No, there is not. Science is always about utility, never about “truth” (what ever that even means). Weird that you wouldn’t understand this, considering how vital you think philosophy is for science.
Okay, explain this to me, please. So if you’d want to prove the truth of something, the burden of proof would be on you. But if you want to prove the utility of something, then the burden of proof is on someone else? Is that how this works? “Oh, my argument isn’t philosophical, it is scientific. Therefore it is up to other researchers to test my theory.”
Well, any time I tried to read your sources, I found them to either not comment at all on what you said about them, or contradict you directly. So read them or don’t, much good it does you not, I say.
There’s a reason for that. There are no sources or articles that refute well-established aspects of the common design theory, because there are no well-established aspects of common design theory. And no, individual quantities you don’t even know the units of are not “aspects of common design theory”. Orch-OR is not an “aspect of common design theory” either, let alone a well-established one. Basics of undergraduate level quantum physics, too, are not “aspects of common design theory”.
I couldn’t cite you an academic source refuting flat earth theory either, or electric universe. But that does nothing to bolster any of them. “You can’t prove me wrong, therefore I’m right” would be what’s known as an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Dawkins does actually explain the evolutionary advantages of recombination and sexual reproduction under his selfish gene model, something I’m sure you would know, had you actually read any of his publications on the subject, or at least the pop-sci book.
As for mating losing the individual half their genetic material, that’s just straight-up false. Cartoonishly, ridiculously false, even! Good grief, imagine what that would even look like! In fact, let’s. For humans. After some preliminaries I’ll cover the male first, just to order the results by ridiculousness:
The number of human cells in the human body is in the ballpark of some 30 trillion. However, some 70% of these are red blood cells, which have no nucleus. I’ll be extra generous and say effectively only 5 trillion cells contain DNA, and let’s assume that this is what’s meant by “genetic material”.
Every reproductive cell (be it egg or sperm) contains half a copy of the parent’s genome.
A human male typically expels some 150 million sperm per ejaculation. There is actually a wide range, but I’m picking a nice and central number just to have something to work with. Typical ejaculation volumes likewise range. Again, I pick a nice central number of 3mL.
A simple cross-multiplication yields, that in order for a man to lose half his body’s genetic material, he would have to expel something on the order of 100L, a third of a bathtub’s worth of semen per mating. And yes, that’s the less ridiculous result compared with what’s to come.
A human female typically contributes one egg cell per cycle, rarely two or three, and irrespective of if or how many matings she undergoes in that time period. So the “with each mating event” proportionality flies out the window for human females at least.
One egg cell’s volume is about 3.6nL. The equivalent volume of human egg cells corresponding to half a human body’s genetic material is some 18m³, half a tanker truck’s worth. That’s how much sheer volume of human biomass a woman would have to expel during her period if it were just the unutilized egg cells. But you don’t stay there, you go one step further. According to you this happens not once a month, but every time the woman sleeps with anyone.
I’m sorry, but if you think this is an actual reality of nature, let alone one on which Dawkins’ selfish gene model would make any comment on, then you have no business talking about biology. This is just embarassing.
You cite articles on biology that you haven’t read. You cite articles on information theory that you haven’t read. You cite articles on evolution that you haven’t read. You cite articles on the fossil record that you haven’t read.[1]
So why should anyone think you behave differently w.r.t. quantum physics?
(Based on previous failure to respond to such questions, I anticipate no response this time either. That silence is damning.)
So your section headings don’t mean anything. Got it.
So you knew your response was irrelevant? Or maybe you didn’t know, but are now trying to avoid responsibility for your irrelevancy.
But Steven Holland doesn’t imply any such thing. He actually says the exact opposite:
“As a record of everything that has ever lived on earth, the fossil record is an imperfect and incomplete data set. We know this.”
@Meerkat_SK5 might have known this had he bothered to actually read the article he cited, but he wouldn’t know this if he had just copied that extract from Michael Oard’s article at creation.com (where the exact same extract is given, including the ellipsis) after swallowing Oard’s lie that “Steven Holland points out that the fossil record is imperfect in a sense, but really nearly complete”.
