It’s plagiarism to present another’s writing as your own even if you cite the source, you still have to paraphrase. And you didn’t cite the source! The source was ChatGPT!
3 Likes
Yes, but how does that help you?
Are you not proposing that primitive metazoans turned into walruses in a single generation? That’s what I mean.
Did you notice that ChatGPT’s little essay was entirely within the context of common descent? In fact it’s using the idea of modular design not to produce a nested hierarchy but to study the one produced by common descent. So there’s a problem with you using a chatbot: you don’t understand its output, just as you don’t understand your other sources.
I don’t understand what you mean there. Was what followed your product or ChatGPT’s?
Whichever, none of it would be expected to produce a nested hierarchy except to the extent that it involves the splitting of lineages. And I don’t understand how "Modular design principles also account for the concepts of homology and homoplasy. "
No nested hierarchy in that quote. There’s a non-nested hierarchy of signaling cascades, though. The matryoshka analogy is thus inappropriate.
Word salad that isn’t coherent enough to respond to.
Neither one is considered a product of design.
Viruses are a product of design though because only humans produce top-down causation through algorithmic information or RNA viruses.
For example, phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE ) utilizes a mutant M13 bacteriophage whose gIII gene is replaced by that for the protein of interest (the mutant phage is called Selection Phage, SP) where successful SP propagation is linked to the activity of the protein of interest . Moreover, “SP carrying a mutant protein with enhanced activity will have a fitness advantage over other SP particles, because the enhanced protein activity allows for increased pIII production, thereby increasing offspring production”. [3]
Now, it is important to note that they did not design or use specialized proteins beforehand, but the experimenter still played a fundamental role in these experiments because they were the ones that chose the protein of interest. Without this targeted protein of interest by the researcher, it would have been an unsuccessful result.
However, to be clear, I am highlighting this experiment in conjunction with previous experiments showing how viruses were created from scratch. Both experiments combined would show how God created and designed viruses to function like the viruses we see in the deep-sea oceans.
[1] Poliovirus Baked From Scratch | Science | AAAS (sciencemag.org)
[2] Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications
Because we don’t need to observe the phenomena of stem metazoans turning into walruses in a single generation. We just need to observe the process.
For instance, scientists synthesized RNA molecules of a virus and reconstructed a virus particle from a top-down process . 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. Observations also show that they can produce large-scale evolutionary changes that occur in one generation rather than point mutations or gene duplication.
This is how human designers operate. They use pre-existing mechanisms, material parts, and digital information to assemble designs to achieve a goal.
In this case, HGT and non-random mutations are the mechanisms. Stem metazoans would be the parts used to construct animal families.
Well of course, common descent and common design are easily interchangeable concepts. Remember this quote:
More particularly, in this transition period and, in decreasing extent, almost up to the present, the reason for so little evident change in classification was that the evolutionists and non-evolutionists followed the same procedures. The evolutionists continued to group animals by the number and kind of characters that they have in common, but they explained the possession of these characters by community of inheritance, while the nonevolutionists explained them by a subjective pattern. 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
I doubt it because ChatGPT specifically said:
Without access to the specific article you mentioned, I cannot provide a detailed analysis of its contents. However, in general, modular design principles can indeed lead to the emergence of nested hierarchies in regulatory networks. Modular organization allows for functional specialization and the coordination of different components within a network, often resulting in hierarchical structures. It is possible that the article you mentioned explores this topic, but I cannot confirm it without further information or access to the specific content.
Modular design principles account for those concepts because the process of adaptation to different niches often involves the modification and specialization of existing traits, rather than the evolution of entirely new ones.
As a result, we can often trace the evolutionary history of a group of organisms by examining the nested hierarchy of shared traits that reflect convergent evolution across multiple lineages.
It does not matter whether it is in the quote or not. This is what the article entails as suggested by ChatGPT:
The article also discusses the concept of nested hierarchies in regulatory networks. It explains that when modular design principles are applied, regulatory modules can be organized in a hierarchical manner, where larger modules encompass smaller sub-modules. This hierarchical organization allows for the integration of multiple regulatory layers and the coordination of gene expression patterns.
Furthermore, the article emphasizes the role of transcription factors in bacterial regulatory networks and how they interact with target genes to control gene expression. It discusses the importance of understanding transcription factor binding sites and the influence of environmental signals on regulatory network behavior.
