Nope. Wrong as usual. You fail to understand what I was saying you misinterpret and how you misinterpret it. Like I said, you understand almost nothing of what you read.
You didn’t. That you think you did is one of your major problems.
That’s yet another of your misreadings.
You haven’t looked into the details at all, and they aren’t at all similar.
No, that’s not correct. It’s nonsense. And I still have no idea what your actual scenario is, since you contradict yourself freely.
You have given no coherent account of your theory/model, so I’m pretty sure that nobody understands. Since you ignore all objections or just repeat your previous claims in nearly the same words, nothing is gained.
Back to the beginning. Pick one group you think is a basic type. How did it arise? How do you know it’s a basic type? Why is it part of a nested hierarchy along with other basic types? Conceivably by talking about concrete details you can make your claims clear, though I will confess that I have little hope.
I’m curious as to what happens next. After the last correspondent with @Meerkat_SK5 has given up attempting to convince them that their entire “theory and model” is “gibberish” and “incoherent” (descriptions which I wholeheartedly agree with), what do they intend doing with it?
Will they attempt to publish it?
Will they attempt to have it taught in schools?
Wouldn’t it be easier to simply let them get on with whatever that is, and report back to us how successful they are, than to try to convince them of their error (a seemingly impossible task)? Why not let reality (embodied by publishers and science educators) do the heavy lifting for us?
This is progress of a sort, and why I keep going on about falsification. A Designer can always produce designs which are consistent with common descent. If the Designer ONLY works in this way, then common design and common descent are inseparable. There is no way to distinguish one from the other, and saying that life was designed is the same as saying that life has evolved. There is no difference.
Falsifying design requires evidence for something a designer cannot or will not create. Suggestions for what such evidence might look like are lacking.
Then, tell me exactly what you think is different about the two models. This would help greatly in our discourse.
So you actually do think cellular automata produces nested patterns as well?
If the answer is yes to my question above, then you are admitting that I did address them. If the answer is NO, then you are disagreeing with @misterme987 and I stand corrected.
Yes, I agree. After taking a hard look at my latest theory/model I posted, I just realized that most of what I presented as a description for common design is actually evidence and models for guided evolution.
I have not provided any coherent model for common design yet because I keep mixing the two together. I think the best way to go about it going forward is to just focus on the common design model solely. If anybody still have objections or questions about the claim that evolution was intelligent designed or guided, we should probably hold off addressing them, so I won’t get disorganized. I have not heard any serious objections on this argument lately anyways.
So I assume that my arguments were sufficient enough to prove that it is a useful scientific theory of intelligent design. Again, if anybody disagrees, send me all the questions and objections you have now and I will address them later. but, for now, the focus will be common design.
The designer used HGT and microtubules to transform primitive multicellular eukaryotes into Equidae family of horses within the earth.
I know through successful hybridization attempts:
" In the Equidae, out of 15 theoretically possible interspeCific hybrids, 14 are known "
Primary source: Stein-Cadenbach, H. 1993. Hybriden, Chromosomen und Artbildung bei Pferden (Equidae). In Scherer, S., ed. Typen des Lebens. Pascal-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 225-244
I know through the statistical methods and the fossil record:
Because the designer used common mechanisms, blueprint/genetic code, purposes to design those basic types that naturally produced nested hierarchies without there having to be a physical common ancestor at play.
Well, I am actually trying to do that here in this forum. It is just an indirect way of doing so.
Well, I was going kinda hoping you guys help me get access to those people through this forum.
This is the avenue in which I want to promote this research and get the attention of Christian theistic scientists.
I want them to see the potential this article may have in resolving the conflict in the debate over Darwinian evolution being taught as fact in public. Right now, I am not sure what needs to be added or subtracted from the paper to make it understandable to them. This is why I need your help.
Yes, I plan on going about it that way to see if it works better. But, I am going to need you and @Dan_Eastwood to corroborate some of John’s responses in regards to nested patterns.
