But that isn’t separate creation. When you persist in giving idiosyncratic meanings to common terms, is it any wonder that people don’t understand you? Anyway, we can add that paper to the list of irrelevant support you claim based on papers you don’t understand. That’s not about anything being descended from slime molds; it’s about a common, unicellular ancestor having certain features that make multicellularity easier to evolve. Nor are those multiple origins of multicellularity within animals; all of animals are a single origin.
No they don’t. The only thing that makes that claim is your personal hypothesis. The data do not back up any such thing.
And that just isn’t possible. And it wouldn’t result in a nested hierarchy within animals.
Because there is no shared history to generate that hierarchy, and you have suggested no alternative mechanism. Why should there be such a thing as a mammal? A euarchontoglirean? A primate? No reason other than descent.
The only thing that gives that paper a semblance of relevance here is the word “hierarchical”. But it doesn’t refer to the same thing at all. Your reading ability is similar to a Google word-search.
It doesn’t convey your point. Nothing you quote says anything about functional requirements. “Natural forces ordained by God” are not functional requirements.
You have given no evidence for that, and at any rate you have changed the subject from functional requirements to something unrelated. Further, you contradict Owen on this subject.
Again, you try to connect two unrelated subjects purely by waving your hands.
Again, your quote doesn’t say what you want it to. It’s not a conscious agent that controls the universal constructor, it’s the instructions contained within the machine. Whether those instructions were initially put there by a conscious agent is irrelevant to subsequent events.
That was just incoherent. Common design doesn’t result from self-organization; they’re mutually exclusive. Nor does self-organization create nested hierarchy; you have just taken a similar word from an irrelevant paper to make that claim.
I’m competent about the subjects I make claims on, unlike you. By “basic” I mean the even the simplest arguments. A implies B, A is true, therefore B. And so on.
It looks to me like an artifact of an unnecessarily convoluted measure of difference and a lot of missing data. If you looked at the actual characters instead of throwing away most of the data you would not find such a gap. Note also that there are no “modern birds” in the taxon set.
That’s incomprensible word salad.
What does “basic type” even mean here? What does it mean to approach one?
Why should there be groups of basic types, in fact groups within groups, a nested hierarchy?
That makes no sense at all. Cattle aren’t even perissodactyls. You have no clue what you’re talking about here. But just what is the basic type that includes cattle?
Does Remine actually say how this would be done? Does he demonstrate the process using any real data?
More gibberish. A list that includes both “Marine Invertebrates” and “Small lizards” can’t be taken seriously. I’m reminded of Borges’s classification of animals.
those belonging to the Emperor
embalmed ones
trained ones
suckling pigs
mermaids (or sirens)
fabled ones
stray dogs
those included in this classification
those that tremble as if they were mad
innumerable ones
those that have just broken the vase
those that from afar look like flies
Every bit as sensible, and of course meant to make a satirical point. I note in passing that some of your groups overlap and some are contained within others.
Once again you seem to equate species with basic types. Do you have any idea what you’re trying to say? Note that Wood’s list is self-contradictory, as creationists don’t agree among themselves.
No thanks for mindlessly quoting at fourth hand from references you have never seen. You must realize that this sort of behavior is both incompetent and dishonest. And it doesn’t even support any point you might have been trying to make.
Your worst characteristic (and the list is long) is your shamelessness.
No, I persist in providing a new model of nature that is based on previous observations as I showed before. As a result, there are going to be different definitions for certain terms. Are you saying this does not happen with new models and theories?
Oh really, ok. Then, this is what I mean instead.
I am not sure what you mean by all animals have a single origin.
My mistake. I should have said the first animal body plans were constructed from these slime molds or unicellular ancestors.
