It’s worse than that. He would have known had he even read the paragraph he (or whoever he got it from) quote-mined. It’s amazing that, when challenged on his use of secondary sources, he quotes from another secondary source. The depths of shameless ineptitude that displays are incredible.
2 Likes
Correct. As I said (twice) before, I will not be debating the meaning of “having any grasp at all of quantum mechanics”.
I would be shocked if you had a better grasp of my intent than I do.
My impression is that you have not read any critical reviews at all. I have that impression because every time I ask you to list the ones you have read, you either list nothing, or, somehow more embarrassingly, an honors thesis.
My main objection is that you’ve stacked junk on junk without the basic grasp of science to recognize the fact. That same objection runs throughout all of my comments, and the comments of most others in the thread.
At the moment, that theme is pointing out you don’t understand the thing you claim to be central to your wild and baseless conjecture.
If you go into reading them assuming that they’ve been ‘demolished’, your judgement will be biased. I mean, it’s already biased to the point of invalidity, but that would be especially bad.
But yes, do actually read the critical reviews. Finally.
And I am telling you that relying on the responses of the authors rather than the replies to the authors is asinine.
3 Likes
You need to keep reading. I suggest you read the entire chapter your quote comes from and also the next chapter. And you need to read much more carefully. In the part you have bolded, not only doesn’t it say what you think here, it isn’t even talking about fossils. And the period at the end of the quote shouldn’t be there, because it’s a sentence fragment whose remainder is on the next page and begins an explanation of the difficulty.
Too vague to make a prediction. Sudden appearances and stasis of what, exactly? Now, both these refer in the paleontological literature to species, e.g. Phacops rana. But you don’t think species are created kinds. You think families are created kinds, and sudden appearance and stasis are not characteristics of families. Nor does your reference have anything to do with your claim, because it’s about whole classes. You are hopeless.
2 Likes
If you had bothered to read that text before quote-mining it, you might have noticed it was about living intermediates between living species, and not about fossils, which as the text you included explicitly says, are covered elsewhere.
So why don’t you go and read it - all of it - instead of trying to tell us what is written in something we have read and you have not.
5 Likes
So when you said this…
In that case it did not require you to know any quantum mechanics, period, and it cannot be an actual anchor to what you were trying to argue.
This was your personal opinion. If not, is the answer Yes to my previous question. If you choose not to answer or your answer is no, then obviously we have to conclude you are wrong about what you said. If the answer is Yes, then we can conclude that I don’t know anything about quantum mechanics. So support your claim. This is not a debate but a simple question.
Look at this:
In science the burden of proof is on the proposer, and this burden has not yet been met by quantum-level proposals. While in the future we may discover quantum effects that bear distinctively on conscious cognition ‘as such,’ we do not have such evidence today.
Consciousness, biology and quantum hypotheses - ScienceDirect
I highlighted this part to show you why it is pointless to read these outdated critical reviews. This is because they are based on objections that quantum mind theory lacks proof rather than fundamental theoretical flaws or empirical falsifications.
Right now, we have evidence for what he is talking about:
Prove it then. So far, it has been a dud with you.
Why? They responded to those replies and their response to those replies was informally peer-reviewed by the editor. Moreover, I can’t find a single critical review that has issued a followed up response to their response. This highly suggests that they responded adequately to those replies.
BTW, the rest of those replies are just comments to their article NOT peer-reviewed articles. According to you, this does not count as being a legit critical review.
Yes, I mistakenly tried to prove too much with that quote when I said this: “As you can see, he still expected to find enough fossils in the future that would allow us to observe those large-scale changes.”
Anyhow, Darwin never claimed in the quote that we would not expect to see those transitions.
Instead, Darwin explained why we don’t and won’t see those kinds of transitions according to present observations during his day. There is a difference.
This means that the expectation to find those transitions was still there even though he did not explicitly say it. If you suggest otherwise, then you need to provide a counter quote that supports your claim.
Yes, my model and predictions ,which are emanating from Richard Owen’s theory, does not . But, Richard Owen’s saltations model of the fossil record does, which he combined with his archetype theory. Just read the first 9 pages of this article, which he created after his archetype theory. It describes these splitting events in more detail:
In contrast, my actual model is highlighted as follows:
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.
