The Argument Clinic

Correct. “Digital” has no special meaning for information. Sometimes “bits” are the convenient unit, which indicates a logarithm base-2 is used.

The only meaningful coding for genetic information are the laws of chemistry. Even then, “coding” is only needed as a description for understanding human.

5 Likes

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?

1 Like

Are you suggesting that @Meerkat_SK5 might be lying about his sources?

It may be purely coincidence that ‘ET’ posted exactly the same two quotes at uncommon descent (twice), in the same order, with the same ellipsis, the same punctuation, the same lack of citation and the same missing forename; and that the same two quotes can be found juxtaposed (and with the same ellipsis) in Denton’s abysmal Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

Such similarities could merely be a result of comparable thought processes, carelessness and ignorance. To justify such an accusation on such ‘flimsy’ evidence would require a long history of previous instances of @Meerkat_SK5 lying about his sources, and that would be extremely easy to find.

No, since he never says what the sources are. Lying by omission, perhaps.

More to the point, you appear to have uncovered a phylogeny of quote mining, though a very simple one, based on shared derived characteristics. The same method is used to produce phylogenetic trees of illuminated manuscripts. Once again, nested hierarchy is due to common descent.

Howe C.J., Barbrook A.C., Spencer M., Robinson P., Bordalejo B., Mooney L.R. Manuscript evolution. Trends in Genetics 2001; 17:147-152.

Digital information is composed of abstract entities involving discrete mathematics or statements of logic that apply to and must exist in 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. Analog information refers to continuous or redundant but orderly complex patterns of information reflected within the laws of nature

Furthermore, the nucleotide sequence both specifies the digital information of the gene and the higher order architectures of the genome, which have an impact on the expression of the digital information found in the gene.

How does this difference make the analogy breakdown?

Because you are not responding to it adequately or at all. Instead, you are just making a bunch of claims without any substance behind them, such as this…

What are you referring to? Nobody says what? Again, the quote specifically said,

…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 [60,61].7

Von nueman’s universal constructor theory:

  1. Blueprint
  2. Universal constructor
  3. Programmer or controller
  4. supervisory unit

Universal common designer theory

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

How come the quote does not support my analogy? Explain.

Von Neuman machines give the appearance of common descent because of the motives and mechanisms being used naturally produce the effect. But, in reality it is common design.

Just like biology is considered the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. But, in reality, it is just common descent according to secular scientists.

I want you to tell me why you think Von Neuman’s machines are VGT in reality rather than just appearance. Here is a list of differences between VGT and HGT, which should help you in your determination:

Common descent (VGT)

  1. Classical physics
  2. Analogue information
  3. Bottom-up processes
  4. Matter and energy are fundamental
  5. Point mutations and gene duplication
  6. Undirected process
  7. Appearance of design

Common Design (HGT)

  1. Quantum physics
  2. Digital information
  3. Top-down processes
  4. Information is fundamental
  5. Large-scale mutations
  6. Directed process
  7. Appearance of descent

That can’t be true. God was the explanation for those patterns before Darwin:

Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin’s days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it?

An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.

… Now what should we think of a philologist who should maintain that English, French, Spanish, and Italian were all specially created languages—or languages separately constructed by the Deity, and by as many separate acts of inspiration communicated to these several nations—and that their resemblance to the fossil form, Latin, is to be attributed to special design? Yet the evidence of the natural transmutation of species, is, in one respect, much stronger than that of the natural transmutation of languages—in respect, namely, of there being a vastly greater number of cases all bearing testimony to the fact of genetic relationship.
–George Romanes, “Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution”, 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.

Like I said, God was the explanation for those nested hierarchies. However, it was not a viable scientific explanation until Owen’s theory came along, which invoked separate creation from archetypical laws of nature:

Own was enamored with the new order of nature that he had “proven,” and, extended from its scientific foundations, it became a source of aesthetic as well as scientific value for him. He felt that the discovery of archetypal relationships and the contemplation of such patterns as they continually reappear both within an organism and between species were great sources of joy for the civilized man.

