And that danged faunal succession. Not easy to explain that one away.
What I wonder is this: does Meerkat understand what people see when they see someone say there is no evidence of common descent? What they see depends on how kind they are feeling: either something pitiable, or something beneath all pity and worthy only of contempt. It’s time to learn some biology.
No, it is still scientific because it produces predictions that we can test and you acknowledged this already.
FYI, certain terms in science often have specific meanings that differ from their everyday usage because scientists use terms in a precise and technical way that reflects their specialized understanding of the natural world. The scientific definition of a term is often based on empirical evidence, mathematical models, and established theories because operational definitions are essential in scientific measurement as they provide a clear and unambiguous way of measuring a particular quantity or phenomenon. Operational definitions describe how a particular measurement or observation is made, which enables researchers to communicate their findings effectively and replicate the experiment.
For example, the term “theory” has a different meaning in science than it does in everyday language. In science, a theory is a well-supported explanation of natural phenomena that has been repeatedly tested and confirmed through observations and experiments. In contrast, in everyday language, a theory may be an untested idea or a guess.
In fact, new scientific theories are often developed when researchers realize that certain terms are not sufficiently defined because defining terms precisely is necessary to ensure clear communication and understanding of concepts.
For example, the term “gene” was not adequately defined until the discovery of DNA and the development of molecular genetics in the mid-20th century. Prior to this, the term “gene” referred to hypothetical units of heredity that could not be observed or measured directly. The discovery of DNA and the subsequent identification of genes as specific sequences of DNA led to a more precise and measurable definition of the term.
So you guys can whine and complain all you want about how I define the genetic code, but you are the one who is being unscientific because you rely on secular dogma or consensus rather than evidence.
You guys obviously never heard of the underdetermination problem of not having enough evidence to conclusively determine which theory or explanation is correct.
The underdetermination problem arises because there may be multiple competing explanations or theories that can account for the same set of observations or data. This means that even if all available evidence is considered, it may not be enough to determine which explanation or theory is the most accurate or complete.
Both common design and common descent can and have explained the same data for decades now. The difference between the two is that common design can be directly tested and there is independent evidence in support of it. The same CANNOT be said for common descent theory. This is why there is no evidence for it outside of your imagination.
As I said: whether one sees something pitiable in that claim, or something below pity and worthy only of contempt, is very much a matter of one’s own proclivities and inclinations. Nothing more is possible.
@Tim laughs further at @Meerkat_SK5 … and further … and further.
Three exclamation marks forsooth – you must weally weally mean it.
There are numerous problems with this claim:
It is irrelevant – as regardless of whose “theory or claims” these are, they have been rejected or ignored by all the scientists on this forum – whether Christian or atheist.
As none of these three figures have proposed a “universal common designer theory” involving quantum physics and HGT, this is NOT their theory! This ill-begotten, ill-informed, ill-fitting, illegitimate, half-baked, half-witted, half-arsed “theory” is all yours. That you have kludged this Frankenstein’s monster together from disparate fragments of others claims does not bestow legitimacy on it. It is not even clear that the parts are even compatible – Owen had a very different worldview than Penrose & Hameroff have. It has been very clear from everything you have written that you lack both the depth of understanding of any of their viewpoints (or any other source you cite), and the general background in biology to give them context, to have any chance whatsoever to attain a workable synthesis of their views.
Even if your theory could be considered a legitimate synthesis of their work, it does not help your case – as their work has garnered little in the way of scientific acceptance.
So your “not my theory or claims” whine gets you precisely nowhere, no matter how many exclamation marks you give it.
This ignorant and unsubstantiated assertion is worthy of nothing but laughter.
@Tim points to the fact that no Christian scientist has supported their claims, points at @Meerkat_SK5, and laughs … and laughs …and laughs.
That is not true. I provided independent support for common design and for the common designer. More importantly, I provided a way to test for them that other researchers can use and test. In fact, you can test it yourself and put your money where your mouth is. It is technically in your field, which means you can find out whether it has any validity to it.
Well duh, nobody I have encountered here is a quantum biologist or neuroscientist or quantum physicist
This is actually not accurate. Instead, they just don’t use the terms “quantum physics” “HGT”, etc. themselves to describe biological phenomena.
You can say the same thing for Darwin and the modern scientists today who advocate for it.
I could grant that the scientific consensus is probably a reliable method for determining whether a scientific theory has merit in a vast majority of cases. However, in cases where there are strong metaphysical and religious implications and undertones like Darwinian evolution and String theory, I don’t think anyone should give them the benefit of the doubt.
