I suppose it depends on what she meant by “define created kinds and first principles” a priori. If she meant simply a list of which populations go into which kinds, then she would be right. But if she meant some sort of rigorous system of assignment to kinds, whereby the assignment would be objective based upon this system and the data (and not involve subjective judgement, and thus wriggle-room), then I would consider the lack of such a system to be ad hoc.
I took her talking about “first principles” to mean that she was talking about a system, not merely a list.
No, it does not. 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. Libertarian free will is inherently dualistic.
I think you may be equating things that influence our choices and decisions, such as chemical reactions in our brain versus things that PREdetermine choices all together like a puppet on a string or a computer. They are not the same. There is also a difference between the ability to make a choice without an antecedent physical cause versus having limited options for me to choose from.
How does this refute what I argued?
Patel was referring to the genetic code not the genome that the genetic code is plastered on.
Prove it.
And this is obviously false.Of course there are, and there is, and if YOU actually evaluated the data empirically this would become clear.
Proof of it exists throughout your endless vomit of incoherent babble, Meerly-quotemining-kat. You pervasively cite descriptions (words) not data (numbers). @Mercer has called you on this repeatedly.
This obliviousness to data is I presume why you erroneously label a theoretical piece, that only calls for experimental confirmation of its conclusion as an “experiment”. If it were genuinely an experiment, it would have its own data to report, but you aren’t interested in data, so you overlooked the fact.
Nothing in that article supports a “universal common designer” or intelligent design. They emphasize that the “robust engineering” found in those redox centers is the result of natural selection.
So why did you cite that article in support of a “universal common designer”, when the paper says nothing about that?
What is the difference between Patel’s “genetic code” and the genetic code the genome is “plastered on”?
By the way, Patel conflates the genetic code with the actual information contained in DNA. Look at his definition:
The self-similarity is maintained by the hereditary information—the genetic code—that is passed on from one generation to the next. The long chains of DNA molecules residing in the nuclei of the cells form the repository of the genetic information.
What is actually passed down from one generation to the next is genetic information, not the genetic code.
In my neck of the woods, this is what we would refer to as “spitting the dummy”. It’s not a good look particularly since, if I recall, this is the second time you mentioned the AJRoberts dummy spit. OTOH, there is a silver lining. Having insulted all those who have patiently waded through your posts, it is time for you to take your bat and ball and go home.
All evidence would appear to be that @Meerkat_SK5 lacks anywhere better to retreat to. They certainly give every impression of trying to ‘hang around like a bad smell’, and trying to insert themselves into conversations like they did here.
To some extent. The tree itself is not a representation of data but an inference resulting from algorithmic analysis of character data. But the character data are not shown or represented. There is a representation of the ages of certain fossils; that much is data. More importantly, what is shown there, in contrast to @Meerkat_SK5’s spoutings, is a rigorously justified conclusion from actual data.
Two reasons why both studies do support it. First, you are assuming random unguided mutations was the other mechanism at play, but this was never mentioned in either article.
Secondly, as I argued before, quantum phenomena, such as quantum/electron tunneling, is identical to mental phenomena in the mind, and I highlighted experiments that show how they are literally identical phenomena.
More importantly, the authors note that the observed principles of electron tunneling in biological systems are highly optimized, with electron transfer rates that are faster than expected based on classical tunneling theory.
Therefore, I acknowledge the term “engineering principles” was used in a metaphorical sense to describe the functional and structural similarities between biological and man-made electronic systems.
But, this does not mean those articles don’t support my argument; especially when I was arguing that those articles support a common designer not an intelligent designer. There is a difference. Natural selection operating on quantum mechanical properties or non-random mutations would be the common designer in this case.
Genetic information refers to the actual DNA sequence that carries the instructions for an organism’s traits, while the genetic code is the set of rules by which this information is translated into functional proteins, which is what he is referring to.
I know. This is why I specifically said that method was inspired by these studies. But, I never suggested that the method they used to determine convergence was the same as mine.
No, I think you just misunderstood me. I never suggested that the method or data they used to determine convergence from that one study was the same as mine. Instead, my method and validation of it is based on all the panda studies combined.
Given your powers of scientific discernment are, at best, negligible, your claim of being “inspired by these studies” is thoroughly uncompelling. You might as well have claimed that your what-you-call-method-but-no-scientist-would was “inspired by” The Hobbit, for all the good it does you.
My comment on words versus data was provoked by your whining:
You only gave words on your panda claims NOT DATA!
Maybe I should start referring to you as Meerly-words-NOT-DATA-kat.
I did not assume anything. The authors clearly stated natural selection acted on those 4S redox centers.
In contrast, the authors made no mention or even alluded to a “universal common designer”, yet you cited their paper in support of that idea. YOU HAVE MISREPRESENTED their paper!
How exactly is this a reason for citing a paper that doesn’t mention, promote, or allude to your “universal common designer” idea?
Your amnesia is back. You claimed there was a difference between Patel’s genetic code and that which the genome was “plastered on”. What is that difference? If there isn’t any, then indicate that you wrote rubbish as usual.
I disagree. It’s utterly, incredibly dishonest. “Creationists and evolutionists interpret the same data differently” is the biggest and most deliberate lie in the creationist arsenal.
The leaders are lying because they know they are ignoring most of the data. They also regularly lie about the data themselves.
The followers are lying because they haven’t bothered to look at the data, when making a comprehensive survey of the data would be required to have any informed opinion whatsoever.
Needless to say, we cherry-pick and massage the data to fit our predetermined interpretations, especially when it concerns origins. Being called out for our mendaciousness can be challenging!
… should have made that clear. If it did not, then I apologise.
Part of the reason I do this is that I’m very Anglophilic in my humor, another part is that when describing the dishonesty of Creationists, hyperbole is utterly redundant – so I tend to go in the opposite direction.
