And the goldfish completes another lap of his bowl…
3 Likes
Could you explain how reproduction with inheritance and variation would not produce a nested hierarchy? This seems to me to be pretty intuitive.
2 Likes
This is AI content.
Oh, have you? Where? By lecture or by text book? Whose, in either case?
1 Like
Hi Ron
Please concisely define a nested hierarchy in your terms to avoid talking over each other. Please define what specifically about the species would confirm that hierarchy ie genes, morphology, gene sequences etc.
Why would or would not reproduction and natural variation generate this predicted structure?
Why if animals are specially created would you not expect this type of structure?
This is not a scientific prediction it’s a rhetorical argument. Nested hierarchy is not well defined. What would cause this prediction to fail?
No, I did give a reason for why we would expect it.
Bacteria that acquire the new regulatory elements would be able to use the new nutrient source, while those that do not acquire the elements would not. Over time, this could lead to the emergence of subpopulations within the larger population that are specialized for different nutrient sources, creating a nested hierarchy of metabolic capabilities. Here is evidence for it:
Global transcription factors are akin to general managers. They are responsible for coordinating the cell’s functional departments (modules) in terms of a common goal and general signals, such as the presence or absence of its main carbon source or various stresses. In a seminal paper, Susan Gottesman defined a global transcription factor as one that 1. regulates many genes, 2. regulates genes that participate in more than one metabolic pathway, and 3. coordinates the expression of gene groups in response to common needs (Gottesman 1984). …
Four components shape the functional architecture of bacterial regulatory networks: 1. global transcription factors, which are responsible for responding to general signals and for module coordination; 2. strict, globally regulated genes, which are responsible for encoding products important for the basal machinery of the cell and are only governed by global transcription factors; 3. modular genes, which are modules devoted to particular cell functions; and 4. intermodular genes, which are responsible for integrating, at the promoter level, disparate physiological responses coming from different modules to achieve an integrated response. All these functional components form a nonpyramidal, matryoshka -like hierarchy exhibiting feedback.
Regulatory Networks, Bacteria | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)
Nope, I am talking about common design here:
"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)
Yes, you are right. My mistake. The other study I gave you shows dissimilarties:
If you go back, I suggested that they were suspected created kinds. We know that they are suspected created kinds because they were analysis done on them. So I agree with YEC that those methods do help distinguish created kinds by identifying which ones could be them.
The only difference is that they think that using additional methods that potentially reveal more morpho-molecular disimilarities can get us to a confident conclusion. In contrast, I think other methods that test it from different angles should be done instead to give a confident conclusion.
No, they also identified adaptively convergent genes DYNC2H1 and PCNT as candidate genes responsible for pseudothumb development in the first study. The second study even acknowledged this:
Using a comparative genomics strategy, Hu et al. (2017) identified the adaptively convergent genes DYNC2H1 and PCNT as candidate genes responsible for pseudothumb development in giant and red pandas.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2023.1107034/full#h5
Well, I gave you evidence for all the relevant claims I have made regarding the two pandas.
Here is a summary of them again:
- Identifying morpho-molecular dissimilarities and/or lack of fossil intermediates among order- and family-level taxa.
- Apply so-called “homologous” phenotypic traits among order- and family-level taxa to different environmental niches based on similar needs.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0504899102
- Perform functional experiments to test the predictions.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1613870114
You did not answer his questions. How do you directly test for common descent without having to assume it? All you are doing here is assuming that common descent is the only process that can produce nested patterns, which is a false premise.
Yep and you guys still have not provided any evidence or ways to directly test for common descent without having to assume it.
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.
That misrepresents the record.
-
Back in April/May 2021 you merely made an incomplete citation to “Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger 2014” (as it gave no title, it was unclear which of their 2014 papers you were referring to), which was only one citation among many you gave in that post.
-
Long before you either gave a complete citation, let alone further ones, @Jordan did his own research on the topic here:
-
Your presentation of Youtube videos WAS NOT in response to failure to read articles that you had not presented to us, but rather an attempt to shore up your failing argument here.