Overall, the article provides an overview of the analysis of regulatory networks in bacteria, including their modular organization, hierarchical structure, and the computational approaches used to study them.
Why are regulatory genes considered irrelevant while viruses are relevant according to you?
No, it is not considered plagiarism if you properly cite the source when presenting another person’s writing or ideas. Plagiarism refers to the act of using someone else’s work, words, or ideas without giving appropriate credit or acknowledgment.
More importantly, that information did not come from ChatGPT. It can only generate original content based on the input it receives.
Actually, you did put those words in my mouth because I never said I studied the basics of quantum physics. Instead, I said and you pointed out as well that…
Simply studying it online or in school does not seem to count to you guys because I studied quantum physics online from various sources in order to develop the common design theory… (emphasis added)
More importantly, you suggested that the test was relevant to my case, which means it was more than just the basics of quantum physics:
I responded in post 1111 that…
I did not say that. I said I only need to know the basics of quantum physics to make my case.
But, I never said I needed to know all the basics of quantum physics. The terms and concepts I listed are some of the basics of quantum physics I would need to know. I acknowledged this is not sufficient at all to know the basics of it, BUT it is sufficient to make my case.
“Those words” being which ones exactly? Which statement of the ones of which you said they weren’t true were actually untrue? Or is this a case of you calling me a liar after not even bothering to read the very passage you say has lies in it?
Correct. Neither did I. Perhaps you bring this up again after my agreeing with this at least twice already is because you just don’t read what your interlocutors say to you. I also have to wonder at this point when exactly you’ll move on from “not all” to “not any” already, since it is beginning to look that that’s how much you actually know…
Maybe. You had an opportunity to prove that you might know them. You elected to instead make yourself look indistinguishable from someone who does not.
2 Likes
Presenting text you didn’t write yourself as your own writing is always plagiarism. Whether you cite your source or not. The only way to present someone else’s writing in your work without it being plagiarism is as a quotation. You did not enquote the block of text from ChatGPT, so it is plagiarism.
The fact that you’re arguing this point, on which you are so blatantly and clearly wrong, is telling.
1 Like
Word salad. Viruses are not a product of design as far as we know. Even if somebody makes an artificial virus. Just because it’s possible to make diamonds in a lab, that doesn’t show that diamonds are designed. And, as you yourself point out, nobody has in fact made a virus anyway.
They would show no such thing. They don’t show how God would have done it, and they don’t show that God did it either.
What is the process? You have never coherently explained what would happen.
You have not shown that this has ever actually happened.
Again, much too vague to make any sense of. And of course this would not be expected to produce a nested hierarchy of species.
They are not. The expectations are quite different.
As usual, the quote doesn’t have the meaning you attribute to it. Common descent explains why hierarchical classification works well, while archetypes do not. It’s possible to do classification because common descent has occurred, even if you don’t know it and are just making use of hierarchical data without understanding how it got that way.
Once again, you don’t understand ChatGPT’s output any more than you understand other things you read. It’s about regulatory networks, not taxa. Not relevant.
That’s not an explanation. As usual.
It’s not in your new quote either.
A better question is what they’re relevant to. Nobody said regulatory genes are irrelevant to anything; they’re certainly relevant to phylogenetics. However, the modularity of regulatory networks, which is what you’ve been going on about, is quite a different subject.
The relevance of viruses to phylogenetics, at least the reason I brought them up, is that they can be used to test the validity of inferring phylogeny from data with nested hierarchical structure. And those tests show that it works.
Yes it is, if you cite the source but fail to mark direct quotes. Either use quote marks or the quote function in this forum. Or as Harshman said, “Either use quote marks…” or
2 Likes
But you don’t know the basics.
Nothing you’ve written suggests that you know any of the basics of quantum physics.
Listing terms does not demonstrate understanding. It strongly indicates absence of understanding.
How would you possibly know, given how little you understand?
4 Likes
I am not going to allow you to weasel out of this. You specifically said this…
As suggested, the test was constructed according to the basics of quantum physics. BUT, these basics were going to be relevant and related to my case and you acknowledged this. Therefore, it was not just going to be about the basics but about my common design theory.
Again, I said and you pointed out as well that…
Simply studying it online or in school does not seem to count to you guys because I studied quantum physics online from various sources in order to develop the common design theory
Like I said, you are the one who has stalled the testing process from your misleading statements, quote-mining, and excuses.
