I know. This is why I specifically said afterwards that 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.
In other words, you acknowledge internally that my model is valid, but you externally don’t want anyone else to know about your concession.
Yes, it is a possible explanation that Stuart Hammeroff proposed in his article “The Quantum Origin of the Life: How the Brain Evolved to Feel Good.”…
For instance, single-chain amphiphile molecules, which have both hydrophobic and hydrophilic properties, are known to be able to self-assemble into various structures, including micelles and vesicles. It is also known that pi electron resonance clouds, which result from the delocalization of electrons in pi bonds, can play a role in chemical reactions.
Moreover, Viroids are small, circular, single-stranded RNA molecules that are thought to be among the simplest forms of life. These viroids may have had quantum-friendly regions, which could have allowed for more efficient chemical reactions.
Finally, deep-sea hydrothermal vents are known to be rich in chemicals and minerals that could have provided the necessary ingredients for life to emerge.
Therefore, it is possible that pi electron resonance clouds in single-chain amphiphile molecules could have coalesced in geometric pi-stacks, forming viroids in these environments and eventually evolve into more complex forms of life.
No, he has realised that you are so obstinately ignorant that further attempts to educate you are a waste of time.
You realise that the only Christian scientist who has engaged with you, @Mercer, has an equally low opinion of your offerings. The other Christian scientists on this forum seem to want to have nothing to do with you. In fact the only people on this forum that seem to have had anything positive to say about you (i) have little connection with science or scientific credibility, and (ii) are disinterested in engaging with your claims further than a vague, positive nod in their general direction.
This is not a “model” – it is simply a string of appallingly-badly-sourced, at-best-only-tenuously-connected claims.
1 & 2 appear to be mere assertions, rather than testable predictions. This is even more so given that “families and orders” are merely arbitrary constructs, created to impose a degree of artificial simplicity, and thus comprehensibility, over far more complicated relationships.
3 appears to be simply a further repetition of the debunked ENCODE claims – so not a prediction, in that it is based upon ‘evidence’ (however suspect) that was already known when the “prediction” was made. (If it is not made before the evidence is in, it is not a prediction.)
4 would count as a prediction only if you first provided a rigorous definition of what would count as “incongruent”.
So you have no model and you have no predictions.
All we are left with is an ignorant individual who is so arrogant that they believe that they understand science better than the scientists do, in spite of exhibiting little or no understanding of the field. This is made worse by the fact that he insists on basing what little understanding largely on the claims of a dishonest apologist (Fazale Rana) and a “crackpot” anesthesiologist (Stuart Hameroff), neither of whom seems to have demonstrable expertise in the fields they make claims about, and neither of whom seem to have much credibility.
What is happening is what I predicted some time ago – you are running out of people who have any interest in engaging with your awful so-called-model.
All of his peers also recognize your constant nuttery as completely useless dreck. John was just polite or stubborn enough to keep trying longer than anyone else. You’re being actively and deliberately dishonest, and your arrogant refusal to actually recognize your own incompetence is as breathtaking as it is disheartening. To quote:
what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
He is just one terribly confused fella. He peruses through the literature, finds certain buzzwords and adds them to his “model” as if that makes it any better.
Yes, but I doubt if their reference [45] even includes any of the buzzwords they attributed to it – it appears to be about a completely different topic – which would have its own completely different buzzwords.
It’d be a bit like a statement containing chess buzzwords being cited to a cookbook.
In that case, please explain to me why my model’s predictions are invalid or would not support the model if confirmed. We would expect to find…
Adaptive convergent genes within the analogous phenotypic traits of over 80% of families and orders.
Convergent amino acid changes in HOXC10 and HOXC11 genes between families and orders.
Similar 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).
Here is the source on where I got most of my predictions:
Why do vertebrates have four Hox clusters while other animals get by with one?
Let me remind you of my answers again…
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.
Confirmation of Predictions 2,3, and 4 should support this reason.
The second reason we see 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.