Yes, in a useful scientific sense, I am starting to see it from your perspective and Johns on why you feel its useless or meaningless. There is not much difference between common design evolution and common descent evolution that is intelligently designed or guided.
For this reason, I no longer think that the Lenski experiment would disprove the common design model. Instead, I think the best way to falsify it in a convincing fashion is finding examples of animal behavior displaying forms of digital information according to RTB, such as…
“1. Capacity for symbolic expression
2. Ability to invent and manipulate symbols
3. Ability to invent and manufacture complex tools
4. Capacity for explosive technological advance
5. Ability to manufacture and wear clothes
6. Ability to invent and use complex languages
7. Capacity to form complex social structures
8. Ability to invent and use complex trading and transportation systems
9. Ability to engage in mathematics, literature, philosophy, and theology
10. Ability to tame, domesticate, and train nephesh animals”
If you want me to explain in greater detail that this is the case, just ask
Keep in mind, this objection only applies to common design NOT intelligent designed common descent/ guided evolution. I have offered many confirmed predictions that distinguish between guided and unguided evolution . This includes a way to falsify it in the way of metabolism first experiments that create a self-replicating molecule. Even @T_aquaticus and @John_Harshman have agreed with me on this point in the past.
Thank you. That’s an important admission since most intelligent design proponents seem to confuse common ancestry with unguided evolution. All organisms could still be related regardless of whether a higher intelligence was involved in designing life.
So, just to be clear, you do now agree that common ancestry is true, in addition to guided evolution?
To garner such assistance, you would first need to convince people here that your claims are more than merely “incoherent” and “gibberish” – which you have abjectly failed to do.
What you have been posting here is not “research” as any scientist would recognise it, but merely argumentation. As I said in a previous thread:
The “Christian theistic scientists” whose attention you are seeking are unlikely to be impressed by further such self-published claims.
That would be an issue for science educators, not scientists. And the first question they would ask would be “have these claims been published in the peer-reviewed literature and accepted by the scientific consensus?”
If you want any chance of acceptance by either this forum, peer-reviewed journals, the scientific consensus, or science educators, you would first need to “subtract” your entire theory. You would then need to go to university and get yourself first an undergraduate degree in biology, and then a PhD in Evolutionary Biology, and rebuild your theory from scratch. Only then would you have any chance at all of demonstrating sufficient understanding of the subject matter that the people who make these decisions might take your ideas seriously. And even then, you would be only one voice, out of thousands of similarly qualified voices, seeking their attention.
Inexpert apologists simply don’t have any influence on what is taught in science. Nor does posting claims on an internet forum. There is simply no way that leads to your desired outcome that doesn’t involve spending years becoming an expert in the scientific field that you want to change.
Hard to say for sure, since you have presented no coherent model of common design. But in general, common descent predicts nested hierarchy, while common design predicts nothing.
Are you perhaps confusing cellular automata with von Neumann machines?
You are to be congratulated for realizing some of your confusion. Progress may in fact be possible.
Your assumption is wrong, but let’s not distract from the topic.
Better, but not good enough. What do microtubules have to do with anything? What are these primitive multicellular eukaryotes? What do you mean by “within the earth”? Did this all happen in a single generation, or were there intermediates?
No, for two reasons. First, because there is no reason to suppose that hybridization between basic types should be impossible. Second, because hybridization, if we assume it shows anything, only says that horses belong to one basic type, but doesn’t show species that don’t hybridize do not.
Note that “monobaraminic” is not holobaraminic, which is what supposedly equates to basic type. So, again, not useful. There is also no reason to suppose that discontinuity in the fossil record is meaningful.
All that says is that the designer felt like simulating common descent for unknowable reasons. Not good enough. Why would common mechanisms, blueprints, or purposes result in nested hierarchy?
Yes there is: common descent is expected to result in nested hierarchy, common design is not. I count that as a big difference.
I do not understand how this would falsify common design. Please explain.
I for one have not, so you are misunderstanding again.
Does it predict that every single part will be purposefully arranged? And don’t both guided evolution and natural selection also predict purposeful arrangements of parts?
