Mark Perez earned a BA in philosophy and an MA in analytic philosophy of science from California State University, Los Angeles, as well as an MA in public administration, with an emphasis on organizational development, from American Military University.
Mark Perez therefore knows sweet Fanny Adams about Brain Mapping.
So the question remains why does @Meerkat_SK5 keep citing sources that have no expertise in the subjects he cites them for?
Does he really think that claims based on such appallingly bad sources will convince either (i) anybody on this forum (other than RtB’s fellow creationists), (ii) “Christian theistic scientists” or (iii) science educators?
This leads me to think that @Meerkat_SK5 has no understanding whatsoever of his audience – either current or potential.
Can we mark this down as a prediction of your hypothesis? Organisms from the same ecological niches will cluster together phylogenetically, because God designed them for that niche?
I think it still falsifies his hypothesis, if this really is his prediction. Organisms that live in very different niches (like blue whales and cows) are often far more similar to one another than organisms that live in very similar niches (like blue whales and whale sharks).
I predict that highly subjective notions of morphological similarity, niche similarity, and boundaries between basic types will be deployed as needed to show that @Meerkat_SK5 is right about everything. Along with clouds of gibberish, of course.
I know. I was referring to the part of what he said about “purpose”. Common design predicts purpose for nested patterns while common descent does not.
No, I never said they were the same. I am saying that Von Neumann’s description of a self-replicating machine would naturally produce nested patterns because …
“To define his machine in more detail, von Neumann invented the concept of a cellular automaton. The one he used consists of a two-dimensional grid of cells, each of which can be in one of 29 states at any point in time. At each timestep, each cell updates its state depending on the states of the surrounding cells at the prior timestep. The rules governing these updates are identical for all cells.”
So are you saying the study has nothing to do with how slim molds potentially becoming complex animals?
It explains how the Equidae family arose. Remember, you asked me…
“Pick one group you think is a basic type. How did it arise?”
I agree that it is unreliable when it comes to basic types that are very similar in morphology like fossa and cat kinds.
The universal common design hypothesis suggests that God used similar mechanisms and blueprints to design animals to survive, reproduce, and fill environments of the globe.
If this is true, then the gaps in the fossil record are real rather than apparent.
METHODS
A study found that the giant panda and the red panda were not related even though both species possess the false thumb. The false thumb of the giant panda was intended to manipulate bamboo and the false thumb of the red panda was designed as an aid for arboreal locomotion, With the red panda secondarily developing its ability for item manipulation.
As you can see, both pandas have the false thumb. But, what makes them different is the application of those similar parts and function that fit better in different environmental niches, which give them their separate uniqueness.
Now, we will evaluate the perissodactyls since there were apparently no precursor ancestors for them in the fossil record.
Are the common features from this group being used differently in these measures?
(A) Habitat?. TBD
(B) Prey?.. NO
(C) Predators?.. Yes
Horse behavior is best understood from the view that horses are prey animals with a well-developed fight-or-flight response. Their first reaction to a threat is often to flee, although sometimes they stand their ground and defend themselves or their offspring in cases where flight is untenable, such as when a foal would be threatened.[
“Tapirs are strong swimmers and may walk along the bottom of river beds to find food. They instinctively escape predation by moving into water and they are able to stay submerged in deep water long enough to make any predators clinging to their back let go.”
DISCUSSIONS
Hybridization and the fossil record show that the Equidae family are related to each other. More importantly, the ecology criteria suggests that the Horse, Tapir, and Rhino use the Odd-toe they possess differently to their habitats and predators. Horses use it to run from predators in open area terrain. Tapir use this feature to swim and avoid predators in the water. Rhinos use it to charge at predators.
CONCLUSION
We can conclude that Equidae is a legitimate basic type that shares a common design with the Tapir and Rhino.
I said for each basic type NOT a single one
Because it models after Von Neuman’s universal constructor theory, which possesses the same principles that would simulate natural selection. Natural selection produces nested hierarchies, which you assume to represent common descent.
Common descent predicts that the human capabilities came from animal-like ancestors.
Common design predicts that human capabilities came from only other humans or a common designer
“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.”
My response was that we can distinguish them because the intelligent design theory has several predictions that are separate and unique. One of those predictions was systemic convergence, which you acknowledged. Thus, you agree with me that Dan is mistaken here.
You are wrong about Todd Elder and I never said Mike and Fuz engaged in their own scientific research.
They do have models. They just have not been published in a scientific journal.
Its not about accepting, but it is about providing an argument that stands up to scrutiny, which you guys failed to do.
I think my newly constructed method and hypothesis addresses both your questions. If not, just tell me and I will answer it directly.
I never suggested that since it is obviously not realistic to obtain every single fossil. But, it does predict that we would find enough fossils that would confirm Darwin’s prediction:
“We do not find infinitely numerous fine transitional forms closely joining them all together.”