From this article:
What is not plagiarism?
- “common knowledge”
A rule of thumb is if a fact can be found in 3 or more sources, it is considered common knowledge.
Example: Beethoven was born in 1770.
- Expressing an idea in your own words, and giving credit.
- Using a direct quote, and giving credit.
- Stating a fact, and giving credit.
- Paraphrasing or summarizing, and giving credit.
The functional similarity between quantum systems and neural networks allows us to see how God would have done it.
The idea behind this proposition is that certain aspects of the dynamics described by the Schrödinger equation and the functioning of a Hopfield-like neural network share similarities. Hopfield networks are a type of recurrent artificial neural network known for their ability to store and retrieve patterns.
The proposed equivalence suggests that the dynamics captured by the Schrödinger equation can be mathematically related to the behavior of a Hopfield-like neural network.
Studies have suggested that certain conditions in these neural networks can lead to the emergence of quantum-like behavior, with connections to the mathematical apparatus of quantum systems. The authors even proposed that this deep analogy between the neural network parameter and physical systems suggests that physical reality itself could be described at a fundamental level as a neural network.
Although this does not necessarily imply a direct correspondence to actual biological neural networks, Stoyan Kurtev has argued, based on existing experiments, that there is evidence showing a real correspondence.
For support, He used this deep analogy and the presumed existence of a causal mechanism allowing some bird species to sense the orientation of Earth’s magnetic field via quantum effects occurring on the microscale.
Here is the source for everything I said here:
Penrose used his Orch-OR model to explain the fine-tuning constants and suggested 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 eons of cosmic time through these non-computable protoconscious elements.
Observations on the fine-tuning constants seem to support this argument. As of yet, there is no evidence that the fine-tuning constants varied, and we have evidence that suggests it was probably constant throughout time and space.
For this reason, we can say God did it as well.
Ch20-9780124201903_aq 1…1 (galileocommission.org)
It does if we know it could not have been done by mindless forces like natural selection. As implied by Roy:
If @Meerkat_SK5 put any thought into his ideas, he’d have realised that viruses could not possibly be the precursors to cells because in a pre-cell environment they couldn’t reproduce, so they couldn’t evolve, and going extinct is a barrier to being a precursor to anything.
I think you misunderstood me. The study did show the design of a virus from a top-down process because they did not rely on a natural template. Instead, they built the virus’s genetic code using a chemical synthesis method. By layering together short DNA stretches obtained from a biotechnology firm and inserting markers for identification, they reconstructed the genetic material of the poliovirus.
Once the complete cDNA was synthesized, the researchers converted it back to RNA, which is the natural form of the poliovirus genome. When they introduced this synthetic RNA into cells, it was capable of generating infectious poliovirus particles. This demonstrated the successful design and generation of an infectious virus in the absence of a natural template.
Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template | Science
This is the design process I am talking about that we can observe in real time. In this case, stem metazoans would be the artificial template God used to convert it into animal families.
Here is the study and article I am referring to:
Although evidence of the existence of “mobile promoters” in bacteria has been published previously (14), the ubiquity and extent of HRT have not been appreciated before the study of Oren et al. (12), as reflected in the very language (horizontal gene transfer, with the emphasis on gene) that is commonly used to describe the network aspect of the evolution of prokaryotes. 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
I have already showed and explained how these mechanisms would produce it.
Of course, but this is not what I was referring to when I said that. I was talking about the assumptions not the predictions from those assumptions.
Uh no, common archetype explains why common descent can explain why hierarchical classification works well.
This is why Darwin used it as a template for the development of his common descent model.
It’s possible to do classification because common archetype came first, even if you don’t know it and are just making use of hierarchical data without understanding how it got that way.
Yeah, I know that was my point. You suggested that the study was using the idea of modular design not to produce a nested hierarchy but to study the one produced by common descent.
I countered by suggesting that it did not matter what the article was suggesting. In general, modular design principles can indeed lead to the emergence of nested hierarchies in regulatory networks.
This means that it does not matter what you choose to study. If you use these design principles, it will produce nested hierarchies.
Here is a better one then:
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.
Again, it does not matter what example is used in a study. If you use these modular design principles, it will produce nested hierarchies.
So this objection is irrelevant because if they chose to use viruses, then we would expect the same result based on those principles.
They were not direct quotes from the article but paraphrased by ChatGPT and condensed by me.
