suitable measurement”, thus allowing for even a computer to make this choice at random. In fact, on the second to last paragraph of the left column on page 1224, the authors say that this is exactly what happened in the actual experiment:

> The choice is performed by a quantum random number generator (QRNG). (Details are given in SI Text). Its working principle is based on the intrinsically random detection events of photons behind a balanced beam splitter (44).

Granted, this is closer to the end of the article than its beginning, and by the time a lay person like you or I would have gotten to it, we may have gotten tired enough to overlook that detail. However, there is a much earlier statement in the article that would seem to conflict directly with your takeaway. On the very first page, page 1221, the authors explain the basic principle of the quantum eraser class of real and hypothetical experiments. As one of the experimental realizations they describe Scully et al.'s 1991 study:

> In ref. 21, the atoms, which can be interpreted as the “system,” are sent through a double slit. Each atom spontaneously emits a photon, which can be regarded as the “environment,” carrying welcher-weg (which-path) information on which of the two slits the atom takes. No interference pattern of atoms will be obtainable after the double slit, if one ignores the presence of the photons, because every photon carries the welcher-weg information about the corresponding atom. The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. **It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it.** The mere possibility is enough. In other words, the atoms’ path states alone are not in a coherent superposition due to the atom–photon entanglement. (emphasis added)

Meanwhile, the terms “conscious”, or “mind” never appear once in the entire text.

On the contrary, it would seem, that, according to your source, “the observer’s choice” could for all the difference it makes in practice, just as well be a random, non-conscious decision performed by a literal machine, and there exists a consequence for the outcome of an interferometry experiment, whether or not any observers ever harvest the results.

So, what _does_ the paper say, then, if it has so little to do with consciousness? Well, it says that naïve local realism is not feasible. It is not the first paper to say this, and with it being over a decade old, it is far from the newest, either. In fact, this is such a well-established fact that it has long made it into undergraduate text books at this point. Rather than the perfectly expected conclusion, the novelty of that study lies in the specific setup and how well it ensures non-locality.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [February 25, 2023, 1:56am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/385 "2023-02-25T01:56:23Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> I’m not aware of that one. Do you have a link?

Nothing so concrete. It’s just that I’ve seen many creationists misunderstand Conway Morris’s last name as “Morris”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [February 26, 2023, 4:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/386 "2023-02-26T16:53:12Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> You are claiming that ONLY a consciousness can collapse wavefunctions. Where is the evidence for this claim?

No, this is not what I am claiming. I am claiming that the collapse of the wave-function IS consciousness by definition. The conscious observer experiments are what prove this claim. Our consciousness is merely connected to a universal proto-consciousness. This is what Orch-OR theory in quantum mind theory entails.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Again, that is not an accepted theory in physics.

Consensus does not determine truth, but evidence does and this theory continues to be supported every year.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Based on what evidence?
> 
> Also, we can observe bacteria performing HGT.

For example, phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE ) utilizes a mutant M13 bacteriophage whose gIII gene is replaced by that for the protein of interest (the mutant phage is called Selection Phage, SP) where successful SP propagation is linked to the activity of the protein of interest . Moreover, “SP carrying a mutant protein with enhanced activity will have a fitness advantage over other SP particles, because the enhanced protein activity allows for increased pIII production, thereby increasing offspring production”. [3]

Now, it is important to note that they did not design or use specialized proteins beforehand, but the experimenter still played a fundamental role in these experiments because they were the ones that chose the _protein of interest_. Without this targeted protein of interest by the researcher, it would have been an unsuccessful result.

However, to be clear, I am highlighting this experiment _in conjunction_ with previous experiments showing how viruses were created from scratch. Both experiments combined would show how God created and designed viruses to function like the viruses we see in the deep-sea oceans.

[1] [Poliovirus Baked From Scratch | Science | AAAS (sciencemag.org)](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2002/07/poliovirus-baked-scratch)

[2] [Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07219-5)

[3] [Phage-Assisted Continuous Evolution (PACE): A Guide Focused on Evolving Protein–DNA Interactions (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7593997/)

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> How in the world do you think that answers my question???
> 
> Here it is again.
> 
> How is passing DNA across a sex pili between two bacteria a top down process using quantum physics? How is it a top down quantum process when a bacteria takes in naked DNA from its surroundings?

How do you know my previous answer did not answer this question. Quantum entanglement is a top down process using the principles of quantum physics.