He expounded upon the “satisfaction felt by the rightly constituted mind” when it discovers the “harmonious concord with a common type” [4, p. 38], and he exclaimed “with what new interest must the human anatomist view the little ossicles ofthe carpus and tarsus when their homologies have been determined!” [4, p. 38]. Indeed, there is a grand beauty in the order of nature which opens at the touch of scientific contemplation: “A perfect and beautiful parallelism reigns in the order in which the toes successively disappear in the hindfoot with that of the forefoot . . .” [4, p. 33]. “Consider the beautiful and numerous evidences of unity of plan which the structures of the locomotor members have disclosed . . .” [4, p. 39].

…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.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.923.6553&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Owen’s theory explained the gaps in the fossil record and nested hierarchies.

It sounds like you are making a semantics argument for common descent that does not make any sense.

Do you consider Sudan cars to be the modified form of vehicles with four wheels that descended from a common vehicle ancestor?

I love how you misspelled “capabilities” as you were telling me how incompetent I am . :joy:

Yes, I did notice the lack of critiques from creationist litertature regarding this transition, especially compared to other so-called transitions (i.e. reptiles to birds). So I can grant this as a possible exception. However, because it is just one example, we have to question that one exception.

Created kinds: A recognizable base form and structure that does not change over time (i.e. horses)

Species: A similar base form and similar surface features that do change over time (i.e. donkeys and Zebras)

When you combine the 34 with the 47 respondents according to this much larger poll, it shows that this is what majority of physicists believe is the case:

Question 5: In your opinion the observer

a. Is a complex (quantum) system:

57

b. Should play no fundamental role whatsoever:

15

c. Plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role:

47

d. Plays a distinguished physical role (e.g., wave-function collapse by consciousness):

34

b2237_Ch-14.indd (arizona.edu)

On the other hand, the evidence supporting 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 under Orch-OR is quantum mechanical in nature. This is what they mean by having a distinguished physical role from the measurement apparatus:

“…The violation of the classical weight structure is similar to the violation of the well-known Bell inequalities studied in quantum mechanics, and hence suggests that the quantum formalism and hence the modeling by quantum membership weights, as for example in [18], can accomplish what classical membership weights cannot do.”

Experimental Evidence for Quantum Structure in Cognition | SpringerLink

No, I did not quite say that. Instead, I said VGT is primarily a materialistic process that is primarily relying on the rules of classical physics and analogue information.

So I grant that they are both materialistic processes, but one is relying on classical physics and bottom-up process, which includes matter and energy. The other one is using quantum physics and top-down processes. Let me try to elaborate on the differences…

The bottom-up approach gathers data from the environment to form a perception. In practice, it is the piecing together of very simple systems to give rise to a more complex system and, thus, make the original systems subsystems of the emergent system. Under VGT, information either emerges from matter or a useful fiction to describe matter.

In the top-down approach, one starts with the big picture or a complete knowledge of the system and breaks it down into smaller segments. Then, the smaller segments are reassembled from scratch to represent the original big picture. Under HGT, information come first and then changes in material things are consciously pursued in accordance with that information.

Let summarize the differences between the two…

VGT

  1. Classical physics
  2. Analogue information
  3. Bottom-up processes
  4. Matter and energy is fundamental
  5. Point mutations and gene duplication
  6. Undirected process
  7. Appearance of design

HGT

  1. Quantum physics
  2. Digital information
  3. Top-down processes
  4. Information is fundamental
  5. Large-scale mutations
  6. Directed process
  7. Appearance of descent

Yes, and you apparently did not read the whole thing…

Chemical reactions in the primordial soup created increasingly complex RNA molecules. This eventually gave rise to ribozymes, catalytically active molecules that have been demonstrated to replicate and evolve in a test tube [2]. Ribozymes are still with us today as viroids in plants: hairpin loop-structured catalytic RNAs that do not code for proteins and lack a protein coat.

Viroids are reportedly free living organisms.

It sounds like you are making a semantics argument for common descent that does not make any sense.

Do you consider Sudan cars to be the modified form of vehicles with four wheels that descended from a common vehicle ancestor?

Like I said, God was the explanation for those nested hierarchies. However, it was not a viable scientific explanation until Owen’s theory came along, which invoked separate creation from archetypical laws of nature:

Own was enamored with the new order of nature that he had “proven,” and, extended from its scientific foundations, it became a source of aesthetic as well as scientific value for him. He felt that the discovery of archetypal relationships and the contemplation of such patterns as they continually reappear both within an organism and between species were great sources of joy for the civilized man.