For example, As Fuz Rana suggested, ‘when Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, he made use of Richard’s Owen vertebrate archetype for support. Instead of the archetype serving as a blueprint in the mind of the “One Cause,” Darwin argued that homologous structures were physically instantiated. In doing so, Darwin replaced the archetype with the common ancestor.’
Ever since this happened, secular scientists have attributed homology and their findings as evidence for unguided evolution and common descent. They also all acknowledged including Darwin that there are serious gaps in the fossil record that have existed for more than 160 years. More importantly, their prediction that it’s just an artefact has continued to fail as Steven Holland has implied:
“Our exaggerated emphasis on the imperfection of the fossil record feeds the perception among scientists in general that the fossil record is an unusually poor data set. It isn’t. … We already know much about the structure of the fossil record.”
My point is that Common design has already met the burden of proof regardless of who is the arbitrator or which standard of proof you use. They just refuse to give the credit to Darwin’s predecessor based on purely metaphysical or personal bias and we know this is the case.
I have already explain why there is no evidence. The burden of proof is on you guys now to actually produce this evidence.
Having toiled for years in the only realm where “burdens of proof” actually mean something, I am highly amused by this claim. No.
When you mean to critique an entire scientific discipline with a ragtag assortment of Chopra-worthy misuses of quantum physics and non sequiturs, you will find that, in practical terms, everyone will look to you both to discredit that well accepted paradigm and to establish the superiority of your own. Everyone who is not already laughing, that is. Are there any such people? I doubt it; but to those people, you have the burden. The rest of us know that there is no burden you are capable of bearing, and that there is, therefore, no point.
I could grant that the scientific consensus is probably a reliable method for determining whether a scientific theory has merit in a vast majority of cases. However, in cases where there are strong metaphysical and religious implications and undertones like Darwinian evolution and String theory, I don’t think anyone should give them the benefit of the doubt.
For example, As Fuz Rana suggested, ‘when Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, he made use of Richard’s Owen vertebrate archetype for support. Instead of the archetype serving as a blueprint in the mind of the “One Cause,” Darwin argued that homologous structures were physically instantiated. In doing so, Darwin replaced the archetype with the common ancestor.’
Ever since this happened, secular scientists have attributed homology and their findings as evidence for unguided evolution and common descent. They also all acknowledged including Darwin that there are serious gaps in the fossil record that have existed for more than 160 years. More importantly, their prediction that it’s just an artefact has continued to fail as Steven Holland has implied:
“Our exaggerated emphasis on the imperfection of the fossil record feeds the perception among scientists in general that the fossil record is an unusually poor data set. It isn’t. … We already know much about the structure of the fossil record.”
My point is that Common design has already met the burden of proof regardless of who is the arbitrator or which standard of proof you use. They just refuse to give the credit to Darwin’s predecessor based on purely metaphysical or personal bias and we know this is the case.
Do you have any understanding how stupid, rude and ignorant that statement is?
The aphorism “those who live in glass houses should not throw stones” doesn’t even touch on the TOWERING HYPOCRISY that statement betrays.
You @Meerkat_SK5 have no expertise whatsoever in either quantum biology or neuroscience or quantum physics – in fact you have demonstrated that you have no competence whatsoever in either science or logic.
This brings me back to a series of unanswered questions that I have put to you multiple times:
To which I would add:
What is your formal background in biology?
What books/textbooks on quantum biology, written by actual quantum biologists have you read?
What books/textbooks on neuroscience, written by actual neuroscientists have you read?
I am afraid it is well past time to INSIST on answers to these questions, given your all-too-frequent aspersions on others’ expertise.
Again you are betraying your basic ignorance of how science actually works. Modern scientists do not try to build Darwin’s original ideas, contained in The Origin of Species into their work – they build build modern biological concepts, that derive from Darwin, and thousands of other biologists, that have been repeatedly tested and refined, into their work.
That tired, worn-out canard is easily disproven by the existence of millions of devout Christians, many of them scientists (which you are not), many of them biologists (which you are not) that accept evolution.
Your rejection of evolution can better be attributed to your profound ignorance of science and your pig-headed acceptance of an overly-narrow interpretation of the Bible.
What possible reason would I have for giving a rat’s arse what Fuzzy Rana “suggested”? Fazale Rana has no expertise in either Biology or History of Science.
Further, his organisation, Reasons to BelieveBloviate, has no scientific credibility whatsoever – it is simply a bunch of dishonest apologists – “Liars for Jesus” in the popular vernacular.
