Again, you said that in order to make your case you do need to know the basics of quantum physics. I’m not going to try and tailor intro level stuff to your word salad or Penrose’s speculation, only to have you dismiss the entire play for not conforming quite enough anyway. The way I see it, you have three options here:
You could stand by what you said about you needing and presumably having a basic grasp of the subject and face the challenge on what any accreditation committee would surely consider basics of the subject, for better or for worse.
You could admit - to everyone’s shock, I’m sure - that the one area most of them never felt qualified enough to seriously challenge you on was in fact no safer for you than any of the rest they’ve been tearing you apart in after all.
You could carry on hiding behind unreasonable and unspecific stipulations and leave our readers to draw their own conclusions about your qualifications in this area based on this pattern of behaviour, rather than mere induction from their experiences with you when ever it came to their own respective fields of expertise.
As my above statement made perfectly clear, I have conceded EXACTLY NONE of your half-arsed, half-baked, half-witted, misbegotten, ill-informed, ill-conceived, illogical points.
Nobody on this forum with any understanding of science believes that you have any scientific understanding, or that your claims have any scientific merit.
Your claims to have a “basic understanding” of the science involved are demonstrably false, as you have demonstrated again and again that you lack the scientific background, e.g. in biology, neuroscience, quantum physics (and underlying that, basic physics and mathematics) to understand the advanced scientific concepts you are making claims about --a background that the scientific papers you are blindly parroting assumes in its readers.
You are therefore left prooftexting quotes from these papers, with no understanding of the evidence and scientific principles underlying them.
I will conclude by stating that the ONLY point I am conceding is that your DELUSIONS on this subject are so HERMETICALLY SEALED against admitting any science or sanity to your thought process, that further conversation is FUTILE!
Which claim? That you lie about what your sources are, or that you lie about what they say?
Evidence for those can be found throughout your posts, and I can even provide support for them both at once:
You didn’t get that ‘quote’ from Hubert Yockey’s brief, because it isn’t in there. You lied about the contents of your linked source.
Nor is that text as presented found in anything else Yockey wrote. The section in [square brackets] was added by Charles Thaxton, so your source cannot have been anything written by Yockey himself, but must have been either Thaxton’s article or one of the many later ID articles that quote it (e.g. Witt or Luskin). So you also lied about the identity of your source.
Here’s some more support:
You were once again lying about your source. It wasn’t Coyne’s book, page 81 or otherwise, because Coyne’s book says something else. Your source was Casey Luskin: here or here or some-one else who copied his misquote.
Those were from two years ago, and despite being caught passing off multiple misquotes as being taken by you from original text, you are still trying to pass off quote-mines and misquotes copied from creation.com, Reasons to Believe, Uncommon Descent, Evolution News and other unreliable sources as being from the original sources you cite but haven’t even bothered to verify let alone read.
My claims about you have been supported far more often and in far more detail than should have been necessary to convince you that copying quotes from creationists is a bad idea, yet you persist, and are still regularly being caught lying about your sources.
If “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”, you must be straitjacket and padded-cell bonkers.
P.S. You probably meant my implicit claim that common descent was testable. I have already supported that via the link you quoted but haven’t read and wouldn’t understand.
And I told you already how you can delimit kinds. I know based on a number of different analysis done on those pandas, such as…
Yeah, I think you might be right since we would know already the behaviors of these animals in their natural habitat.
Based on the first panda study, the authors of the article “Evidence of a false thumb in a fossil carnivore clarifies the evolution of pandas” determined different functions of the false thumbs of the giant panda, red panda, and S. batalleri through a combination of anatomical and ecological observations.
They compared the morphology of the false thumbs, including their size, shape, and range of motion, to other known structures used for grasping and manipulation in animals.But, they did not study the behaviors of these animals in their natural habitats because the types of activities they engaged in and the objects they manipulated were common knowledge.
So all that is needed apparently to delimit kinds is comparative anatomy of the functions and morphology between them to see any major differences. This should provide insights as to how those differences played out in their habitats.
Because that is what the common design theory and the hypothesis entails, which is …
All extant species share a similar design that can be traced back to a universal common designer. However, what makes them different is the application of the differences in parts and functions that fit better in different environmental niches, giving them their uniqueness.
Adaptive convergence hypothesis
Analogous phenotypic traits were designed separately in unrelated families and orders in response to similar needs.
This leads me to address this…
No, you are wrong.
The study was about how modular principles are applied in biology. This is related to engineering principles, as both fields involve the design and construction of complex systems.
In engineering, modularity refers to the design principle of breaking down a complex system into smaller, more manageable modules or components that can be designed, built, and tested independently.
Similarly, in biology, modular principles refer to the idea that complex biological systems can be composed of multiple distinct modules or functional units that interact with each other to perform specific tasks or functions. Each module can be relatively self-contained and can operate independently, but it also interacts with other modules to form a cohesive and integrated system. This approach can help create more robust and adaptable biological systems that can respond to changing environmental conditions or evolutionary pressures.