He expounded upon the “satisfaction felt by the rightly constituted mind” when it discovers the “harmonious concord with a common type” [4, p. 38], and he exclaimed “with what new interest must the human anatomist view the little ossicles ofthe carpus and tarsus when their homologies have been determined!” [4, p. 38]. Indeed, there is a grand beauty in the order of nature which opens at the touch of scientific contemplation: “A perfect and beautiful parallelism reigns in the order in which the toes successively disappear in the hindfoot with that of the forefoot . . .” [4, p. 33]. “Consider the beautiful and numerous evidences of unity of plan which the structures of the locomotor members have disclosed . . .” [4, p. 39].

…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.

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.923.6553&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Owen’s theory explained the gaps in the fossil record and nested hierarchies.

I agree, but God is both human and divine. So we would expect God to be consistent with his nature by necessity.

Fuz Rana will explain it better than me:

Because of their capacity to damage the genome, ERVs typically are framed by biologists as the bad guys in our tale, threatening the integrity of the genome. But is that really the case?

While pursuing an anticancer therapy, a research team from Sweden discovered something quite unexpected when it comes to p53’s role in protecting the genome: it actually teams up with ERVs to activate the immune system, causing the immune system to attack villainous tumor cells that are disguised as ordinary cells.1 The researchers exposed three different types of cancer cells (melanoma, osteosarcoma, and breast cancer) in vitro to compounds that inhibit the proteins MDMX and MDM2. Normally, these proteins inhibit p53. The team reasoned that if these two proteins were inhibited, p53 could be activated to trigger an anticancer response. To the researchers’ surprise, they discovered that activation of p53 led to the expression of ERV sequences. In turn, the accumulation of ERV RNA in the cancer cells triggered the interferon response in these cells. This response regulates immune responses to pathogens and tumor cells.

Triggering the interferon pathway made it appear as if the cancer cells were infected with a virus even though they weren’t—a mechanism dubbed viral mimicry. Presumably, the process of viral mimicry would flag the otherwise “invisible” tumor cells for destruction by the immune system. The researchers discovered that biopsies taken from patients treated with the MDM2 and MDMX inhibitors showed evidence that cytotoxic CD8+ cells had, indeed, infiltrated the tumor.

The researchers propose a model to explain how p53 can paradoxically both repress and enhance the expression of ERV sequences. They argue that when cells are unstressed, p53 binds to ERV sequences in the genome and, working in conjunction with LSD1 and DNMT1, represses these sequences. In stressed cells, the levels of LSD1 and DNMT1 fall, leading to the expression of ERV sequences by p53 binding.

As I told you before Dan, the laws of quantum physics are more fundamental than chemistry. More importantly, an experiment has revealed that this quantum search algorithm is itself a fundamental property of nature. This shows that there is a quantum basis for genetic information, which means it is more than just a description but proscription of nature.

[1908.11213] The Grover search as a naturally occurring phenomenon (arxiv.org)

According to Roger Penrose, the action of consciousness proceeds in a way that cannot be described by algorithmic processes. [8] For instance, conscious contemplation can ascertain the truth of a statement and freely make intellectual and moral judgments. This involves distinguishing between true and false statements or what is morally “right” versus “wrong.”

The only thing in nature that does this is a wave-function collapse. For instance, at small scales, quantum particles simultaneously exist in the superposition of multiple states or locations, described by a quantum wave function. However, these superpositions are not seen in our everyday world because efforts to measure or observe them seemingly result in their collapse to definite states. [5] Why quantum superpositions are not seen is a mystery known as the measurement problem, which seems somewhat related to consciousness. Experiments from the early 20th century indicated that conscious observation caused superposition wave functions to collapse to definite states, choosing a particular reality. Consciousness was said to collapse the wave function under this view. [5]

Moreover, Diederik Aierts [9] demonstrated how these two phenomena are identical by applying the quantum theory to model cognitive processes, such as information processing by the human brain, language, decision-making, human memory, concepts and conceptual reasoning, human judgment, and perception. Owing to its increasing empirical success, quantum cognition theory has been shown to imply that we have quantum minds.