When you state “Fuz Rana suggested …” you may as well state:
Bozzo the clown suggested …
… or …
I, @Meerkat_SK5, am so ignorant that I don’t know a good source from a credibility-free source.
Given that your ‘explanations’ are based upon the same ignorance of science and ignorance of basic logic, as the rest of your sewer-main of excrement, I have no doubt that it was a worthless as everything else you have written.
Putting up with you is quite burdensome all on its own.
To the extent that any burden falls upon us (which I am quite sure it *doesn’t), it can easily be met simply by posting this Google search:
For now, I am whole-heartedly tired of your persistent, insistent, willful ignorance – so I will leave you to spout your incoherent and all-too-frequently-plagiarised balderdash at other on this unfortunate thread.
In fairness, having read text books may or may not be necessary to claim formal training in a subject. It would no doubt make for a better claim in lieu of lecturer instruction, but even then one may well end up fit to pass an exam from training materials in other formats. I, too, have yet to crack open a text book on any of the subjects I already had the privilege to tutor undergraduate exercise classes or co-author publications in. That’s not to say I have any confidence that Meerkat pursued or received any training in the things they pontificate upon whatsoever, but the emtpy list of books they read wouldn’t be what took such confidence from me.
If your aim is not to prove the existence of a universal common designer, then why are you comparing “what humans [intelligent designers] produce” to “what nature produces” under a heading titled “UNIVERSAL COMMON DESIGNER” for crying out loud?
Keep on fooling yourself!
Another misrepresentation. The paper supports no such thing.
See why I keep saying you have episodic amnesia?
You didn’t make a distinction between the genetic code and quantum algorithms. You made a distinction between Patel’s genetic code and the genetic code the “genome is plastered on” and I am have being asking for the difference between both, but you have failed to provide any. Will you now admit you said rubbish?
By the way, depending on ChatGPT to explain things for which you strongly argue for presents you as a highly unserious person.
That’s why ITS YOUR THEORY NOT THEIRS, silly!
If you can’t get this simple point, you are a complete waste of time.
I would agree that there is no one route to achieving competence in a scientific field – I merely attempted to cover the most likely alternatives. I do not however consider that some combination of inexpert apologists’ Youtube videos and/or webpage articles – which appear to be @Meerkat_SK5’s main sources of their basic ‘understanding’ of the fields, to be adequate.
If you would like to suggest major alternate routes to that understanding that I have missed, I’d be happy to add them to my list of questions.
But I am far too tired of their repeated pretense of a superior understanding of the science, to let this issue go.
Researchers “other” than who, exactly? You? The people you misquote? The quacks you quote? What research did you actually conduct, for that matter? Aside from just saying stuff, that is.
How about no? How about you put your money where your mouth is? It’s not on anyone else to do your homework for you. It’s not on @Mercer nor any of the rest of us to “test” your claims for “validity” (as if they didn’t fall apart on any inspection for basic coherence, really). You are the one making them, you are the one hoping to be taken seriously. So you be the one making any effort towards that, I suggest.
And yet, even to our possibly lay scrutiny your claims stand not. One has to wonder exactly why you present them here, if you don’t think anyone here is qualified to assess them. Surely, if we are unqualified to dismiss them, then we are no more qualified to accept them either. If we have any appreciation for scientific scepticism, then, we must remain unconvinced, if only because we wouldn’t know any better. Something tells me that’s not quite the treatment you were hoping for, however. Something tells me that your estimate of how well someone is qualified in these subjects stands in some relation to how acccepting they are of your word salad.
With that in mind, I second @Tim’s motion for you to produce some demonstration of your competency in any of the relevant fields, if you are going to dismiss criticisms on the grounds of possibly insufficient qualifications of their sources.
@Meerkat_SK5, let’s pull back a little from the grand claims and focus on a couple of very simple, related questions. How do you know that giant and red pandas belong to two separate kinds? What exactly are the limits of those kinds, and how can you tell? How do you know that their “thumbs” are independently and convergently derived? And please, don’t just quote from or cite somebody else’s claims; show your reasoning. And don’t use a chatbot.
I am not trying to prove this theory is true, but is useful. There is a difference. This means that it can’t be up to me but it is up to other researchers to test this in order to verify whether it can be a useful theory for themselves.
The difference between me and everyone else is that I actually read these articles on quantum physics and/or on the Orch-OR theory while you guys stay willfully ignorant on the subject.
Moreover, PS users here are making objections without providing counter sources or articles that refute well-established aspects of the common design theory. Or they are making personal objections that are not aligned with their level of expertise.