No John, you are wrong here. Here is another study that could not be more clearer:
The major background conception is the origin of gravitation and of the Second Law of thermodynamics as dual, simultaneously emergent, opposing consequences of the acceleration of Universal expansion. On the analogy of the precipitation of water droplets from vapor in an expanding cloud chamber, gravitation is seen to come into existence when matter precipitates from energy that has been left in radical disequilibrium – literally left behind – by the acceleration of Universal expansion. Matter, mass, form and organization, as signs of disequilibrium, are taken to be configurations of energy increasingly distant from thermodynamic equilibrium. The Second Law is then taken to be the Universe’s tendency to equilibrate, and can be seen, seemingly paradoxically, to be implicated as a final cause in the generation of new forms, including new levels in a scale hierarchy.
…A Scale Hierarchy is a spatiotemporal organization of co-present systems having average dynamical rates of different orders of magnitude. Natural hierarchies are frequently nested, as with cells within organisms and chemical entities within cells, or tornadoes within thunderstorms. Each of the entities named exists at a different scalar level. Processes of interest would be located at a focal level, and would be bounded by a lower level which generates the focal level dynamics, and a higher level regulating those dynamics [1]. This paper is concerned with the origin of new levels as a general process anywhere in the material world.
It is time to stick a fork into it and accept the facts.
No, they are not mutually exclusive processes or subjects because they both contribute to creating nested hierarchies according to the four causes of Aristotle:
(ii) Thermodynamic Considerations
Now I will suggest that a new level will become interposed between others when (a) the overall rate of entropy production of the local supersystem increases as a result, which can happen only if (b) the new dynamic can separate itself from existing dynamics at other levels, increasing the dissipation rate of the consumed gradients, and that this will only happen when there is an appropriate match of (c) boundary conditions and (d) initiating conditions as a precondition. As part of (d), there needs, of course, to be sufficient local energy gradient to afford the insertion of a new dynamic. In the Aristotelian causal scheme, (d) would be material causes, (c) the formal cause, (b) the efficient cause, and (a) the final cause of this event.
Yeah but, a third functional component is at play that requires a conscious agent for even the subsequent events. A conscious agent has to first initially put the instructions in there. Then, copy and paste the instructions according to a particular physical context continuously. So a conscious agent must be a part of it every step of the way:
To avoid an infinite regress, in which the blueprint of a self-replicating UC contains the blueprint which contains the blueprint … ad infinitum, von Neumann proposed that in the biological case the blueprint must play a dual role: it should not only contain instructions such as an algorithm,to make a certain kind of machine (e.g. the UC) but should also be blindly copied as a mere physical structure, without reference to the instructions its contains, and thus reference itself only indirectly. This dual hardware/software role mirrors precisely that played by DNA, where genes act both passively as physical structures to be copied, and are actively read-out as a source of algorithmic instructions. To implement this dualistic role, von Neumann appended a ‘supervisory unit’ to his automata whose task is to supervise which of these two roles the blueprint must play at a given time, thereby ensuring that the blueprint is treated both as an algorithm to be read-out and as a structure to be copied, depending on the context. In this manner, the organization of a von Neumann automaton ensures that instructions remain logically differentiated from their physical representation. To be functional over successive generations, a complete self-replicating automaton must therefore consist of three components: an UC, a (instructional) blueprint and a supervisory unit.
This is definitely not true. I have seen you make claims about Genesis multiple times that revealed how incompetent you were in those subjects.
And when did I ever mess up in crafting the simplest arguments?
Wasn’t his article peer-reviewed though?
Actually, I think that the Equidae may be a bad example since we have extensive work already showing how it is a genuine basic type.
I am not sure what you are trying to ask me here and why.
Here is a brief list of Basic types/species from cattle.