This leads me to address this…
FYI, modular principles can be proposed as a potential mechanism for the evolution of nested hierarchies in species. The idea is that complex biological traits, such as morphology or behavior, can be composed of multiple functional modules that have been selected and optimized over evolutionary time. These modules can be shared among different species, leading to the emergence of nested hierarchies of trait similarity and genetic relatedness.
For example, in the context of morphology, different anatomical structures can be considered as modular units that have evolved to perform specific functions, such as locomotion, feeding, or sensing. These modular units can be shared among different species, leading to the emergence of nested hierarchies of morphological similarity and genetic relatedness.
Similarly, in the context of behavior, different cognitive or sensory modules can be considered as building blocks that have been optimized over evolutionary time to perform specific tasks or functions. These modules can be shared among different species, leading to the emergence of nested hierarchies of behavioral similarity and genetic relatedness.
Again, it does not matter because that was not the point of referencing the study. I was just showing how common design principles can also produce nested hierarchies in biology. That’s it.
No, it is not that. I just didn’t realize until now that you wanted me to demonstrate on the spot that they are created kinds. I did this already with the Perissodactyl group. Why do you need me to do it again?
The prediction of convergent evolution is discussed in the Introduction section of the article, where the authors state that despite being phylogenetically distinct, giant pandas and red pandas have convergent traits due to their similar bamboo diet. The authors also mention this prediction in the Results and Discussion section, where they discuss the specific genes related to bamboo digestion and metabolism that are shared by both pandas.
The prediction of genetic adaptations to low-energy diets is discussed in the Introduction section, where the authors mention that bamboo is a low-energy food source and that pandas likely have genetic adaptations to cope with this. The authors also discuss this prediction in the Results and Discussion section, where they describe the specific genetic adaptations related to fat metabolism, nutrient absorption, and transport that were found in both pandas.
First, the authors used RNA sequencing data from the giant panda to identify genes that were highly expressed in the pancreas, liver, and intestine, which are organs involved in digestion and metabolism. They also used existing genomic data from the red panda to identify genes that were associated with diet and metabolism.
Second, the authors compared the genomic sequences of the giant panda and the red panda to those of other mammals to identify genes that had undergone positive selection in both pandas.
Finally, the authors conducted functional analyses of the candidate genes to determine their potential roles in bamboo digestion and metabolism. These analyses included gene ontology analysis, which categorizes genes based on their biological functions, and pathway analysis, which identifies the metabolic pathways in which the genes are involved.
I may be confusing rapid evolutionary change with saltations. But, observations show that they can lead to substantial innovation in one scoop rather than point mutations or gene duplication:
The demonstration of the importance of HRT clearly supports the general concept that evolution in the microbial world occurs primarily through exchange of genetic material, which can lead to a substantial innovation in one scoop, rather than point mutations or gene duplication (5, 8, 15). Horizontal transfer beyond genes | PNAS
And there is no evidence or way to test for common descent. Just secular dogma and sponge-bob imagination advocated and pioneered by mostly non-believers.
See for yourself:
In his early career, Owen certainly did not believe in the transmutation of species: he was a Cuverian functionalist through-and-through, believing that each species had been uniquely designed and created by God, perfectly adapted for its lifestyle. Such a philosophy was almost essential in terms of gaining the support of the mainly Anglican scientific establishment.
By the mid–1840s, however, Owen’s views had changed, primarily as a result of his work on the comparative anatomy of vertebrates. He believed that all vertebrates were based on the same basic (divine) blueprint, or archetype. All species were built upon this archetype, each one being a unique extension of it; an extension which came about through various vaguely defined ‘secondary laws’ (for which, read one or more forms of divinely influenced evolution). Sir Richard Owen: the archetypal villain – The Friends of Charles Darwin (friendsofdarwin.com)
And you just suggested that it does:
" it wasn’t a nested hierarchy among species but among downstream influences in a single regulatory network."
So what? I am not a YEC. I think they are just as wrong as you guys.
No, I think it was due to self-collapse of the wave-function. HGT would just be the mechanism.
And this post reveals how willfully ignorant you are about their work in quantum biology. Do yourself a favor and watch this video explaining the differences between quantum mind theory and quantum woo. All you need to watch though is the summary part, which is between 15:20 to 16:00 Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics: How are they related? - YouTube
If you can’t do this simple task, then I agree that there is no point in further engagement here.
First off, it nothing to do with scientific merit, because it never was sent out for peer review. Secondly, even if it was based on merit, the article I sent to him was almost ten years ago and was entirely different.
Lastly, almost every other journal I sent it to never sent it out for peer review.
Not quite, you do need to know the basics of quantum physics and the Orch-OR model TOGETHER.
I have already admitted this numerous times with them, but this is not the issue. You don’t need to be qualified expert in quantum physics to address my argument. You just need to be informed by actually reading the articles I provide to support my case, specifically with the Orch-OR model.
If two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other.
However, in this case, the burden of proof is on you because the common archetype theory came first. So you guys need to provide evidence that can only be explained by universal common descent.
However, there is nothing in the article that the common design/archetype theory either cannot explain or explain better. Moreover, the predictions that are unique to common descent either have been falsified or cannot be tested.
