@Meerkat_SK5, seeing as you have been foolish enough to drag me into this, let me make my position very clear.
I am of the opinion that @Gisteron was being unduly generous to you.
I, along with I suspect most (all?) other regular participants in your threads, am of the opinion that you have no substantive understanding of quantum physics, science in general, logic, or the standards of academic discourse.
Answering @Gisteron’s test was your final chance to establish any credibility whatsoever, and you intentionally ignored it – choosing to argue with him about it rather than even attempt it.
Though given that you appear to be unaware that mathematics is at the very basis of physics (a point I have made, without rebuttal, multiple times above), it is likely that you would have failed the test (or any other basic test in physics) anyway.
If the forum was sufficiently “receptive” it wouldn’t be an infliction.
You can try suggesting that, but I don’t think anything short of a thermonuclear detonation, or an orbital kinetic strike would stop them – they seem to be as ineffectually indefatigable as the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail – “Tis but a scratch”.
What he said here is not true @John_Harshman. Take a look…
Not If you guys are going to critique, respond, strawman, quote-mine, or refute what I say. I am not going to let you get away with it. I will respond back with a vengeance and put you on notice!!!
It was. You said I was dishonest and should be ashamed of myself. This was a mean-spirited attack on my character.
Unobserved processes are not the same as unobservable processes.
Moreover, I don’t know what you mean by “instant” changes. But, if you are referring to saltations, we can and have observed viruses causing instant speciation through HRT. We can observe God as well in the form of the universal wave-function.
Lastly, we observe the process of design in our everyday lives all the time whether it is biological or non-biological. Stem metazoans would be considered the reusing of parts to create the finishing product in the form of animal families.
Non- random mutations are the short answer, which is another mechanism besides HGT that can create the illusion of descent. Some DNA sequences may be more likely to mutate than others because the site of mutation often depends on the molecular context.
For example, in a population of animals inhabiting an environment, the designer would preprogram favorable traits that are coordinated with each other. Contrastingly, the individuals without these traits would not adapt to that niche.
Because these coordinated adaptations can result in the formation of distinct lineages or species that are adapted to different ecological niches.
This would 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.
This is what happened with regulatory networks when using modular design principles.
I was not talking about the origin of life, but the origin of virsuses. Observations clearly show how viruses were not only the probable precursors of the first cells but also helped shape and build the genomes of all species.
For this reason, it is very much relevant to our discussion on common descent vs common design.
I said what I said for the same reasons you gave here…
Likewise, viruses are not species because they cannot be a part of the tree of life like other organisms, as I explained.
They aren’t evolved either because RNA viruses cannot replicate or undergo natural selection without a host or without being genetically engineered/ designed. Moreover, even if they could, it is not sexual reproduction we are observing in the lab.
Overall, this is why viruses are not species. You just call them “species” so you can avoid falsification from observations that show how viruses were the first life forms on earth.
What do you mean?!? I specifically claimed that design does not assume anything including a divine designer. Those two theories are examples of what I am saying.
That is because you guys want me to provide a verbatim text from these sources in order for my arguments to be considered aligned with theirs.
As I told John, viruses are not species because they cannot be a part of the tree of life like other organisms, as I explained.
They aren’t evolved either because RNA viruses cannot replicate or undergo natural selection without a host or being genetically engineered/ designed. Moreover, even if they could, it is not sexual reproduction we are observing in the lab.
Overall, this is why viruses are not species. You just call them “species” so you can avoid falsification from observations that show how viruses were the first life forms on earth.
I am not saying that modular design principles by themselves produced nested patterns in the study. It was the application of to specific environments that produced nested patterns.
For instance, the role of global transcription factors in coordinating the activity of different functional modules or tissues is essential for the proper development, function, and adaptation of animals. This ensures that animals can respond effectively to changing environmental conditions and maintain homeostasis during changing physiological demands, which in turn produces nested hierarchies.
This is exactly what common design theory entails.
Yeah but, the difference is that I am not trying to refute common descent. Instead, I am trying to show how Owen’s explanation still better explains the data despite the consensus personally preferring their pet theory.
I actually included you at first, but removed your name at the last minute because you knew already that I told Gisteron all this.
BINGO!!! Viruses cannot be considered a “species” let alone an animal species based on this reality. This is exactly why @John_Harshman’s example is irrelevant when it comes to showing nested patterns.
