The Argument Clinic

I acknowledge that this is far from being a rigorous statistical method. However, I provide a cursory view of how to test for common design. In the future, experts in this field can and fill in the details and make scientifically appropriate improvements.

For now, I just need feedback on whether it is a sound and valid method to test for common design.

Common descent suggests complex ones emerged from other complex multicellular organisms. However, this apparently only applies to fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds and mammals, apes to humans. Is that correct?

If so, there is another prediction from the common design model that suggests those links are only apparent. The methods proposed by Baraminiologist have shown discontinuties between some of those groups, such as birds and reptiles. My ecology method should also be able to decipher whether your claims are true.

No, I am asking for enough intermediate fossils that show an aniimals evolving into completely different animal, such as reptiles to birds. This is not the same thing as asking for every single fossil that has fossilized because it is not necessary to find every fossil for a sequence. Again, just enough to support the extraordinary claim of transmutation.

Now, you are contradicting what @T_aquaticus has suggested:

"With evolution we only expect superficial similarities, and that is exactly what we see. For example, birds and bats both have wings, but the underlying skeletal structure of the wings are very different. Sharks and dolphins have superficially similar pectoral fins, but the underlying structure of the dolphin fin is much more like the human arm than it is the shark fin.

This shouldn’t be the case with convergence if it is supernaturally created. There is no reason to create only superficial resemblances when it is possible to make the entire feature identical. There is no reason to only change a little sequence here and there so tiny bits are similar. Instead, it is entirely possible to make whole genes the same sequence across distantly related species.

So the expectations are not the same, not by a million miles."

Did you know that Orch OR is an intelligent design hypothesis:

"On the biological side, Orch OR is fully consistent with known neuroscience, action of anesthetics and psychoactive drugs; generates testable predictions (some validated, none refuted); has medical and philosophical implications; provides mental states with causal power and intentional awareness; and surpasses other theories of consciousness in terms of evidence and testability. Similar to panpsychism, Orch OR implies that qualia, ie, feelings, preceded life. "

Ch20-9780124201903_aq 1…1 (galileocommission.org)

So since AFAIK no one has found unicorns, I can conclude that all those unicorns never even existed?

To answer your question though, Yes we can conclude this because we expect enough of those fossils to be there that would show a transition from one animal to another.

Pick one group you think is a basic type. How did it arise?

The Equidae family or basic type arose from within the earth, which was shaped by Orch-OR consciousness through microtubules

How do you know it’s a basic type?

Sudden appearance of the Equidae family (i.e. lack of precursor ancestor fossils)

Hybridization within Equidae were successful

A clear cut fossil lineage within the Equidae family

Ecology criteria shows common design features of Odd-toed group rather than common ancestor

Because the designer used common mechanisms, blueprint, and purposes, which naturally produce nested patterns.

"Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR ) is a theory which postulates that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons, rather than the conventional view that it is a product of connections between neurons. The mechanism is held to be a quantum process called objective reduction that is orchestrated by cellular structures called microtubules."

Orchestrated objective reduction - Wikipedia

“Geochemical and physical evidence suggests that a stepwise
increase in oxygen occurred around 1.1-0.54 billion years
(Ga) (1–5) and was a necessary precondition to support the
physiological needs of large metazoans”

Science Express Logo Report

Yes, this is what I meant .

AND you still have no test for distinguishing design from evolution. All you are doing is dancing around the problem without ever addressing it.

You ask for sincere criticism and you have gotten it, but you aren’t taking it seriously. If you ever attempt to publish, I promise you those reviewers will give you far less consideration than you receive here.

4 Likes

No, they don’t. You have shown no reason why they should. You can’t support any of your claims.

3 Likes

I don’t know what you’re trying to say about “complex ones” evolving from “complex multicellular organisms.” No, mammals did not evolve from reptiles, both reptiles and mammals evolved from basal amniotes. And although it’s technically true that birds evolved from reptiles and humans evolved from apes, birds are still reptiles, and humans are still apes.

