And yet 821 comments and counting?
Excellent evidence against the cliche “Nothing happens without a reason”.
3 Likes
Or that the “reason” in question has simply been a hypertrophied tendency on our part to argue, correct mistakes, etc, rather than anything actually resembling merit in @Meerkat_SK5’s posts. 
2 Likes
I don’t get the point of doing that especially if you acknowledge that it is not plagiarism. What is the difference between paraphrasing creative work from someone else vs inputting creative content into a bot and getting a paraphrased version of my content?
No, I have done this mean times actually. In fact, long before you came on here, I said to everyone that…
At some point, I added the introduction to help reviewers adequately critique my case.
This means that I never pretended to be an expert this field nor do I have a desire to be one. You either did not care to read this or did not fully absorb it into your brain. For this reason, I don’t care whether I make mistakes or not but I care about getting the mistakes right. Possible experiment to test for a "Divine" intelligent designer - #73 by Meerkat_SK5
I am all about getting things right NOT trying to be right.
Correct and those features were first interpretated to mean that they came from a common archetype for all vertebrates before Darwin proposed a common ancestor. The difference is that the common archetype/design theory can be rigourously tested and there is independent evidence for it.
And you guys can’t test this without assuming it.to be true.
Again, it creates original content based on the input it receives.
In other words, It does not reproduce or use any previously published works or ideas, and the responses are generated based on the specific context of the question asked.
So it is not the definition of plagiarism even if this somebody was a human.
I think I might agree with you but for different reasons. I don’t see how there is anything else to respond to since I conceded that we can’t confirm yet whether the two pandas are created kinds. In fact, we can even suspect them to be created kinds yet like we can with the horse kind.
Moreover, I gave you a possible model for nested hierarchies of species from a common design perspective. Unless you can provide some reason why modular principles cannot be applied to species…
There does not seem to be anything else to discuss further.
Owen advocated for saltations and separate creation. So we would anticipate a mechanism that could produce the same effect, which would be HGT.
HGT produces all those things you mentioned.
Alright then, I will show you that I did read it by showing you the only two instances where common descent can be tested:
Intermediate and transitional forms
All fossilized animals found should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree. If all organisms are united by descent from a common ancestor, then there is one single true historical phylogeny for all organisms. Similarly, there is one single true historical genealogy for any individual human. It directly follows that if there is a unique universal phylogeny, then all organisms, both past and present, fit in that phylogeny uniquely.
Independent determination of the historical phylogeny
If there is one historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991; Zuckerkandl and Pauling 1965). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 (talkorigins.org)
Keep in mind, the only reason these would be examples of how we can test common descent is because common design does not predict the same thing. That’s it.
Nevertheless, these testable predictions have been disconifrmed. Moreover, we still have to assume common descent is true in order to make the predictions in the first place.
If there was an archetype for all vertebrates, that means we expect to see phylogenetic discontinuities between vertebrates and other classes of organisms. In fact, we expect to find widespread discontinuities in phylogenetic trees for all forms of life. Guess what? We don’t see those discontinuities, as everything still remains connected and this is a golden prediction of common descent.
What Darwin or Owen thought first is simply irrelevant, as what matters is whether their thoughts have received considerable support from scientific research as time progressed and it turns out Darwin was right about all extant life being part of a universal tree of evolutionary relatedness.
Nothing of the sort from your pile of drivel has been tested. You can’t even provide proper definitions of the terms you use. You are a complete waste of time.
4 Likes
(extracts re-ordered )
Copying sections now doesn’t show you’ve read it, and can’t show you read it previously. Especially when you still haven’t gone beyond part 1.
If you were really about getting things right, you wouldn’t ‘quote’ from articles you haven’t read.
3 Likes
Be fair - @Meerkat_SK5’s garbage was dumped here long after the thread existed. The first couple of hundred comments involved @Sam, @Eddie and @lee_merrill.
@Meerkat_SK5’s first post was #255, so his garbage is responsible for the about 2/3 of it.
You mistake who’s plagiarizing here. It isn’t the chatbot. It’s you. You are implicitly representing someone else’s (the bot’s) writing as your own. You do that every time you fail to mark it as such. Aside from the plagiarism, there’s no indication that you even understand what you post. We don’t even know if it reflects your actual opinions. It’s impossible to discuss your own purported writings with you.
4 Likes
So you’re confirming that you don’t have the slightest clue as to the definition of the word “prediction.”
6 Likes
Apologies, I try to keep up but Meerkat (and ChatGTP) are wearing out my scroll wheel.
1 Like
My mistake. That is not what I meant by archetype for all vertebrates. It is actually an archetype for each major group of vertebrate species. God’s purpose for creating animals and humans the way they are is to survive and reproduce under a particular environment AND fill other environments around the globe.
For example, in a population of animals living in a particular environment, the designer would preprogram favorable traits that are coordinated with each other. In contrast, the individuals that do not have the preprogrammed traits would not adapt to that particular niche.
