@moderators, how much more of these unbridled nonsense can you guys stomach before this thread is closed and Meerkat is disallowed from further posting his drivel on his forum. He says something, you rebut it, he repeats the same thing again, and the cycle goes on till he abandons the thread. He resurfaces with the same arguments on a new thread and the Meerkat cycle kicks off again. This is tiring. Let him go somewhere else and share his old, incoherent, and largely defeated arguments.
This still isn’t true, and will continue not to be true however many times it is repeated.
All multi-celled organisms have the same nuclear genetic code[1], so if the above were true () it would mean that insects, birds, jellyfish and trees would, despite their completely different evolutionary histories, be “identical or nearly identical”.
As usual @Meerkat_SK5 hasn’t the faintest idea of the consequences of his claims.
Not including the genetic code of their mitochondria. Also, citation needed. ↩︎
To create and develop animals through the common process of HGT for the common purpose of surviving, reproducing, and pioneering different environments.
No, this is not what I am claiming. I am saying that we would expect to find over 80% of functional ERV’S in general not necessarily just through prevention of retroviral infections.
Yeah but, the absence of specific shared ERV sequences in some NHP genomes challenges your point or model. For instance, some elements are found in chimps, bonobos, and gorillas, but are absent in humans. Others are present in chimps and great apes but not in humans and orangutans.
These findings counter expectations from a common descent model because they undermine the idea that ancient infections of an ancestral primate lineage occurred prior to divergence of the great apes. According to phylogenetic analyses of species, great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys; therefore, shared ERVs should parallel this same phylogenetic relationship.
In contrast, these findings present no direct challenge to the common design model. Instead, orthologous positions would also be expected if these elements reflect common design where similar proximity of elements for particular functions are required in the different species according to a common design creation model.
So my model comes out victorious.
No, I was referring to the genetic code itself not the mechanism that was used to establish the genetic code, such as HGT. Richard Owen’s archetype was just an abstract blueprint to make animals. Darwin came along and changed his archetype into a concrete animal form as part of his theory. This means that both explain the nested patterns, BUT these models have different predictions, such as…
That is obviously wrong. Sudden appearances and stasis fossils are expected from creationists models and many scientists apparently concur:
“Palaeobiologists flocked to these scientific visions of a world in a constant state of flux and admixture. But instead of finding the slow, smooth, and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and then remaining unchanged for millions of years-patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation."
You misunderstood me . I was referring to the same code every living creature uses on earth, in which DNA stores information using four nucleotide bases. The sequences of nucleotides encode information for constructing proteins from an alphabet of 20 amino acids:
The biological world thrives on variation. Organisms vary widely within a single species, and evolution uses this to produce yet more variation through speciation.
It’s hard to make sense of.
There is one constant, however: all living things use the genetic alphabet of guanine, cytosine, adenine and thymine, better known as G, C, A and T. These four nucleobases come together via hydrogen bonding to form distinctive base pairs, and together they comprise the language of genes and the building blocks of DNA. Four DNA bases good, six better (cosmosmagazine.com)
All life on Earth relies on a standard set of 20 molecules called amino acids to build the proteins that carry out life’s essential actions. But did it have to be this way? All living creatures on this planet use the same 20 amino acids , even though there are hundreds available in nature. Can Life Evolve From a Different Chemical Code? | Space
According to your vague definition of species, maybe. But, this is not the case for my model and theory.
Likewise, the Cambrian explosion falsifies your theory. The cause of the Cambrian explosion is not random mutations. This, of course, does not stop you guys from using ad-hoc explanations like punctuated equilibrium or the artefact hypothesis to save your failing theory.
In contrast, my theory does not require or use ad-hoc justifications to save it.
False. Take a look:
Interestingly, these 2 genetic codes resemble the function of all natural languages, i.e., the repetitive non-coding sequences serve as appropriate tool for organization, coordination and regulation of group behavior, and the non-repetitive coding sequences are for conservation of instrumental constructions, plans, blueprints for complex protein-body architecture. This differentiation may help to better understand RNA group behavioral motifs. Two genetic codes: Repetitive syntax for active non-coding RNAs; non-repetitive syntax for the DNA archives - PMC (nih.gov)
Great. We are making progress. You accept that gaps are the end result of a saltations process. If so, you can accept that Owen’s theory involved separate creation as well because he supported metagenics for individual generations of organisms. Metagenics means the creation of something which creates.:
The phenomenon of metagenesis provided Owen with a visualizing aid for his notion of evolution. In the booklet On Parthenogenesis, or the Successive Production of Procreating Individuals from a Single Ovum (1849), he described the phenomenon of alternating generations in the reproductive cycles of, for example, aphids, jellyfish, or flukeworms. Characteristic of such metagenetic cycles is that the individual generations can differ in form from each other as much as different species or even genera, families, and orders do. Sir Richard Owen | Encyclopedia.com
Metagenics + saltations = separate creation events
I think you misunderstood me as well. I was referring to the same code every living creature uses on earth, in which DNA stores information using four nucleotide bases. The sequences of nucleotides encode information for constructing proteins from an alphabet of 20 amino acids:
The biological world thrives on variation. Organisms vary widely within a single species, and evolution uses this to produce yet more variation through speciation.