I will just ask you the same question I asked @Gisteron since he has failed to do so.
Is knowing the terms and concepts of quantum physics such as wave-function, entanglement, superposition, etc. NOT considered to knowing ANY of the basics of quantum physics regardless of the math?
If so, are you suggesting that I can still get a degree in quantum physics without knowing any of these concepts and terms?
Using a direct quote requires it be presented as a quote, which you did not do. And you did not give credit to the source of that quote anyway. So fail on all criteria.
Stop being dishonest and apologize for the plagiarism.
3 Likes
Correct.
Incorrect. We never agreed that it was going to be about anything other than the basics of quantum physics. If anything, I made very clear that it wouldn’t be, and, sure enough, it was not. I never made a comment at all about your common design theory nor suggested or agreed to test you on that. I made explicit, that the “in order to” clause following your claim to have studied quantum physics online from various sources was of no consequence. I do not care what you claimed to have studied it for, only that you claimed to have studied it at all. You were given an opportunity to prove that you had, and you did not prove that you had. That’s it.
I also expressed several times that I do not understand how a test that asks fewer things should be more of a challenge.
I disagree. In my opinion, the test was constructed, you gave me the go-ahead to conduct it, I published it, declared conditions consistent with those discussed up until that point, did not interfere with your treating of the questions and waited out the time. Afterwards I scored your performance, again, consistent with the conditions layed out prior. I do not acknowledge that a timely conduction of the test is a form of stalling. You have yet to point out a single misleading statement I made, or quote-mine I did not correct, or excuse I made. Everything was agreed upon and fairly concluded.
This will be my final message on this topic. The test concluded, it was more generous than anything else you’re likely to find out there. You performed as you did. Your refusal to own the results does nothing to alter them.
Being aware of technical terms utilized in quantum physics does not constitute understanding of quantum physics. Otherwise, watching Star Trek would amount to a form of scientific education simply by virtue of containing occasional relevant jargon. Someone who cannot do the math is someone who does not know the subject.
That this is even a question that comes to your mind betrays a profound lack of understanding of not only physics in general, but intellectual discipline in the broadest sense.
No, you cannot. That is the entire point. Understanding is demonstrable. It is measurable. It does not begin nor end with the mere ability to list buzz words, but with a proficiency at parsing and solving actual problems. Someone who does not develop an understanding of the concepts and terms, but stops instead at a mere awareness of their existence, is undeserving of any credentials certifying that they have the former. Degrees are not licenses for rhetoric. They are certificates of skill.
4 Likes
This is an incoherently clueless claim
The “concepts” of any field of physics, including quantum physics, are inherently mathematical (e.g. f=ma, PV=nRT, etc, etc).
If you do not understand the math involved, then you do not understand the Physics concepts.
Which means that you’re just left with being able to recite a bunch of buzzword quantum “terms”, without any substantive understanding of the concepts that these terms represent, and more importantly how these concepts interrelate.
As I have said before, your understanding is rhetorical not analytic – you only understand how others describe the concepts – not how the phenomena represented by the concepts act and interact (which would require understanding of the math).
This is perhaps why you are conflating quantum phenomena with platonism. You have seen Penrose and Hameroff describe quantum phenomena in platonic terms – which has led you to falsely conclude that they are the same thing.
2 Likes
So you admit that you started with your conclusion, and only did research to support that predetermined conclusion.
2 Likes
This doesn’t seem like something you wrote. I am again growing so tired of your arrogance combined with complete incomprehension that I will stop replying. If at any point you start talking about real biology, or even something not too distant from it, I may return.
This is just you paraphrasing me, backwards, and that’s offensive. Nor did Darwin do anything like what you claim. Be off with you.
2 Likes
I don’t see how this is true.
If I used a direct quote from an author and attributed it to ChatGPT instead, this would actually be considered plagiarism.
If you suggest otherwise, then you need to provide evidence for this because it feels like you are making up arbitrary rules.
Besides, they were not direct quotes from the article but paraphrased by ChatGPT and condensed by me.
You just admitted that the test was constructed according to the basics of quantum physics. BUT, these basics were going to be relevant and related to my case.
This second part was the most important part of what I said and I made that very clear. Then, when I saw the construction of the test was completely irrelevant and unrelated to my case, I eventually asked you those two questions to make sure I was not taking the test under false pretenses.