-
That you would present us those videos from a “buffoon”, and even think that the presenter was actually a quantum physicist, further confirmed our growing impression that you had no idea what you were talking about.
Thus, we were left with prima facie evidence that (i) you have no understanding of quantum physics, quantum biology, or neuroscience, and (ii) that your ‘theory’ is utter balderdash.
The ONLY way you can rebut this evidence is to provide evidence of your own competence in these fields by answering these questions:
To “know the basics of quantum physics” with any robustness would require a fairly strong background in both physics and math. Further, you have given no impression that your reading of this topic had any depth, or that you have any real understanding of the scientific sources you cite.
Then perhaps you should have said what you meant, rather than making an absurd statement, that has, as a direct implication, what I suggested.
You have provided no evidence that Penrose has either. 
No, to be “evidence” a fact has to be relevant – Galileo was a non sequitor.
Further, I would point out that acceptance of Darwinian Evolution started long before universities, and society, was as secular as it is today – so your conspiracy theory falls apart completely.
More like you ‘beg to dither’.
That HGT, just like mutations, can be adaptive is old news, and fails to help your case.
But, without Natural Selection, or some analogous mechanism, there is no mechanism to separate out the adaptive variation from the maladaptive (this is what I meant by “source of adaptation” – adaptation separated out from maladaptation) – therefore both adaptive and maladaptive variations accumulate. Owen+HGT lacks such a mechanism.
You also haven’t addressed my first point:
- Owen’s work never anticipated the existence of HGT.
2 Likes
A common designer implies having a common design rather than common descent because only humans produce top-down causation through algorithmic information or RNA viruses.
For instance, scientists synthesized RNA molecules of a virus and reconstructed a virus particle from scratch [15]. 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 unstable RNA. Other experiments have shown that RNA viruses can be engineered to interact with the host microRNA pathways [16], and observations show that they can produce large-scale evolutionary changes that occur in one generation rather than point mutations or gene duplication [17].
This process is called horizontal gene transfer (HGT), where genetic material is transferred between organisms that are not in a parent-offspring relationship. This transfer of genetic material can occur between organisms of different species or even different kingdoms, which can lead to the acquisition of new traits not present in the genome of the recipient organism [18]. HGT can also occur between organisms that are not closely related, which means that genes can be transferred across phylogenetic boundaries, leading to the rapid acquisition of novel traits.
The ability to acquire pre-existing adaptive characters through HGT can provide a significant advantage to organisms, allowing them to rapidly adapt to new environments or to overcome challenges that would otherwise require the slow process of gradual evolution through mutation and selection. This means that instead of genetic traits within lineages only 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.[19]
Overall, this is how human designers operate. They use preexisting mechanisms, material parts, and digital information to assemble designs to achieve a purpose.
The other reason a common designer implies having a common design rather than common descent is that natural selection cannot elucidate the physical mechanisms underlying the transition from non-life to life or distinguish non-living from living [20]. Natural selection, as a process, operates on populations of living organisms that are already capable of reproducing and passing on heritable traits to their offspring. It does not provide an explanation for how the first living organisms emerged from non-living matter or how to distinguish between non-living and living organisms.
More importantly, viruses were not only the probable precursors of the first cells but also helped shape and build the genomes of all species [20]. Without a host cell, RNA viruses cannot replicate or undergo natural selection, which is a key aspect of Darwin’s theory of evolution .
Furthermore, RNA viruses cannot be included in the Tree of Life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages. While cellular life has a single, common origin, viruses are polyphyletic—they have many evolutionary origins [21]. Therefore, it would indeed be difficult to reconcile their evolution with Darwin’s theory of evolution, since they cannot exist or evolve in the absence of a host.
You’re just parroting statements that have been used against you without understanding them. “Rhetorical argument” is word salad. Of course it’s a scientific prediction, one that emerges naturally from the three factors I mentioned. THis has been explained to you many times and at great length. We’ve all been forced to realize that you are incapable of comprehending any of this, but I assure you that to a person who actually thinks, it’s an obvious and inescapable conclusion.