This model allows us to make predictions about the genetic convergent mechanisms underlying phenotypic convergent traits.
This is what happened in one of the panda studies:
The giant panda and red panda are obligate bamboo-feeders that independently evolved from meat-eating ancestors and possess adaptive pseudothumbs, making them ideal models for studying convergent evolution. In this study, we identified genomic signatures of convergent evolution associated with bamboo eating. Comparative genomic analyses revealed adaptively convergent genes potentially involved with pseudothumb development and essential bamboo nutrient utilization.
To be clear, the prediction is that we should find at least one adaptive convergent genes and one positively selected gene associated with the common functional features .
There would be, but he didn’t actually say the second thing, as you claim. You need to stop digging.
It’s impossible to provide a counter-quote to my claim that he didn’t say something. The whole thing about someday finding all the fine transitions exists in your head only, due to your inability or unwillingness to read what Darwin says.
No. You are claiming to make a prediction. You need to tell me what the prediction is.
That’s gibberish, and it’s also irrelevant to what we were supposedly talking about, which was your prediction of what the fossil record should show.
That’s not a prediction. It’s just teken from the observation in that paper. And again, it’s irrelevant to the subject at hand. Are you just trying to distract my attention?
At this point it appears that you either have no scruples or that you are just so incompetent that you can’t even tell when you’re being dishonest. The constant quote-mines taken from sources other than claimed constitute one symptom. The constant attempts to change the subject are another. Your inability to read for comprehension might be another.
1 Like
You may ask things concerning the wording of questions in the challenge (since English is but my third language, and jargon may not be perfectly consistent between all sources), or quirks of notation (since notation may not be perfectly consistent between all sources). I will not be debating the meaning of “having any grasp at all of quantum mechanics”. Whether you have it will be decided by your performance in the test, not chit-chat. Good luck.
This is empirically false. The general observation is that HGT obscures the phylogenetic signal, making it more difficult to observe phylogenetic relationships. It’s only in the special and limited case of biased HGT that phylogenetic relationships are reproduced.
Since biased HGT is mostly restricted to occuring below the family level, that means non-biased HGT (which erodes the phylogenetic signal) and vertical gene transfer (which creates the phylogenetic signal) DOMINATE ABOVE THE FAMILY LEVEL. Thus, WE MUST STILL SEE DISCONTINUITIES when we examine phylogenies. We don’t see those discontinuities, meaning common descent still wins.
This is another demonstration you barely understand the things you read.
The type of HGT described in the BovB paper is NOT BIASED HGT and your excerpt (for crying out loud) clearly says “a phylogenetic tree built from BovB sequences from species in all of these groups does not conform to expected evolutionary relationships of the species” (bold mine), which is exactly what non-biased HGT does.
I wonder why I am wasting time responding to your rubbish?
Completely unscientific bullcrap. You are a waste of time.
In addition, the phrase “common archetype theory” is nonsensical because there wouldn’t be one common archetype, but multiple archetypes. The former would just be common descent stated wrongly.
Word salad premium!
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of Koonin in that paper! The full quote, wherein that figure is mentioned, is given below:
In each new class of biological objects, the principal types emerge abruptly, and intermediate grades (e.g., intermediates between the precellular stage of evolution and prokaryotic cells or between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells), typically, cannot be identified. The events that lead to the emergence of a new level of complexity and, obviously, are crucial in the evolution of life elude representation through a unique tree topology and are notoriously hard to reconstruct. Whatever trees have been constructed for these stages of life’s history, have extremely short, most often, unreliable internal branches, and the tree topology tends to differ for different genes [8] (Fig. 1)
and the unresolved tree description is in the screenshot below:
Meerkat, Koonin says nothing about the base of the tree in that quote leading to Fig 1, so why say he did?
I am not surprised though. Misrepresenting people is your stock in trade.
You have a reading comprehension problem. The quote says nothing about archetypes, neither does it provide evidence for their existence. I really think you have some unknown psychiatric problem!
More importantly, I showed you a peer-reviewed paper where the orchard of life (having archetypes) was directly contested with common descent (no archetypes) and the results were strongly in favour of common descent. Other similar and rigorous analysis have been done and common descent has always emerged winner. Empirically, you have nothing going for your pet archetype hypothesis.