The discontinuities of ‘baraminology’ are only apparent. As you zoom out, so to speak, and look at more and more organisms, ‘baraminology’ finds less and less discontinuities, as Phil Senter showed. The fact that ‘baraminology’ shows any discontinuities at all is an artifact of the incomplete fossil record, so this is just yet another fallacious argument from an incomplete fossil record.

Birds are reptiles, according to phylogenetics. But there are many transitional fossils between basal archosaurs and birds, which I think is what you are asking about.

Just to be clear, you believe that horses were created by consciousness from inside the Earth using microtubules? And you think that common ancestry is an “extraordinary claim” compared to that? This is pure nonsense.

Sounds like quantum woo. Besides, microtubules aren’t what you evidently think they are. They aren’t some mysterious force that ‘consciousness’ uses to create horses de novo, they are complexes of tubulin proteins that provide structural support to eukaryotic cells.

1 Like

If Meerkat ever tried to publish his idea that consciousness created horses using quantum microtubules inside the earth, he would get laughed out of the room before they finished reading his manuscrupt.

1 Like

Note: those microtubules were inside slime molds inside the earth. Horses (and everything else?) are descended directly from slime molds.

3 Likes

Not quite, it is a quantum machine or computer, but it is abstract not imaginary. More importantly, its a proven model for biological and artificial life:

“The fundamental details of the machine were published in von Neumann’s book Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata , completed in 1966 by Arthur W. Burks after von Neumann’s death.[2] While typically not as well known as von Neumann’s other work, it is regarded as foundational for automata theory, complex systems, and artificial life.[3][4] Indeed, Nobel Laureate Sydney Brenner considered Von Neumann’s work on self-reproducing automata (together with Turing’s work on computing machines) central to biological theory as well, allowing us to “discipline our thoughts about machines, both natural and artificial.”[5]

False on both claims. Take a look:

“Ironically, Dawkins lists the origin of sex as one of three remaining mysteries in evolution, along with consciousness, and differentiation, the mechanism by which “genes influence bodies.” All three mysteries can be explained through microtubules.

"…Tubulin proteins comprising microtubules (discussed later in Section: Microtubules and Sex in the Primordial Soup) each have eight tryptophan indole rings arrayed in a geometry strikingly similar to that in FMO photosynthesis proteins. Using molecular modeling, Craddock et al. (2014, 2015) showed FRET-like excitons passing through tubulin among eight tryptophan pi resonance clouds, driven by ambient energy, and blocked by anesthetics which bind naturally in nonpolar regions. …*Compelling evidence from anesthesia research directly links consciousness to this quantum underground.

Not true again. Microtubules operates the same way as cellular automata, which produces nested patterns:

“Descriptions of MTs as computer-like devices (Hameroff and Watt, 1982; Hameroff, 1987; Rasmussen et al., 1990) viewed individual tubulins as bit-like information units in Boolean switching matrices, or cellular (molecular) automata played on microtubule lattices. Simulation of tubulin dipoles interacting with neighbor dipoles and synchronized by Fröhlich coherence showed rapid information integration and learning (microtubule automata; Smith et al., 1984; Rasmussen et al., 1990; Fig. 20.10).”

I also want to clarify that I am not suggesting Equidae sprang fully formed like magic. I am suggesting they rapidly formed over millions of years by microtubules rather than natural selection. It is like someone who puts cookie dough in the oven and then it turns into hard cookies.

Yes, this is what I meant from the study.

I agree. Let me change it up.

If this is true, closely related families or basic types will reveal convergent evolution when their common features are applied to different situations.

Yes, that is what I was going to put: Equidae

That is not what this study suggests

"preliminary results from the analyses of two new equid datasets (Froelich 2002; Rose et al. 2014) indicated, in general, that equids shared continuity with one another (sometimes with other perissodactyls – especially non-equid equoids – as well) and displayed discontinuity with various perissodactyl and non-perissodactyl outgroups. These patterns were strongest in the Froelich (2002) dataset, especially when various subsets of the data were analyzed alone (equids vs. tapiromorphs only, equids vs. all other perissodactyls, and equids vs. non-perissodactyls). "

New Baraminological Methods Confirm Monobaraminic Status of the Horses (Perissodactyla: Equidae) and Preliminary Analyses of New Datasets Suggest the Possibility of Discontinuity between Horses and Various Outgroup Taxa (liberty.edu)