It’s hard to make sense of.
There is one constant, however: all living things use the genetic alphabet of guanine, cytosine, adenine and thymine, better known as G, C, A and T. These four nucleobases come together via hydrogen bonding to form distinctive base pairs, and together they comprise the language of genes and the building blocks of DNA. Four DNA bases good, six better (cosmosmagazine.com)
All life on Earth relies on a standard set of 20 molecules called amino acids to build the proteins that carry out life’s essential actions. But did it have to be this way? All living creatures on this planet use the same 20 amino acids , even though there are hundreds available in nature. Can Life Evolve From a Different Chemical Code? | Space
No, 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]
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. This leads to address this…
Same here in regard to this dead horse we have been beating. You are strictly advocating for a theory laded definition of function that is predicated on the evolutionary paradigm being valid.
But, any kind of definition of function really should be independent of the theory.
Otherwise, cause-and-effect relationships would be discarded if they don’t fit a particular theory. Real science advocates that a theory be discarded, or at least reevaluated, if its predictions don’t match these relationships.
For this reason, I have asked you guys’ numerous times to make objection related to the casual role definition of function, which is a well-established form of function. Sadly, this has gone on deaf ears.
When did I ever say that? I am saying that both genetic code and wavefunction are examples of digital information or abstract blueprints
Nonsense, they have not been the same arguments but have changed dramatically since I first responded on this forum. I changed my approach and model to overcome the objections that were made on this forum and from that journal.
So you are wrong to suggests that I am not accepting your feedback or paying attention. From the very beginning, I have been taking what you have said very seriously. In fact, I ended up throwing away a number of scientific arguments from various sources based on your guys objections.
FYI, my so-called incoherent and defeated arguments have been edited and informally peer-reviewed. I even asked , my editor whether I addressed your guys main objections and she and her team informed me that I was successful in addressing the alleged fatal objections in the article. Here it is…
Dear author,
I have edited your manuscript for language and grammar. I believe you have addressed the objections adequately. However, there are still a few areas that need further clarification. There are also some good arguments in the appendices that could be incorporated into the main text if you feel they are important enough. Please see my notes for more details. Overall, the manuscript is much more clear and detailed than in previous rounds of editing, and is coming together very nicely. It appears that you are nearing submission readiness; if you require help with journal formatting or cover letter creation, please contact us and we will be happy to help.
You have confused ERV families with ERV insertions. What we expect from common descent is that specific insertions should follow the phylogeny, but there is no reason that ERV families, with many independent insertions, should do so. What you see here are ERVs that happen to have infected chimps and gorillas, independently, but didn’t infect humans. And they didn’t infect the chimps and gorillas at the same insertion sites.
Your model predicts nothing, and that’s a problem. But the bigger problem is that you have no comprehension of your sources.
No. Archetypes do not explain nested patterns. Only common descent explains nested patterns. Note that Owen’s ideas feature common descent, at least within archetypes. Saltation is a meaningless term except within a context of common descent.
Note that the quote refers to species, not higher taxa. Your claims are not about species but about higher taxa. Nothing relevant here.
Your definition of species is both vague and incoherent. But are you now claiming that most species that ever lived are still around?
That’s whataboutism, which implicitly accepts that your theory has been falsified.
How do you know that?
As usual, your source is irrelevant to your claims, and you have no comprehension of what it says.
No, I don’t accept that. Saltation is one possible explanation for a gap, but not the only one. Nor is saltation the same thing as separate creation. As usual, your source doesn’t say what you think it does.
Your are wrong about the same code.As I mentioned, the genetic code of your nuclear DNA is different from the genetic code in your mitochondrial DNA. And both nuclear and mitochondrial codes differ somewhat in various eukaryote groups. Just because all the codes use the same four bases doesn’t make them the same code. Your source does not describe the genetic code; as usual it doesn’t say what you think and doesn’t support your claim.