Michael [Oard] has a Masters Science degree in Atmospheric Science from the University of Washington and is now retired after working as a meteorologist with the US National Weather Service for 30 years.[1]
… and so has no expertise whatsover in Paleontology, this is yet another example of:
… as I stated above.
@Meerkat_SK5: why do you keep parroting people who have no expertise in the fields they are making claims about?
Given that his source for his ‘understanding’ of quantum physics is (as he told us near the start of his involvement on this forum) a Youtube apologist calling their channel “Inspiring Philosophy” (real name apparently Michael Jones), who appears to have no background whatsoever in quantum physics, I think it’s more a case of knowing that he doesn’t “behave differently w.r.t. quantum physics”.
Addendum: @Meerkat_SK5’s citation of this Youtube apologist can be found here. I will note that @CrisprCAS9 described this apologist thusly:
I appreciate Meerkat’s willingness to present his opinion. It goes a long way toward understanding the status of ID theories. I don’t know why this hasn’t been published in the journal, ‘Complexity’.
Majority of the suspected list of created kinds are at the family level including the pandas.
We know that they are separate kinds because the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) method was used on the red panda and found that A. fulgens belongs to the mustelid created kind, and not the Ursidae family.
I also explained to you why we would expect created kinds to be at the family level.
And your point is what here?
I was just explaining to you why we would expect created kinds to be at the family level.
Paw structure is unique to red panda and the digestive system is unique to the giant panda
We can tell by the application of the paw structure and digestive system to different environmental niches based on similar needs.
Ok, I did not realize this before. So I will focus on them specifically this time.
Because we found multiple adaptive convergent genes from these thumbs through functional experiments.
Newly found fossils that show morpho-molecular dissimilarities between the thumbs of both pandas.
Lastly, the application of those thumbs to different niches revealed different functions for both thumbs.
And that’s because you guys choose to stay willfully ignorant by not actually reading or understanding the Orch-OR theory.
And I can’t do this if you guys stay willfully ignorant on their theory.
The difference is not significant enough to be meaningful.
I was talking about everything else beside natural selection.
What makes you say that? Both use platonisitic idealism as a basis for their theory. Natural laws rather than natural selection.
And they were influenced or pressured by secular scientists to teach Darwinian evolution in those schools because of what happen with Galileo.
Uh no that is not quite how things went down:
A good explanation, then, involves linking a phenomenon to a known cause through a known mechanism. Darwin’s theory of evolution is a good example. His idea of common descent was quickly accepted by his contemporaries; it was so obvious that it explained the patterns of nature well. But with natural selection it was not so. Darwin could not explain the mechanisms of heredity, which was a prerequisite for understanding natural selection.That is why not many people fully accepted his theory. However, by the turn of the 20th century, the mechanisms of genetics were starting to be elucidated, so now the process of evolution was being understood. But it was still not clear exactly how evolution happened. It wasn’t until population genetics had developed sufficiently in the 1930s and 40s that the theory became widely accepted. By then, the whole chain was clear: known causes (heredity and variation) caused a known phenomenon (evolution) through a known mechanism (natural selection). Science, hypotheses, and intelligent design
The same can be said for Owen’s theory. Back then, God was the cause and the natural laws, such as common archetypes, were considered the secondary known causes that God manifested, which explained the patterns of evolution. But, the mechanism was not known until the advent of HGT, which helped explain how those designs were implemented.
I have done this already. Do you want me to do it again?
Well, it is never about absolute truth, that is correct. But, it is about objective truth. The statement " earth revolves around the sun" is an objective truth.
Well first off, I never said anybody had the burden of proof.
Secondly, science is a collaborative process, which requires other researchers to independently confirm someone else’s claim. This is part of the scientific method.
No, you just misunderstood my argument.
That is not true. What makes you say that? support your claim.
I was just giving an example to help others understand my overall point.
Because their model is an important part of how I advance my own theory as a legit scientific endeavor.
If you want to know why, take a look:
Thank you for your submission inquiry, which was forwarded to me.
Regrettably, your paper does not fit into any of our categories, so we will not be sending it out for review. BIO-Complexity publishes original research in our Research Articles section, and select reviews from well known contributors in our Critical Reviews section. Your paper seems to be a review, but we solicit these only from authors who have made significant contributions to the relevant field.