Your refusal to answer those simple questions stalled the process. End of story.
Yes!!! I totally agree with you here. It is not sufficient to know anything about the basics of quantum physics. But, it is enough to make my case, which is a point that I cannot stress enough
I am not sure how relevant or applicable this is because I did not come up with these ideas. I am just making additions and improvements to an existing theory. However, as I was researching and debating the subject with John, I was trying to figure how Owen’s theory can explain the differences because it was the biggest and only thing that was lacking in his theory. I eventually thought of the answer.
For this reason, I don’t think I started with a conclusion. Also, I admitted to @John_Harshman that I don’t know whether my common design model for nested patterns is true yet. It is untested. I just know it is a legit possibility.
I was not trying to offend you. I was just trying to show you how these concepts are easily interchangeable, but you took it the wrong way.
Sorry about that.
Ok then. Just address this very point of mine. It is the only thing that needs to be cleared up and responded. You said initially…
My response was…
Again, it does not matter what example is used in a study. If you use these modular design principles, it will produce nested hierarchies.
So this objection is irrelevant because if they chose to use viruses, then we would expect the same result based on those principles.
Of course, this does not mean I know this to be true. It is just a possible model that can be further tested.
I don’t see how you can not see how this is true. You should have learned this in high school.
Right and what you did was use a direct quote from ChatGPT and attribute it… to yourself. How is this unclear?
The fact that they went through ChatGPT without ChatGPT getting cited is automatically plagiarism. It did the work, not you. So it gets the credit. If you don’t credit it AND enquote the text, it is plagiarism.
In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that others active here (@John_Harshman, @Tim, @misterme987, @Gisteron) decline to further engage until you apologize for your repeated plagiarism and your repeated refusal to learn what plagiarism is in the first place.
3 Likes
Sorry, no. It makes me feel soiled just trying to respond to you. The way it looks now, I won’t respond even if you manage to say something about biology. All interaction with you is toxic. Sounds hyperbolic, I know, but believe that it’s true.
4 Likes
- Option A: To make your case it is “enough” to have zero understanding of quantum physics. Consequently, every time you brought up quantum physics was a meaningless distraction with no bearing on your actual case. Every time you emphasized how the lot of the rest of us do not know quantum physics, aside from being grossly hypocritical, was also completely irrelevant, seeing as to appreciate the content or robustness of your case it is entirely “enough” to know zero quantum physics, like you seem to.
- Option B: Your case does require some understanding of quantum physics. If we only had it we would appreciate the merits of your case. Likewise, having none, like you seem to, is not “enough” to make it, either.
You cannot have both.
Also, while I personally find that this has minimal bearing on the substance of the things you post, I believe you would be well advised to comply with @CrisprCAS9’s demand for an apology for plagiarism. There remains little you can do at this point to salvage your scientific credibility anymore, but I believe when it comes to respectability and dignity as an interlocutor, even on academic matters, not all is lost yet, and historically many transgressors managed to regain some with a gesture of humility like that.
3 Likes
So you are now admitting:
-
You do not understand the concepts of quantum physics?
-
You do not have a basic understanding of quantum physics?
As to whether you know “enough to make [your] case”, we only have your unsubstantiated word for this. This claim is contradicted by:
-
The fact that nobody with any knowledge of, or credibility in, science has accepted a single thing you have said. This would indicate that not only have you failed to “make [your] case”, you have failed to come within a million kilometres of doing so.
-
The fact that you have been caught repeatedly spouting, and quoting, quantum woo – including that of Hameroff, whose book (with Woomeister Deepak Chopra) is explicitly cited in Wikipedia’s article on that subject as an " example of such misuse".
Based on this, I’d suggest that you are ill-qualified to “make [your] case” of the claim that water is wet, let alone the overturning of a century and a half’s research into evolutionary biology in favor of a claim of a ‘Universal Common Designer’ – a monumentally “extraordinary claim” requiring equally “extraordinary evidence” – not the bunch of ill-conceived, ill-understood quantum woo you have presented us with.
I’m agreeable. 
3 Likes
- The fact that Meer has been repeatedly caught using AI to generate his responses, without acknowledging that to be the case.
3 Likes
You have amnesia and a problem with comprehension.
Add ignorance about basic evolutionary biology to your amnesia and comprehension problems.
Another irrelevant response.
The rest of your comments are either irrelevant or ignorant.
I am done with you!
1 Like