The Argument Clinic

Okay, great, so we’re going to just ignore any and all substantive discussion of either of them then. Noted.

Do you not see the difference or do you self-not see the self-difference?

Well, seeing as many particles are also matter particles - which makes their creation and conversion actually rather non-trivial, but I’m sure you know all about that - I wouldn’t go as far as to call it redundant per se. But it depends on what exactly you meant, which, by the looks of it, we are not to ever find out.

Colour me old-fashioned, but I do not recognize the authority of AI algorithms on matters of scientific fact, even if the contents of its output appear consistent with my claims and in conflict with yours. If you have any of your own understanding you wish to present and defend, by all means, let’s see that. I will not bridge the waiting time by wasting energy responding to a procedurally generated text in place of any until that day. Rest assured, that I do not take it as an insult that you would feed me computer generated copypasta in place of actually engaging, and instead interpret it as one more expression of your being too busy to conduct yourself with self-respect. While it is not my place to tell anyone if or how much of that they ought have, I’ll take this opportunity to note that I, for one, happen to yet have some for you, still.

Well, no, it is not.

You are not “better navigating” anything doing that. You are just way out of your depth, by the looks of it, but too prideful to admit any flaw in your conclusions. So, instead, you double down on them, or grabbing on to trivial new ones, even when quoting directly sources that disagree with you, be they real or computer generated. And along the way you make sure to rub in that there is none of your own engagement happening anymore, anyway, and that you leave it either to absent (if living) people or to literal machines to do your arguing for you, because you are yourself well past the point of no longer giving a poo. Given how transparent it all is, the only person you are genuinely disrespecting here is but yourself. “It was not cute, nor funny,” I may say, should I some day be asked to opine on the events of these, “but rather gross, and undignified.”

2 Likes

If you have an objection that refutes a fundamental premise within the theory of common design, then I am happy to elaborate and have a more substantive discussion on it. I just don’t see your overall point here or how your point devastates my case.

Yes, the “self” is technically different, but it is very subtle and I thought I told you the difference already. Self-collapse just means there were not any external forces that collapses the wave-function.

That’s not how I would describe it. It is less about time and more about effort. There are some points or objections that are just not meaningful enough to warrant a rigorous response.

Yes, it is. Here is an article on it:

Philosophers use the word “ontic” to describe real objects and events in the universe, things that exist regardless of whether anyone observes them. If you think of the universe as a video game, the so-called “ψ-ontic” view holds that the wave function is the source code. From this perspective, the wave function does indeed correspond directly to physical reality, containing a complete description of what philosophers call “the furniture of the world.” For these “ψ-ontologists” (as their opponents playfully call them), quantum theory, and reality itself, is ultimately about how the wave function unfolds over time, according to the Schrödinger Equation . In the quantum realist view, ψ is, in some sense, “all there is.”

By contrast, the alternative “ψ-epistemic” view holds that the wave function represents at most our limited knowledge of the state of the system—not the source code, but just what you can learn about the source code, if it exists, from a particular round of the game. Some ψ-epistemologists believe an actual ontic state still exists even if the wave function is just a convenient computational tool that doesn’t capture all of the underlying reality. Others in the ψ-epistemic camp contend that the physical ontic state may not even exist in a meaningful way without an observer present: the game doesn’t exist if there’s no one there to play it. Most of the following discussion will adopt a “realist” position, which holds that there is a real, physical, world that exists independent of the observer, regardless of whether or not the wave function captures the whole story.

…Now, recent theoretical work by the British physicists Matthew Pusey, Jonathan Barrett, and Terry Rudolph (PBR) has presented the strongest theoretical evidence to date in favor of the ψ-ontic view. The trio of theorists have shown that—with certain assumptions—the ψ-epistemic view contradicts the predictions of quantum mechanics. In light of the astounding empirical success of quantum theory, this seems to suggest that the wave function really does correspond to an objective physical reality, and the ψ-epistemic team is out of luck. Are the Quantum World and The Real World the Same Thing? | NOVA | PBS

I beg to differ. From the very beginning, I have been taking what PS users have said very seriously. As a result, I ended up throwing away a number of scientific arguments from various sources based on their objections and feedback. You just were not here for 99.9% of it.

For instance, I did some further research on the law of entropy and I have dropped the argument for it because I realized it does not help my case or prove my point either way. I have just moved on as usual.

How is this a response to my response to you that the enzymatic processes facilitating HGT are subject to classical electrophysics despite you saying otherwise?