Other empirical data have shown that the brain is a quantum computer that uses quantum mechanical processes, such as quantum tunneling and superposition, [10, 11] explicitly suggesting that we have quantum minds, as the Orch-OR theory predicted (Read section 4.5 OR and Orch-OR of “Consciousness in the universe” by Hammeroff and Penrose for more details). [12]

Lastly, observations and experiments on the fine-tuning constants seem to support an aspect of quantum mind theory called the universal proto-consciousness field theory. This field theory has also been referred to, by Penrose, as objective reduction (OR) and incorporated in his Orch-OR model to explain why humans have consciousness and these fine-tuning constants.

To be clear, quantum mind theory does not advocate for dualism or an additional supernatural force/substance that would operate outside the rules of science. Instead, it advocates for consciousness as an essential ingredient of physical laws that science has not yet fully understood. For more details, please refer to the introduction of “Consciousness in the universe” by Hammeroff and Penrose. [12]

Definition: universal proto-consciousness, the universal self-collapsing wave function.

[8] Penrose, R., 1989. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[9] [2208.03726] Human Perception as a Phenomenon of Quantization (arxiv.org)

[10] Nuclear Spin Attenuates the Anesthetic Potency of Xenon Isotopes in Mice | Anesthesiology | American Society of Anesthesiologists (asahq.org)

[11] Live visualizations of single isolated tubulin protein self-assembly via tunneling current: effect of electromagnetic pumping during spontaneous growth of microtubule | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

[12] Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory - ScienceDirect

47 respondents is a valid poll of physicists? Seriously?

Can you also point to anywhere in the poll question where it says that ONLY consciousnesses are capable of collapsing wavefunctions?

How is HGT not doing the same thing?

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?

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?

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?

Then how are humans able to design organisms that violate a nested hierarchy if it is a law of nature?

It doesn’t explain either.

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.

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.

[note: I branched this idea off into a new thread: How Does ID/Creationism Identify Gaps in the Fossil Record? ]

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?

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?

2 Likes

I’m going to abandon that topic, since it’s going nowhere. Just understand that everything you say is gibberish.

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.

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.

That would be “sedan cars”? No, but of course cars aren’t von Neumann machines. The latter have literal descent.

Enjoy it. But it’s still true, and the occasional typo does nothing to dispel its truth.

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. But you simply accept the evidence while closing your eyes to the conclusion.

More incoherence. In what way to donkeys and zebras change over time while horses do not? What is a “recognizable base form”? What is a “similar base form”?

1 Like

Hmm this reads a lot like what you said earlier, in post #340:

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. Reference 5 seems to also have been the one that might have had some relevance with respect to my query, but, alas, it is missing. And because of your evident busy-ness preventing you from taking good care of your own copying and pasting, I do not interpret careless response dumping like this as outright rude quite yet.
Be that as it may, I for one seem to be blessed with slightly more time than that, so when ever I had composed my question, it and its wording were chosen with some amount of care. Nevertheless, though my post was not ignored, the question contained therein was left unaddressed, and my curiosity remains unsated. Perhaps there is yet a chance for me to see it through, so I shall reiterate:

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. I am making no assertion (yet) regarding the claim, nor raising a dispute over it. I am asking, merely, what is meant by it and how one would go about trying to take it seriously.

Once the terms of discussion have been clarified, we can then go on to discuss which ever research paper you find crucial to the subject matter. With lots of convincing I might even stoop down to discussing pop-sci books, too, but I shall make no strong promises of that. Prof. Aerts and Prof. Penrose are, of course, most welcome to join our discussion, but until they do, I doubt that it may be productive that any of us go on speculating on the intricacies of their respective worldviews, so I shall abstain from that and focus on the primary literature on quantum theory as understood in physics, of whose ever authorship you deem appropriate, instead.

2 Likes

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.

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.

3 Likes

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.

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.

2 Likes

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.

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

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

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:

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 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)

Viroids are not free-living organisms.

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’.

1 Like

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.

5 Likes

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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)

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

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 [60,61].7
…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

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.

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.

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.

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

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…

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 [60,61].7
…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

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

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

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.

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

Todd Wood refuted that claim already:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02208.x

Environmental acclimation and reproductive isolation

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.

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.

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.

Self-collapsing wave-function or a causally disconnected choice

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

Again, that is not an accepted theory in physics.

Based on what evidence?

Also, we can observe bacteria performing HGT.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

2 Likes

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.

…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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

2 Likes

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.

2 Likes