Well first off, this is a distinction without a difference fallacy
Secondly, the modern biological concepts you are referring to are NOT derived from Darwin, but from Owen, such as homology and other concepts scientists are still using now. They just choose to give Darwin the credit to advance their secular dogma.
Third, the biological concepts that are unique to Owen’s theory are being built upon by other researchers like Penrose.
That is only because they were indoctrinated by the secular school system, especially when most biologists are non-believers. Just like Sunday schools or private christian schools indoctrinate Christians into YEC dogma.
Wrong. I don’t reject evolution. I reject the Darwinian assumptions that were added to the theory of evolution to advance atheism or materialism
Thank you for pointing out the evidence for common DESIGN that you choose to attribute to common descent.
I just used the heading titled “UNIVERSAL COMMON DESIGNER” to signify that I was transitioning to a slightly different topic than the previous one. That’s it.
I beg to differ.
They suggested that biological electron transfer systems exhibit certain “engineering principles” that are similar to those used in man-made electronic devices, such as transistors and diodes.
For example, the way in which biological systems control the flow of electrons through protein channels is similar to the way in which electronic devices use semiconductors to control the flow of electrons. They also pointed out how the design of biological electron transfer systems incorporates redundancy and error correction mechanisms, similar to those used in electronic devices to ensure reliability and accuracy.
That is nonsense Michael. If they mean the same thing, then it does not matter what label they use to describe the same thing.
No, you misunderstood me. Patel’s genetic code is digital and the genome the genetic code is plastered on is analog information, which you called genetic information.
I know. I was just describing the underdetermination problem.
Because the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) and the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) were once considered closely related and classified together in the same family, Ailuridae. However, a combination of studies done on them detected convergent genes from their homologous phenotypic traits.
This revealed that the giant panda’s closest living relative is actually the spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus), and the red panda is more closely related to the raccoon family (Procyonidae). As a result, the red panda is now classified in its own family, Ailuridae, while the giant panda is classified in the bear family, Ursidae.
We can tell based on observations on the complexity and interdependence of structures and functions at the level of order and family. These complex structures and functions found in living organisms cannot be explained solely by natural selection and random mutation, because the intermediate steps would not provide any advantage to the organism.
For example, Richard Dawkins’ “selfish gene” view suggests that sex is counterproductive from the perspective of an individual’s genes, as it results in the loss of half of an individual’s genetic material with each mating event.
Moreover, they consist of multiple parts that are all necessary for the structure or function to work. This involves the removal of any one of the parts would render the structure or function useless (i.e. Irreducibly complex).
A number of steps and methods need to be taken to distinguish homologous phenotypic traits from analogous phenotypic traits and thus support the common design model…
Identifying morpho-molecular dissimilarities and/or lack of fossil intermediates among order- and family-level taxa.
We can confirm this with the Baraminic distance correlation analysis (BDC) method, which classifies groups of organisms based on their design features.
For instance, if there is a chain of postive and significant baraminic distance correlations connecting all the taxa, then they are considered to belong to the same species. However, if there is a negative correlation outside the group by gaps that are significantly greater than intra-group differences, this would be evidence of discontinuity. [27]
Another method to use in this process is the classical multidimensional scaling (CMDS), which is a technique used to visualize and analyze the similarities and dissimilarities between groups of objects. In the context of baraminology, CMDS has been used to compare the morphological features of different groups of organisms and to identify potential “created kinds” based on their shared design features. [27]
If both methods don’t yield any results, then the newer methods that were used in previous studies must be used to identify any dissimilarities:
Keep in mind, the first Panda study that concluded convergence did not use any preliminary methods, let alone these methods, to support their conclusion. Just argumentation and reasoning.
Apply so-called “homologous” phenotypic traits among order- and family-level taxa 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 their habitats?” is “No,” “To be determined (TBD)," or “Not applicable (N/A),” a follow-up question is asked: “Do they respond differently in different habitats?” This may require artificially planting them in different habitats for an answer.
If the answer to either question is “Yes,” then we can start testing the list of predictions described below on whether there are adaptive and structural convergent genes related to this homologous trait.
However, if the answer to both questions is “No” or “TBD,” we must apply the same question formula to prey and/or predator measures to potentially draw a definite conclusion. If the answer is still “No” or “TBD,” then we ask, “Is the common feature of this group being used differently in sexual reproduction?”
The results are inconclusive if every question yields a “No” or “TBD” answer.
Keep in mind, I crafted this method according to the reasoning of the first Panda study that concluded convergence based on the application of those common traits to different niches.