1 Like

No, you are evidently not happy to elaborate. I criticized explicitly the claim that

You can’t separate quantum physics from biology or macro objects.

seeing as that is blatantly false, and

Quantum physics permeates all of reality.

seeing as that doesn’t mean anything. You went on to argue for the fundamental-ness of quantum physics, and now apparently I failed to devastate your case for common design, when neither were subjects of my objection, whereas what was remains ignored.

Okay, I’m glad you acknowledge now that there was a difference after all, and that you do see it after all, and that you are, indeed, using different definitions of consciousness because subtle differences in definitions used in discussions of quantum theory are so unimportant to you that we might as well overlook them.

Oh, great. So it’s not that you have more pressing matters to attend to. Rather you find your interlocutors and the points they raise unworthy of being treated seriously by you. I wonder how convenient this attitude will remain to express throughout the rest of this very post I’m responding to…

I don’t understand how this is an article on the point of contention. There is no mention of either the actual nor other possible worlds, and no formal derivation of any claims about them that either begins with or relies upon any experimental data or postulates of quantum theory. Now, I understand that these are not meaningful enough objections to warrant thorough reading through, let alone rigorous responses. They are unworthy of your efforts, as you made so clear. Likewise, I must consider it a waste of my own time keeping pointing out that you do not read half of what you respond to, nor half of what you respond with, as this has been evident to all else who read along for a long time already, and it is folly to expect any betterment on that sort of thing, too.

That’s not how I would describe it… There are some points or objections that are just not meaningful enough to warrant a rigorous response.

2 Likes

So ‘no’, not ‘yes’. You’ll simply use a different source of misunderstood text.

I have a proposal.

Can we delete @Meerkat_SK5’s account and replace it with a ChatGPT post generator? The responses would be clearer, relevant, free of miscites and faster.

5 Likes

I’m sorry @Dan_Eastwood but, your endorsement of this comment notwithstanding, this claim is utter balderdash.

Carefully pruning away the context of a quote allows the quoter-out-of-context to make claims that make little sense in the full context – as Sam does here, as documented by @Roy here. It allows the quoter to distort, and thus misrepresent, the clear intent of the original comment.

That “the up arrow” does not do a sufficient job of retaining that context was clearly demonstrated by Sam himself. When he quoted me out of context here, he provided himself with so little context, that he was unaware that I had only hours before explicitly discussed, and provided a link to, “Marshall’s review”.

Context matters. And even without the distortions that removing context allows, it is confusing to have to search months ago, and hundreds of comments back, simply to find out what was really meant by a short phrase. This becomes increasingly unwieldy, as we will shortly see, if multiple comments are at play.

Sam, if you were genuinely interested in what I meant, rather than in petty point-scoring, then perhaps you should have looked at my comments IN CONTEXT!

I will do that now:

Looking at my comments in context, there is no contradiction between them:

  1. The “highly unlikely”-not-“impossible” applied to a hypothetical apologist, not to Behe and Meyer specifically. And this hypothetical apologist might have greater scientific background in the topic they were discussing than those two do, so have a higher likelihood of insight.

  2. Even somebody with lesser understanding can, by pure chance, utter something insightful. So even for Behe and Meyer, it is not-quite-impossible – merely more unlikely than for some apologists.

Sam, when your “chuckle[s]” are based on willful distortion of what was actually said, I in turn won’t be able to resist impeaching your vacuous humor. :roll_eyes:

And I’ll take this “consesnsus” over the fetid cesspits of the ID echo chamber any day. :smiley:

That’s my role as moderator, NOT an endorsement. :wink:

Meanwhile, @Tim has posted a lengthy summary of the situation, and he might have a good point. That’s an endorsement, NOT my role as moderator.

2 Likes

It appears the Politburo has met and are issuing you a warning, “get back in line”
:grinning:

But this is not what I am arguing though. It is a strawman argument. That is why I am not responding to it directedly.