I wish you success in finding a suitable publisher for your work, and thank you for considering BIO-Complexity.
Regards,
Doug Axe
Managing Editor
BIO-Complexity
Do you need me to refresh your memory again?
In our previous discussions…
Here is my publication record. Note that it includes three of the subjects your half-baked hypothesis entails: the cytoskeleton, learning/memory (LTP, which is an actual mechanism, unlike consciousness), and genetics:
No reasons are advanced for that, and nothing there is relevant to pandas.
What is your justification for the PCC being able to distinguish kinds? How do you know the kinds are Mustelidae and Ursidae? Incidentally, the red panda is not a mustelid, and nobody has ever claimed that it is.
When? How did you?
The point is that they aren’t separate kinds because they belong in the same nested hierarchy.
That wasn’t an explanation.
But those aren’t kinds. You need to provide structures that are unique to the claimed kinds Ursidae and Mustelidae (though the latter is incorrect), not to the particular individual species. Do you even have a clue how to do your own work?
Then you are very, very bad at reading. Go back and reread my original set of questions, this time for comprehension, and try to remember it.
Citation, please. How do you know they’re convergent?
Citation.
How is that relevant? If, as you claim, giant pandas are bears, why are most features of pandas and other bears applied to different niches, and yet they’re the same kind?
No, it’s not. And, by the way, not that we haven’t seen enough reasons already, but if you don’t understand the principle of relativity, that’s one more for why you have no business talking about physics. Again, it’s not about truth - objective or absolute - but about utility. If I’m sending satellites into orbit, I’ll have a worse time of it trying to work things out in heliocentrism than I would doing the same calculation assuming geocentrism. For that purpose, the geocentric model is unambiguously the better one. If I’m sending probes into the orbit of Saturn, I may still want to stick to geocentrism to get into space, and then switch to heliocentrism when the vessel escapes Earth, only to work with the Saturnian system once that becomes the dominant body. None of these descriptions are “an objective truth”, all of them are utilities to do an actual job, and for no part of the mission would pulling out the technically more accurate field equations of Einstein be a smarter choice.
For instance, the fact that only demonstrably untrained individuals actually proclaim any kind of link between either the core or the fringes of quantum theory and creationism (let’s call a spade a spade, shall we), all whilst demonstrating no functional understanding of either when they do it. If quantum theory really served your case, you would have spent some time above none at all actually studying it someplace other than bottom-of-the-barrel YouTube apologetics channels. That you can word-salad these things into your “model” (by doing little more beyond awkwardly re-defining terms, one should add!) does not make them “aspects of” it any more than they are “aspects of” some quantum astrology spirit science gobbledygook just because some clowns of that crowd can spin their word salad around it. Or, to give a more illustrative example, stratigraphy is not an aspect of flood geology just because young-earthers can point and squeak “Look! Layers!”.
Ah, yes, of course. And you figured that an obviously false and cartoonishly ridiculous one was going to best get your point across, did you? I don’t think so. I think you just blurted out the first thing that came to your mind, or something suggested by someone else equally as incompetent.
“That’s because” you have a (well-documented) bad habit of plagiarising other people’s quotations and citations, without having read the original cited source. You in fact have just been caught doing that, yet again, with Steven Holland and Michael Oard.
In order for us to willing to expend the effort of following you down the rabbithole of a controversial hypothesis, based upon a complex and ill-understoof subfield of physics, it is perfectly reasonable to first expect you to demonstrate that you have sufficient background to understand that subfield and that hypothesis. Given that your claimed source for your purported understanding of Quantum Physics is a Youtube apologist who has been described as:
an obvious buffoon … who I wouldn’t trust to properly interpret a stop sign, much less quantum field theories.
… our skepticism is well-earned. So I return to my questions:
Yes you can – you can do so by answering my questions above.
Again, your ignorance is showing.
Genetics isn’t “significant enough to be meaningful”?
Genetic Drift and Neutral Theory isn’t “significant enough to be meaningful”?
Recombination isn’t “significant enough to be meaningful”?
Evolutionary developmental biology isn’t “significant enough to be meaningful”?