I agree, let’s change it again. We can conclude that Equidae is a legitimate basic type that shares a common design feature with the Tapir and Rhino based on these lines of evidence

Fossil discontinuities between Equidae and other Perissodactyls

Hybridization within Equidae were successful

A clear cut fossil lineage within the Equidae family

Ecology criteria shows common design features of Odd-toed group rather than common ancestor

@T_aquaticus and @misterme987 disagree with you:

"The key phrase here is “a complete self-replicating automaton”. That’s common ancestry. It is the process of replication that produces the nested hierarchy.

If the automatons were separately created then there is no reason why we should see a nested hierarchy."

“A simple search on Wikipedia shows that von Neumann’s universal constructor model is the same as common ancestry, just applied to mechanical rather than biological systems. The “universal constructor” isn’t a reference to some ‘universal common designer,’ it’s von Neumann’s name for the mechanical ‘universal common ancestor’ which self-replicates. So the fact that von Neumann’s model shows the same nested hierarchy pattern as biological lifeforms doesn’t help your case, it hurts it.”

@Mercer can you please tell me if you disagree with @John_Harshman as well or not?

Nope, wrong again:

“…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”

You acknowledged exceptions and I provided many examples of systemic convergence.

Sorry, I just meant animals.

Yeah and Todd Wood has refuted what Phil Senter has argued:
Using creation science to demonstrate evolution? Senter’s strategy revisited - WOOD - 2011 - Journal of Evolutionary Biology - Wiley Online Library

I think John clarified my point quite nicely.

Not quite accurate. Take a look:

"Interiors of all animal cells are organized and shaped by the cytoskeleton, a dynamic scaffolding of protein lattice polymers. These self-organizing structures include microtubules, microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), actin, and intermediate filaments, all anchored by the centriole, a pair of microtubule-based mega-cylinders in the cell center (centrosome), just outside the nucleus. Plant cells also have microtubules and centrioles, and prokaryotes and archaebacteria have similar, but slightly different protein structures. All living cells are organized by microtubules or closely related structures. "

I am taking it seriously. I just think we are talking pass each other on your point. I am asking you now to help me understand what you are trying to convey to me.

Did you read this part of what I said about how we can distinguish the two:

To be clear, confirmation for this model has been primarily based on the prediction entailed by the teleological hypothesis that life is ultimately rational; if life was designed, then there is a reason behind its architecture and composition.

In this case, since there must be teleological reasons the designer used these mechanisms for design, such as HGT and Cytosine deamination. Then, those reasons can be tested and if confirmed, it produces evidence for the theory as Fuz Rana and Mike Gene have argued [15][16].

Thus, this model can be used to make meaningful predictions that were not expected from Darwinian evolution (ex. Alleged design flaws found to be optimal)

If you did and still feel the same way, @John_Harshman would disagree with you on this point as well:

Non-frontloading is anything that isn’t frontloading. Frontloading supposes that the ancestors of some taxa were created with genes that would be useful to those taxa in the future, with the explicit intention of having them become useful. (Note that this requires common descent of such taxa, which you deny.) Note that this requires prior intention, which preadaptation and exaptation and cooption do not.

Yeah. Been there and done that. The reviewers said very similar things that you said. But, this was a long time ago and my paper was almost totally different. I am not seeing how your objection or the reviewers’ objections still hold to today with the current version of my article. BTW, If you want to see what those reviewers said for yourself, I can send it via private message. Maybe you can highlight what you feel is still unaddressed and then I can potentially understand your objection better. It is your call.

Are you still flogging this dead horse @Meerkat_SK5? I debunked it rather thoroughly over a month ago.

As far as I can ascertain nobody accepts this claim.

But then again, as far as I can ascertain, nobody accepts any of the other claims you insist on making – over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Your repeated argumentum ad nauseam is quite frankly making me thoroughly nauseous.

:face_vomiting:

One wonders why you bother.

Einstein is, apocryphally, attributed the following quote:

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Are you expecting repeating your claims again to yield a different result from their earlier repeated rejection? If so, then I’m forced to question your sanity.