Sigh. Another incoherent response that has nothing to do with the discussion.
Then why not define vertical inheritance as common design? Why only horizontal inheritance?
That’s HGT in action. It’s a natural process just like vertical inheritance. So what makes HGT common design but VGT not?
Then why do ERV’s have to look like retroviruses in order for ERV’s to have function? That’s what you claimed. Nearly 90% of ERV’s have had their viral genes removed through recombination.
ILS is expected to create noisy phylogenies. This is expected.
Those are not orthologous ERV’s. They fit the expected pattern that we would expect from common ancestry. If those were orthologous ERV’s then they may be a challenge, but they aren’t. Do you understand why that is?
Your model fails. If you are claiming that common design requires ERV’s to be orthologous then PtERV-1 insertions are a serous challenge to your model. They are not orthologous. In addition, common ancestry and evolution predict that they won’t be orthologous because of the species distribution, and they aren’t orthologous.
Why don’t those archetypes include combinations of features that would violate a nested hierarchy?
They are also expected in the evolutionary model.
What your model does not predict is a nested hierarchy, and we see a nested hierarchy. The evolutionary model wins.
I was referring to the nested hierarchy in both morphology and DNA sequence. Your model can’t explain these patterns.
Ahh, I thought he was talking about some other insertions. If memory serves, there are a handful (2?) HERV-K insertions that don’t follow the predicted pattern. This isn’t surprising since HERV-K appeared to be active during the era when the gorilla, chimp, and human lineages split off from one another.
How can you expect this when the origin of viruses/life is unknown according to your model?
It could be that ERV-like sequences are sources of escaped genes that contribute to the genesis of retroviruses. Or retroviruses might have preceded the establishment of ERVs, as is observed today. Perhaps both are true in different instances.
No, the problem is that your model cannot be tested but merely assumed. Now, I know that you claimed that one of the panda studies provides a method for testing. However, you never explained how detecting convergent evolution tests and/or confirms common descent. In contrast, I explained how both those panda studies test and potentially confirm common design.
Also, based on my model, we would expect to find:
(A) Over 80% of families and orders evolved separately.
(B) Over 80% of ERVs and pseudogenes are functional.
(C) The regulatory regions of core gene promoters between families and orders are over 80% incongruent with species phylogenies (i.e., vertical inheritance).
I beg to differ. Von Neuman’s universal constructor model is an exact representation of common design model. According to cellular automata, a complete self-replicating automaton must consist of three components: a universal constructor (UC), a (instructional) blueprint and a supervisory unit. These functional components are required to produce successive generations of artificial life, which happens to produce patterns that look like nested hierarchy:
The universal common designer, the genetic code, and HGT would be the biological version of Von Neuman’s Universal constructor, blueprint, and supervisory unit. This means that you are merely assuming those patterns represent only common descent or inheritance. But, those patterns actually represent a common blueprint (genetic code) and mechanism (HGT) the designer used to front load the reproductive and survival capacity of animals into the first single celled organisms so they can adapt to their respective environments.
The article about Owen’s theory describes it like this…
Owen called the fish-like concatenation of virtually undifferentiated vertebrae the vertebrate archetype. It represented the skeleton in its most elementary form, with only a hint of the modifications that are to be found in real vertebrates, and to which all skeletal forms, including those of humans, could be traced back by a careful study of their homological relationships.
Owen gave a precise definition to the concepts—at that time fuzzily defined—of analogy and homology: he defined an analogue as “A part or organ in one animal which has the same function as another part or organ in a different animal”; he defined a homologue, by contrast, as “The same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function” (1848, p. 7). Sir Richard Owen | Encyclopedia.com
It is how I define common design, which is…
To create and develop animals through the common process of HGT for the common purpose of surviving, reproducing, and pioneering different environments.
Ok, fine but what is your point? Because I have made it very clear that what I meant by the “same code” being chosen is the 4 bases and the 20 amino acids.
Correct, but my model still predicts a saltations process.
Based on my definition of species, yes.
No, because I specifically argued why my theory is superior even though both theories have conflicting evidence.
What are you talking about. You said the genetic code was not a blueprint for life on earth. I showed you why you were WRONG. Here is another source showing how you are wrong:
DNA is a complex, long-chained molecule that contains the genetic blueprint for building and maintaining all living organisms. Found in nearly all cells, DNA carries the instructions needed to create proteins, specific molecules essential to the development and functioning of the body. DNA | Summary.