Everything is made from atoms, which are the very particles that are dependent on conscious observation. Thus, the fundamental nature of reality is dependent on consciousness. The reason why we don’t see the results on a macro level or in our everyday lives is because the atoms are so tiny that there probability spread is so small we would never notice a change. There are also decoherence effects at play as well that make this unlikely to see first hand. Despite these facts, we still observe quantum effects in macro-objects:

Scientists supersize quantum mechanics : Nature News

Real-time single-molecule imaging of quantum interference | Nature Nanotechnology

Biology is no different. As you may know, quantum mechanical processes, such as quantum entanglement and proton tunneling, permeate all of biology. These are additional mechanisms that are necessary for life as well:

Quantum and classical effects in DNA point mutations: Watson–Crick tautomerism in AT and GC base pairs - Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics (RSC Publishing)

How quantum entanglement in DNA synchronizes double-strand breakage by type II restriction endonucleases - PMC (nih.gov)

More importantly, experiments have shown show how “the classical Newtonian laws emerge out of the quantum laws.” In other words, the classical world is the same as the quantum world where what happens at the quantum world would directly affect the classical world.

Secondary source: APS -2007 APS March Meeting - Event - Macrorealism Emerging from Quantum Physics

Primary source: [2212.11616] Leggett-Garg Macrorealism and temporal correlations

The wave-function is a possible mathematical world or universe:

Here is a possibly non-exhaustive list of physical things that are not made from atoms, in some arbitrary order, excluding virtual and quasi-particles for no particular reason:

  • Space-time
  • photons
  • gluons
  • W and Z bosons
  • the Higgs particle
  • charged leptons
  • neutrinos
  • quarks
  • any and all hadrons
  • plasma

We have not defined “the fundamental nature of reality”, or established a link between it and the nature of atoms. We have not defined what it means to “depend on” wave-function collapse either.

Right… So what you’re saying is, we can separate quantum physics from macro objects. Perhaps that’s what you meant when ever you said we couldn’t.

That’s not an experimental result. Rather, this is a postulate known as the Correspondence principle, an imposition on how new scientific theories should relate to well-established preceding ones.

That’s not the same thing “in other words”, no. In “the classical world”, (generalized) locations and momenta are independent variables. In “the quantum world” they are not. In “the classical world” whether location and momentum are interdependent is a separate concern from whether or not time point and frequency are. In “the quantum world” they are the same question. In “the classical world” there is a meaningful distinction between particles and waves. In fact, separating between objects and their properties can be made intuitive. In “the quantum world” neither is the case. You can fully solve (non-relativistic) classical problems using the quantum mechanical formalism, provided the problems themselves have solutions one can analytically or numerically obtain. You can in general not fully solve quantum mechanical problems using classical formalisms, even when complete solutions exist and are known.

3 Likes

The very same thing applies to HGT.

From what I can see, that statement is just based on an whim. There is no more reason to claim that HGT is based on consciousness than VGT.

I will take this as confirmation that your model just doesn’t work.

Yes, they do. Burying your head in the sand does not make the evidence go away.

Yes, they can. I have already shown you examples of genes being moved between distantly related organisms.

Yet again, this is confirmation that your model doesn’t work.

They do not do what you claim. It shows just the opposite. It shows violations of a nested hierarchy caused by HGT.

How was HGT detected? By finding violations of a nested hierarchy.
Yet again, this is more confirmation that your model is wrong.

6 Likes

Actually, we are both wrong. I forgot that everything is made up of wave-functions.

I acknowledge that there is no consensus but this does not mean we can’t define it like that based on current observations and experiments. Remember, whenever someone is constructing a new model of nature, there is usually going to be new definitions that come with it as a consequence of the scientific method:

The scientific definition of a term sometimes differs substantially from its natural language usage. For example, mass and weight overlap in meaning in common discourse, but have distinct meanings in mechanics. Scientific quantities are often characterized by their units of measure which can later be described in terms of conventional physical units when communicating the work.

New theories are sometimes developed after realizing certain terms have not previously been sufficiently clearly defined. For example, Albert Einstein’s first paper on relativity begins by defining simultaneity and the means for determining length. These ideas were skipped over by Isaac Newton with, “I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all.” Einstein’s paper then demonstrates that they (viz., absolute time and length independent of motion) were approximations. Scientific method - Wikipedia

Here’s the actual experiment:

Violation of the Leggett–Garg inequality with weak measurements of photons | PNAS

No, we can’t…

Toward quantum superposition of living organisms - IOPscience

Scientists supersize quantum mechanics | Nature

The extended modern synthesis still assumes that this mutational process is random or not directed towards improvement and assumes common ancestry.

These two assumptions do not and cannot be incorporated in the common design model.

Maybe I should have said HRT instead of HGT to avoid confusion because ,as I explain below, they are not the same processes.

While humans can manipulate the classification of organisms within a particular nested hierarchy,
it is important to note that violating the nested hierarchy through genetic engineering would not necessarily invalidate the fundamental principles of evolution or the nested hierarchy itself. Rather, it would be an example of human intervention in the natural evolutionary process, which could have unpredictable consequences for the affected organisms and their ecological niches.

