I saw neither scientific merits nor evidence in that piece. That seems ample reason to dismiss him.
As usual, you post a quote irrelevant to the question. What you quote is about the evolution of consciousness. Nothing to do with Hox clusters, and nothing to do, in fact, with the effect of consciousness on evolution, if any. I also don’t recall Behe saying anything about Hox clusters, but of course, as usual, you cite nothing for that.
Nonsense. The idea that microtubules are preserved in fossils, just awaiting improvements in methods, is absurd. Nor do you support the idea that this is Hameroff’s claim.
Nothing you have cited actually says or means that.
Even if Meyer actually said all that, and even if it were true (which it isn’t), it would still be irrelevant to the question. You seem to have forgotten the question: why do vertebrates have four Hox clusters while other animals get by with one? So far you have said absolutely nothing relevant to that question.
Then why have you been talking about it so much all this time? And why did you say this right in your last post?:
Again, how would you know if you are not an expert in his field? There are many articles that support his theory and show it does have merit, but you choose to stay willfully ignorant of this.
This objection might have merit in regards to the origin of consciousness and sexual reproduction, which are not directly related to the evolution of Hox clusters. However, the origin of Hox clusters in animals is believed to be closely linked to the evolution of complex body plans and the development of cell differentiation.
This is because the evolution of cell differentiation, the development of specialized cell types, and the evolution of multicellularity are also believed to have played important roles in the evolution of Hox genes and clusters. As organisms became more complex, with specialized tissues and organs, the regulation and expression of Hox genes became more complex as well, allowing for the evolution of new body plans and morphologies.
This means that the same model he used to explain the origin of consciousness, sexual reproduction, and cell differentiation can also be used to explain the origin of Hox genes.
You cannot arbitrarily deny the application of this model to Hox genes, especially when you are not an expert yourself. Besides, the only reason Hammeroff does not explicitly argue in his articles that his model explains Hox genes is because secular scientists have already provided a different explanation.
Why is it absurd? You need to explain this.
Are you implying that the study does not suggests that …
There may be selective pressures that shape the rate and pattern of mutation in order to balance the need for exploration and innovation with the need for stability and reliability in maintaining existing function and fitness?
If so, would you suggests the same thing with this other study and why?
For instance, the study “Garvin, M. R. & Gharrett, A. J. (2014). Evolution: are the monkeys’ typewriters rigged? Royal Society of Open Science 1, 140172.” suggested that mutations are guided by both the physical properties of the genetic code and the need to preserve critical protein function (Garvin & Gharrett, 2014).
The authors analyzed mitochondrial genomes in a number of species and found numerous positively selected sites in which DNA changes allowed the species to adapt to its environment. They hypothesized that the cell might make mistakes in copying repeated sequences during DNA replication.
While the cell is “fixing the buttons,” the DNA has more time to mutate. Thus, these repeats influence the mutation rate, as mutations in the repeats on either side of the mutated DNA would abrogate protein function, preventing them from being eliminated and resulting in a mutational hot spot in between stable DNA sequences. Further, the authors found that 97% of the sites under positive selection, and 60% of all mutated sides were near repetitive sequences.
Because the mechanism of consciousness and HRT are one in the same. However, there are two different levels of consciousness, which are primitive and complex. Quantum computational processes would involve simple primitive consciousness, such as HRT. In contrast, non-computable choice processes would involve higher levels of consciousness, such as the origin of Hox genes.
Both of these levels are important in explaining the biological phenomena under the common design model.
The reason for this difference is that the evolution of the vertebrate body plan required more genetic complexity than that of invertebrates and, thus, required higher levels of consciousness . Vertebrates have a more complex body plan, with specialized structures such as limbs, a spinal column, and a more advanced nervous system. The additional Hox clusters would have allowed for the evolution of these specialized structures by providing more genetic material to control their development.
No, I did. I specifically said that finding signs that the ratio of masses for protons and electron and the cosmological constant were stronger or weaker in the past would falsify the prediction suggesting that the cosmological constant is constant throughout space and time
No, I did. Remember, the fine-tuning constants governing the entire universe and life is identical or synonymous with consciousness, as I argued.
Moreover, experiments have shown for the first time ever that the fine-structure constant stayed constant throughout space and time.
Then, I inferred that a necessary personal agent chose the right fine-tuning values and genetic code to create and develop life on earth.
If this is true, experiments should also reveal for the first time ever that the cosmological constant and the ratio of the masses of protons and neutrons stayed constant throughout space and time.
Yes! I definitely think it would, but only for the two constants I referenced.
My model does not fail at predicting nature simply because it does not predict everything in every field of science.