Over time, these coordinated adaptations can result in the formation of distinct lineages or species that are adapted to different ecological niches. Moreover, this could lead to the emergence of subpopulations within the larger population that are specialized for different nutrient sources, which would create a nested hierarchy of species. As a result, we would expect to see a creationary phylogenetic tree that is very similar in form and function to the evolutionary tree.
However, we would also expect to see a creationist tree that traces life back to a number of unrelated populations (i.e. separate created kinds) that roughly resemble the forms of life we see today.
Finding examples of family trees based on anatomical features that contradict family trees based on molecular similarities would support the model.
For instance, there are instances of high gene-tree conflict in major clades, which correspond to rate increases in morphological innovation.
The study concluded that there is “an important link between genomic and morphological evolution at deep timescales. We suggest that episodic evolutionary and population events leave signatures of conflict within genomes that may offer important insight on the processes responsible not only for conflict but also for massive changes in phenotype across disparate lineages.”
Phylogenomic conflict coincides with rapid morphological innovation | PNAS
This frequently happens at the family level as well:
Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats - PMC (nih.gov)
These results would be expected if Darwinian evolution only explains modest differences among closely related species. On the other hand, the various similarities and differences across plants and animals of widely varying types would be primarily due to a universal common designer reusing the universal common blueprint for common purposes and fresh DNA sequences for innovations.
In other words, “the persistent failure of a single tree of life to emerge makes perfect sense: there is no evolutionary tree of life, because common descent isn’t the case. A common designer is.” by Jonathan Witt
This is actually the case for Owen. Based on what we know from the law of entropy, his theory’s assumptions and claims ended up being right:
In many cases it is understood how matter transforms from basic constituents to larger assemblies and vice versa. However the basic principle, why matter organizes as ‘systems within systems’ and why in other cases systems disassemble to constituents, has remained obscure. The simple question concerning the driving force looks for a reason.
Contemporary consensus recognizes on one hand natural selection within the theory of evolution (Darwin, 1859) as the ubiquitous imperative that guides biotic processes and on the other hand the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Boltzmann, 1886; Carnot, 1824; Clausius, 1879; Gibbs, 1876) as another universal law that directs abiotic processes. Today these two driving forces are often perceived as opposing, one as constructive and the other as destructive.
However, recently it was shown, by a first-principle derivation that they are in fact one and the same law (Sharma and Annila, 2007). The fundamental law simply states that energy differences diminish via flows of energy. To abolish energy gradients most rapidly the flows funnel through those mechanisms that level differences most effectively. The universal law finds no demarcation line between animate and inanimate. Both systems evolve by flows of energy toward stationary states with respect to their surroundings.
hierarchy.pdf (helsinki.fi)
As this article pointed:
Owen talked of his own theories, influenced by Johannes Peter Müller, that living matter had an “organising energy” , a life-force that directed the growth of tissues and also determined the lifespan of the individual and of the species. Richard Owen - New World Encyclopedia
Not true. Support for his theory has come from confirmed predictions that show non-random mutations and a fossil record that looks like saltations. In post 796, I show how it can be further tested.
Again, it is not up to me to support your theory or claim. You have the burden of proof therefore you need to show evidence or a way to test it without assuming it is true over the common design model.
Again, that is not how it works. The original content is based upon MY input. It is like they edit and/or peer-review my responses after my input.
If that is what you want, then I can make your request. My point is that I am not obligated to do this because using it is not plagiarism anymore than using google translator is plagiarism.
This is just a personal request on your behalf.
You are missing my point I made before, but whatever
No, that isn’t how it works. The original content is a response to your input. The important thing is that you didn’t write it. Notice that it frequently says things you didn’t intend to say, which you are then required to walk back.
1 Like
This mainly just happens when I input a question. I usually try to paraphrase and cut down on its responses if it is too large.
In these circumstances, I can let you know when this happens and make the distinction via your request.
Then you’re the one doing the editing, not the chatbot. The best solution would be to stop using it and just try to make more sense on your own. There are reasons why using a chatbot, even if you mark such entries, is a bad idea.
Sure, I can do that instead in these circumstances, especially since there is not a whole lot to go over anymore. But, then again, you seem to be pretty good at throwing unexpected curveball objections at my case.
You have no case, and the objections are obvious.
Ha! I knew it! You don’t have anything else to throw at me. I know this is your way of raising the white flag. Game over. Common design is a legit scientific alternative to common descent that can explain just as much including nested hierarchies. Do you see this @colewd ? John is basically conceding defeat.
I’m not missing that what you think is a point is incoherent because you literally don’t know the meaning of the word prediction.
It’s a lot like your false claim that I’m not a neuroscientist, despite my providing a link to my publications and a clear description.
What’s your day job?
This is what happens during and after formal peer-review, too. It’s no reason to have a machine auto-generate randomly assembled responses for you, much less ones you do not even read, all because you are grossly unqualified to make even your own claims, let alone the bot’s. Rather, it is a reason to study your own model enough to be either better prepared to respond immediately, or to know how to investigate follow-up questions and where to limit the model’s scope. This is normal. This is what is expected of anyone hoping to be taken seriously when advancing scientific work.
1 Like