Intelligent guidance would. What intelligent guidance does not explain is the origin of the original arrangement or the starting point where guidance takes over.
An Indian muntjac deer has 7 chromosomes where most deer have (edit) 70. Where would guidance take over in this case?
True. But neither does it require that there would be more than one starting point for life, nor does it even require that the starting point be designed.
No idea what you think that question means. Are you claiming that a muntjac must have been separately created from other deer, because…? Are you claiming that chromosomal changes do not happen, either naturally or through divine guidance?
I am also hoping you ask questions that you feel need to be asked in order to understand my model for common design better.
No, I am posting research here. It is just not my research as I keep telling you. Mike gene, Fuz Rana, Stuart Hammeroff and Todd Elder have already done their due diligence on this subject for me. I am just organizing it and then presenting it to you and others.
I have already explained why that standard of proof is not reliable in this situation. It also does not have to be accepted by scientific consensus to be taught in schools.
Again, it is not my theory or models.
Well, of course, it is true. I think what you really mean to say is “Do you now agree that universal common ancestry is the best explanation ?”
No, I don’t because I think that the gaps in the fossil record are real rather than apparent.
No, intelligent design theory and common design are two different theories. Intelligent design theory involves providing something was designed. In contrast, common design involves proving how something was designed.
You have already acknowledged that intelligent design theory was falsifiable and testable when you critiqued the Orch-OR theory.
As @colewd alluded to , common design predicts a functional utility between nested unrelated basic types and a purpose for why they are nested together despite being unrelated.
What are you talking about? Von Neuman’s machine forms the basis of cellular automata:
“The UC forms the foundation of von Neumann’s theory on self-replicating automata. However, an UC is a mindless robot, and must be told very specifically exactly what to do in order build the correct object(s). It must therefore be programmed to construct specific things, and if it is to replicate then it must also be provided with a blueprint of itself.”
And you never done anything to demonstrate this and I suspect you never will. So I don’t expect to be distracted by this in the future
It is the mechanism that explains how basic types developed cell differentition, consciousness, and sexual reproduction because natural selection does not explain it at all.
I am talking about what this study suggests:
"The cellular slime mold Dictyostelium has cell-cell connections similar in structure, function, and underlying molecular mechanisms to animal epithelial cells. These similarities form the basis for the proposal that multicellularity is ancestral to the clade containing animals, fungi, and Amoebozoa (including Dictyostelium): Amorphea (formerly “unikonts”). "
"Geologist Martin Kennedy and his colleagues from the University of California, Riverside realized that clay minerals in marine sediments are responsible for trapping the organic carbon that would otherwise bond with highly reactive oxygen.
Today such clay minerals form in soil when organisms such as microbes or fungi interact with tiny bits of weathered rock. The resultant clay then washes down to the sea and settles on the bottom, where the clay’s chemical properties actively attract organic carbon and then absorb it, much like kitty litter.
The scientists reasoned that this so-called clay mineral factory might have produced the sharp rise in oxygen availability that preceded the flowering of complex life forms."
No, it is not based on just gaps in fossil lineage’s but also morphological and molecular dissimilarities:
"Baraminologists must also be able show how one proposed created kind is distinct from other created kinds. To do this, they look at dissimilarities, or subtractive criteria. These are used to subtract species from a larger group of organisms. This makes the group smaller and hopefully closer to the true created kind.
Consider, as an example, the fossa. If you came across this mammal in the wild or at the zoo, you might easily mistake it for a cousin of your feline friend. Like your house cat, the fossa even has partially retractable claws to help it climb trees. Despite this, there are many features that show dissimilarity with true cats. Statistical tests can be done that show it likely does not belong to the cat created kind."
Yes, that is correct. I actually forgot to include the ecology method which allows us to demonstrate that the gaps of dissimilarity and/or lineages between major groups of organisms are real, and not apparent. This is what common design predicts.