The confirmation of prediction 1 should support this reason.
Premise 1: A physically universal self-collapsing digital code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms (i.e., objective reduction) chose the right fine-tuning values and genetic code to create and develop life on earth.
[ fill in this blank ]
Conclusion: Therefore, we ought expect the cosmological constant and the ratio of proton and electron mass constant to stay constant throughout space and time.
My objection is not to the inconsistent phrasing of your model. Falsifiability is not a property of vocabulary. When you first introduced this prediction, it was made on the back of what was “according to [ your ] model”. I highly doubt that the reason you keep ignoring the issue for weeks has to do with the premise not being your actual model, but considering how long you spent weaseling around it I feel entirely safe in granting this to you and henceforth using this new formulation of what you now said was actually your model. It has however done nothing to advance the conversation between us. I shall now explain why I keep pushing this issue.
We still need to see how the prediction is actually logically entailed by your model. Alleging predictions is not what makes a model scientific. Falsifiability is. Falsifiability relies on a logical inference rule known as modus tollens:
(axiom) Any proposition that is incompatible with one or more existing data set is false.
(premise) (Model) M logically entails (prediction) P.
(premise) It is logically possible that there exists a data set D that is incompatible with P.
(from 1 and 3 by modus ponens) Therefore, it is logically possible that non-P.
(from 2 and 4 by modus tollens) Therefore, it is logically possible that non-M.
We have been stuck demonstrating the soundness of this argument. The contentious premise is Premise 2. And yes, this is not a mere pedantry, but crucial. Falsifiability is a property of the model itself, not a function of its proponents’ intellectual honesty. Whether what you say is scientific should not depend on how much I trust your pinky-promise that you would totesy-honestly retract your theory in the event that it conflicts with the data. Your model’s incorrectness should be deductively derivable from an unfavourable data set, and your acknowledgement of such problems should not be necessary one way or the other. If this is not the case, then no matter how unfavourable a data set may be, there is always room for excuses, always room to argue that the model could remain, despite falsified “predictions”. At that point we would have to trust the integrity of your character, and would no longer talk of the quality of your model. And tempted though I may be to say my piece about how much I would or would not offer you trust of this sort, I’d insist that scientific merits of a model must not depend on the credibility of their authors. If you are seeking any sort of scientific consideration for this model, there is no way around making a case for Premise 2, and no amount of distracting from it or ignoring it, or cheap excuses for why not to make that case will ultimately aid your model at all when it comes to being taken any kind of seriously by people with an actual understanding of the character of scientific inquiry…
Another criterion the prediction has to meet in order to qualify as such, and we can get to this after clearing up this first crucial, and persistently avoided point, is that it had been rendered before experimental testing. So, once you have established that your model actually logically entails your prediction, we can go on and investigate exactly when this prediction has been publicly verifiably made on the back of your theory, and ensure that at that time there was no peer reviewed literature making the same claims either on the back of equally or more robust competing theories, or on the back of experimental data.
That’s not what he asked. He asked if your model can predict which values will stay constant throughout space and time. Simply pointing at values that remain constant and saying, “See, my model predicts that!” is retrodiction, not prediction. Unless you can show exactly how your model predicts which values will stay constant, your model is not scientific. You don’t even need to show that the predictions are confirmed, just that any predictions are made at all.
Things you already know are true are not predictions, so that leaves out 2, 3, and 4. None of them follows from your theory, either, to the extent you have articulated a coherent theory at all. Because they are not predictions of your theory but are just claims you make with no attempted justification, they wouldn’t support the model if confirmed.
Your predictions are either not in that source or are conclusions from the source data and so not predictions at all.
No, please don’t. Your answer was not a legitimate answer.
Meaningless buzzwords, and unrelated to Hameroff’s article. Also, you consistently misspell “Hameroff”.
None of those are predictions of your model. They are all either known already, far too fuzzy, or incoherent. To be scientific, the model makes the predictions, not the person.