Yes, if the experiment conflicts with the prediction, that would conflict with the prediction. That’s not what I’m disputing. The prediction is not actually logically linked to the model in a way you are either willing or able to explain, however. It is, therefore, unclear, what impact, if any, either test result have on your model.
No, you did not. I asked/challenged how the predictions followed from the theory, you ignored that. Then I prepared syllogisms for you to fill the gaps of, just to make things easier, and you refused on the grounds that you weren’t good with those (good luck overthrowing all of science if a basic logic exercise is already too much for you, by the way), and when I asked whether your model was fit to predict which quantities would be constant before we knew it from any place else, rather than afterwards - and remember, your model’s prediction actually was that two quantities would turn out to be constant - you admitted that no, in fact your model was not fit to make the predictions you rendered from it.
Please, explain how. Here, I’ll even prepare a template for you (again). Let’s say, hypothetically, a discovery is made tomorrow, that neither the proton-electron mass ratio nor the cosmological constant are constant throughout space and time. A proponent of your theory responds:
Evidently, definitively, the cosmological constant and the proton-electron mass ratio are not, in fact, constant throughout space or time.
[ fill in this blank ]
And, therefore, it is not likely or less likely to be the case, that God must exist in all possible worlds or universes to create and sustain them via self-collapse (i.e. necessary).
If so, doesn’t that destroy your point? If Hameroff agrees with this different explanation, then his writing doesn’t support your claim.
If you knew anything about taphonomy, I wouldn’t have to. Intact proteins have not been found in fossils, much less transient structures composed of many subunits.
You have shown nothing to suggest that.
None of that is in evidence. None of it explains the origin of Hox clusters. Given your inability to deal with the simplest questions, it seems time to wind this up.
There is no evidence that vertebrates have more genetic complexity than invertebrates.
It takes mere seconds to discover that many invertebrates have much larger genomes than most vertebrates. The vertebrate body plan clearly does not require more genetic complexity than invertebrates have.
That only tells us that @Meerkat_SK5 doesn’t know much about invertebrates, and apparently has never seen a crab, a scorpion, a tarantula or an octopus.
He also doesn’t seem to know that many invertebrates have complex life cycles that involve multiple different complex body plans.
So your objection now is that since these processes had to of happened after the origin of Hox genes, his model can’t be extended to them. Nice try, but Hammeroff used his model to explain the origin of microtubules and life itself as well, which happen well before the onset of Hox genes.
Moreover, while microtubules are not directly involved in the origin of Hox genes, they do play a crucial role in the cellular processes that are necessary for the evolution and development of animals, including the regulation of gene expression and cell differentiation, which are essential for the proper function of Hox genes. With that said, his model can be used to provide a causal link between the two processes.
Not necessarily. The standards of science require that you state a problem. Then, explain how existing theories do not explain it. Then, you are expected to explain how your idea explains it better.
The existing theory of common descent is considered to be a valid explanation that best explains the origin of Hox genes. But, it is not considered to explain the origin of life, consciousness, sex, and cell differentiation. So we would not expect Hammeroff to argue that his model explains hox genes as well in his articles .
No, I did. Here it is again…
Based on the well-tested and supported quantum mind theory, the definition of consciousness is self-collapsing wave function. or " causally disconnected choice". Moreover, only humans produce top-down causation in the form of algorithmic information or RNA viruses.
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. More importantly, observations show that viruses were not only the probable precursors of the first cells but also helped shape and build the genomes of all species through HGT.
This is how human designers operate. They use preexisting mechanisms, material parts, and digital information to assemble designs to achieve a purpose. In biology, it is the same way
I presented other ways to potentially test this aspect of nature though. Remember these predictions…
Based on my theory, we would expect to find:
Analogous phenotypic traits of over 80% of families and orders evolved separately in response to similar needs.
Over 80% of ERVs and pseudogenes are functional.
The regulatory regions of core gene promoters between families and orders are over 80% incongruent with species phylogenies (i.e., vertical inheritance).
The main reason why there are differences between them is due to the different design requirements that each need for their environment.
In other words, what makes them different is the application of those similar parts and functions that fit better in different environmental niches, which give them their separate uniqueness.
I actually told you this before. So you are the one who is not remembering my previous answers to your simple questions.
Premise 1: The universal self-collapsing wave-function is by definition the cosmological constant and the ratio of proton and electron mass constant staying constant throughout space and time.
Premise 2 : The universal self-collapsing wave-function is confirmed to exists if we find the cosmological constant and the ratio of proton and electron mass stayed constant throughout space and time.
Premise 3: We find that the ratio of proton and electron mass and the cosmological constant did not stay constant throughout space and time.
Conclusion: The universal self-collapsing wave-function is not confirmed to exists.
I just misunderstood you when you said that. Yes, my model predicts that those constants stayed constant throughout space and time.