In addition, if a human were to classify a species within a different genus than its evolutionary history suggests, that species would still be nested within the larger category of its family.

BTW, can you please remind me again why you are the only who thinks this objection is relevant or so devastating.

You are confusing HRT with HGT.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is the transfer of genetic material between organisms that are not parent and offspring, such as between different bacteria or between a virus and a host cell. HGT can occur through various mechanisms, such as transformation, transduction, and conjugation.

On the other hand, horizontal regulatory transfer (HRT) refers to the transfer of regulatory elements, such as transcription factors or epigenetic marks, between organisms. Unlike HGT, HRT does not involve the transfer of actual genetic material that are present, but rather the transfer of information that can affect gene expression and regulation. As a result, this would not lead to the violation of nested hierarchies as it would with HGT.

Instead, HRT can occur through mechanisms such as horizontal transfer of mobile genetic elements (MGEs) that carry regulatory genes, or through the transfer of extracellular molecules such as quorum sensing signals that can affect gene expression in recipient cells.

Overall, while both HGT and HRT involve the transfer of information between organisms, they differ in the type of information being transferred: HGT involves the transfer of actual genetic material, while HRT involves the transfer of regulatory elements that can affect gene expression and regulation.

The study you mentioned was probably not the best example to show you why HRT does produce nested patterns. But, the other one is better:

Four components shape the functional architecture of bacterial regulatory networks: 1. global transcription factors, which are responsible for responding to general signals and for module coordination; 2. strict, globally regulated genes, which are responsible for encoding products important for the basal machinery of the cell and are only governed by global transcription factors; 3. modular genes, which are modules devoted to particular cell functions; and 4. intermodular genes, which are responsible for integrating, at the promoter level, disparate physiological responses coming from different modules to achieve an integrated response. All these functional components form a nonpyramidal, matryoshka -like hierarchy exhibiting feedback.
Regulatory Networks, Bacteria | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)

Wavefunctions are equations and the last time I checked, we aren’t composed of equations.

Your amnesia can be quite annoying. You claimed HGT operates ONLY via quantum physics. I replied that the electrostatic interactions between the enzymes that facilitate HGT and their substrates can be modeled using classical electrophysics, which runs counter to your absurd claim. What is your response to this?

False!

HRT does involve the transfer of genetic material. Like before, you are talking crap. Eugene Koonin describes HRT as:

As implied by the name proposed for this distinct route of evolution, HRT involves horizontal transfer of noncoding regulatory regions of microbial DNA alone, without the adjacent regulated genes

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418789111

That’s not how this works. You don’t get to drag me in to your own wrongness. All of the things I listed are not comprised of atoms. You being wrong in saying that everything is does not make me wrong in listing things that are not. Also, space-time isn’t made up of wave functions (even by a most generous interpretation of what you could possibly be meaning by that) either. So with your “correction” you are still incorrect. And, once more, between the two of us, alone in that incorrectness.

Okay, so let me get this straight. You claim:

… experiments have shown show how “the classical Newtonian laws emerge out of the quantum laws.”

Then I assert that this is not an experimental result so much as theoretical consistency principle… and then you go on to cite an experiment where violations of Newton’s laws at the quantum level are observed… as evidence for the principle being experimentally confirmed? What am I to make of this? Are you taking the mick, or just incompetent?

When I granted you your lay-person’s explanation, that was not me saying that it was maximally precise in covering all of the angles whence the separation can be made. You don’t have to contradict yourself and commit to being completely wrong about this, only because not knowing any better you overlooked some subtleties, and now suddenly decided those ought be important to you again, after we had already established that they wouldn’t be.

And just before this silly debate continues, let me name a couple actual macroscopic quantum effects:
First, I’ll pick black body radiation. Despite it being a spectrum characteristic of macroscopic matter aggregates, there is no accurate classical ab initio model of that. Rayleigh-Jeans radiation produces the infamous ultraviolet catastrophe, while Wien’s approximation fails to match the low frequency regime. Both models are also phenomenological, with no rooting in either Newtonian mechanics or Maxwellian electrodynamics.
Second, I’ll name collisions between rigid bodies. Outside of our experience and intuition, classical physics can provide no reason as to why any two billard balls, say, would not phase right through each other instead of colliding, and through the table, too, while they’re at it. There is no force preventing that from happening.