No no no, I was referring to Owen’s theory only. I never said that his theory suggested that they were the same. I am saying his theory involved metagenics AND saltations.
Metagenics + Saltations = separate creation
I told you already.
This common designer implies having a common design (HGT) rather than a common descent (VGT) because only humans produce top-down causation in the form of algorithmic information or RNA viruses. More importantly, observations have suggested that viruses were not only the probable precursors of the first cells but also helped shape and build the genomes of all species, including humans. [36]
For instance, scientists synthesized the RNA molecules of a virus and reconstructed a virus particle from scratch. [37] They accomplished this by creating another virus and using its parts, such as specialized proteins (enzymes), to construct an RNA virus to solve the problem of an unstable RNA. Other experiments have shown that RNA viruses can be engineered to interact with the host miRNA pathways, and miRNAs can be used to control viral tropism. [38]
This is how human designers operate. They use preexisting mechanisms, material parts, and digital information to assemble designs to achieve a purpose.
The other reason a common designer implies having a common design rather than a common descent is because natural selection lacks the capacity to elucidate the physical mechanisms underlying the transition from non-life to life or to distinguish non-living from living. [41]
Furthermore, RNA viruses cannot be included in the tree of life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages. While cellular life has a single, common origin, viruses are polyphyletic—they have many evolutionary origins. [42]
Overall, this is why we would expect to find over 80% of ERV’s and psuedogenes since the process of HGT continues to be ongoing and serves a purpose. We also expect to find separate creation of animal groups from Orders and Families levels because HGT can lead to a substantial innovation in one scoop, rather than point mutations or gene duplication. More importantly, HGT can move genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms without the (“vertical”) transmission of DNA from parent to offspring (reproduction).
[37] Cello, J., Paul, A.V. and Wimmer, E., 2002. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science, 297(5583), pp. 1016-1018.
This quote does not include stasis along with sudden appearance though. So it does not fully explain it.
I beg to differ. Von Neuman’s universal constructor model is an exact representation of common design model. According to cellular automata, a complete self-replicating automaton must consist of three components: a universal constructor (UC), a (instructional) blueprint and a supervisory unit. These functional components are required to produce successive generations of artificial life, which happens to produce patterns that look like nested hierarchies:
The universal common designer, the genetic code, and HGT would be the biological version of Von Neuman’s Universal constructor, blueprint, and supervisory unit. This means that you are merely assuming those patterns represent only common descent or inheritance. But, those patterns actually represent a common blueprint (genetic code) and mechanism (HGT) the designer used to front load the reproductive and survival capacity of animals into the first single celled organisms so they can adapt to their respective environments.
A protein called p53 plays an important role in protecting the genome by enhancing ERVs to activate and cause the immune system to attack harmful tumor cells that are disguised as ordinary cells.
Triggering the interferon pathway made it appear as if the cancer cells were infected with a virus. This process of viral mimicry would flag the “invisible” tumor cells for destruction by the immune system.
If there was no similarity between these ERV and retroviral sequences, this viral mimicry mechanism that occurs in tumor cells when p53 becomes activated would most likely not be possible. This requirement explains why God would introduce genetic elements into the human genome and other animals that share sequence elements with viruses.
If someone found a Precambrian rabbit fossil, it has been said that this would falsify Common descent because it would conflict with the order of appearance.
The same reasoning can be applied to nested patterns. According to this source, "All a scientist has to do is find a life form that does not fit the hierarchical scheme in proper order. We can reasonably expect that yeasts will not secrete maple syrup. This model allows us the logical basis to predict that reptiles will not have mammary-like glands. Plants won’t grow eyes or other animal-like organs. Crocs won’t grow beaver-like teeth. Humans will not have gills or tails.
…We will not find any unicorns or “crockoducks.” There should never be found any genetic sequences in a starfish that would produce spider-like fangs. An event such as a whales developing shark-like fins would falsify common descent.
While these are all ludicrous examples in the sense that such phenomena would seemingly be impossible, the point is that any life form found with even the slightest cross-phylum, cross-family, cross-genus kind of body type would instantly falsify common descent. And, it doesn’t have to be a known physical characteristic I just listed. It could be a skeletal change in numbers of digits, ribs, or configurations. There is an infinite number of possibilities that if such a life form was unclassifiable, the theory of universal common descent would be falsified."
Another irrelevant objection; the ultimate source of viruses is not relevant to their recent history. The source of ERVs is well known, and retroviral insertions happen all the time.
It’s the other way around. Common descent, i.e. knowing the actual phylogeny, is what lets you detect convergent evolution. And your explanation was incoherent.