…you don’t really think this word salad is on par with an actual scientific study, do you? Also, your “Methods” section is really more of a “Results” section, so you must not be very familiar with how scientific articles work.
“Infinitely numerous transitional forms” does imply a complete fossil record, so you are asking the impossible, since the fossil record is not complete and no paleontologist or evolutionary biologist has ever claimed that it is. That’s a quotemine of Darwin, as he immediately afterward acknowledges this fact:
For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept and written in a changing dialect. Of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved, and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, more or less different in the successive chapters, may represent the forms of life, which are entombed in our consecutive formations, and which falsely appear to have been abruptly introduced. On this view the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished or even disappear.
Fortunately, since Darwin’s day we have actually found numerous intermediate forms linking virtually every major clade (both extant and extinct) of vertebrates, so we can say with confidence based on the fossil record that at least all vertebrates are related by common ancestry. However, we have not found “infinitely numerous” intermediate fossils because that’s impossible based on the state of the fossil record.
Not so fast. All you have done is add systemic convergence, which is also expected of (convergent) evolution, and so design remains indistinguishable from evolution. Adding Von Neiman machines (or other bells and whistles) is never going to solve the basic problem that you have no hypothesis for design to test, and I’m pretty sure **JH **agrees with me.
Baraminology has zero scientific credibility and Elder’s claims about it have zero scientific basis.
Balderdash!
The clear implication there is that it is Mike Gene and Fazale Rana’s “research” you are talking about.
Firstly, my main complaint was not that you called them “models”, but that you falsely claimed that they were “tested”.
But given that you are harping on about the issue, no they haven’t models, and you most certainly have not posted or cited such a model.
For the avoidance of doubt, this essay is not a model!
And it is unclear if you’ve even read Mike Gene’s book The Design Matrix.
Which means that, as far as science educators are concerned, their claims don’t exist.
@Meerkat_SK5 – you wouldn’t know “an argument that stands up to scrutiny” if it hit you over the head with a two by four. Evidence for this fact is that your own arguments are ubiquitously characterised by such words as “incoherent” and “gibberish”.
That science educators do not accept claims from outside the scientific consensus is not an argument, it is a FACT! Evidence of this fact is that you cannot find anything in a science textbook or curriculum that has not previously been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Nobody on these threads is even remotely interested in promoting your ‘Universal Common Designer Theory’ to science educators.
The most that they’re willing to do is attempt to educate you further on, and correct your misunderstandings about, Evolution, Biology and Science.
If you want your ‘Theory’ put in front of science educators, you will need to do that on your own. So it is entirely unclearwhat you expect to achieve on this forum with your further “incoherent”, “garbed” and most importantlyunavailing argumentation.
Further argumentation will not:
convince anybody here that your ‘Theory’ has merit;
convince anybody here that your ‘Theory’ is improving; or
convince anybody here to promote your ‘Theory’.
So promoting/rewording it further on this forumwill do you no good whatsoever.
Hi MK
I think you can conclude a commonly designed feature but a generic common design is a stretch. The three appear to have different cellular architectures based on chromosome counts.
Notice that the self-replicating machine you quote about below isn’t actually a machine but an imaginary, 2-dimensional system resembling Conway’s game of life. And it doesn’t produce a nested hierarchy.
Microtubules don’t produce those three things. Your reference mentions one of those things but the notion is entirely speculative and there is zero evidence for the idea.
Sorry, but that’s just insane. And it wouldn’t result in a nested hierarchy among basic types.
Yes. For one thing, slime molds do not become complex animals or any sort of animals at all. It may suggest, by analogy, how the evolution of multicellularity might have begun in various taxa. But that’s another thing entirely.
Yes, that’s what I asked. But that study has nothing to do with Equidae or with any animals or multicellular organisms at all.
It’s not just unreliable. It’s useless, as are all your other criteria.
No, your conclusion, as usual, doesn’t follow from your premise. Note also that every new transitional fossil fills what was previously a gap. If your notion were true, that would never happen.
So?
Of course there were. And note that your “basic type” isn’t perissodactyla; it’s Equidae, and presumably Rhinoceratidae and Tapiridae too. Probably various extinct perissodactyl groups too. And there are most certainly intermediates between these groups.
Once more, your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. Why do you bother?
I see that the meanings of individual words are on occasion beyond your grasp, much less clusters of words. I try to make allowances, but it’s often hard to figure out what you meant to say. I still don’t know what you meant to say in this case.
That was a fine bit of word salad. Universal constructor theory does not simulate natural selection. Natural selection does not produce nested hierarchies. Again, who can possibly know what you were trying to say?
What does “animal-like ancestors” mean? What does any of this mean?
I acknowledged no such prediction. I said something quite different, that from common design we might expect that re-used parts (including DNA sequences) should be identical in separate taxa. I also said that we don’t find that. But of course you don’t read.