Nested hierarchy is quite well defined: it’s an assemblange of sets, each pair of which has one of two relationships: either one is nested within the other or they are disjunct. Such a hierarchy is exactly equivalent to a branching tree diagram. These sets are determined by heritable characteristics of any sort. To be sure, sets of characters aren’t usually perfect matches to a hierarchy — there is homoplasy — but the pattern is generally clear.
What would cause the prediction to fail? Well, most obviously it would fail if there were in fact no common descent. It would also fail if changes were so frequent that homoplasy commonly erased all information along the branches. Fortunately, we do not generally see that.
YOU UNDERSTAND NOTHING! Your knowledge of biochemistry, evolution, phylogenetics and other relevant areas of concern has been shown to be terribly bad. You don’t explain things yourself (most likely because you don’t really understand the things you say), but run to ChatGPT or large quotations from disparate sources to provide (frequently irrelevant) responses to reasonable questions thrown at you.
John Harshman is an actual phylogeneticist with the required level of training and experience to analyze the phylogeny-related claims you make, and when he points out an errors in your reasoning, you just repeat your incoherent replies ad nauseam. This means if a quantum physicist was brought here to address your arguments, you quite likely wouldn’t take corrections from that person.
3 Likes
Right. So where and when did you study the basics of quantum physics, then, and by whose lecture or whose text book?
Would you like me to compose a little test of said basics for you, with a week for completion time, just so you can prove to everyone in this forum that there is at least one subject you legitimately know at least how to look exercises up for?
3 Likes
You think it’s a reason, but you are wrong. Your example using bacteria makes no sense and certainly isn’t applicable to animals. Your quote from a secondary source isn’t even relevant to your senseless argument.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, literally. And it still has nothing to do with pandas.
Is it too much to ask for you to pay attention to what you post before you post it? And while your most recent citation actually refers to pandas, you failed to point out its relevance to our discussion.
Word salad, boiling down to nothing. Please explain, again, how you know that the two pandas belong to different kinds, what those kinds are, and how you know that. Please stop with the squid ink.
Sounds like the multiple tests fallacy to me. There is no real evidence that they’re involved in “thumb” evolution.
You think you did. But you are wrong.
What are these dissimilarities, and how do they delimit kinds? What are these lacks of intermediates, and how do they delimit kinds? What does your repetitive citation have to do with it?
Word salad. Please explain how this allows you to define kinds. And your citation has nothing to do with your statement.
What predictions? How does your citatioin test those predictions? What does it have to do with delimiting any kinds?
That’s not his question. It’s your question. You test by examining the data. If the data have hierarchical structure (for which there are many sorts of tests), that’s a test of common descent. You have not given any reasons to expect a nested hierarchy from “common design”, though I know you think you have. You are wrong. You are consistently wrong in your beliefs that you are making any sort of argument.
2 Likes
It does not support your point because you DID NOT “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”.
Before you posted the Youtube videos you:
-
Posted only one INCOMPLETE citation on ORCH-OR (so we could not have read it, even if we wanted to).
-
Posted only one INCOMPLETE other citation even remotely relevant to Quantum Physics (it was on Quantum Physics and Thermodynamics. Again, we could not have read it, even if we wanted to.
-
These citations were only two out of a whole heap of citations you were throwing around at the time.
Those videos spam dozens of citations – including to several whole books – so expecting anybody to bother going through all of them would be monumentally STUPID!
Which of all these cited sources have YOU read @Meerkat_SK5?
No I would not! Because neither of the two videos linked to in the post I linked to contain this comment. and even if I did:
-
‘Inspiring Philosophy’ has no expertise in Quantum Physics so his comments on the subject have no credibility.
-
We have no substantiation for his claim as to who reviewed his video. ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ is an apologist and apologists are notorious liars.
-
Even if what he said were true, neither Fred Kuttner nor Richard Conn Henry are quantum physicists – they specialise in other fields of physics.