Nothing in those quotes suggest mutations are non-random in an evolutionary sense. In fact, the first sentence in your first quote (which you bolded) explicitly says “in evolution, there is no entity or person who is selecting adaptive combinations.”
Your poor reading comprehension skills never fail to disappoint.
None of those papers show why saltations are a threat to evolutionary theory. You must be laboring under some misconception I am yet to identify.
Nothing in that quote from the paper I cited reinforces anything of the crap you have written. It impressively knocks down the hypothesis of historical archetypes.
Yes, the study doesn’t take non-biased HGT into account, but it’s unlikely that will significantly affect the results shown. Since, the protein sequences used were from representative organisms above the family level, BGT poses no problems here.
This is an embarrassing thing for you to say. It is straightforwardly inane. They aren’t ‘outdated’, that isn’t how science works. And if you haven’t read them, you don’t know what their objections actually are or what their reasoning is, in which case you can’t know if their objections have actually been addressed or not. \
Stop running away from this point and accept the correction.
It is not my responsibility to prove your claims wrong. It is your responsibility to support them!
And so far, it has been a dud with you.
If you have not read them, you can’t say this!
Stop repeating your ill-informed and wrong opinions about how peer-review works.
It suggests that the response was so poor no follow up was required
Now, for the last time, until you actually read the critical reviews yourself, you have nothing of worth to say about Orch-OR. And since your case is built on Orch-OR, your case can be completely dismissed until such time.
That’s it. That’s the end. Go and read.
5 Likes
It is time to summarize my main points.
2. Simplicity: A scientific explanation is considered simple if it requires fewer assumptions or entities to explain a phenomenon. For example, if two hypotheses can both explain a set of data, but one requires the existence of multiple new and unobserved entities while the other does not, the latter is considered more parsimonious and simple
During our discourse, @misterme987 @Mercer and @John_Harshman have either implied or admitted outright that common descent assumes unobservable causes or entities that can’t be confirmed to exist.
In contrast, design does not assume anything because there is actually independent evidence for the designer. Here is my argument again:
Premise 1: If the fine-tuning constants governing the universe are constant throughout space and time, then the existence of non-computable Platonic values is confirmed.
Premise 2: The fine-tuning constants governing the universe are constant throughout space and time is confirmed.
Therefore, the existence of non-computable Platonic values that cause the fine-tuning constants governing the universe is confirmed.
Design wins here as well, which means it’s easily the superior scientific explanation!!!
So Darwin never explained away the apparent gaps in the fossil record?
Did he not argue for the incomplete nature of the geological record or argue that the process of fossilization itself is rare and requires specific conditions.
Did he not argue this? If so, then I was right.
Then, the claim you made exists solely in your imagination and we have no reason to think he did not expect his prediction to be confirmed in the future.
I don’t have an additional prediction from my model related to the fossil record. But, I don’t see how this proves your point.
it is funny you point this out because this is basically what you have been doing for some time now. We have been slowly steering away from my original point.
You basically conceded at this stage that common descent assumes unobservable causes or entities. More importantly, there is no way to confirm the main crux of his theory. In contrast, design does not assume anything and we can confirm the main crux of Owen’s theory. It is a blowout win for Design.
Then, I will not be taking a test that has nothing to do with what I said I studied about the basics of quantum mechanics to make my case. I laid out the extent of what I knew during the course of our discussion on this forum for everybody to see. Whether I passed or failed it, taking the test would not prove or disprove anything I have said previously about my knowledge of the subject.
Besides, it has already been decided on whether I have any grasp of quantum mechanics by your refusal to simply say Yes to a simple question. Also, it does not require you to understand advance English to answer it.
I am glad you decided to respond Michael. Once I am done finishing my point here, I will make sure to respond back to you with the same rigor and pay my respects.
You have not responded to the current construction of my argument, which you need to do or else it is a failure on your part.
Yes, I did and I gave you the example already.
False.
1 Like
Yes, it will. If you pass, you prove that you have studied quantum mechanics to any quantifiable extent at all (“enough” or otherwise). If you fail, it shows that for some reason or another you were either unwilling or unable to demonstrate that you have studied quantum mechanics to any quantifiable extent at all (“enough” or otherwise).