9. Cattle with hooves/cloved feet
Equibar - Horse Kind 1/8
Rhinocerotibar - Rhinoceros Kind 4/5
Tapiribar - Tapir Kind 1/4
10. Cattle that chews the cud
Hippopotamibar - Hippopotamus Kind 2/2
Suniabar - Pig Kind 8/22
Giraffibar - Giraffe Kind 2/2
Boviobar - Cattle Kind /
Camelibar - Camel Kind 3/4
Hyracebar - Hyrax Kind 3/
Procavinibar - Hyrax Kind 3/
Antilopiobar - Antelope Kind /
Cervibar - Deer Kind 19/51
Cephalophiobar - Duiker Kind /
Moschibar - Musk Deer Kind 1/
Hippotragiobar - Hippotragus Antelope Kind /
Tragulibar - Mouse Deer Kind 3/8
Redunciobar - Reedbuck Kind /
Alcelaphiobar - Hartebeest Kind /
Capriobar - Tsoan Kind /
Aepycerotiobar - Impala Kind /
Antilocapribar - Pronghorn Kind 1/1
Yes he does but he did not provide any data for it:
Organisms may be viewed as data points within a multidimensional morphology space. Lineages must curve their way through morphology space with ancestors and descendants in succession. A nondescript “cloud” of data points in morphology space is not a lineage. Rather, a lineage must have a speciaI pattern. A lineage must be a trail of data points, long and narrow, with an absence of data points in the regions adjacent to the lineage.
If two organisms are connected by a clear-cut lineage in morphology space, then this qualifies as sound empirical evidence that they are in the same species. If a lineage is sufficiently clear-cut, then it can unite organisms into a species, even if there are large morphological distances between the data points in the record of life. This criterion only requires that the data have a special type of pattern – a lineage.
This criterion is quite powerful, and in principle could span large "gaps· in the record of life. Nonetheless, I suggest that life generally fails to be joined together by clear-cut lineages. Lineages do not span life on a large scale. In most cases evolutionists cannot even agree among themselves about the ancestors of a given group. Moreover, Iife lacks clear-cut lineages especially at those places where they are most desired by evolutionists – at the origin of major new biotic designs.
I suggest that large-scale lineages are systematically lacking from the record of life. Discontinuity Systematics seeks to precisely document this situation by identifying the boundaries of continuity. This is one of the major challenges of the new biosystematics.
Can you tell me what those groups are so I can make the changes.
Sorry, I should have said basic types AND species.
How is it dishonest if the quote did not take away from the original? And does it not support my point?
Wow, look at you citing a complete joke of an article from an obvious quack in a predatory journal. When we say you aren’t competent to recognize actual science… this is what we mean!
Bollocks. Wikipedia is quoting Everett’s work, not stating that as a fact.
More bollocks. You were talking about digital information in genomes, which doesn’t even transcend the life of the organism, let alone space and time.
That bears no resemblance to what you said. It cannot possibly be what you meant, because you clearly don’t understand it.
Bollocks. That reference does not mention analogue information.
That doesn’t say viroids are free-living organisms. It isn’t what you meant since it was written by some-one else. You are blathering on topics you are completely clueless about.
I note that you have said nothing about your mistaken use of ‘Sudan’ instead of ‘sedan’. If you aren’t going to acknowledge obvious errors, you might as well pack up and go home, because nothing you write will be considered reliable.
So you don’t know whether the quote did or did not “take away from the original”.
You don’t even know whether there was an original, because you don’t know where that final sentence came from. For all you know, it could contain errors, like the ‘quote’ you copied from Casey Luskin, or be completely fictional.
So when you say “it looks like the quotes did not take from the primary source’s original meaning”, when you don’t even know what the primary sources were, let alone what they said, you are being dishonest.
Usually, when somebody comes up with a new phenomenon, they also come up with a new name so as to avoid confusion. That’s why, for example, carbon dioxide is not known as phlogiston.
Do you even know what you meant? This is unacceptable, shows no respect for others, and shows once again your incapacity for shame.
I mean that they are all related by common descent, a single origin of multicellularity. They also are not descended from slime molds.
Why can’t you say what you should have said the first time? But of course that’s like saying that a dog is descended from a wolf or a toaster. Technically true but still nonsensical.