Quantum entanglement helps prevent the molecules of life from breaking apart. This is how DNA is passed and bacteria is able to take naked DNA from its surroundings.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> That doesn’t even begin to address what I wrote.

Again, I am not arguing that consciousness causes wave-function collapse. I am claiming that the collapse of the wave-function IS consciousness by definition. I think this is why there is confusion as to whether I addressed your comment.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> That doesn’t answer the question.
> 
> Why would that nature include separately created species that just so happen to produce the same pattern of homologous and divergent features that common ancestry would produce?

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> What does contingency have to do with it? Why couldn’t separately created species violate a nested hierarchy?

Because the second law of thermodynamics is a feature of quantum mechanics; and thus, it must exist in all possible worlds, unlike other laws of nature. It also means that God as well as humans cannot create living things without this second law in operation.

Most importantly, thermodynamics is a mechanism that naturally produces hierarchical structure formation in biological matter:

> The application of the principle of stability of matter to the structures of adjacent hierarchies constitutes additional proof that quasi-equilibrium thermodynamics can be applied to the biological systems in the real world. This theory is corroborated by known fact and experimental outcomes obtained during **the study of living and synthetic systems using the methods of macrothermodynamics and macrokinetics.**
> 
> [Thermodynamic self-Organization as a Mechanism of Hierarchical Structure formation of Biological Matter - Georgi P. Gladyshev, 2003 (sagepub.com)](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3184/007967403103165495)

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Between which families and orders? Just any random two? How do you determine which families or orders have a gap between them?

This is the list. The source should answer all your questions here:  
[https://www.coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/16](https://www.coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/16)  
[https://www.coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/16](https://www.coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/16)

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Why would that produce a nested hierarchy between families and orders?

Let me show you more clearly what I mean by separate creation:

"_The cellular slime mold Dictyostelium has cell-cell connections similar in structure, function, and underlying molecular mechanisms to animal epithelial cells. These similarities form the basis for the proposal that multicellularity is ancestral to the clade containing animals, fungi, and Amoebozoa (including Dictyostelium): Amorphea (formerly “unikonts”)._ "

[Multicellularity arose several times in the evolution of eukaryotes (response to DOI 10.1002/bies.201100187) - PubMed (nih.gov)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23315654/)

Both common descent and common design claim that the first animal body plans emerged from these slime molds. After this transition, my model suggests that the orders and family levels from each major animal groups emerged from these slim molds rather than animals. This is what I mean by separate creation and the main difference between the two models.

So my question to you is.. Why would it **not** produce the same nested hierarchy between families and orders as it does with common descent?

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> What evidence do you have for this questionable claim? How does it relate to “a reason why that pattern would be expected”?

Thermodynamic self organization is a mechanism that naturally produces hierarchical structure formation in biological matter.

[Thermodynamic self-Organization as a Mechanism of Hierarchical Structure formation of Biological Matter - Georgi P. Gladyshev, 2003 ([sagepub.com](http://sagepub.com))]  
([https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3184/007967403103165495](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3184/007967403103165495))

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> You are simply repeating the same gibberish over and over. Archetype theory had nothing to do with functional requirements.

It has everything to do with it. I am going to use a secondary source from Stephen Jay Gould to convey my point here:

" _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 the laws of thermodynamics. These laws not only naturally produce nested hierachies but apply to quantum mechanics; and thus, it must exist in all possible worlds. This means that God as well as humans cannot create living things without these laws in operation.

Moreover, the universal vertebral archetype is a virtually identical description of the Universal wave-function described in quantum physics, which is also experimentally confirmed.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> You don’t see the difference because you understand nothing. Von Neumann machines replicate themselves using instructions they contain and that are replicated with them. They are in that way just like organisms.

No, there needs to be a conscious agent behind it that controls both the universal constructor and the copier:

> The relevant UC in this case is the translation machinery of modern life, including the ribosome and associated tRNAs along with an array of protein assistants.[5](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#fn5) This system can, in principle, construct any possible peptide sequence composed of the coded amino acids (with minor variations across the tree of life as to what constitutes a coded amino acid [[58](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#RSIF20120869C58)]).
> 
> **The UC forms the foundation of von Neumann’s theory on self-replicating automata. However, an UC is a _mindless_ robot, and must be told very specifically exactly what to do in order build the correct object(s). It must therefore be programmed to construct specific things, and if it is to replicate then it must also be provided with a blueprint of itself.[6](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#fn6)**

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> It’s the common descent resulting from self-reproduction that causes nested hierarchy, though for a proper nested hierarchy there must be inherited changes in the instructions, i.e. mutations.