Perform functional experiments to test the predictions.
If the functional experiments used in the Panda studies reveals at least one adaptive and/or structural gene, one rapidly evolving gene, one positively selected gene, and one convergent pseudogene, we can confidently conclude a common design.
Again, this entire testing process is derived from a combination of studies done on red and giant pandas family level taxa, which should allow us to obtain reliable results [30][31][32].
Doesn’t answer the question, which was “How do you know the giant and red pandas belong to two separate kinds?”; separate families are not the same as separate kinds. In fact the evidence that shows them to belong to separate families also makes those families part of the same tree of descent.
First of all, that’s about the origin of mutations, not separate kinds. Second, what are the structures and functions unique to the two kinds, neither of which you have defined? If you remember (you probably don’t), the question was “What are the limits of these kinds, and how can you tell?”, and you have not answered that either.
Going to stop you right there, as that wasn’t an example of anything we were actually discussing. I have asked you to focus specifically on pandas.
I asked a very specific question, which you have not answered. Again, it was:
You respond by just quoting vague claims you have made before, none of them about pandas.
What argumentation? What reasoning? This is not going well. Are you incapable? Nothing you say subsequently is relevant to any of my questions. Just having sentences with the word “panda” in them is not sufficient. You have to actually answer the questions, which I have just repeated for your convenience.
Incidentally, just sticking numbers in brackets into a cut-and-paste doesn’t count as a citation either.
Firstly there is the problem that we can have no confidence that you have in fact “actually read these articles” – as you have a long track record of citing sources that you have only seen quoted by secondary sources (and all too frequently these secondary sources turn out to be apologists with no expertise in the fields they are making claims about.
But even if you have read the articles, it does not help your case any unless you can demonstrate that you comprehend them. This is particularly important in a field as complex, poorly-understood and mathematical as Quantum Physics. Lacking any demonstration of sufficient physics and maths background, you are simply confirming our strong suspicion that you are merely blindly parroting whatever bits of these sources you think help make your case, without any comprehension.
For these reasons I must continue to INSIST that you answer my questions:
Are we back to that stupid complaint yet again?
As you have been told before:
No “counter source” is needed when your source is not an expert on the issue you are citing them in support of. Such citations are merely an Argument from Authority *fallacy (in that “the putative authority’s expertise is [not] relevant to the claim at hand”). This is particularly true for Fuzzy-is-neither-a-biologist-or-historian-of-science and for the Youtube apologist you were citing early on (and whose citations list you plagiarised as your own) on the subject of Quantum Physics.
No “counter source” is needed when your own source does not support your claim – as has proven to be the case far too frequently in the claims you have made.
In order for a demand for a “counter source” to have any validity, you must FIRST establish a prima facie case with (i) a credible source, which (ii) actually supports your argument – otherwise there is NOTHING TO REBUT!
That you know of no “difference” between “Darwin’s original ideas, contained in The Origin of Species” and “modern biological concepts, that derive from Darwin, and thousands of other biologists” is simply further evidence of your complete ignorance of biology.
Only if (i) you are so gullible as to believe Fuzzy-is-neither-a-biologist-or-historian-of-science, and (ii) ignore Natural Selection.
Balderdash!
There is no connection between Owen’s work (which never rose to the level of a scientific “theory”) and Penrose’s. The only connection exists in the wishful thinking of somebody who is ignorant of quantum physics, of biology, and of basic logic.
[Addendum: I would note that I could find no acknowledgement, by either Penrose himself, or others, that his work “built upon” (or had any relationship whatsoever) to Owen’s.]
This ludicrous conspiracy theory is easily debunked by the millions of students who graduate each year from the Catholic education system, accepting evolution.
Given that (i) evolution (at-least-partially) by Natural Selection is the only viable Theory of Evolution we currently have (and Owen never even proposed a competing mechanism for NS), and (ii) both this mechanism, and the theory, have survived over a century of testing (so are clearly not just “assumptions”) – I can simply dismiss your vacuous ‘rejection’ as simply the result of willful ignorance of biology.
Given that you have provided no satisfactory explanation of how any of this evidence can be attributed to “common DESIGN”, this is simply an empty ignorant assertion.
I would note that you have achieved nothing in your response except provide further evidence of your own complete ignorance of biology.
Based on your performance to date, I would doubt if you could pass even the most elementary introductory module on Evolution – which make your pretensions that you can somehow supplant that which you don’t understand all the more absurd.
You are like a life-long blind person trying to explain why Impressionism is bad art.