1 Like

Let’s get one thing straight, if something I say ever seems to disagree with @John_Harshman about phylogenetics, take his word over mine. After all, he’s an actual phylogeneticist, and I’m certainly not.

1 Like

That says exactly what I said. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

There was no mention of nested patterns. How would cellular automata produce nested patterns/ How would microtubules do so?

Rapidly over millions of years? Uh, sure. But how would microtubules do this? Presumably they would have to cause changes in genomes. How do microtubules cause mutations?

So it has no relevance to what we’re supposedly discussing.

You contradict yourself once again. Different basic types are not supposed to be related. And your prediction is incoherent.

Is it too much to ask for you to say what you mean rather than its second cousin?

Have you actually looked at the data in that study?

Those discontinuities do not exist. The early members of all three living families were once placed in the single genus Hyracotherium.

Not relevant.

Not relevant.

So vague as to be uninformative. How do you distinguish common design features from synapomorphies?

I agree, but that’s not at all what you said before. Natural selection is not replication. Do you have no control over your sentences? And note that the universal constructor is not a cellular automaton.

No idea what you’re talking about there.

More likely that @Meerkat_SK5 has simply misunderstood one or both of us.

3 Likes

I do.

Perfectly accurate.

That passage does not support your claim in any way.

I specifically defined optimality as…

Optimality: a function or a sensible purpose for basic type of organisms, which involves the survival, reproduction or fit within an environment of those basic types.

In other words, If life was designed, then there is a teleological reason behind its architecture and composition for alleged design flaws.

I suspect those sources I provided due in fact show why many scientists would accept this claim.

So the empirical demonstration of common ancestry you made in a different topic was just plagiarized work?

No, I just chose the wrong quote to show why you and @Mercer and @John_Harshman are WRONG. Take another look:

"Microtubule information processing would push the AI/Singularity goal for brain equivalence in computers far into the future, and can account for memory. But increased capacity per se does not address the hard problem of consciousness, of subjective feelings, of qualia. The only specific scientific mechanisms for qualia, feelings, and subjective conscious experience which has ever been proposed is Penrose OR.

In the mid-1990s, Sir Roger Penrose and I began to suggest that microtubules could act as quantum computers whose superpositioned qubits would halt or terminate to classical states by quantum state reduction “collapse of the wave function,” according to Penrose OR. Such events would have cognitive representation and meaning by virtue of microtubule information processing, unify or bind precepts by entanglement, and have phenomenal experience, or qualia, at each moment of OR. Through information processing, memory, and natural resonances, brain microtubules would orchestrate OR events into full, rich conscious moments (Orch OR). Metaphorically, random, meaningless OR notes, sounds, and noise qualia become meaningful music. "[emphasis added]

From wikipedia:

"Von Neumann’s goal, as specified in his lectures at the University of Illinois in 1949,[2] was to design a machine whose complexity could grow automatically akin to biological organisms under natural selection. He asked what is the threshold of complexity that must be crossed for machines to be able to evolve and grow in complexity.[4][3] His “proof-of-principle” designs showed how it is logically possible. By using an architecture that separates a general purpose programmable (“universal”) constructor from a general purpose copier, he showed how the descriptions (tapes) of machines could accumulate mutations in self-replication and thus evolve more complex machines (the image below illustrates this possibility.).

This is a very important result, as prior to that, it might have been conjectured that there is a fundamental logical barrier to the existence of such machines; in which case, biological organisms, which do evolve and grow in complexity, could not be “machines”, as conventionally understood. Von Neumann’s insight was to think of life as a Turing Machine, which, is similarly defined by a state-determined machine “head” separated from a memory tape.[5]"

Microtubules by themselves do not cause mutations, but it is the mechanism in which consciousness uses to create physical effects and cause mutations (i.e. wave-function collapse)

No, it had relevance because…

slime mould is an informal name given to several kinds of unrelated eukaryotic organisms with a life cycle that includes a free-living single-celled stage and the formation of spores. Spores are often produced in macroscopic multicellular or multinucleate fruiting bodies which may be formed through aggregation or fusion.[1] Slime molds were formerly classified as fungi but are no longer considered part of that kingdom.[2]

In other words, multicellular slim molds are just parts God used to form basic types like a clay potter uses clumps of mud or sand to build castles or pots. But, if you still view that as common descent, then that’s fine. I think this is inaccurate because slim molds are polyphyletic just like viruses, which is why the common design better explains the origin of life and animals.