No, it’s common design resulting from self-organization that causes nested hierarchy, though for a proper nested hierarchy there must be inherited changes in the instructions, i.e. HGT.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> I’m a competent evolutionary biologist and phylogeneticist, which is what a baraminologist would be if baraminologists were real scientists. I disclaim special knowledge of chemistry or physics. But you seem incompetent in all subjects as well as being incompetent in basic reason. Most especially, you are incompetent in the subject under discussion here.

Yeah but, you were not always competent about those subjects though. And what is _basic_ reasoning?

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> I don’t believe you’ve read that paper. But it doesn’t refute anything. We could discuss that if you had actually read, or were capable of reading, what Wood did.

I did read it. Todd was able to identify discontinuities between modern birds and dinosaurs.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> This seems to have implicitly abandoned your definitions of species and created kind while managing to clarify nothing. If species belong to created kinds, then created kinds do exist today in the person of their included, extant species. But what about extinct species? Do you still deny that there is or can be any such thing?

Keep in mind, basic types are identified through a process of successive refinement. Because every group of species are a subset of a basic type, a basic type is approached as a species is successively increased in membership. (as Remine suggested)

For example, as more members are added to the Equidae, the basic type in which they are found is gradually approached.

On the other hand, since every basic type is a subset of “groups of basic types” (such as herbivore mammals), the basic type is also approached as “groups of basic types” are subdivided into smaller groups of basic types.

For example, as the Herbivore mammals are successively subdivided into smaller groups of mammals called _Perissodactyls_, the basic type containing _Cattle_ is approached. In this way, the successive increase of _cattle species_ and the successive subdivision of the _Perissodactyls_ mammals will converge on the basic type that includes _cattle_.

Thus, basic types are identified by successively refining our knowledge of “species” and “groups of basic types” as described by Walter Remine.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> So horses, donkeys, and zebras are the same sort of thing, and thus “recognizable base form” is not different from “similar base form”? Or perhaps you are using “horse” in two different ways, to refer to the species _Equus caballus_ and also to the family Equidae, without noticing when you switch between meanings?

The list below showcases each recognized _group of basic types_. What I mean by “group of basic types” is the grouping together of several basic types based on common morphology and physiology and lack of precursor ancestors within the fossil record based on preliminary study results:

Jawless Fish

Marine invertebrates

Vascular plants

Marine Nekton animals

Amphibians

Insects

Crocodiles

Turtles

Snakes

Land Dinosaurs

Flowering plants

Birds

Small lizards

Herbivore (Perrisodactyl) mammals

Horses

Herbivore (Artiodactyl) mammals

Carnivore mammals with paws

Rodents

Bats

Marsupials

Primates

Every Other mammal

Wood [44] provides a list of taxa from the common descent model that is considered “basic types” or “species” according to the common design model.

[https://www.coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/16](https://www.coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/16)  
[https://www.coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/16](https://www.coresci.org/jcts/index.php/jctsb/article/view/16)

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Anatomy of a quote mine:
> 
> @Meerkat_SK5 quotes, though he does so at third or fourth hand and has no idea of the actual source or even the author’s name, from George Gaylord Simpson. 1945. The Principles of Classification and the Classification of Mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:i-xvi, 1-350.
> 
> The quoted part consists of pieces of two paragraphs (in italics below), separated by a long and unmarked ellipsis. The final sentence of the quote-mine, with a marked ellipsis, does not appear at all in the original publication.

Thanks for finding the source on this. I was trying to find it but could not find the source on the web. So I unfortunately had to settle for secondary sources. However, it looks like the quotes did not take from the primary source’s original meaning.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> When you say “evidence confirming the Quantum mind theory”, what specifically are you referring to? As far as I’m aware, Quantum mind is a series of currently still untested hypotheses, positing that the mind/consciousness (what ever that means in this context) cannot be accounted for with classical physics alone.