No, it has not. The outcome of the test will decide whether you were willing and able to demonstrate any grasp of quantum mechanics at all or not. That is what the test was devised for, and you knew it when you agreed to take it. My reactions to questions unrelated to the test have no impact on your performance in it and should therefore have no impact on what fellow users of this board should think is the extent of your understanding of quantum mechanics. At least that’s what I’d plead, anyway. That they judge your understanding of quantum mechanics by how well you demonstrated your understanding of quantum mechanics, rather than by how well or poorly either of us babbled about what it means to have any understanding of quantum mechanics. And you still have time to prove having some, I should add. Less than 48 hours left, but quite doable, nevertheless. Good luck.
If the current construction of your argument relies on Orch-OR, it is rejected as nonsense until and unless you have read the critical reviews of Orch-OR.
You have thus far listed no critical reviews that you have actually read.
Rejected, unsupported.
Rejected, non sequitur.
2 Likes
Well, I haven’t. I suspect none of the others have either. Remember: you aren’t good at understanding what people say. Try to take that into account.
I’m going to skip the rest of the gibberish.
He didn’t. However, he did explain the gaps.
But that’s not at all what you said. You are not good at language.
He made no prediction, at least not of the sort you imagine.
It’s very tiring and frustrating to correspond with a person who understands nothing of the conversation.
Again, no. Feel free to declare victory, and I see you already have. But it’s all in your head.
1 Like
As of the posting of this message, time has been up for more than two hours. Sadly, @Meerkat_SK5 did not submit a reply to my test. Their score is therefore zero, and they failed the test unambiguously. I would like to stress, that this is not definitive proof that @Meerkat_SK5 has no clue whatsoever about quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, someone who does should have had no trouble answering enough of the questions therein to score a passing grade, or at least looking up how to answer them and still have enough time to make an attempt at passing. @Meerkat_SK5’s understanding of various other scientific topics has come under some doubt. So it would have been well within their interest to make some attempt at alleviating doubt about their understanding of quantum mechanics, a subject few people have enough of an understanding of to be arguing over. Whether by choice or otherwise, @Meerkat_SK5 failed to demonstrate theirs, electing to instead spend the week attempting to argue over the contents of the test and its suitableness to aid in assessing the extent of their understanding of quantum mechanics.
For the time being, I believe that the expectation of a productive discourse with @Meerkat_SK5 about matters pertaining to quantum mechanics is unwarranted. Even if any particular argument they root in such may be in its own right meritorious, there is no indication that they themselves understand enough of it to be making it, let alone defending it adequately against criticism from intelocutors with or without formal training in the subject.
Below are sample solutions to the questions in my test. They are deliberately composed with more detail than would have been necessary or expected to pass it. Some techniques presented are stronger than what was needed, and most are not unique paths to correct final results. Rather these were composed to prove that the questions are answerable, and in a reasonable volume, even when going into more detail than is expected, to guide me in both how many points to assign each question, as well as in grading generally similar submissions.
QMBasicsTestV1Solutions.pdf (204.0 KB)
4 Likes
This proves my previous point. The questions I was asking you were precisely related to what I said in post 716. So when you claim that these questions are unrelated to the test, you are basically admitting that it is unrelated to what I said in post 716.
Thus, taking the test would not prove or disprove anything I have said previously about my knowledge of the subject or my case.
I actually did not fully realize that there was a time limit to completing the test let alone a short time limit. You were not very clear on this I might add. But this is ok because I was not very clear before when I asked you those questions. For instance, I was actually going to take the test ,as is, once you answered my questions.
This leads me to address this…
No, this is not what we were butting heads over all this week. The issue was that you did not answer my simple questions. Those questions needed to be answered because I refuse to take the test based on false pretenses of what I said previously in post 716.
Once you answer my questions, everybody will be on the same page…
Taking the test will have nothing to do with what I said in post 716 and beyond. Instead, I will be doing it just to be courteous during our discourse or will be taking it just for the hell of it.
So if you can, set up the test again. Then, as soon as you answer my questions, I will take the test!!!