In that case, tell me which one sounds more coherent and consistent with the hypothesis:

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 common features and function among basic types will reveal common design when they are applied to different situations.

OR

If this is true, 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.

Yes. I have

The Hyracotherium does not show any signs of changing into another animal. Thus, there is no reason to claim it is an “ancestor” of a horse because there are no fossils of Hyracotherium that show the “in-between” stages from one animal to the next. Instead, they are fully formed.

No, it is relevant. If we found fossil discontinuities and unsuccessful hybridizations within Equidae, we would have to use the ecology criteria in that group as well .

By applying those common features to different situations

What you quote doesn’t say what you claimed and doesn’t support what you claimed. In other words, the usual result.

Are you familiar with the technical term “woo”?

When you say “in other words” and go on to say something that has no relation to the text you just quoted, you heavily abuse language. Note that direct descent of basic types from slime molds does not predict a nested hierarchy. And it predicts that phylogenetic analyses would show horses most closely related to some slime mold or other rather than to rhinoceroses and tapirs.

Neither is coherent at all. And since the hypothesis is itself incoherent, it’s impossible to say which incoherent statement is more consistent with it. Note that neither can be made to predict nested hierarchy among types.

Wait, you’re saying that Hyracotherium is not a genus of horse? Then what are the earliest actual horses? Now in fact horse evolution shows quite plentiful transitional fossils, from Hyracotherium through Equus. Whatever are you thinking here?

Do you understand that modern Equidae consists of Equus only? Fossil equids are much more variable, and include both three-toed and four-toed horses.

Yet another incoherent statement. Whatever can it mean?

1 Like

If you’re referring to the phylogenetic analysis I did in the “Common ancestry and nested hierarchy” thread, no, it wasn’t plagiarized. Non-phylogeneticists can obviously conduct phylogenetic analyses as well, using software like PhyML. And elsewhere I have been very careful to provide my sources. Be careful, plagiarism is a serious accusation.

Even if quantum physics had a significant effect on microtubules, it is not at all clear how this would produce consciousness, and you have not provided any evidence to that effect. You seem to be implying that the indeterminism of quantum physics would allow for libertarian free will, but this does not account for the problem of luck, which no libertarian has sufficiently answered so far. That’s off-topic, but it should at least help you to see how you still have a very long way to go to properly explain consciousness using this quantum woo.

Yet, even if you could explain consciousness using microtubules, this has literally nothing to do with common ancestry or the origin of equids. Perhaps consciousness is caused by quantum interactions with microtubules. What about this makes you think that equids could spring fully formed from the earth? This ‘universal common designer theory’ of yours is completely out of touch with reality.

So, microtubules are now involved in mutation as well? How could this be, given that microtubules are not involved in DNA replication at all?

If this were true, and all animals (or at least equids) were pieced together using different features of slime molds (which are amoebozoans), then all animals (or at least equids) would cluster within Amoebozoa phylogenetically rather than the separate clade Opisthokonta. We don’t see this, so your hypothesis is falsified. End of.

John’s point is that the early members of Equidae, Tapiridae, and Rhinocerotidae were so similar to one another that they were once classified as a single genus. Your hypothesis states that they have all been separate ‘basic types’ since the start, and so it predicts that the basal members of these families should be no more similar than extant members. Instead, they were much more similar to one another, so your hypothesis is falsified, again.

According to your fake system of classifying ‘basic types.’ John was simply pointing out that your criteria aren’t actually relevant to determining whether they are related or not.

1 Like
  1. You dump so much garbled incoherent blather on this forum, that you can hardly be surprised when we don’t keep track of it all.

  2. Your ‘definition’ is sufficiently idiosyncratic that I would expect nobody would accept it. It appears to be a better definition of mere “functionality” NOT “optimality”.