Etc, etc.
Really, your claim is simply laughable.
Given that Natural Selection is at the very core of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, you are ‘ignoring the elephant in the room’ – which only reduces your credibility further.
That they “both use platonisitic[sic] idealism” does not mean that Penrose is building on Owen’s work, it means that he’s building on Plato’s. It establishes no direct connection between Owen and Penrose.
Your conspiracy theories are getting stupider and stupider. You have no evidence to support any of these wild conjectures. You just want to believe it because you don’t want to accept that Evolutionary Biology is widely tested and accepted.
Oh dear.
That Darwin’s theory was incomplete until genetics was discovered to be the source of the “variation” that Darwin postulated is old news. It is actually a strength of his theory that it anticipated genetics.
There are two problems with this:
Owen’s work never anticipated the existence of HGT.
HGT is a source of variation, the same as mutation. It is not a source of adaptation – so not an alternative to Natural Selection. That you failed to notice this is further evidence that you have little to no understanding of the theory you are seeking to replace.
What part of the word “satisfactory” did you fail to comprehend?
satisfactorya. Sufficient for the needs of the case, adequate. Of an argument: Convincing. †Of an author: Treating adequately of his subject. b.A.4.b That justifies a feeling of satisfaction; such as one may be content or pleased with.
Your explanations have been described as “incoherent”, “blabber”, etc, etc – the exact opposite of “satisfactory”.
Repeating an unsatisfactory explanation will not make it satisfactory.
I would also note that you failed to answer another of my earlier questions:
To the art of bullshit, plenty. To anything else – well, that gets pretty thin.
But one does have to be pretty bad to be rejected by Bio-Complexity. I think they’d take work from authors whose “significant contributions to a relevant field” included taking a piss on a chewing tobacco plantation.
This does not mean anything. Again, there is no difference between inferring and predicting common ancestry and common design from the phylogenetic relationships between families of the Carnivora order.
For instance , phylogenetic relies on similar features to draw or reconstruct phylogenetic trees. These features can be morphological, molecular, or behavioral traits that are shared among different organisms, but the most commonly used features are morphological and molecular traits that are shared among different organisms.
According to the common design theory, the purpose is to make sure groups of created kinds fit and fill different environments around the globe
If this is true, we would expect to see nested hierarchies emerge when similar parts and functions are adapted to fit and fill different environmental niches. This is because the process of adaptation to different niches often involves the modification and specialization of existing traits, rather than the evolution of entirely new ones.
As a result, we can often trace the evolutionary history of a group of organisms by examining the nested hierarchy of shared traits that reflect their common design. For example, the nested hierarchy of shared anatomical features and genetic sequences provides evidence for convergent evolution. The resulting similarities in structure and function can create nested hierarchies that reflect convergent evolution across multiple lineages.
Overall, the use of similar parts and functions to fit and fill different environmental niches can create nested hierarchies that reflect convergent evolution across multiple lineages, providing a powerful framework for understanding the history and diversity of life on Earth.
This leads me to respond to this…
It is relevant because it allows us to truly determine whether the convergent evolution of the red and giant panda supports common design or not. In this case, it exclusively supports common design because of the application of those similar parts and function when applied to different environmental niches.
Unlike YEC, I actually don’t think there is a reasonable justification that this method can go that far as to distinguish kinds. At best, it can identify similarities/disimilarities between the two pandas and we can infer from there that they might be potential created kinds. But, other methods and tests should be done in accordance to give a confident conclusion.
That is not what I am reading in this study, which reveals the molecular dissimilarities between the two pandas:
No, I don’t need to do this to support the common design model. I laid out already what has and needs to be done to determine whether they are created kinds or not.
Based on the comprehensive list of currently recognized created kinds, most of the kinds equate with the Family level, a few with the Sub-Family or Super-Family level, and rarely it will equate with the Genus or Order levels. This list includes the two pandas in question.
Do you want the list again?
Why?
It is not accurate to claim that science is not about truth at all. Science is a systematic and evidence-based approach to understanding the natural world, and its ultimate goal is to uncover the truth about the physical, chemical, and biological phenomena that exist in the universe. While scientific knowledge is always provisional and subject to revision in light of new evidence, learning more about the natural world remains a central aim of science.