As I pointed out, we find, to the contrary, that all families and orders are related in a nested hierarchy. This also is not a prediction of your “model”, just something you arbitrarily claim.
That’s strictly because it actually is a form of common descent, with ancestors and descendants. This is not anything like your common design model. You persist in equating things that have no mutual resemblance. It has nothing to do with Owen’s archetype idea or saltationism either.
No, they have nothing at all to do with each other. You are constantly making imaginary connections. In fact your whole argument consists of that.
More incoherence. None of that, to the extent that it means anything, implies a nested hierarchy.
You provide yet another quote that has nothing to do with the point. Please stop.
That’s a meaningless definition. It even defines a noun as a verb, increasing the incoherency.
You have made nothing clear. And using your private definitions of common terms makes your writing even more unintelligible.
No, your “model” predicts gaps between higher taxa, not saltation. And those gaps commonly do not exist.
Then that’s another private definition that makes your claims unintelligible. If most species that ever lived are still around, where are the trilobites, allosaurs, rauisuchians, lithornithids, etc.? Didn’t those taxa have species?
You made no such argument, at least one that can be detected by people who aren’t you.
Neither source says that the genetic code is a blueprint. Let’s remember that your personal definition of “genetic code” is 4 bases and 20 amino acids. What your sources are saying is that the genomes, the DNA sequences of the genomes, are a blueprint of sorts. DNA sequences are not the genetic code, either by your personal definition or by the real definition. Again, you cite irrelevant sources that you don’t understand.
But that equation isn’t true, and you can’t support that claim.
How did you determine that only humans produce top-down causation? That’s just an assertion with no evidence.
All you have done is define HGT as common design. You haven’t explained why that is the case. We can see HGT happening naturally without any common designer. You also can’t explain why HGT is common design while VGT is not. Why would it be common design when E. coli receives DNA from C. difficile but common descent when the E. coli receives DNA from another E. coli bacterium?
Humans also make ice. Does that mean every piece of ice we see is the product of common design? There is no reason why nature can’t do what humans do.
Why would that be necessary in order for all life to share a common ancestor?
Why does that matter?
Why would 80% of ERV’s and pseudogenes have function because HGT continues to happen? How did you get that number? What is your reasoning? Why can’t HGT result in non-functional DNA?
If a C. difficile bacterium conjugates with an E. coli bacterium and passes a bit of DNA to the E. coli bacterium, is that E. coli a separate creation?
Darwin talks extensively about stasis in Origin of Species. This is all well trodden ground. You are simply wrong that stasis is not expected in the evolutionary model.
That model uses common ancestry and vertical inheritance, not separate creation.
No, I’m not. You have not given a single reason why separately created species would not violate a nested hierarchy. Why isn’t there an archetype with a mixture of bird and mammal features?
How many ERV’s does p53 interact with, and how many of those interactions are functional?
Why? p53 interacts with many human sequences that aren’t ERV sequences, so why would a sequence need to mimic ERV sequence in order to have function?
That’s not a violation of a nested hierarchy. Do you even understand what a nested hierarchy is?
Why don’t we find something like a species with a combination of bird and mammal features? Why would separate creation not mix and match features from disparate species? Humans do it all of the time. For example, this mouse has a jellyfish gene for a green fluorescent protein:
Human designs don’t fall into a nested hierarchy, so why does life?
Why not?
We can find goats that produce spider silk in their milk. Guess what? That’s a product of design.
We can see time and time again that human designs violate a nested hierarchy. You haven’t given a single reason why we shouldn’t see more violations of a nested hierarchy outside of human design.
Oh I see, you are arguing that common descent is valid and testable based on the (false) premise that it is the only process that could produce those patterns.
Not quite, Von Nueman’s universal constructor model is actually a form of natural selection:
“Von Neumann’s goal, as specified in his lectures at the University of Illinois in 1949,[2] was to design a machine whose complexity could grow automatically akin to biological organisms under natural selection.”
Moreover, natural selection is logically independent from common descent. The truth or falsity of one does not entail the truth or falsity of the other. As Elliot Sober explains:
Similarities involving highly adaptive traits are apt to provide misleading information about ancestry; instead, the best evidence of common ancestry comes from neutral or even deleterious features. For example, the torpedo-like shape of dolphins and sharks does not strongly support the hypothesis that they have a common ancestor, since one would expect big aquatic predators to have this shape, even if they originated separately. In contrast, the fact that many mammalian foetuses and many fish have gill slits is evidence of relatedness, since gill slits in mammals have little or no adaptive function. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2931893_Common_Ancestry_and_Natural_Selection
Researchers from Rockefeller University would beg to differ. They were able to recognize a close correspondence between a cell’s operation and a [von Neumann][self-replicating automaton], which forms the basis for their strategy to assemble an artificial cell. The goal was to construct a protocell, using parts taken from the cell, so that it has the same components as a von Neumann self-replicating automaton.