Nothing in that says anything about nested hierarchy of life, and it isn’t even analogous to a nested hierarchy of life. Notice that the biological example is not about the nested hierarchy we see among species. Again, you show all the comprehension of a Google word search.
Your quote makes no sense of itself, it doesn’t support your claim except that it again has some of the words you mention, and your conclusion doesn’t even follow from your premise.
Your quote doesn’t mention a conscious agent at all. The supervisory unit is not conscious. You persist in quoting things that don’t support your point.
How would you even tell? You have shown your inability to read even the clearest text, much less obscure ones like Genesis.
I imagine it probably was, though I’m not clear on the peer review of short communications in reply to prior articles. So? You think that fallacious publications never make it past peer review?
Not an answer to my question, as usual.
Not an answer. You don’t even say where that list comes from, you seem to equate basic types with kinds, which you have previously rejected, and the list makes no sense in its own terms. What does “cattle” even mean here? Why are hyraxes on that list? Why are they on that list twice? Why are perissodactyls called “with cloved feet”, when that’s a description of artiodactyls? Why are non-ruminants included on a list of cattle “that chews the cud”? Why are there groups of kinds or basic types or whatever you or the unknown author may mean? Again you don’t answer a question, just cut and paste from some unknown publication you don’t understand.
So by “yes he does” you mean “no”. What is Remine’s definition of “species”? It would seem to equate with “created kind”. It also seems to have nothing to do with the process you alluded to.
Sure, if you will first admit that you are incompetent do do it yourself.
So you don’t have any idea what you’re trying to say. Do you see why I become so annoyed with you?
It’s dishonest because you claim to be quoting from a person whose actual words you have never read. Your actual source compounds the dishonesty by doing the same thing, and the “original” source, which appears to be Michael Denton, is dishonest because of unmarked ellipses and a marked ellipsis that doesn’t even represent an elision. You are at the end of a lengthy chain of dishonesty, to which you have contributed only the last link, but that’s enough.
And no, it doesn’t even support your point. As I said, you are not capable of rational argument.
Whether you call it evidence or empirical success is inconsequential for this discussion. Perhaps this is my fault for not expressing my query correctly. What I meant to ask was not for an explication of the term “evidence” you used, but for what it was specifically that you were referring to. What philosophers have to say on this matter is of no import. How the proponents of a fringe ad-hoc model with no predictive power justify doubling down on it, too, is of no import here. The Quantum mind thesis is, that mind/consciousness cannot be accounted for by classical physics alone. The existence of people - with and without relevant expertise - arguing for scientifically functionless alternatives has no bearing on the veracity of that claim.
I would like to take this opportunity, too, to stress that the claim under contention is not that quantum phenomena occur in the brain, or that understanding the totality of the brain’s function requires or stands to benefit from a quantum mechanical approach. These may or may not be the claims of Quantum mind, and by all means, we can get back to it when ever we are done with what we were actually discussing, but for now adding this seems only to lengthen the posts without advancing the argument. The claim under contention is that conscious observership is what collapses the wave function. I’m willing to grant, for the time being, that brains do quantum stuff. Now, please, let’s see if we can (A) connect it to “conscious observership”, and (B) connect it to the collapse of wave functions reasonably separable from that of the brain.
When you say “confirm it”, what is it that these sources confirm? In the passage of my post you quoted, I already said that it wouldn’t be surprising to me in principle, if quantum effects played a role in some processes of the brain. While I appreciate these sources, they clearly do not pertain to the actual points of contention. “Quantum stuff happens in brains” and “conscious observership is what collapses wave functions” are not necessarily equivalent claims (unless, as you do later, you just conflate the two by your own proprietary definition for no obvious reason).