OED defines Optimality as “The state or quality of being optimal” with “optimal” defined as “best or most favourable”. This is what “optimality” is understood to mean within the scientific community.

I would suspect that not a single one of your sources supports anything you have to say.

You have failed to answer my question:

Nobody accepts your definition.

Nobody accepts your interpretation of your sources.

Nobody accepts your claims.

Nobody accepts your ‘Universal Common Designer’ theory.

Nobody has discerned any substantive improvement in your theory since you first posted it.

Nobody is interested in promoting your theory to a wider audience.

It is therefore wholly unclear to me what benefit you expect to garner from further promotion of your definitions, interpretations, claims and theory on this forum.

This thread on an author’s similarly-unsuccessful attempt to promote their grand claims about Design might prove instructive.

2 Likes

I would further point out that your idiosyncratic definition of “optimality” undercuts your claim that:

Inserting your idiosyncratic definition, this becomes:

ex. Alleged design flaws to have “a function or a sensible purpose”

The problem is that something can have actual design flaws and still have “a function or a sensible purpose” (just not the “best or most favourable” function or a sensible purpose).

This means that your claim does not disprove design flaws!

All you have done is indulge in a Fallacy of Equivocation.

2 Likes

That’s just rude.

[quote=“Meerkat_SK5, post:61, topic:15490”]

No, I just chose the wrong quote to show why you and @Mercer and @John_Harshman are WRONG. Take another look:

Baloney. Here’s just a few that analyze fear (a feeling) and don’t involve microtubules:

Please try to be less arrogant. You obviously are unwilling to look at relevant primary scientific literature before making grand claims.

1 Like

You specifically said…

I agree, but that’s not at all what you said before. Natural selection is not replication. Do you have no control over your sentences? And note that the universal constructor is not a cellular automaton.

The quote I gave specifically said…

“Von Neumann’s goal, as specified in his lectures at the University of Illinois in 1949,[2] was to design a machine whose complexity could grow automatically akin to biological organisms under natural selection.

Like I said before, Von Nueman’s universal constructor model is a simulation of natural selection. You acknowledged that natural selection produces nested patterns. The universal constructor model is no different than the common design model. Therefore, the common design model produces nested patterns. It is time to let it go John and just accept it.

Yes, what is your point?

Of course, it does because slim molds would possess microtubules and viruses, which both naturally produce nested patterns on their own right. This means that the common designer produces the same effects as common ancestors, such as similar morphology, moleculars, and nested patterns.

So when God used the slime mold to produce horses, rhinos, and tapirs, we would expect to see nested patterns between them as a result.

Do you agree with him @Mercer, @misterme987, @Dan_Eastwood ?

My mistake. I should have put “there is no reason to claim it is an ancestor of tapirs and Rhinos”.

Ok, but what is your point here?

Let me give you an example…

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 had 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.

This is what we would expect to find with many other common ancestry claims.

The question was framed that way as a refutation of your previous claim. There is no way you can make such a sophisticated analysis and not be an expert in phylogenetics. I think you are trying to downplay the disagreement between you and John.

Based on current science, it does not look like it’s that far away:

Undoubtedly, the Orch-OR theory co-established by theoretical physicist Penrose and neuroscientist Hameroff is currently the most convincing theory. Even more exciting, with the emergence of new drugs, new research methods, and new quantum technologies, this theory is constantly being enriched and perfected. Especially in the research of anesthesiology (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), mounting results and evidence indicated the Orch-OR theory could be self-explanatory and could be invoked to many different conscious backgrounds. More recently, Li et al . found that xenon’s (one kind of anesthetic) nuclear spin could impair its own anesthetic power, which involves a neural quantum process (105). Thus, the quantum theory of consciousness is increasingly gaining more supporters. With the dedication of these supporters, the quantum theory of consciousness will be gradually completed and will be able to explain the hard problem systematically and comprehensively.