That is because you guys want me to provide a verbatim text from these sources in order for my arguments to be considered aligned with theirs.
Alright, you beat it out of me. I used ChatGPT to paraphrase what they said for me.
It is true that the test I constructed was a test on the basics of quantum physics.
It is true that it was not a test on anything other than the basics of quantum physics, i.e. “that’s it”.
It is true that you could have either passed it or chosen to not pass it, if at the time it was conducted you knew any of the basics of quantum physics past the first few weeks of studying.
It is true that I (technically) do not know if your non-passing was due to you choosing not to pass or due to your inability to pass.
It is true that with regards to your performance of the test I know essentially only that you failed, for one reason or another.
It is true that I have done my part: I kept all the conditions I promised to keep, did nothing to interfere with your working through the questions, and evaluated your performance fairly.
It is true that I gave you an opportunity to prove yourself with respect to your credibility on matters of quantum physics. And a generous one at that, I should insist.
It is true that you have not proven yourself with respect to your credibility on matters of quantum physics.
Please, select out of these statements I “said here” the ones you find are “not true”? Once identified, please, explain how each of the selected statements is “not true”?
Just noting that we are over 1200 posts with a guy who cannot be bothered either to write his own English or present any math, and is only occasionally coherent.
Nothing worth responding to in all that, but it does provide many good examples of your refusal to actually think about what other people tell you, and that does show a lack of respect. No point in talking to you for that reason, among others.
Really though? I tried to respond the best way I knew at the time. I can just give you a different response to your objections or I can just ask more questions to make sure I understand your objections properly.
Observing nested hierarchy in real-time within mouse populations would require extensive and long-term tracking of their genetic relationships over multiple generations. The study you cited certainly does not show this and I doubt there is any study that could ever show this in animals.
The only known organisms I know of that could do this are microbes, such as viruses. This is apparently why John mentioned it to support his claim, but the example is just as irrelevant as regulatory networks in bacteria according to his logic or standard.
It does not look like here that you read the article because it does not suggest it violates:
How do scientists try to understand the complex coordination and integration of multiple environmental cues on bacterial gene expression? 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. In this functional architecture, well-defined independent modules are globally coordinated by global transcription factors, whose disparate physiological responses are integrated, at the promoter level, by intermodular genes.
That is not what the article suggested:
Freyre-González and his colleagues observed that all the previously reported E. coli global transcription factors were involved in the response to general signals (e.g., energy levels, redox potential, stress by heat shock, general stresses, and nitrogen metabolism) (Figure 3)…
…The organizational chart of a company or a business commonly resembles a pyramid, where a few elements in each layer of the pyramid control a greater number of elements in the layers below. Given this property of hierarchies, feedback is uncommon. In contrast, Freyre-González and his colleagues showed, in fact, that all these functional components in cells form a nonpyramidal, matryoshka-like hierarchy that exhibits feedback (Figure 3).
And this is not a problem for the common design theory as I explained before.
Again, It is not plagiarism:
No, Chat GPT does not plagiarize. Chat GPT is a language model trained on a large text dataset and generates original content based on the input it receives. However, Chat GPT may produce content similar to existing content, which could be mistaken for plagiarism. Chat GPT and Plagiarism Issues You Might Concern (awesomescreenshot.com)
Also, I made sure to cite the article I was talking about.
As I said to John, my arguments are not of my own, but came from more qualified individuals. I am not trying to interject my own opinions or arguments based in quantum physics as if I have formal training in the field. If I ever try to do this, then by all means you can dismiss whatever I say without further review.
Instead, I am making a concerted effort to not rely on my own opinion on the matter, but base it on the growing research of experts in these fields. This is one of the reasons why I am not presenting any math or paraphrasing their content myself.
If you actually read what people say and spent a little more time trying to understand it rather than just instantly responding by reflex, it’s possible your replies might improve. Never know until you try.
Copying and pasting the writing of someone/something else and presenting it as your own is plagiarism. That’s what you did. It was plagiarism. Stop doing that.