This is basically the only peer-reviewed article I can find that critiques the Orch-OR theory’s 2014 article. The rest are either just informal comments/replies or were adequately addressed already in their 2014 article. If there is another one after 2014, I can’t find it. Here is my critique on this article’s critique of the Orch-OR theory: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S157106451200084X?via%3Dihub#preview-section-references
It is often said that the conscious brain may cast light on quantum observer effects. However, it is not clear that those effects necessarily involve conscious observation; if electronic instruments can record particle momentum and location, presumably the quantum waveform would collapse without consciousness. There is no reason to think that electronic instruments are conscious. Complex information processing can occur in the human brain and in artificial systems without consciousness. By itself, complex processing therefore does not require conscious cognition. Biologically, complex neuronal information processing is extremely widespread, ranging from insects to cephalopods.
This is simply wrong. Consciousness is believed to collapse the wave function because only the conscious observer can choose the aspect of nature that his knowledge will probe, which is what the results of the “quantum interaction-free” experiment demonstrate. It is not the measuring device that fundamentally causes the collapse of the wavefunction:
In other words, the non-algorithmic mind is the only true measurement apparatus.
For example, the observer must first specify or think of which particular wave function he intends to measure and then put in place a measuring device that will probe that aspect. Subsequently, only the observer can recognize the answer and understand the results after he or she chooses among the many possible outcomes.
In science the burden of proof is on the proposer, and this burden has not yet been met by quantum-level proposals. While in the future we may discover quantum effects that bear distinctively on conscious cognition ‘as such,’ we do not have such evidence today.
Even if this was true back then, it is not true today because ,right now, we have evidence for what he is talking about:
No currently known quantum-level phenomena account for the striking differences between conscious versus non-conscious brain events. If conscious cognition depended on quantum computation in microtubules we would expect all parts of the brain to be conscious, since all cells are richly endowed with microtubules. Indeed, plant microtubules have many proteins in common with cortical ones
Unlike the other objections, I actually think there is something to this one since I have heard others online point this out. More importantly, I don’t see a response from them on this point:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1571064512000851?via%3Dihub
Premise 1: If the fine-tuning constants governing the universe are constant throughout space and time, then the existence of non-computable Platonic values is confirmed.
Premise 2: The fine-tuning constants governing the universe are constant throughout space and time is confirmed.
Therefore, the existence of non-computable Platonic values that cause the fine-tuning constants governing the universe is confirmed.
Penrose argued that the values of the dimensionless constants that determine the physical laws and properties of the universe are not arbitrary or random, but have been fine-tuned to allow for the emergence of life and consciousness. He suggests that these values have been “self-organized” and “evolved” over aeons of cosmic time through these non-computable protoconscious elements.[10]
Observations on the fine-tuning constants seem to support this argument. For instance, using the Planck scale Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), researchers have demonstrated that the fine-structure constant in physics has remained fixed over the history of the universe.
For the first time, a team of five physicists led by Nathan Leefer have confirmed the constancy of the fine-structure constant to the entire geographical extent of the universe [11]. As of yet, there is no evidence that the fine-tuning constants varied, and we have evidence now that suggests it was probably constant throughout time and space.
[10] Hameroff, S., 2017. The quantum origin of life: How the brain evolved to feel good. In On Human Nature (pp. 333-353). Academic Press.
[11] O’Bryan, J., Smidt, J., De Bernardis, F. and Cooray, A., 2014. Constraints on spatial variations in the fine-structure constant from Planck. The Astrophysical Journal, 798(1), p. 18.
You specifically said…
Are you not acknowledging that these types of transitions happened but we can’t observe it?
If so, then how are you not assuming an unobservable process that orginated from an unobservable entity (i.e. LUCA).
By substituting “common ancestor” for “archetype” the same classification could be considered phylogenetic or not, at will. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles.
The Principles of Classification and the Classification of Mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:i-xvi, 1-350.
The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals - George Gaylord Simpson - Google Books
So is this article quote mining Darwin when it said:
A new study by researchers at the University of Salford has shown that fossils are likely to be key to fulfilling a prediction made by Charles Darwin more than 160 years ago:
In an 1857 letter to Thomas Huxley, Darwin wrote “The time will come I believe when we shall have very fairly true genealogical trees of each great kingdom of nature.” Fossils key to fulfilling Darwin’s 160-year-old prediction (phys.org)
You specifically said this about what I said…
My response was that Richard Owen’s saltations model of the fossil record does make predictions about the fossil record, which he combined with his archetype theory.
Your response was…
Owen specifically claimed that the vertebrate groups, such as mammals, birds, reptiles, and fishes, were separately created from their own archetypes. If this is true, we would see sudden appearances and stasis related to each group. The study I provided supports his prediction.