Well, with all due respect, at least now I understand why you said you were bad at these. Allow me to illustrate:
Since we have a definition in P1, we can do a little substitution: According to premise 1 “the universal self-collapsing wave function” is definitionally the same as “the cosmological constant and the ratio of proton and electron mass constant staying constant throughout space and time”. Therefore, premise 2 reads:
The universal self-collapsing wave-function is confirmed to exists if we find the universal self-collapsing wave function.
Or, alternatively,
The cosmological constant and the ratio of proton and electron mass constant staying constant throughout space and time is confirmed to exists if we find the cosmological constant and the ratio of proton and electron mass stayed constant throughout space and time.
I should also point out that “the self-collapse of the wave function” was also your definition of consciousness. So we can put your second premise even more concisely:
The universal consciousness is confirmed to exist if we find the universal consciousness.
Your theory was “God must exist in all possible worlds or universes to create and sustain them via self-collapse (i.e. necessary)” and there is still no logical link produced between that and the alleged “predictions” you said one could derive from it. This is not an attempt of bridging the logical gap, but I’ll be delighted to explain to you how tautologies are inadequate to demonstrate any claims alleged to be scientific after you’ve made any attempts at actually addressing the point of contention, rather than at distracting from it, or dismissing it altogether.
That is your claim, yes. I ask how does it predict that. Then I ask again. Then I ask again. Then I ask if it actually even does that, and you say it does not. A misunderstanding? Frankly, I don’t buy that, but perhaps progress on actually addressing the question is yet to come. Anyway, after that alleged misunderstanding now you insist again that it does, and I ask again how it does. Then I ask again how it does. Then you present some argument with unrelated tautologies at the root of it, and now you re-state that your model makes this prediction. And now I ask again: How?
Ahhh… So you finally waved the white flag and realized that this is a legit alternative model. But of course, you refuse to admit this in front of your non-believing peers in order to save face because you don’t want to give an inch to a potentially superior model with theistic implications.
Anyhow, I updated the model…
Origin of species model
Approximately 3.8 billion years ago, pi electron resonance clouds in single-chain amphiphile molecules coalesced in geometric pi-stacks, forming viroids with quantum-friendly regions for OR events within Earth’s deep-sea hypothermal vents. [45]
Subsequently, through natural selection and OR events, groups of viroids formed into highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules of a DNA/RNA virus or molecule, which later evolved into different species of unicellular organisms. [46]
Through HRT, these unicellular organisms underwent extensive regulatory switching and rewiring in their noncoding regulatory regions. Then, as colonies of cells evolved into multicellular organisms, different cells within the organism began to take on specialized roles and functions.
This specialization led to the divergence of transcription start sites and gene expression levels, which allowed for the development of more complex multicellular clades, such as animal, fungi, brown algae, red algae, green algae, or land plants.
Central nervous systems consisting of approximately 300 neurons, such as those present in tiny worms and urchins at the early Cambrian evolutionary explosion 540 million years ago, theoretically had sufficient microtubules to reach OR, which precipitated the accelerated evolution of the Cambrian explosion.
Further evolution required the non-computability of OR that goes beyond mere quantum computation, and depends upon larger scale infrastructure of efficiently functioning microtubules (MT), capable of operating quantum-computational processes. Moreover, these larger sets of MTs, which are able to be isolated from decoherence, would enable higher levels of OR.
This allowed stem metazoans to develop into groups of created kinds, such as complex vertebrae body plans, and emerge at different times and global locations.
Origin of species predictions
Based on this model, we would expect to find:
Adaptive convergent genes related to the analogous phenotypic traits of over 80% of families and orders.
Convergent amino acid changes in HOXC10 and HOXC11 genes between families and orders
Common rapidly evolving HOXD4 genes between families and orders
Positively selected HOXA3 genes between families and orders
Over 80% of ERVs and pseudogenes are functional.
The regulatory regions of core gene promoters between families and orders are over 80% incongruent with species phylogenies (i.e., vertical inheritance).
Read this article for more on how we can test the second prediction:
It would essentially confirm the reasons I gave you for why we see a different number of Hox genes between vertebrae and invertebrae.
That’s because this is not my theory. Instead, it is this:
A physically necessary personal agent chose the right fine-tuning values and genetic code to create and develop life on earth.
Definition of necessarypersonal agent: universal self-collapsing digital code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms (i.e., objective reduction).
If this is true, we would expect the cosmological constant and the ratio of proton and electron mass constant to stay constant throughout space and time
Because if it were any different we would not be able to question our existence in the first place.
What? How could you possibly come to that conclusion? You outright admitted that your model isn’t scientific, because it doesn’t make predictions. Don’t be surprised when people on a science forum aren’t willing to discuss an explicitly non-scientific model.