Also, if you are correct, and what is meant by “mind” in quantum mind theory is, indeed, the brain’s wave function, then quantum mind theory would appear to be mere meaningless wordplay. If we apply a simple definition substitution, then
Quantum physics is useful and necessary in describing the mind.
collapses to
Quantum physics is useful and necessary in describing the brain’s wave function.
which, while technically true, says nothing of substance. A detractor of quantum mind theory could just as well define the mind as the brain’s Faraday tensor, and argue that since any non-classical behaviour of the brain is simply not part of the mind by definition, therefore classical electrodynamics suffices in describing the mind as here defined. It would be no sillier than defining the mind as something quantum mechanical, all in order to “conclude” that therefore the mind is something quantum mechanical.
Let’s make a pin in that and return to it later, once we are done with the first paper.
The quote does not say what you read into it, though. In fact, I believe you are severely misunderstanding the double slit experiment here in general. Seeing an interference pattern on the screen does not mean the wave function did not collapse. It means the wave function did not collapse before the wave interacted with the screen. Regardless of whether we see an interference pattern on the screen or not, by the time there is anything to see on it at all collapse has already occurred. We know this, because if the beam intensity is reduced enough to where individual particles can be separated temporally, each of them will emit a single point-like signal upon impact with the screen, only revealing the interference pattern they had the moment before (as the case may be) when many such impacts are accumulated (unless we wish to go with yet more fringe alternatives like the imparimoneous Bohmian mechanics, but that, too, if need be, may be a chat for another time). By extracting which-path information, however, one effectively places a “screen” right at the double slit itself, rendering the wave function collapsed long before the wave could spread behind it and interfere with itself. What the quote you paste says, is not that observation collapses the wave function, but that this information extraction does. If that information is erased, however, the interference pattern is restored, and what the study the paper reports on tested is that this happens even if no classical communication about the erasing can occur between the location of erasure and the interference volume.
Stating a definition is not the same as making a claim. If you define consciousness to be wave function collapse, then there is nothing to “prove” here. Definitions are not provable, let alone falsifiable by experimental data. You may at most argue why your definition is a useful one for anyone else to adopt, but I do not believe you made an attempt at this. Saying that conscious observership is what produces wave function collapse using your definition is no different from saying that conscious observership produces consciousness. Not to say that I understand what this means, but it sounds a lot more tautological (not to call it vacuous outright) than it seemed until now.
Meanwhile, what this definition accomplishes is little more than confusion. By identifying consciousness as wave function collapse you obscure the underlying actual subject matter with what may easily be a rather baggage-laden label, for what appears like no reason or benefit. I would go so far as to suspect - and I insist that I mean no offense in saying this - that you might even be confusing yourself in so doing, as it motivates you to see a link between actual wave function collapse and what you intuitively think consciousness actually is, and you prime yourself to read such links in studies that do not comment on them and fringe conjectures that just about might. If deep down in your own vocabulary you actually did define one as the other, you would have no need of seeking out vindication, nor be content with any so spurious, only to declare in the very last moment that it was a matter of word choice for you all along.
I can’t tell if you are intentionally spewing nonsense (pulling my leg), or you don’t know any better. A quantum basis for information (if that’s even a thing) doesn’t make the information itself any different. Digital information isn’t any different either. The medium in which information is represented is not the information itself.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with “you don’t know any better”. Maybe you try a little harder not to spew nonsense?
This does not make any sense. The very definition of Universal common designer is…
Universal self-collapsing genetic code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms (i.e., self-organization).
Moreover, the law of entropy is rooted in quantum mechanics and permeates all of reality. More importantly, it produces nested hierachies.
From this we would expect common design (i.e. HGT) because viruses were not only the probable precursors of the first cells but also helped shape and build the genomes of all species, including humans. Moreover, only human consciousness can create and design RNA viruses to further generate nested hierarchies between species based on the law of entropy.
I am not sure where you are going with this objection now. You specifically said that common descent was the only known process that produces nested hierarchies. Then, I showed you how self-ogranizantion laws can and do produce the same patterns. Now, it looks like you acknowledge this but claim the study does not argue that this second law produces hierarchies within species.