This automaton, like a cell, is capable of reproducing itself exactly. This conceptual entity consists of four components:
a universal constructor that makes a copy of the offspring;
a set of instructions for the constructor’s work;
a copier that duplicates the instructions for the offspring; and
a controller that controls both the universal constructor and the copier.
These researchers from Rockefeller used this blueprint to assess the progress made by their lab to generate precursors to artificial cells and it has proved to be useful.
Now, here is the part that shows it is identical to the common design/archetype theory. The experimenter plays a fundamental role in guiding and carrying out the process of creating life in the lab:
As the DNA program gets larger, the experimenter tries to understand how complex DNA subprograms, designed for vesicle division for instance, connect to the whole code-script. As opposed to living cells, the entire program of the artificial cell has to be devised, which is a difficult problem, as we shall see. The metabolism of the phospholipid vesicle increases as it is built up. The experimenter needs to understand how the energy uptake and the elimination of by-products can be carried out and optimized, which addresses questions on transport and exchanges. pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1017075108
Owen’s theory is essentially the same in practice, which suggests that the first life forms and species came about from a common blueprint in the mind of God. Again, He invoked metagenics to describe this evolutionary process, which is…
“the practice of engineering organisms to create a specific enzyme, protein, or other biochemicals from simpler starting materials”. Metagenics - Wikipedia
In your next response, please don’t make a bunch of assertions or objections without any substance. Instead, I am going to need you to explain why Von Nueman’s universal constructor still does not resemble the common design/artchetype theory.
I will just bring Hugh Ross to explain it better:
The materialistic model asserts that the centralized nervous systems evolved from a single common ancestor.
Evidence that could be interpreted as favoring the naturalistic model comes from the observation that all vertebrates and insects possess a nervous system consisting of a brain that is connected to a single cord of nerves that extends into the trunks of these animals. Furthermore, regulatory genes are similarly deployed during the development of the central nervous systems of these animals.
However, the new convergence discovery provides strong evidence that central nervous systems do not arise from a single common ancestor. Rather, there were multiple independent initial appearances of central nervous systems.
A research team led by marine molecular biologist José Martin-Duran found that a set of homeobox genes is expressed along the back-to-belly axis of the central nervous systems of vertebrates, flies, and one species of segmented worms. However, the team did not find this gene expression pattern in nine other bilaterian species (species with bilateral symmetry that possess a head, a tail, a back or dorsal, a belly or ventral, and a left side and right side).4 Four of the nine species were members of the xenacoelomorph phylum comprised of tiny worms that lack a through gut, gill slits, and a body cavity. The other five were members of the annelid (segmented worms), nemertea (ribbon worms), brachiopod (soft-bodied animals with shells on the upper and lower surface), platyhelminth (flatworms), and rotifer (part of the zooplankton) phyla. …
…What makes this example of biological convergence especially significant is its occurrence across phyla. It is not just convergence within an order, class, or phylum. It is observed in at least eight different phyla. Biological convergence repeatedly arising in circumstances where the forces driving natural selection are vastly different strongly argues for the compelling necessity of supernatural, super-intelligent activity on the part of a personal Creator.
This example is what confirms Owen’s prediction within his theory when he said…“A part or organ in one animal which has the same function as another part or organ in a different animal”; he defined a homologue, by contrast, as “The same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function” (1848, p. 7).
Well, the definition of design has multiple meanings, which can be either a verb or a noun. I used one of these meanings to construct the definition of common design, such as this…
I also based my definition of common design on observations showing how viruses were not only the probable precursors of the first cells but also helped shape and build the genomes of all species, including humans.
So there is nothing incoherent or meaningless about this definition.
I don’t understand this objection. 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
Also, these new definitions I am using are based on previous observations as I showed before. So they can’t be merely private definitions.
According to observations, we expect to find both because HGT can move genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms without the (“vertical”) transmission of DNA from parent to offspring (reproduction). More importantly, HGT can lead to a substantial innovation in one scoop, rather than point mutations or gene duplication.