I am talking about the empirical success of quantum cognition theory and Orch-OR theory:

"Does it imply that we have quantum minds and there is some sort of quantum structure in the brain? In this paper, I address this important issue by using a new result in the research of quantum foundations… This result supports a realist interpretation of quantum cognition, according to which the cognitive state of our brain and its dynamics are not classical but quantum in quantum cognition. In short, quantum cognition implies quantum minds. "  
[S. Gao, Does Quantum Cognition Imply Quantum Minds? - PhilPapers](https://philpapers.org/rec/GAODQC)

“The Orch-OR proposal therefore stretches across a considerable range of areas of science, touching upon the foundations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, in unconventional ways, in addition to the more obviously relevant areas such as neuroscience, cognitive science, molecular biology, and philosophy. It is not surprising, therefore, that Orch OR has been persistently criticized from many angles since its introduction in 1994. Nonetheless, **the Orch OR scheme has so far stood the test of time better than most other schemes, and it is particularly distinguished from other proposals by the many scientifically tested, and potentially testable, ingredients that it depends upon.** ” [Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory - ScienceDirect]  
([Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory - ScienceDirect](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188?via%3Dihub))

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> That quantum effects should play a role in some or all operations of a chemical superstructure such as the brain is far from an extraordinary claim on the face of it, but before we can take the claim seriously, that quantum mechanics is necessary or helpful in describing the mind, I believe we first need to agree on what the mind even is, and then formulate some concrete experiment whose outcome can indicate one way or the other, whether or not quantum mechanics is, in fact, needed or suited to describe some or all of what ever we agreed “mind” is. I suspect that part of the reason these hypoetheses remain untested lies in just such a lack of predictions one could experimentally test.  
> That being said, perhaps this is not what you meant by Quantum mind theory, and, in fact, it would appear that this evidence you mention the existence of would be exactly the sort of thing I had inquired for: A test of the claim - and successful, if your impression is to be believed - that “conscious observership” has some part in collapsing the wave function. Perhaps if you were to share some of those publications, I could come to better understand why you say the things you say, and what you mean by them.

The “mind” in quantum mind theory would be the wave-function of the brain. Here are some articles that confirm it:

[10] [Nuclear Spin Attenuates the Anesthetic Potency of Xenon Isotopes in Mice | Anesthesiology | American Society of Anesthesiologists (asahq.org)](https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/129/2/271/17992/Nuclear-Spin-Attenuates-the-Anesthetic-Potency-of)

Secondary source: [https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/129/2/228/17988/Anesthetic-Action-and-Quantum-Consciousness-A](https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article/129/2/228/17988/Anesthetic-Action-and-Quantum-Consciousness-A)

[11] [Experimental Evidence for Quantum Structure in Cognition | SpringerLink](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-00834-4_7)  
You should take a look at this as well @CrisprCAS9 since you accused me of not providing primary sources.

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> If this is what that article reveals, then why is it that this is not a conclusion expressed or hinted at by the authors in _any_ portion of the text? The very second sentence in the abstract explains that the “choice” is done “by performing a suitable measurement”, thus allowing for even a computer to make this choice at random. In fact, on the second to last paragraph of the left column on page 1224, the authors say that this is exactly what happened in the actual experiment:

Well first off, here is a source of an experiment that demonstrates that it is not the measuring device that fundamentally causes the collapse of the wavefunction:

[The Experimental Demonstration of High Efficiency Interaction-free Measurement for Quantum Counterfactual-like Communication | Scientific Reports (nature.com)](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11305-x)

Now, the quantum eraser and double-slit experiments are pretty much the same with one key difference. In the quantum eraser, they look to see if our observation is really what causes particles to collapse, as suggested by the experiment in question:

"In an interferometric quantum eraser experiment, one can actively choose whether or not to erase which-path information, a particle feature, of one quantum system and thus **observe its wave feature via interference or not** by performing a suitable measurement on a distant quantum system entangled with it.

In all experiments performed to date, this choice took place either in the past or, in  
some delayed-choice arrangements, in the future of the interference. Thus, in principle, physical  
communications between choice and interference were not excluded. **Here we report a quantum**  
**eraser experiment, in which by enforcing Einstein locality no such communication is possible. This is achieved by independent active choices, which are space-like separated from the interference.**

[1206.6578v2.pdf (arxiv.org)](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6578v2.pdf)

In other words, what causes collapse is knowledge and knowledge requires a knower::

“…the values that you obtain when you measure its properties depend on the context. So the value of property A, say, depends on whether you chose to measure it with property B, or with property C. In other words, there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement”.