Anyhow, it is still wrong. Here is a different study arguing that the law of entropy produces nested patterns for abiotic and biotic processes:
In many cases it is understood how matter transforms from basic constituents to larger assemblies and vice versa. However the basic principle, why matter organizes as ‘systems within systems’ and why in other cases systems disassemble to constituents, has remained obscure. The simple question concerning the driving force looks for a reason.
Contemporary consensus recognizes on one hand natural selection within the theory of evolution (Darwin, 1859) as the ubiquitous imperative that guides biotic processes and on the other hand the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Boltzmann, 1886; Carnot, 1824; Clausius, 1879; Gibbs, 1876) as another universal law that directs abiotic processes. Today these two driving forces are often perceived as opposing, one as constructive and the other as destructive.
However, recently it was shown, by a first-principle derivation that they are in fact one and the same law (Sharma and Annila, 2007). The fundamental law simply states that energy differences diminish via flows of energy. To abolish energy gradients most rapidly the flows funnel through those mechanisms that level differences most effectively. The universal law finds no demarcation line between animate and inanimate. Both systems evolve by flows of energy toward stationary states with respect to their surroundings. hierarchy.pdf (helsinki.fi)
Checkmate. Stick a fork in it, Johnny.
Since I put to bed your number one objection , I don’t feel the need to address the rest of the comments related to this point.
Prove it.
True, but I find this to be very unlikely in this case given that the author is a YEC trying to support a YEC model in a secular high impact journal. I think it would be more likely that the article was just not peer-reviewed. But, even this would still be unlikely in general.
If there is a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms, they exhibit continuity and they are members of the same species. In contrast, mammals, which are characterized by a unique yet varied body plan, are probably discontinuous from other vertebrates and comprise a group of basic types.
If data exist that support both internal continuity and a boundary of discontinuity, the taxon would be a basic type. As more information becomes available, a species may become a basic type or a group of basic types may become a basic type. Thus, the method of baraminology is successive approximation.
I will just show you that data myself . The family Equidae are considered a “basic type,” based on the extensive work that has been done already. For instance, a recent study [52] confirmed the results of earlier studies, showing that all horses are of a single basic type. Most importantly, preliminary results showed evidence that horses were, for the most part, sufficiently different from tapirs and rhinos, which share the trait of odd numbers of toes. [53] However, these two studies mainly give us a good reason to “suspect” all three groups are basic types rather than only one group…
Because the designer wants to create and develop animals through the process of HGT for the purpose of surviving, reproducing, and pioneering different environments. Based on the law of entropy, this would naturally produce nested hierarchies, as a result.
Nevermind, I forgot that I have a different model than yours. This is why you think that they overlap when they actually don’t under the common design model.
I see that you are incapable of distinguishing between someone who maybe wrong and someone who is dishonest.
Besides , it is not my fault that Denton was being dishonest.
How does it not support my point that the common archetype theory came first as an explanation?
I have done this already though.
Diederik Aierts 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.
Maybe you should clearify further what you mean if this does not address your point.
They provide indirect evidence that consciousness collapses the wave-function of the brain.
FYI, this argument originally came from Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff in their Orch-OR model. They are arguing for a non-contingent consciousness that directly created finite conscious agents rather than indirectly from an evolutionary process:
“Mainstream science and philosophy assume that consciousness emerged at some point in the course of evolution, possibly fairly recently, with the advent of the brain and nervous systems. But Eastern spiritual traditions, panpsychism, and the Objective Reduction theory of Roger Penrose suggest that consciousness preceded life.” [Emphasis added]
Keep in mind, this proto-consciousness that Penrose describes as preceding life is NOT the same thing as our actual consciousness:
“Our criterion for proto -consciousness is OR . It would be unreasonable to refer to OR as the criterion for actual consciousness, because, according to the DP scheme, OR processes would be taking place all the time, and would be providing the effective randomness that is characteristic of quantum measurement. Quantum superpositions will continually be reaching the DP threshold for OR in non-biological settings as well as in biological ones, and usually take place in the purely random environment of a quantum system under measurement.”