But you don’t know enough to make your case – you know so little that everybody is convinced that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Liar.
I did a search, and you have used the adjective “platonic” exactly three times.
Two were in connection to Hameroff’s “crackpot” quantum-sex-woo chapter (which Penrose was not a co-author of).
The third was to the statement:
Accordingly, our picture is that Orch OR underlies full conscious experience with perceptions and choices influenced by noncomputable Platonic values intrinsic to the structure of the universe.
This makes no mention of “creat[ing] concrete objects or physical reality directly.”
This is both (i) false, and (ii) badly garbled. The actual facts of Galileo do not support your claim.
This is what you you get for blindly swallowing Fuzzy-is-not-a-biologist-or-a-historian-of-science’s bullshit. “Again”, these inexpert claims have no credibility.
How?
This is just an empty assertion.
Given that the core of Owen’s work was archetypes, not designers, let alone human designers, all this appears IRRELEVANT Even if it is relevant, claiming that by anticipating ‘design’ he anticipated HGT would be like claiming that he also anticipated the automobile – also the result of a (human) designer, the television, the Statue of Liberty, Disneyland, and who knows what else. This is an absurdly stupid claim.
2 Likes
…and the answer is:
- Jonathan Bartlett, for his ‘significant contributions’ to evolutionary theory;
- Jonathan Wells for his ‘significant contributions’ to the genetics of embryo development;
- David Snoke, for his ‘significant contributions’ to systems biology;
- Michael Denton, for his ‘significant contributions’ to biological classification and the anthropic fallacy;
- Matti Leisola, Ossi Pastinen and Douglas Axe for their ‘significant contributions’ to plant biochemistry;
- Douglas Axe for his ‘significant contributions’ to protein folding; and
- Stephen Meyer and Paul Nelson for their ‘significant contributions’ to RNA world hypotheses.
Perhaps the DI consider misleading people about the nature of the ribosome to be a ‘significant contribution’.
2 Likes
Then there is also no difference between inferring and predicting common ancestry and common design from the phylogenetic relationships between genera or even species of the Carnivora order, and any claim that ‘kinds’ are at the level of families rather than genera or species fails too.
In other words, it’s relevant when it supports pre-existing conclusions, and not relevant when it doesn’t.
Wow. One of @Meerkat_SK5’s references actually contains what he says it does.
So you expect created kinds to be at the family level because created kinds have been recognized as being at the family level. 
Legitimate scientific endeavour does not consist of pasting (mis)quotes from articles you haven’t read about subjects you don’t understand on discussion fora.
5 Likes
Here is a list of ways to directly test for common descent:
It assumes neither common descent nor any particular mechanism.
1 Like
An assertion is not an explanation. You then assert it is a scientific prediction yet there is no rigor behind the claim.
No you are asserting that common descent is the only possible cause of the pattern you are observing.
How many changes?
Watch 30 minutes in as Richard Buggs shows evidence of inconsistent gene patterns in plants. It appears to me Richard is showing a failed prediction of reproduction and natural variation causing the pattern.
Alright then, let me elaborate…
Regulatory networks are composed of transcription factors that regulate the expression of downstream genes.
When a new regulatory element is acquired through HGT, it is integrated into the existing regulatory network of the recipient organism, and its downstream targets become part of the regulatory network as well. Over time, the regulatory network can become more complex and hierarchical as additional regulatory elements are acquired.
As a result, more closely related organisms are more likely to have similar regulatory networks because they have similar sets of regulatory elements to begin with. In contrast, distantly related organisms are less likely to have similar regulatory networks because they have diverged more in terms of their regulatory elements over time.
Now, it is up to you to explain why this is not a reason we would expect nested patterns from common design.
Some of the main differences identified by the study include:
- Genetic divergence
- Different demographic histories
- Differences in genome size and repetitive elements
- Differences in gene family expansion and contraction
Again, they don’t delimit kinds, but just give us reason to suspect they are created kinds in the initial phase in my opinion. The same goes with the lack of intermediates.
It allows us to predict which genes went through convergent evolution from those similar traits of the pandas.