You specifically said…
This is NOT a repeatedly observed phenomenon in real time:
A traditional approach has been to consider the succession of taxonomic groups, such as the age of fishes giving rise to the age of amphibians, which gave way to the age of reptiles, and so on.
Instead, it is an unsupported claim that exists solely in your imagination.
Long time no see, I am glad you decided to respond again to my comments. It always helps to have as many different users participate and convey their unique perspective. Now to address your comment…
This 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 that are 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 gradual evolution through mutation and selection. This implies that evolution is not solely dependent on genetic traits emerging gradually within lineages through successive mutations and selection. Instead, it can be accelerated as a parallel process, where inventions originating 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 goal.
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 operates on populations of living organisms that can already reproduce and pass on heritable traits to their offspring. However, it does not provide an explanation for how the first living organisms emerged from non-living matter, nor does it facilitate a clear demarcation between living and non-living entities.
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, reconciling the evolution of viruses with Darwin’s theory of evolution would be difficult, as they cannot survive or evolve independently from their hosts.
[15] Cello, J., Paul, A.V. and Wimmer, E., 2002. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science, 297(5583), pp. 1016-1018.
[16] Tenoever, B.R., 2013. RNA viruses and the host microRNA machinery. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 11(3), pp. 169-180.
[17] Oren, Y., Smith, M.B., Johns, N.I., Kaplan Zeevi, M., Biran, D., Ron, E.Z., Corander, J., Wang, H.H., Alm, E.J. and Pupko, T., 2014. Transfer of noncoding DNA drives regulatory rewiring in bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(45), pp. 16112-16117.
[18] Ancient horizontal gene transfer and the last common ancestors | BMC Ecology and Evolution | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
[19] Moelling, K., 2012. Are viruses our oldest ancestors? EMBO Reports, 13(12), pp. 1033-1033.
[20] Moreira, D. and López-García, P., 2009. Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life. Nature Reviews. Microbiology, 7(4), pp. 306-311.
You need to read the ones from before that, too. Do not give your ignorant misunderstanding of peer-review as an excuse to not read them, I do not care.
Rejected, unsupported non sequitur.
2 Likes
Not very clear, was I?
How would you suggest I adjust my expressions in future to avoid you accidentally overlooking them consistently?
I can, but I will not. This was your opportunity to prove that you had studied any amount of quantum mechanics at all. There was nothing actually preventing you from seizing it.
5 Likes
It is not a non -sequitur because it takes the form of a modus ponens argument which resembles a syllogism, with two premises and a conclusion:
- If P, then Q.
- P.
- Therefore, Q.
Modus ponens - Wikipedia
More importantly, I provided support for the premise already by showing you how this is what Orch-OR theory entails:
…However in Penrose OR the choices (and quality of subjective experience) are influenced by resonate with 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.
…As described in the Anthropic principle (AP), the universe is fine-tuned for consciousness and life. But how and why these key values are so precise are unknown, and approached by several versions of the AP. In strong AP (Barrow and Tipler, 1986), the universe is somehow compelled to harbor and enable consciousness. The weak AP (Carter, 1974) suggests there exist multiple universes, and that only this particular one harbors conscious beings able to ponder the question. The weak AP is often aligned with MWI or multiverse concepts. Penrose OR avoids the need for MWI and supports strong AP, suggesting that over aeons, dimensionless constants defining the universe evolved and self-organized to optimize life, qualia, and consciousness.
I am not going to do this until you show me you read some of the articles on Orch-OR theory that talk about how these fine-tuning are connected to these non-computable values. You clearly are showing that you did not read them when you tell me that Penrose does not argue it in his articles.
Their 2014 article was peer-reviewed by 4 qualified experts from a reputable very high-impact journal and a reputable publisher. What exactly am I misunderstanding about peer-review?
I admit that I did not carefully read most of the extra separate paragraphs that described the details of the test.
But, it does not matter because we never agreed to the terms of the test. Because of this, I did not realize you started the test without my permission.
First, make sure we are on the same page on the terms. Second, ask for permission rather than force feeding something without my complete knowledge.
Wrong, you did not answer my questions. As a result, we were not able to get on the same page about the test. You had ample time to answer my questions.