Arguments you are scarcely able to articulate (possibly relying on ChatGPT to paraphrase them for you, for all we know) have no business being part of your case. That’s not to say your arguments must all be original, nor that you must know how to defend all arguments you borrow against any minute criticism. Though if “hey, this is not me, this is big names saying it” is your defense, then one has to wonder what the point is in raising them, anyway. If all the merits you know an argument to have stop at the authority of their source, then you might as well not know that they have any. I suggest that maybe you’d do well to at least understand said arguments to some extent, if it is to actually contribute to the strength of your case, rather than to fill a good message length and waste every reader’s time for it.
Nobody here has been more kind, generous and tolerant with you than @John_Harshman . He’s spent a decent amount of time trying to enable you to understand the horribly flawed nature of what you’re trying to do here so that you can back away from it and retain some sort of dignity in the process. I’m frankly astonished at the degree to which he’s been willing to tolerate your disrespect, your bluster, and your nonresponsiveness. Mean-spirited? Hardly.
Even if your nonsensical accusations were true, they would be reasons to take my advice and take your blather elsewhere.
Your accusations are nonsensical because: a) You have in fact been explicitly seeking a “critique” of your nonsensical “Theory and Model” here. b) Given the incoherence of your claims, and the fact that you very frequently don’t understand what the sources you cite are actually saying, the accusation of “straw-manning” is ludicrous. c) It is you who have been caught repeatedly quote-mining, most recently of Charles Darwin. You are however generally not even aware of it, because you are plagarising the quote-mines from secondary, often dishonest creationist, sources without either attributing these secondary sources, or checking their accuracy against the primary source. (c) “Refuting” ill-constructed claims is part of normal academic discourse.
What vacuous, vainglorious, nonsensical posturing.
As I stated above (which you carefully avoided replying to):
The logical consequence of this indictment is that you have nothing of any value to contribute to this forum, and so are just wasting your time, and more importantly our time, on your endless incoherent pointless blather and posturing.
As you suggested before, there is a difference between observed processes and observed phenomena.
What do you mean by “instant” changes?
I asked this question to ChatGPT…
How would that work if it was applied to nested hierarchy of species?
And this was the response…
If modular design principles are applied to the nested hierarchy of species, it could result in a hierarchical organization of genetic and phenotypic traits. Here’s a general explanation of how this might work:
Modular Design: Modular design involves breaking down complex systems into smaller, more manageable modules or units. In the context of species, these modules could represent genetic or phenotypic traits that are shared among related species.
Nested Hierarchy: The nested hierarchy of species refers to the hierarchical arrangement of species, where species are grouped into increasingly inclusive categories (such as genera, families, orders, etc.) based on their shared evolutionary history and characteristics. This hierarchical structure reflects the branching pattern of evolution and the divergence of lineages over time.
Application of Modular Design: Applying modular design principles to the nested hierarchy of species would involve identifying and studying the modular units or traits that are shared among different levels of the hierarchy. These modular units could represent genetic features, phenotypic characteristics, or other factors that contribute to the evolutionary relationships and diversification of species.
Hierarchical Organization: By analyzing the modular units across different levels of the nested hierarchy, researchers can observe how these traits are conserved, modified, or diversified as species evolve and branch out. This can lead to the identification of hierarchical patterns in the distribution and inheritance of traits, revealing the nested structure of the hierarchy.
Overall, applying modular design principles to the nested hierarchy of species can help in understanding the genetic and phenotypic relationships among species, as well as the evolutionary processes that have shaped their diversification. It provides a framework for studying the hierarchical organization of traits and their inheritance patterns across different levels of the species hierarchy.
I primarily used my own words on this when I asked ChatGPT:
If modular design principles were applied to species, nested hierarchies would be expected due to the following reasons:
Common Design: species share non-random mutations that are coordinated with each other and have been adapted to different environments through design with modification. This design pattern results in a nested hierarchy of species, where subpopulations within the larger population are specialized for different nutrient sources.
The application of modular design principles can help elucidate the shared traits and characteristics that define these nested groups.
Horizontal Inheritance of Traits: Modular design principles involve the inheritance and transmission of traits from the movement of genetic material between organisms. When applied to species, certain individuals in the population that acquire the new traits through HGT would be able to use the new nutrient source, while those that do not acquire them 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.certain bacteria in the population acquire genetic material containing regulatory elements that allow them to utilize a previously untapped nutrient source.