This alone falsifies your model, because an octopus, which is an invertebrate, has a far higher level of consciousness than >90% of vertebrates.
The octopus also has higher genetic complexity than most, possibly all, vertebrates given editing.
Yes, you, Tim, and @Mercer are correct. I didn’t realize until now that I have been getting mixed up between the scientific theory and the little hypothesizes that spring forth from it and we can test.
Adaptive convergence hypothesis
Analogous phenotypic traits evolved separately in unrelated families and orders in response to similar needs.
Predictions
Based on this theory, we would expect to find between families and orders:
Convergent amino acid changes in DYNC2H1 and PCNT
Convergent amino acid changes in HOXC10 and HOXC11
Then, tell me what your answer or explanation is for those observations.
Alright, I will just copy and paste the part of his article that is relevant. From the last page and paragraph of his article:
It is suggested here that life originated billions of years ago to optimize OR-mediated qualia in nonpolar molecules in the primordial soup. Pi electron resonance clouds in dopamine-like amphipathic molecules coalesced in geometric pi-stacks, forming micelle-like proto-cells, RNA, membranes, and simple proteins with quantum friendly regions for OR events. Positive pleasurable feelings, and avoidance of negative ones, are suggested to have provided feedback for self-organizing pi stack geometries optimal for pleasure. Absorption of ambient terahertz, gigahertz, and megahertz radiation help promote resonance, larger micelle structures, microtubules, cilia, centrioles, flagella, eukaryotic cells, and eventually the brain, in pursuit of feelings, resonating with the fine-scale structure of the universe.
Then, what would be your answer or explanation for those observations?
Yes, I just pointed out to John why I was making this mistake. Now, here is my actual hypothesis that originated from the common design theory:
The cosmic constants governing the universe and the ratio of proton and electron mass are constant throughout space and time.
If this is true, then we would not expect to find any significant variations in the past from the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) that would be attributable to changes in these constants.
Here is my theory again just to make sure we are on the same page:
Universal common design theory
All extant species share a common design that can be traced back to a universal common designer. However, 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.
Definitions
Design: to create and develop animals through the process of HGT to survive, reproduce, and pioneer different environments around the globe.
Universal common designer: universal self-collapsing digital code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms (i.e., objective reduction).
Premise 1: All extant species share a common to create and develop animals through the process of HGT to survive, reproduce, and pioneer different environments around the globe that can be traced back to a universal self-collapsing digital code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms (i.e., objective reduction). However, 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.
[ fill in this gap ]
Conclusion: Therefore, the cosmic constants governing the universe and the ratio of proton and electron mass are constant throughout space and time.
Until you can fill the gap in the argument above, I submit that your “actual hypotesis” does not demonstrably “originate” from the theory. Until you can fil the gap in the argument above, your insistence that the “actual hypothesis… originated from the common design theory” shall remain a meaningless and, as far as any of the rest of us can tell, also baseless assertion we have no choice but to dismiss as such.
It’s worse than that. None of your little hypotheses actually spring forth from your “scientific theory”. If any thing, they come from your independent notion that there are separate “kinds” individually arising from … well, not sure what. That has nothing to do with Orch-OR or anything else. It appears to be an axiom of your worldview, perhaps arising from your need to have Genesis 1 and 2 be literally true. Further, your “predictions” don’t even arise from that axiom. This is hopeless.
Again, none of these “predictions” follow from your ideas. How can you even recognize convergence and distinguish it from inheritance?
A conclusion is not a hypothesis.
OK, you aren’t wholly responsible for the nonsense you spout. But what does any of that actually mean? How do “dopamine-like amphipathic molecules” result in RNA?
Actually, let’s just stick with the previously constructed first premise.
Premise 1: The universal self-collapsing digital code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms" and the cosmic constants governing the universe and the ratio of proton and electron mass are constant throughout space and time mean the same thing.