The common mechanisms and blueprints involved in the process results in nested hierarchy because the designer has common purposes for each basic type. God’s purposes are to have basic types survive, reproduce, and fill environments of the earth.
This means that the differences between a particular set of basic types similar in morphology and/or moleculars are due to the different design requirements each will need for their environment.
As RTB’s Mark Perez explains it:
“The biblical account of Adam and Eve makes clear that humanity did not evolve from other primates. God establishes human exceptionalism by creating us in his image and giving us dominion over all other life on Earth (Genesis 1:26–28). If the biblical claims are true, then we can expect humans to possess qualities that are exceptions to what would otherwise be predicted if we were evolutionary descendants.”
You specifically said in post 291:
“Different predictions would result from these premises. Evolution would predict that the convergent features would commonly differ in detail and would in fact show relationships to features in related taxa; creation would predict that “convergent” features would be absolutely identical and would appear in the species as if from nowhere, with no relationships to features in related taxa. Of course we see the former, not the latter, in almost every case.” [emphasis added]
That’s not anything like what he said, and at any rate it’s wrong.
So, in other words, you actually are confusing the two. No, they are not the same. What you seem to be talking about are von Neumann machines, self-replicating robots. Cellular automata are something entirely different. Here: Cellular Automata (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Again, I ask what any of that has to do with microtubules.
So you’re saying that horses sprang fully formed from something in the soil rather like a slime mold?
But that has nothing to do with primitive multicellular eukaryotes.
What does the clay study have to do with anything?
What makes you think the there is a cat created kind rather than a Feloidea created kind, which would include fossas? Why is a cheetah included within the cat kind even though it doesn’t have retractable claws? This supposed criterion of dissimilarity is arbitrary.
None of that is coherent. Again, rather than these vague, abstract claims, I urge you to deal with a concrete example. I suggested horses.
You are trying to explain nested hierarchy among basic types by referring to common purpose for a single basic type. Do you see the fallacy in that?
That’s nice, but how does it predict nested hierarchy among types? Why should design requirements create a nested hierarchy?
That explains nothing.
Yes, I did say that. So? What does it have to do with metabolism first experiments that create a self-replicating molecule, or with anything else you claimed I had agreed with?
Rana’s inexpert and revisionist essay on Richard Owen’s work; nor
Hammeroff’s ORCH-OR Theory; nor
Todd Elder’s claims about Baraminology …
… but rather your own idiosyncratic and frequently grossly misrepresentative synthesis of all of the above, and who knows what else, that you call your “Universal Designer Theory”.
“Mike gene, Fuz Rana, … and Todd Elder” are engaged in Creationist apologetics, NOT scientific research. None of their claims have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Therefore their claims do not count as “due diligence”, even if you characterised them accurately. But you haven’t even done that – you make the ludicrously false claim that “Fuz Rana and Mike Gene have crafted tested models”, when neither of your cited sources contain any evidence that their “models” (I would rather call them mere speculations) have been “tested”.
What part of:
… and …
… and …
… did you fail to understand?
As for “Stuart Hammeroff”, I have already pointed out that your understanding of qunatum theory, based as it is on the Youtube videos of an inexpert apologist, appears to be seriously deficient. And the one physicist who has also addressed this subject on this forum has also denegrated your understanding. Thus, until you answer the following questions, any citation by you of Hammeroff, ORCH-OR or Qunatum Theory is a complete non-starter:
Based on this, your previous statement diminishes to:
[Nobody has] already done their due diligence on this subject for me.
Yes, but nobody accepted this ‘explanation’.
What makes you think that science educators will be any more receptive to it?
Having both rejected this explanation and your “theory”, what makes you think we would be interested in “help[ing you] get access to those people through this forum”?
our wholsesale rejection of both your theory, and close to every claim you have made underlying it, doesn’t matter, but
for some unexplained reason, in spite of that wholesale rejection, we can be persuaded to promote your theory to “Christian theistic scientists”, science educators, etc.
I find the juxtaposition of these two blatantly contradictory views to be absurd to the point of being delusional.