![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/f/f0d1cc0af621ccef7ae62901bae8e9199f97204d.png)[New Scientist](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20600-quantum-magic-trick-shows-reality-is-what-you-make-it/)

 ![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/3/30bda3f1986ac4160a73412c8d6955b4e71f5d96.jpeg)

### [Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it](https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20600-quantum-magic-trick-shows-reality-is-what-you-make-it/)

A startling prediction of quantum mechanics – that an object’s properties depend on how you measure them – has been demonstrated experimentally

To be more clear, I am claiming that the collapse of the wave-function IS consciousness by definition. The conscious observer experiments are what prove this claim. Our consciousness is merely connected to a universal proto-consciousness. This is what the Orch-OR theory in quantum mind theory entails.

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Complete bollocks. Mathematics and statements of logic didn’t always exist in this world, let alone all possible worlds.

The universal wave-function represents the totality of existence and is regarded as the “basic physical entity” or “the fundamental entity, obeying at all times a deterministic wave equation.” (Wikipedia) In other words, they are possible configurations of matter or a universe in the form of mathematical equations. We have experimental confirmation that the wave-function is real.

I advise you to read all the articles below so you can accept the premise that digital information transcends classical space-time. Some articles are studies and others are reviews that are not peer-reviewed but are still informative and helpful for laypeople.

So there is no excuse going forward for anyone who complains about not knowing enough on quantum physics. You don’t need to be an expert to understand the articles I provided. Therefore, if you make an objection that contradicts the facts in quantum physics, I am not going to accept it as valid.

[On the reality of the quantum state | Nature Physics](https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2309)  
[Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020409 (2014) - How Undefined control sequence \ensuremath-Epistemic Models Fail at Explaining the Indistinguishability of Quantum States (aps.org)](https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.020409)  
[Are the Quantum World and The Real World the Same Thing? | NOVA | PBS](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/quantum-word-real-world-thing/)  
([Measuring the reality of the wavefunction - Mapping Ignorance](https://mappingignorance.org/2015/07/01/measuring-the-reality-of-the-wavefunction/#note-2590-)  
([Measurements on the reality of the wavefunction | Nature Physics](https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3233))

[On the Reality of the Wavefunction | SpringerLink](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-64988-7_4)

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Even more bollocks. Humans do not communicate by exchanging nucleotide sequences, nor are such things personal.

Here is what I mean by that:

> "The genetic code went from molecules to a semiotic code by group interactions which fits the general thesis that any natural language or code needs groups of competent agents that use (generate, innovate) such codes in social interactions,[78](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5398208/#cit0078) whereas a natural code without competent users does nothing.
> 
> The evolution of DNA, and later on of cellular protein-based life, cared for the emergence of phenotypes that interact via a different level of signaling. Although based on RNA-coordinated body regulation, the phenotypic interactions of protein-based cellular life forms determine ecosphere habitats. The interactions that constitute a phenosphere of protein bodies depends on the basics of RNA biology as the RNA biology depends on the natural laws of physics and chemistry. However, RNA biology transcends physics and chemistry by (i) social group behavior, (ii) semiotic code biology and the (iii) biological selection, all of them being absent in inanimate nature.

[Two genetic codes: Repetitive syntax for active non-coding RNAs; non-repetitive syntax for the DNA archives - PMC (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5398208/)

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Bollocks cubed. Analogue information is rarely orderly and hardly ever redundant.
> 
> Stop blathering on topics you are completely clueless about.

Wrong again.

Ahnert et al. (2015) discovered a way to create a biochemical periodic table that explains the frequency of occurrence for complex protein structures, and it predicted the structure of yet-to-be-discovered protein complexes. This demonstrated that random processes can produce complex biochemical structures starting from a simple set of rules that are governed and revealed within the physico-chemical laws of nature NOT natural selection.

[https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaa2245](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaa2245)

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Viroids are _not_ free-living organisms.

This is what I meant:

> viroids known today are ranging from 246 to 467 nucleotides. They contain circular single-stranded RNA, are protein-free and self-replicating with no genetic information, but only structural information in the form of hairpin-loops ([Riesner et al., 1979 ([Frontiers | Viruses and Evolution – Viruses First? A Personal Perspective](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00523/full#B94))). They can generate copies of themselves in the appropriate environment. They were designated as the “frontiers of life” ([Flores et al., 2014]
> 
> ([Frontiers | Viruses and Evolution – Viruses First? A Personal Perspective](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00523/full#B36))).[Frontiers | Viruses and Evolution – Viruses First? A Personal Perspective](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00523/full)

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561.md?page=18)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561.md?page=20)