Homology and Homoplasy: Modular design principles also account for the concepts of homology and homoplasy. By identifying and analyzing homologous traits within species, researchers can observe the nested patterns of trait similarity and differences, which align with the nested hierarchy of species.
As I mentioned to @T_aquaticus, That is not what the article suggested:
Freyre-González and his colleagues observed that all the previously reported E. coli global transcription factors were involved in the response to general signals (e.g., energy levels, redox potential, stress by heat shock, general stresses, and nitrogen metabolism) (Figure 3)…
…The organizational chart of a company or a business commonly resembles a pyramid, where a few elements in each layer of the pyramid control a greater number of elements in the layers below. Given this property of hierarchies, feedback is uncommon. In contrast, Freyre-González and his colleagues showed, in fact, that all these functional components in cells form a nonpyramidal, matryoshka-like hierarchy that exhibits feedback (Figure 3).
Both regulatory network genes and viruses involve genetic material and have some interactions with cellular processes. So why is one considered irrelevant and the other does not?
Moreover, why is one considered a product of design, such as viruses, and the other one does not?
Not accurate, Copying and pasting the writing of someone/something else [without citing the source] and presenting it as your own is plagiarism.
I cited the source of the information that I presented to you.
I agree, which is why I am trying to encourage him to continue to do so without going off the rails.
That is just perception not reality.
These two things are not true.
As I referenced, I specifically told you that
I only need to know the basics of quantum physics and read enough about it online to make my case.
After this, you then asked me about taking the test in response. So you were fully aware of what I said. It is not my fault that you chose to make a bunch of assumptions and forget or ignore aspects of what I said.
I do this to make sure nobody makes excuses about the arguments I present to them or dismiss them out of hand. It also helps me to decipher whether a rejection of an argument is based on merits or personal bias.
Except that they are true. It is the case, that the test I constructed was a test on the basics of quantum physics. It is the case, that the test I constructed was not a test on anything other than the basics of quantum physics.
That doesn’t change the fact that the test I composed was a test on the basics of quantum physics and not on anything other than the basics of quantum physics. The test was never stated to be on what you read - and how could it have been that, anyway; you were asked several times what it was that you read / what your sources were, but you ignored those questions - it was only ever supposed to be on the basics of quantum physics, and that is exactly what it was on.
Though, in fairness, you have failed to demonstrate that you read about quantum physics online enough to make your case, too, since you failed to demonstrate any understanding of the subject at all and you said yourself that to make your case it would be necessary to have more understanding than none at all.
I did not forget or ignore aspects of what you said. I responded to them, in detail, until you told me to go ahead. I do not make a bunch of unspecified assumptions either. I composed a test on the basics of quantum physics. Your protestations do nothing to alter this. Neither do your vagueries about what it was you allegedly studied.
The test was on the basics of quantum physics and not on anything other than the basics of quantum physics, exactly as I had portrayed.
As much as one might respect the intent or spirit of this approach, there are some problems nevertheless with it:
You are arguing with mostly non-experts when it comes to quantum physics. For the most part, these people, and I’ll happily include myself among them, have insufficient means to assess the merits of the original argument and can hence only evaluate it on the consensus response. There is at best no consensus on the merits of Orch-OR, so people who do not know any better are best advised to dismiss it at least until it gains mainstream recognition.
Your own understanding of all related subjects seems by all accounts to be likewise lacking. Most academics of this board who still pay you any attention could not with a good conscience confirm that you have any understanding of their respective subject whatsoever. You keep getting basic things wrong about pretty much everything, and even after so many alterations and retractions of individual points it never occurred to you to maybe crack open a book someday. So even if we were to universally take something like Orch-OR seriously based on Penrose’s respectable credentials - never a good reason, but let’s grant it - there is every reason to suspect that you, for one, do not understand it enough to accurately present it, let alone construct a grander case on the back of it.
Related to the above, your remarkable incompetence in just about every scientific discipline you drop any comment about is highly unlikely to equip you to appreciate any scientific argument’s merits. By all indication, the only way you come to accept or reject them is nothing other than personal bias. Consequently, you have insufficient means to determine when someone’s rejection of an argument you raise is based on personal bias or on merits. And insisting that the argument you raised is derived to one extent or another from an argument some authority made is not a means to remedy this. For your reporting of an authority’s say-so is not the presentation of merit, nor is the rejection of that claim a display of bias.