Premise 2: The universal self-collapsing digital code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms is confirmed if the cosmic constants governing the universe and the ratio of proton and electron mass are constant throughout space and time is confirmed.
Premise 3: The cosmic constants governing the universe and the ratio of proton and electron mass are constant throughout space and time is confirmed.
Therefore, the universal self-collapsing digital code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms is confirmed.
I think you might be right. Let me adjust my definition of Design:
Design : to create and develop animals separately through the process of HGT to survive, reproduce, and pioneer different environments around the globe.
BTW, Created kinds emerged from stem metazoans rather than other animals.
The Orch-OR model also claims that created kinds of invertebrates emerged from stem metazoans. It just does not argue that created kinds from other animal groups continued to emerge from stem metazoans. Instead, they just accept the consensus belief that animals evolved from other animals.
What makes you say that? What are you talking about? What do you think my axiom is?
I have already explained this awhile back.
There are a few steps in distinguishing homologous phenotypic traits from analogous phenotypic traits…
Identifying morpho-molecular dissimilarities and/or lack of fossil intermediates among order- and family-level taxa.
Here is how this is done:
What is most amazing is the number of traditional systematic methods and terminology that are employed by baraminologists. While they use many of the same methods as most systematists, from cladistics to the Analysis of Pattern (ANOPA) method, they use these tools to identify the “gaps”, rather than the connections in life as most systematists do. This is why baraminologists principally employ phenetic methods of Sokal and Sneath (1963) — which are based on overall similarities in appearance or general features — computing distance matrices for a group of taxa and producing character mismatch statistics based on the matching coefficient of Sokal and Michener (1958). They see phenetics as useful in determining the biological gaps.
Apply so-called “homologous” phenotypic traits between families and orders to different environmental niches based on similar needs.
There is a four-question survey where each practical criterion is designated by a letter (A–D) and a title in the form of a question (relating to food, predators, reproduction, and habitat).
For example, if the answer to the question “Is the common feature of this group being used differently in [fill in blank]?” is “yes,” then we can start testing the list of predictions below on whether there are adaptive and structural convergent genes related to this homologous trait:
Convergent amino acid changes in DYNC2H1 and PCNT
Convergent amino acid changes in HOXC10 and HOXC11
Rapidly evolving HOXD4 genes
Positively selected HOXA3 genes
Convergent pseudogenes
We can confidently conclude a common design if the test reveals at least one adaptive and/or structural gene, one rapidly evolving gene, one positively selected gene, and one convergent pseudogene.
Again, this method was inspired by several studies on red and giant pandas, which concluded that their false thumbs evolved separately in response to similar needs, and a study that showed why and how they evolved separately.
I know already. I was just letting you know that I was turning their conclusion into my hypothesis.
Here is his model:
In the early universe, and continuing to the present time, OR events would generally occur in electrically charged, polar environments like water or most forms of matter. There, quantum states quickly entangle and react chemically to reach OR threshold (decoherence), producing random, noncognitive protoconscious qualia which would come and go without a trace. However, also present in the early universe, eg, in the primordial soup from which life began, were nonpolar, uncharged oil-like environments of pi electron resonance clouds.
When properly arrayed in nonpolar regions, pi electron resonance clouds are quantum-friendly, enabling superpositions to avoid random entanglements, and be orchestrated (Orch OR) in appropriate structural lattices with resonance, memory, and inputs. Orch OR events, eg, in microtubules inside brain neurons, could then culminate in meaningful, rich conscious moments. Quantum friendly nonpolar regions pervade biology, buried within cores of microtubules and nearly all biomolecules, shielded from polar, aqueous interactions, and defined by a solubility parameter akin to olive oil.
The Meyere-Overton correlation shows such nonpolar sites, eg, composed of aromatic amino acid pi electron resonance clouds in protein interiors, to be the sites where anesthetics act to selectively erase consciousness. The Meyere-Overton quantum underground appears to host consciousness in the brain, and may have enabled the origin of life.
