# 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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 737

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 26, 2023, 12:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/737 "2023-04-26T00:46:31Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I only reference youtube videos on them because you guys refuse to read the articles I give you on quantum physics or the Orch-OR model.

That **misrepresents** the record.

1. Back in April/May 2021 you merely made an **incomplete** citation to “Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger 2014” (as it gave no title, it was unclear _which_ of their 2014 papers you were referring to), which was only _one citation among many_ you gave in [that post](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-comprehensive-theory-of-intelligent-design/13625).

2. _Long_ before you either gave a complete citation, let alone further ones, @Jordan did his own research on the topic [here](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/292):

> [@Can God be a useful "scientific" hypothesis? Yes](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-god-be-a-useful-scientific-hypothesis-yes/13699/292):
>
> OK, I dug a little bit more into Orch-OR and while I can see where you’re going better, I think a significant issue is that your hypothesis that consciousness impacts mutation seems more like conjecture built on a hypothesis that’s built on one-of-several competing theories. Orch-OR is a hypothesis with major relevant problems (decoherence would be an enormous problem in biochemically relevant conditions) built on objective-collapse theory which is an extension/competitor to quantum mechanics. But no objective-collapse theory has been experimentally verified, so whether objective-collapse is “true” is an open question. But the biggest problem with this “arm” of your hypothesis is that extending from Orch-OR (consciousness as a quantum phenomenon) to “consciousness could be responsible for many/most/all mutations” is pretty much just conjecture. My opinion is that this moves the hypothesis out of the realm of science into science-grounded philosophy. I would put Orch-OR in that category as well.

1. Your presentation of Youtube videos **WAS NOT** in response to failure to read articles **that you had not presented to us** , but rather an attempt to shore up your failing argument [here](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/would-this-origin-of-life-model-work/13971/6).

2. That you would present us those videos from a “buffoon”, and even think that the presenter was actually a quantum physicist, _further confirmed_ our growing impression that **you had no idea what you were talking about**.

Thus, we were left with _ **prima facie** _ evidence that (i) you have **no understanding of quantum physics, quantum biology, or neuroscience** , and (ii) that your ‘theory’ is **utter balderdash**.

The **ONLY** way you can rebut this evidence is to provide evidence of your own competence in these fields by answering these questions:

> [@Universal Common Designer theory \[UPDATED and REVISED\]](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/201):
>
> > [@Universal Common Designer theory \[UPDATED and REVISED\]](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/201):
> >
> > I therefore have three questions for you:
> > 
> > 1. What is your formal background in physics?
> > 2. What is your formal background in calculus?
> > 3. What books/textbooks on quantum physics, written by _actual quantum physicists_ have you read? (As opposed to Youtube videos by apologists.)
> 
> To which I would add:
> 
> 1. What is your formal background in biology?
> 2. What books/textbooks on quantum biology, written by _actual quantum biologists_ have you read?
> 3. What books/textbooks on neuroscience, written by _actual neuroscientists_ have you read?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I only need to know the basics of quantum physics and read enough about it online to make my case.

To “know the basics of quantum physics” with any robustness would require a fairly strong background in both physics and math. Further, you have given no impression that your reading of this topic had any depth, or that you have any real understanding of the scientific sources you cite.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> No, this was not what I meant.

Then perhaps you should have _said_ what you meant, rather than making an absurd statement, that has, as a direct implication, what I suggested.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> No, Plato did not argue that the Forms or Ideas create concrete objects or physical reality directly.

You have provided no evidence that Penrose has either. 🙄

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I just gave you an example in regards to Galileo. That is the evidence.

No, to be “evidence” a fact has to be _relevant_ – Galileo was a _non sequitor_.

Further, I would point out that acceptance of Darwinian Evolution started _long before_ universities, and society, was as secular as it is today – so your conspiracy theory falls apart completely.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I beg to differ…

More like you ‘beg to _dither_’. 🙄

That HGT, just like mutations, _can_ be adaptive is old news, and fails to help your case.

But, without Natural Selection, or some analogous mechanism, there is **no mechanism** to separate out the adaptive variation from the maladaptive (_this_ is what I meant by “source of adaptation” – adaptation _separated out_ from maladaptation) – therefore _both_ adaptive and maladaptive variations accumulate. Owen+HGT lacks such a mechanism.

You also haven’t addressed my first point:

> 1. Owen’s work never anticipated the existence of HGT.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561)._