I beg to differ. The Orch-OR theory and the common design theory involves a universal consciousness directly creating consciousness on earth. We have evidence for this:

"Tubulin proteins comprising microtubules (discussed later in Section: Microtubules and Sex in the Primordial Soup) each have eight tryptophan indole rings arrayed in a geometry strikingly similar to that in FMO photosynthesis proteins. Using molecular modeling, Craddock et al. (2014, 2015) showed FRET-like excitons passing through tubulin among eight tryptophan pi resonance clouds, driven by ambient energy, and blocked by anesthetics which bind naturally in nonpolar regions. …*Compelling evidence from anesthesia research directly links consciousness to this quantum underground.

The universal consciouness is what causes mutations via proton tunneling.

I fail to see how this would be the case, especially when slim molds are polyphyly. What do different features of slim molds even mean?

Remember, slim molds possess microtubules and viruses, which both naturally produce nested patterns on their own right. This means that the common designer produces the same effects as common ancestors, such as similar morphology, moleculars, and nested patterns.

So when God used the slime mold to produce horses, rhinos, and tapirs, we would expect to see the same nested patterns between them that we see today because slim molds are just the representation of the common ancestor.

I beg to differ. Hybridization is the best way to determine common ancestry according to the common design model. This is largely based on the observations that compatibility diminishes over time in related species due to [genetic drift]. The Bible states that God created organisms with seed in it, according to their various kinds . Therefore, the ability of genetically dissimilar species to mate successfully would seem to indicate that they are related.

As Microbiologist and creationist Siegfried Scherer has stated:

" if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same “basic type”. Thus all members of a ring species would be members of the same kind. Scherer also updated Marsh’s explanation of true fertilization:"

“ Two individuals belong to the same basic type if embryogenesis of a hybrid continues beyond the maternal phase, including subsequent co-ordinated expression of both maternal and paternal morphogenetic genes."

I agree. In order to demonstrate intelligent design, we have to find a functional role for a particular feature of an organism. Then, there must be a reason behind why it is designed that way related to survival, reproduction and adaptation.

It was a question attempting to refute a prior claim not an insult. Relax.

I did not make the claim. It was a quote from their article, which was peer-reviewed. So I don’t get your objection.

Maybe expert compared to you. But I’m an undergraduate student, not a professional phylogeneticist like John Harshman. I’m still not sure what you’re even saying that I disagree with John about. But if something I wrote does disagree with what John says, take his word over mine. You can’t say I’m disagreeing with him when I’m literally telling you to listen to him.

What does this have to do with your claim that consciousness causes quantum tunneling within microtubules inside the earth to create horses? …also, do you not realize how out of touch with reality that sounds?

Again, microtubules are not involved in DNA replication, so although proton tunneling may be involved in DNA mutation, neither microtubules nor ‘quantum consciousness’ could cause it.

Since you like to quote Wikipedia so much, let’s see what it says about slime molds.

In more strict terms, slime molds comprise the mycetozoan group of the amoebozoa. Mycetozoa include the following three groups:

Even at this level of classification there are conflicts to be resolved. Recent molecular evidence shows that, while the first two groups are likely to be monophyletic, the protosteloids are likely to be polyphyletic. For this reason, scientists are currently trying to understand the relationships among these three groups.

So, slime molds may be polyphyletic, but this is irrelevant to what I said, since they are indeed all part of the clade Amoebozoa. Now, this is what you claimed:

If God used slime mold as a ‘template’ of sorts for all animals (or at least equids), mixing and matching genetic features, as you seem to suggest, then all animals (or at least equids) would cluster with slime molds phylogenetically. However, animals are not part of the clade Amoebozoa, but its sister group Opisthokonta. Therefore, animals were not made using slime mold as a template.

Where did you get this strange idea that animals were made using slime mold as a template, anyway?

No, microtubules and viruses do not “both naturally produce nested patterns [i]n their own right.” You haven’t provided any evidence for this, and you don’t even have a mechanism for this, other than handwaving and saying “quantum consciousness did it.”

This is precisely what I was just saying. If slime molds were really “the representation of the common ancestor” as a template for all animals, then animals would cluster within slime molds (in the clade Amoebozoa). They don’t. So your hypothesis is wrong.

So, you deny that organisms can share common ancestry and yet be unable to interbreed? This seems to be what you are claiming, since you say that hybrizidation is “the best way to determine common ancestry.” But this flies in the face of many, many observed speciation events.

1 Like