False, you clearly did not read my article where I go in-depth on this.
You gotta be kidding me, the claim I made is based on common knowledge or is widely accepted already. It does not need to be supported in that way. It might as well as have been wikipedia for crying out loud.
Aren’t you saying that Digital information only exists in the mind of the observer as a useful fiction?
If so, then this cannot be true.
No, you can’t separate quantum physics from biology. It applies there as well.
That “definition” is just a random bag of unrelated words. It has no coherent meaning.
You have presented no evidence for that, just a paper that uses some of the same words. As I pointed out. You can’t really expect anyone to make senseof your gibberish.
You showed no such thing. The things you quote and cite never mean what you think they do.
Once again, you quote a source that doesn’t say what you think it does. You might ask why everyone you are talking to here notices this. Are we all wrong?
You put nothing to bed.
It’s evident to anyone who’s been reading this thread or any other one you’ve contributed to. Many have in fact said so repeatedly. Are they all wrong?
What you find to be unlikely is hardly relevant. Again, this is a subject outside your competence.
How would you recognize a clear-cut lineage? Is there such a lineage connecting, say, Hyracotherium to Equus? And if so, is the entire family Equidae to be considered a single species? Is there a clear-cut lineage connecting mammals to more primitive synapsids, as you yourself acknowledged recently? If to, then is Synapsida a single species? Sorry, but this criterion makes no sense.
Still not clear what you mean by “species”, “kind”, and “basic type”. Your previous attempts at definition were incoherent, and you seem to violate even those incoherent definitions frequently. You also fail to understand that the fossil record is incomplete.
What is the difference between a “basic type” and a “created kind”? How does this compare with whatever you mean above by “species”? And your references are comical; they’re cargo cult science. I’m sure they impress you with their fancy figures and statistics and such, but I’m quite certain that you don’t understand any of it. Of course the goal isn’t to be understood, just to sound impressively sciency.
Another incoherent, canned reply. Can you think?
That’s a transparent attempt to avoid dealing with your incompetence. You are an unfunny joke.
It’s always difficult. In order to clear you of dishonesty, one must assume that you are preternaturally clueless. The question is, are you truly clueless enough? I will admit that it isn’t quite clear. But you must be sufficiently clueless as to be unable to know what you’re doing, even when it’s repeatedly pointed out to you. Are you in fact that clueless?
Ah, but you didn’t get it from Denton, did you? Where did you in fact get those quotes?
Because the quote doesn’t say the common archetype theory was an explanation for nested hierarchy. Almost nothing you ever quote or cite actually says or means what you claim it does. This is no exception.
They cannot. Certainly not evidence of the sort that is acceptable to advance claims pertaining to physics. You said:
Nothing can provide evidence - direct or indirect - that wave function collapse collapses the wave function of the brain. That statement, using your definitions, is devoid of content one could subject to scientific inquiry. What ever meaning one may find in it is of no weight in discussions on scientific merit.
It is of no relevance where the sentiment originated. It renders the discussion meaningless either way, if all you are claiming is that you use proprietary definitions that can do nothing but muddy the waters for no reason. No amount of references or citations can substantiate declarations of word usage choices, because such declarations are just that - declarations. You are welcome to make them, you are welcome to stand by them, but they are not synthetic claims, and as such there is nothing there to comment on from a scientific angle.
No, it isn’t. But even if it was, what are the odds that you’d support a well-known fact with an absolute farce of a citation from an obvious crank of an author in a predatory journal? Imagine I was providing a citation for the mitochondria being important for metabolism, and I cited ‘Mitochondria: Aliens or Demons?’ from Dr. Whada Quack in the International Journal of Give Us Money.
It is your fault that you reposted ‘quotes’ posted by someone you didn’t know (not Denton) from unspecified works you hadn’t read.