For the most part, I don’t know. We are not entirely sure which animal groups are species or created kinds versus a basic type according to the common design model. With that said, it would only be conflicting evidence for my model, if these examples fit the definition of a basic type.
Let me put it to you a different way then. A discrepancy between theory and data does not necessarily falsify the theory. There are many theories where the discrepancy between theory and evidence was not considered a falsification of the theory. Instead, the discrepancy was eventually resolved through the testing of a superior theory.
Further, scientists usually don’t consider a theory to be falsified merely because of the existence of discrepancies between theoretical predictions and observations, even if those discrepancies remain unexplained for an extended period of time. Rather, the attempt to account for these discrepancies is what motivates a lot of scientific research. Darwin’s model of gradualism and Richard’s model of the designer both have conflicting evidence for them. However, only Owen’s model has been proven to have more predictive and explanatory power over the course of 160 years.
This means that the conflicting evidence you cited are merely opportunities for further researcher, especially when it has been repeatedly found that what initially seemed to be flaws or evil designs have turned out to be elegant or benevolent ones afterall with increasing understanding of the design.
It is remarkable how much you are getting this wrong. Take a look closer:
The blueprint for any living organism is contained in its DNA. DNA is a long molecule made up of many smaller units, called nucleotide bases
The order, or sequence, of the bases within the DNA provides the instructions for creating that organism—the genetic code
Functional chunks of DNA with particular combinations of base pairs are called genes
A genome is an organism’s complete set of DNA—all of its genes and other non-genic DNA
I don’t know what you consider to be an example of separate creation anymore.
Let me show you again what I mean by separate creation. I am talking about what this study suggests:
"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”). "
What I am arguing is that the orders and family levels within major animal groups emerged from these slim molds rather than animals. This is what I mean by separate creation. Again, metagenics is the practice of engineering organisms to create a specific enzyme, protein, or other biochemicals from simpler starting materials.
In this case, the simpler starting materials would be the slime molds. The genetically engineered organisms would be the different animal groups. As a result, it would look like a saltational process took place within the fossil record.
This is what Owen’s theory involved:
For Owen, this progressive change was a process guided by divine purpose. He believed in an orthogenetic-saltational process of organic unfolding, driven by an inherent tendency to change, not by contingent, gradualist, and external forces such as natural selection.
The phenomenon of metagenesis provided Owen with a visualizing aid for his notion of evolution…
…Characteristic of such metagenetic cycles is that the individual generations can differ in form from each other as much as different species or even genera, families, and orders do. Sir Richard Owen | Encyclopedia.com
As you can hopefully understand now, this is why we would expect to see animals from the order and and family level evolved separately at this point.
I have explained this in my article.
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.
Again, 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.
Not true. Fine-tuning plays a role in biology as well which entails that a designer is involve. For instance, quantum tunneling needs to be extremely precise for hemoglobin to transport the right amount of oxygen to the cells of all vertebrate and most invertebrate species. [16]
For instance, if the conscious observer chooses to measure the momentum of a particle with precision, the observer discovers that the position of the particle is now known only approximately ± half a mile (for more details on this, please refer to inference # 5 below).
However, according to the Heisenberg principle, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be predicted from initial conditions, and vice versa. If the uncertainty in the position becomes much greater or smaller than half a mile, hemoglobin will not function as it does, rendering advanced life impossible. [17]
You forgot what I told you before. Let me define these terms again for you…
Common design: To create and develop animals through the common process of HGT for the common purpose of surviving, reproducing, and pioneering different environments.
Universal common designer: universal self-collapsing genetic code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms (i.e., objective reduction).
Both common design and common descent are two different explanations that explain the same data, such as E. coli receiving DNA from another E. coli bacterium. However, they make different predictions and models.
Because all of life possesses RNA and RNA viruses were most likely the first life forms.
Because Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot explain the origin of viruses even though all of life requires RNA and RNA viruses were most likely the first life forms.
This is one big reason why Owen’s theory a superior model of evolution.
The common design model predicts that over 80% of taxonomical groups have functional ERVs and pseudogenes because the mechanism the designer uses in the form of HRT naturally produces this effect, unlike natural selection. I got an exact number of over 80% from research showing that well over 80% of junk DNA is functional. Transfer of noncoding DNA drives regulatory rewiring in bacteria | PNAS
"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”). "
What I am arguing is that animals from the order and family levels emerged from these slim molds rather than from animals. This is what I mean by separate creation.
No, my point was that gradualism was expected from his theory, which is not what we see in the fossil record (i.e. the transmutation of species).