3 Likes

Apparently in this episode of Meerkat Manor “mobile genetic elements (MGEs) that carry regulatory genes” (my emphasis) are not genetic material and do not contain genes.

Even Yossarian would see through that one.

Mitch would realise that regulatory elements are sequences of non-coding DNA.

Carlos would easily spot that transferring epigenetic marks without the DNA they’re attached to would be like sending your fur roving without the rest of you.

Wise 'ol Zaphod might even know that transcription factors are proteins or RNA strands generated from DNA, and that for any permanent effect you’d need to transfer the DNA, not just the products.

Meanwhile, Tosca might explain gently that HGT is the transfer of genetic material that contains genes, while HRT is the transfer of genetic material that does not contain genes, and that the ‘G’ in HGT stands for ‘gene’ not ‘genetic’.

Flower wouldn’t bother with any of this, naturally. She’d just bite your leg off.

2 Likes

False. We observe that mutations are random with respect to fitness. This is demonstrated in multiple experiments. We also have tons of evidence for common ancestry. It is a conclusion, not an assumption.

The problem is that OBSERVATIONS can not be incorporated into the common design model.

But you are saying that we would have to violate the laws of thermodynamics in order to produce violations of a nested hierarchy. So how are humans violating the laws of thermodynamics when they move genes between distantly related organisms that produce obvious violations of a nested hierarchy? How are bacteria themselves violating the laws of thermodynamics when they pass genes between distantly related species?

Classifications aren’t based on whims. They are based on evidence.

That’s the same exact thing as HGT.

Yes, it does. Regulatory elements are DNA.

It’s not better. Your article doesn’t address the nested hierarchy between species.

3 Likes

Yes and these equations have been experimentally confirmed to exist. More importantly, they are considered to be the "basic physical entity, which represents the totality of existence according to the Theory of the Universal Wave Function that was introduced by Hugh Everett:

Since the universal validity of the state function description is asserted, one can regard the state functions themselves as the fundamental entities, and one can even consider the state function of the entire universe. In this sense this theory can be called the theory of the “universal wave function,” since all of physics is presumed to follow from this function alone.[7]

Not quite, I claimed that HGT, which would include HRT and BGT, operates only via consciousness which must be rooted in quantum physics according to the common designer theory (or quantum mind theory)

I also made it very clear that you cannot separate macrorealism from microrealism because macrorealism is an emergent property of the quantum world. From Sean Carroll, the atheist physicist:

The real world simply is quantum-mechanical from the start; it’s not a quantization of some classical system. The universe is described by an element of Hilbert space. All of our usual classical notions should be derived from that, not the other way around. Even space itself. We think of the space through which we move as one of the most basic and irreducible constituents of the real world, but it might be better thought of as an approximate notion that emerges at large distances and low energies.

I was referring to structural genes when I said that. This is why I specifically said HRT does not involve the transfer of actual genetic material, BUT rather the transfer of information that can affect gene expression and regulation.

So I actually did not say HRT does not involve the transfer of genetic material.

My Gosh, you continue to be mistaken here. This is from a very prominent physicsit named Sean Carroll:

We human beings, even those who have been studying quantum mechanics for a long time, still think in terms of a classical concepts. Positions, momenta, particles, fields, space itself. Quantum mechanics tells a different story. The quantum state of the universe is not a collection of things distributed through space, but something called a wave function. The wave function gives us a way of calculating the outcomes of measurements: whenever we measure an observable quantity like the position or momentum or spin of a particle, the wave function has a value for every possible outcome, and the probability of obtaining that outcome is given by the wave function squared. Indeed, that’s typically how we construct wave functions in practice.

Mathematically, wave functions are elements of a mathematical structure called Hilbert spaceThe word “space” in “Hilbert space” doesn’t mean the good old three-dimensional space we walk through every day, or even the four-dimensional spacetime of relativity. It’s just math-speak for “a collection of things,” in this case “possible quantum states of the universe.”
**> **
> Hilbert space is quite an abstract thing, which can seem at times pretty removed from the tangible phenomena of our everyday lives.
Space Emerging from Quantum Mechanics – Sean Carroll (preposterousuniverse.com)

I forgot to point out the observations that support the holographic principle:

I don’t think I need to explain this principle to you. Anyhow, these observations provide direct evidence rather than indirect.