It is your fault that you cited Simpson and Mayr and not your actual source.
It is your fault that you didn’t check the ‘quotes’ were real before posting them.
It is your fault that you persist in such practices despite having been not only warned about the risks of copying ‘quotes’ from unreliable websites, but also previously been caught posting misleading or mistaken ‘quotes’ on at least four separate occasions.
Those are all your fault and you have no excuse for any of them, so grow some cojones and stop trying to pretend you are blameless.
Organisms may be viewed as data points within a multidimensional morphology space. Lineages must curve their way through morphology space with ancestors and descendants in succession. A nondescript “cloud” of data points in morphology space is not a lineage. Rather, a lineage must have a speciaI pattern. A lineage must be a trail of data points, long and narrow, with an absence of data points in the regions adjacent to the lineage.
If two organisms are connected by a clear-cut lineage in morphology space, then this qualifies as sound empirical evidence that they are in the same species. If a lineage is sufficiently clear-cut, then it can unite organisms into a species, even if there are large morphological distances between the data points in the record of life. This criterion only requires that the data have a special type of pattern – a lineage.
Yes, I gave you the source already showing this.
And no, it is considered a basic type because I gave you the other study showing dissimilarities between horses and tapirs.
According to creationist studies, there are discontinuities between mammals and primitive synapsids and Caseidae are a basic type.
I made more adjustments to these definitions
Species: an ad hoc group of known animals that share continuity without regard to discontinuity with other organisms. In other words, a group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. This could be a group containing one basic type or a portion of it. That is, when a basic type is represented by a tree, one or more branches of that tree would be a species.
Basic types: the complete set of all known living and/or extinct animals in a group beginning after God created the original set of animal kinds. In other words, it is an entire related group that (1) shares continuity (meaning that each member is continuous with at least one other member) and (2) is bounded by discontinuity.
So now each natural group of related plants or of related animals constitutes a basic type. The basic type may be represented as a branching tree, the nodes and tips of the branches representing all the known members (subspecies, species, etc.) of the “kind” .
Group of basic types: a group of known species that are bounded by discontinuity without regard to internal continuity. That is, it may be one or more complete set of basic types.
The group of basic types may share similar morphology, ecology, and function, but, by definition, not common descent. Somewhat like polyphyletic groups.
That’s because you guys are looking for verbatim text as a requirement for my claims to be substantiated. If I say the “law of entropy produces hierarchies” and provide a quote that says “the law of entropy generates hierarchies” instead , you claim it does not say what it means. It is a distinction without a difference fallacy.
Anyhow, I never said the quote said it was an explanation. I said the common archetype preceded common descent as an explanation for those similarities and patterns. Then, I provided support from the quote.
I beg to differ. The consensus in neuroscience is that consciousness has no causal powers because classical physics determines the choices we make. Their theory argues that we have causal powers. This means that wave-function collapse is not determined by external forces compared to the other view.
This is why showing that the brain is the mind or the wave-function matters.
Genetic fallacy
None of these factors automatically render an article invalid or without merit and vice versa.
Like I said, I tried to find the original source but couldn’t. If I did, I would have made sure I posted the same source.
What in the world does this have to do with why we see a nested hierarchy?
You keep saying that a consciousness is involved in HGT, but HGT is not a quantum event. It is no different than VGT.
The molecules of life also need to stay together for vertical inheritance. So why do you keep singling out horizontal inheritance?
Why would the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevent the violation of a nested hierarchy? Humans produce organisms all of the time that violate a nested hierarchy.
That doesn’t answer any questions.
How do you determine which families or orders have a gap between them?
Where???
Please cite any paper that says the first vertebrates descended directly from slime molds.
You also have still not explained why there is a nested hierarchy between families and orders which are well above the level of phyla.
How???
You just looked for something that had hierarchial and biological in it. That does nothing to establish why life would fall into a nested hierarchy. More importantly, humans easily and repeatedly produce organisms that violate a nested hierarchy.