Not quite, Von Nueman’s universal constructor model is a simulation of natural selection:
“Von Neumann’s goal, as specified in his lectures at the University of Illinois in 1949,[2] was to design a machine whose complexity could grow automatically akin to biological organisms under natural selection.”
More importantly, natural selection is logically independent from common descent. The truth or falsity of one does not entail the truth or falsity of the other. As Elliot Sober explains:
Similarities involving highly adaptive traits are apt to provide misleading information about ancestry; instead, the best evidence of common ancestry comes from neutral or even deleterious features. For example, the torpedo-like shape of dolphins and sharks does not strongly support the hypothesis that they have a common ancestor, since one would expect big aquatic predators to have this shape, even if they originated separately. In contrast, the fact that many mammalian foetuses and many fish have gill slits is evidence of relatedness, since gill slits in mammals have little or no adaptive function. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2931893_Common_Ancestry_and_Natural_Selection
Now, I am pretty confident you did not read much of my paper. I will have to summarize a part of it then:
DNA contains two types of information: digital, represented by genetic information, and analog, represented by the genome; both are present in DNA and have many properties almost identical to those in man-made computers and linguistic texts.
Based on this data, God probably operated in a similar manner to humans when designing life on Earth. This means that we would not have to worry about using an unfalsifiable theory that involves an omnipotent human because a non-computable being like God cannot violate his own nature.
In other words, the non-computable trait that this designer possesses offsets the omnipotent trait that this designer would also have to possess if this is true. For this reason, we would expect God’s human nature to be consistent without the flaws that humans naturally have because of their inherent physical limitations.
This allows us to treat an omnipotent God in the same way we would treat other intelligent agents (Neanderthals, modern humans, extraterrestrial intelligence, etc.) when we want to use a valid cause to explain a biological phenomenon over a mindless force.
Thus, all candidates are considered natural but immaterial causes that we can test because consciousness is supposed to be fundamental physics not classical physics.
These sequence elements appear to function as part of the innate immune system, helping to ward off retroviral infections through a variety of mechanisms that life scientists are just beginning to understand. The p53 is just one of those many mechanisms.
It isn’t, and your quote doesn’t say what you think it does. Now of course, natural selection happens as a direct result of common descent, so you aren’t entirely off base. Just enough to demonstrate, once again, that you can’t understand what you read. The quote from Sober, likewise, doesn’t say what you think it does, and it has nothing to do with your attempted point.
They would not. You just, once again, misunderstand what you read.
It’s nothing like it. Again, your entire strategy consists of equating things that have nothing to do with each other.
First, shouldn’t you explain why it does?
That is not a consequence of “the materialistic model”, just of the evidence available at the time.
Why would that be so?
What prediction? There was no prediction in your quote from Owen.
True, but when you attach an adjective (“common”), that tells an English speaker, which I’m not sure you are, that it’s a noun. You can’t say “I’m going to common design a toaster.” As usual, nothing you say is relevant.
This is not something you are qualified to judge. And you confirm it with another lengthy, irrelevant quote.
Incoherent, as usual.
Once again, you quote nothing relevant. The bit you did in bold implicitly defines “genetic code” to be quite different from your personal definition and from the real definition. The genome isn’t the genetic code.
No you aren’t. You appear to have no real idea what that study suggests, which is a huge clade, a group of organisms related by common descent, that includes all animals, fungi, and amoebozoans. It most certainly does not suggest that various animals are separately descended from slime molds. And even that would not be separate creation but a weird form of common descent. Must you have your own personal definition of every single term?
That’s not at all what Owen is talking about. And it isn’t what we see in the fossil record. This is hopeless. You can’t revolutionize biology from a position of complete ignorance of the data. Please stop.
Then why do they form cohesive clades? If different families of birds arose separately from slime molds, why can they be grouped into superfamilies, orders, and so on? Why are they even all birds, with consistent genetic and anatomical characters?
I say this because Tour said it, and I believe him. But I’ll note that you aren’t interested in presenting any evidence for your claims for discussion despite my offer.
Claiming I am being dishonest here because I haven’t read every paper on the subject? Do you expect me to take that as a serious argument?
I’m glad you now admit you were lying when you said
Since you admit to actually have no clue about the current state of the field.
I’m still waiting for any evidence you’ve ever read a single paper on the subject.
Since the only way your claim could be valid is if you have read every paper, the fact that you evidently haven’t read any is a fairly strong defeater.
Has there ever been a player of lotteries who does not complain about how hard it is to win the lottery?
Should I conclude that no one ever wins the lottery?