Sean Carroll should tell you further why you are mistaken:

The real world simply is quantum-mechanical from the start; it’s not a quantization of some classical system. The universe is described by an element of Hilbert space. All of our usual classical notions should be derived from that, not the other way around. Even space itself. We think of the space through which we move as one of the most basic and irreducible constituents of the real world, but it might be better thought of as an approximate notion that emerges at large distances and low energies.
Space Emerging from Quantum Mechanics – Sean Carroll (preposterousuniverse.com)

No, this is wrong because the argument for goal-directedness within DNA does not depend only on whether beneficial mutations are most likely to occur compared to deleterious ones. For instance, in a study on 34 E. coli strains, Martincorena, Seshasayee, & Luscombe [4] discovered that the mutation frequency varies across bacterial genomes. Some regional “hot spots” have a reasonably high mutation rate, whereas “cold spots” display a reasonably low rate of genetic change. The researchers discovered that the hot- and cold-spot locations are not random. [4] Thus, it appears that the mutation rates have been fine-tuned to lower the risk of harmful genetic changes. Recent studies have drawn the same conclusion. [27, 28]

Evidence of non-random mutation rates suggests an evolutionary risk management strategy | Nature

De novo mutation rates at the single-mutation resolution in a human HBB gene-region associated with adaptation and genetic disease (cshlp.org)

Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana | Nature

As the studies indicate, there are limits on the amount of errors the cell makes in maintaining existing function rather than genetically engineering new function to improve fitness. This is equally important in establishing non-randomness.

I also don’t assume that the selection-effect definition of function is the only type of function meaningful to science.

No, there is no evidence of common descent in living or fossil organisms. There is nothing to infer from nature that would compel anybody to make this conclusion. The simulation of common descent is just in your mind and you guys are imposing it onto the data just like Darwin did in his day. All he did was modify Owen’s theory from common archetype to common ancestor and then assumed (like you guys do) that living organisms evolved from these ancestors.

Instead, we have tons of evidence for common design that you contribute to common descent because there is no way to test for common descent.

Like what?

You are forgetting that I don’t accept your premise that humans are violating nested hierarchies in the first place. I have already explained why they don’t. You are the one that needs to explain how humans violate the law of entropy if they violate nested hierarchies.

I was referring to structural genes when I said that. This is why I specifically said HRT does not involve the transfer of actual genetic material, BUT rather the transfer of information that can affect gene expression and regulation.

So I actually did not say HRT does not involve the transfer of genetic material.

Why do you think it needs to address it or why there needs to be a study?

Remember, both common descent and common design accept that the first animal body plans emerged from primitive multicellular organisms. For instance, the early organisms likely originated from single-celled ancestors that formed colonies, with some cells specializing in specific functions. As these colonies evolved over time, they developed more complex structures and eventually gave rise to the first true complex multicellular organisms, such as:

Animals, symbiomycotan fungi, brown algae, red algae, green algae, and land plants.

Then, after the cambrian explosion, my model suggests that the orders and family levels from each major animal clade continued to emerge from precambrian or primitive organisms rather than
modern animals.

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?

More importantly, how come the study does not provide a full explanation for why HRT and BGT form nested hierarchies under the common design model?

That’s still random with respect to fitness. We are not saying that it is random with respect to position in the genome. We are saying it is random WITH RESPECT TO FITNESS.

There is no evidence that you and your siblings and/or cousins are related through common descent? We don’t see common descent happening right in front of us?

Plus, here are 29+ pieces of evidence for common ancestry:

I’m sorry, but your claim can’t be taken seriously.

The nested hierarchy.

Your rejection of facts don’t make them go away.

No, you haven’t.

HRT involves the transfer of DNA, actual genetic material.

A nested hierarchy is one of the most fundamental pieces of evidence for common ancestry. A nested hierarchy is exactly what we should see if common ancestry is true. There is absolutely no reason why we would expect common design to produce a nested hierarchy. Therefore, a nested hierarchy is powerful evidence for common ancestry and against common design.

Why would a common designer be prevented from combining features that would violate a nested hierarchy? I can’t find a single reason why a common designer would be prevented from doing such a thing. This is further supported by the observations that humans are able to combine features from distantly related organisms in a way that violates a nested hierarchy. HGT itself violates a nested hierarchy in the vast majority of cases. We use these violations as evidence for HGT in the past.

There is absolutely no reason why we should see a nested hierarchy if common design is true. There is every reason why we should see a nested hierarchy if common ancestry is true. We see a nested hierarchy. Therefore, common ancestry is supported, common design is not.

1 Like

I give up on you!