These are the predictions I am referring to:
- 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
To test these predictions, the authors used enzyme assays and gene knockdown experiments to investigate the functions of candidate genes identified from comparative genomic analysis.
Confirming these predictions allows us to determine whether there are adaptive and structural convergent genes related to the homologous traits between the pandas.
Oh yes I have given a reason that you have yet to respond to:
Four components shape the functional architecture of bacterial regulatory networks: 1. global transcription factors, which are responsible for responding to general signals and for module coordination; 2. strict, globally regulated genes, which are responsible for encoding products important for the basal machinery of the cell and are only governed by global transcription factors; 3. modular genes, which are modules devoted to particular cell functions; and 4. intermodular genes, which are responsible for integrating, at the promoter level, disparate physiological responses coming from different modules to achieve an integrated response. All these functional components form a nonpyramidal, matryoshka -like hierarchy exhibiting feedback.
Regulatory Networks, Bacteria | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)
Until you respond to this, your supposed test and evidence for common descent is still just in your sponge bob imagination.
More importantly, @colewd’s questions will remain unanswered.
I read a bunch of scientific articles on them and watched a number of videos on them as well.
The problem with this is that I only know enough to make my case because that is the only reason why I am studying quantum physics. So whatever tests you may have would need to be related to my theory or the Orch-OR model.
All the relevant ones that are related to my theory.
Prove it then by actually refuting my arguments on the subject. Unfortunately, you guys will actually have to read the articles I gave you on the subject to achieve this, which you guys refuse to do.
From page 337 of this article:
Each OR self-collapse chooses classical states, and is accompanied by a quantized protoconscious experienceda quale. (A distinction between protoconscious OR moments and fully conscious Orch OR moments will be discussed later.) Thus, consciousness is seen as a process on the edge between quantum and classical worlds.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, postcollapse states selected by conscious observation are chosen randomly, probabilistically (the Born rule, after physicist Max Born). However in Penrose OR the choices (and quality of subjective experience) are influenced bydresonate withd what Penrose called noncomputable Platonic values embedded in the fine scale structure of spacetime geometry. These Platonic values, patterns, or vibrations in the makeup of the universe, may encode qualia, and pertain to mathematics, geometry, ethics, and aesthetics, and the 20 or so dimensionless constants governing the universe. These include the fine structure constant, the mass ratios for all fundamental particles, the gravitational constant and many more, all precise to many decimal points
Ch20-9780124201903_aq 1…1 (galileocommission.org)
Again, from the article:
Microtubules moved in, further optimizing Orch OR resonance and mutual benefit and pleasure. The symbiosis took hold. Mitosis by centrioles and microtubule spindles separated chromosomes into perfectly paired matches, combining genes from each parent, promoting diversification and adaptation. These evolutionary processes have continued through the present day.
Microtubules radially arranged around centrioles, tethered by actin proteins in tensegrity structures in cell interiors. Rigid cell walls were replaced by flexible membranes. Megacylinder extensions in cilia, flagella, and axonemes enabled external sensing, agile locomotion, and adaptive interactions with other cells and the outside world.
Within cell cytoplasm, centrioles and microtubules fostered mitosis, gene mixing, mutations (influenced by Penrose ORemediated Platonic influences in DNA pi stacks) and evolution, all in pursuit of more and more pleasurable qualia. Cells began to communicate, compete and/or cooperate, guided by feedback toward feeling good.
This is not the only thing it anticipates. Owen advocated for saltations and separate creation. So we would anticipate a mechanism that could produce the same effect, which would be HGT.
Oh, that’s interesting. And here I thought you said earlier that you needed to know the basics. So I was going to test you on the basics. You know, introductory course things, the sort of things undergraduates are taught when they first learn anything at all about quantum mechanics. Now why, pray tell, might there be a problem with that, if you are making your case as it is, and you said that you needed to know the basics of quantum physics to do that?..
3 Likes
Already dissected in this thread, which you took part in.
89% probability for AI…
1 Like