For example, geocentrism was a model that was once believed to be true but was eventually replaced by heliocentrism because it provided a better explanation of the observed phenomena. The switch to heliocentrism was not simply a matter of convenience or utility but was driven by a desire to better understand the natural world.
Yes, this is exactly what I have been doing. I only reference youtube videos on them because you guys refuse to read the articles I give you on quantum physics or the Orch-OR model.
So I am trying to entice you guys by making it easier to understand and take in the information.
Whether you like it or not, this is how science operates.
It builds upon previous knowledge created by previous work from researchers.
Moreover, 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.
Prove it then.
My point is that you can test the predictions yourself if you are unconvinced or don’t think the model has any scientific merit.
I only reference youtube videos on them because you guys refuse to read the articles I give you on quantum physics or the Orch-OR model.
So I am trying to entice you guys by making it easier for you to understand and take in the information I provide.
I only need to know the basics of quantum physics and read enough about it online to make my case. You guys can do the same but you don’t and that’s the difference between me and everyone else here.
No, this was not what I meant.
No, Plato did not argue that the Forms or Ideas create concrete objects or physical reality directly. Instead, he believed that the material world is a reflection or imitation of the world of Forms, and that the Forms provide the patterns or blueprints for the creation of concrete objects. Plato argued that these Forms exist in a separate realm from the physical world, and that they are the ultimate reality, whereas the physical world is only a temporary and imperfect reflection of that reality.
Neither Penrose or Owen argued for dualism in their works. They both advocated for a form of idealism. So there is a connection.
I just gave you an example in regards to Galileo. That is the evidence.
I beg to differ…
"Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) enables organisms to acquire pre-existing adaptive characters from other organisms, regardless of phylogenetic distance. Thus, instead of genetic traits within lineages always emerging gradually through successive mutations and selection, evolution is accelerated as a parallel process, where inventions made in different lineages can come together in a single cell through HGT.
…In addition to sharing metabolic capabilities between unrelated organisms, HGT also plays an important role in creating new functional roles for existing proteins by assembling new metabolic pathways. Some pathways that changed the face of planet Earth, such as acetoclastic methanogenesis in Methanosarcina [2,3] were likely assembled through gene transfer. All enzymes involved in the newly identified methylaspartate cycle for acetyl-CoA assimilation in Halobacteriales were acquired through the horizontal transfer and recombination of different pre-existing genes from different bacterial genomes [4]. " Ancient horizontal gene transfer and the last common ancestors | BMC Ecology and Evolution | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
You are wrong. Common design doesn’t predict a nested hierarchy.
That’s not an instance of what you said. It also sounds like ChatGPT. Is it? If so, that’s dishonest.
That’s a meaningless statement.
No, we would not. You have given no reason to expect nested hierarchies.
This would seem to be talking about evolution within kinds, not between them. Try again.
That doesn’t follow from the previous statements, in which the nested hierarchy within a kind results from common descent, not common design. Note also that you have departed completely from any relevance to pandas, the supposed subject.
Nonsensical, and not a response to what I said.
Thanks, though I should not have had to ask you. But those aren’t “morpho-molecular dissimilarities”; they’re dissimilarities in the inferred initial adaptive regimes.
So why did you bring it up in response to my question? You specialize in squid ink.
Apologies. I will revise: nobody but a creationist has ever claimed the the red panda is a mustelid. And that study uses dubious methodology and a poor taxon sample, notably leaving out procyonids.
Are any of them relevant to panda thumbs? And how do you know they’re convergent? I don’t think you read that paper very carefully. As for the second one, even though one (!) convergent change is, by their test, significant, I don’t find it all that compelling.
You have laid out nothing. You emit great clouds of squid ink, but that’s all.
A list (most of whose members are only speculatively “kinds”), is not evidence of anything. And you have explained nothing.
No. I want some evidence for your claims. Do you have any conception of what evidence is?
Because, presumably, you have no idea what an explanation would entail.
Happy to answer your word salad. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy. More specifically, common descent with branching speciation, inheritance, and not-too-frequent changes in inherited features predicts it. Can you really not see that?