The real issue is if God is involved in a transition then this is different then when a populations diversity is caused by reproduction and natural variation alone. Why not study these two separate events? This opens up an interesting avenue for evolutionary theory.
The public is ultimately where funding comes from.
Right. So submitting to a test on just the basics of quantum physics should be no problem to you. No reason why not including questions about far-from-basics fringe speculations would make it an unfair test, is there?
That is very reassuring. Thank you. However, I remind you that you also said that in order to make your argument you do need to understand the basics of quantum theory. Considering you are making your own argument, I think it is fair to infer that you believe on one level or another that you do, in fact, understand the basics of quantum theory. So there is no “problem with that” in having a basic quiz on it with a generous completion time and no cheating controls. Yet, somehow, you feel that more vague boundaries need to be set for that first, almost as if that confidence with which you make your argument does not quite entirely translate to a confidence in the understanding of the subject you claim to need to do what you do. So very, very odd…
He depends on ChatGPT for responses. He depends on long quotations from a wide range of sources for responses. That strongly indicates he knows next to nothing on the things he speaks about. He is a complete waste of time. If BIO-complexity didn’t have his time, then we shouldn’t as well.
No response to the evidence that you lie about your sources? Then I shall continue to treat your citations and your claims about their contents as probable lies.
Now:
Common design, whether the YEC version or your insane drivel about HGT and slime molds, does not make the same predictions as common descent. So this is irrelevant.
Coprolite. Your drivel is not common archetype theory, and burdens of proof aren’t dependent on priority of claims.
No, we need to provide evidence that matches the predictions of common descent. Theobald’s article does that.
There is nothing anywhere that your drivel cannot ‘explain’, because it is unusably vague and variable as needed. It can ‘explain’ anything, so explains nothing and always ‘explains’ worse.
Theobald’s article explains how the predictions of common descent can and have been tested, and how they have not been falsified. So either you are lying about reading it, or lying about its contents. Just as you do with your own references.
Not your actual criterion. The thumbs don’t matter because according to you, pandas belong to the “bear” kind, and most bears don’t have thumbs. That tells you that pandas evolved their thumbs separately, but it tells you nothing about the kinds they belong to, which do not differ in their thumbs, which they both primitively lack. The fact that the giant panda is a bear also shows you that occupying different niches in different habitats can’t distinguish kinds. Like I said, meaningless.
That has nothing to do with design. It’s better explained by natural selection acting on genetic variation. That’s why pandas don’t have real thumbs: their ancestors lost them, and they aren’t coming back. Modification of existing parts is the prediction of evolution. The prediction of design would be the use of identical parts wherever appropriate, without regard to pre-existing features.
That doesn’t fit either a design hypothesis or the data we observe. It certainly doesn’t fit the pandas’ thumbs.
No, it was about regulatory networks, specifically, not biology in general. And there’s nothing about design.
Sure, you can propose anything you like. But in this case your proposal doesn’t stand up to the least bit of examination.
Sharing of modules doesn’t result in a nested hierarchy.
No design principles are involved, since the regulatory networks were not designed. Or do you think natural selection makes use of design principles? It also has nothing to do with nested hierarchies of species.
That’s not a prediction. It’s an observation. You seem unable to tell the difference.
That’s not bad, though I don’t see how Hox genes got into that picture.
How do you use genomic data to do such a thing?
You understand that any such correlations could arise purely by chance in a full-genome sample, right? Did they check for other cases of positive selection between pandas and other species in the sample?
Sounds fairly speculative, though. And at the end of it we arrive at, apparently, a single shared amino acid change in one protein.
I don’t think you have any idea what you mean.
That’s a kindergarten-level response. “Oh yeah? Well, you’re a poopy-head.” Until you produce a coherent argument for nested hierarchy produced by your model, the presence of hierarchical phylogenetic data is evidence of common descent. Biotic succession in the fossil record and biogographic taxon distributions are additional evidence.
You sabotage your own argument. According to the quote, Owen began an advocate of separate creation of species and later came to believe that all vertebrates (at least) were related by divinely influenced common descent. Do you even read the stuff you cut and paste?
That’s not a nested hierarchy of species, and nobody says even that hierarchy resulted from HGT.
That displayed no more understanding than your previous statements.
It creates serious confusion when you misspell “than” as “then”, especially when there’s also a real “then” in the sentence. Can’t you fix this one consistent error? I’ve asked before. But that’s not the real issue and never has been. The issue is common descent vs. separate creation of kinds. You confuse these issues and seem incapable of separating them.
No, the issue of interest is what we can’t attribute to reproduction and natural variation. Because we know that reproduction and natural variation… happen.
Hi John
Can you expand on why being natural or unnatural is not important to phylogenetics? It would appear to me that a single tree would be represented by animals or plants related by reproduction and natural variation.
If the public does not understand the current theory then they will lose trust when the theory is made clear. The model is not currently clear. @AJRoberts could be very helpful in this discussion.
Common descent or Universal common descent is recognized as life’s diversity being explained by natural mechanisms ie reproduction and variation.
