No on all those claims. The universal constructor module isn’t a simulation of anything, and certainly not natural selection. I never said that natural selection produces nested patterns, because it doesn’t. The universal constructor model is nothing like common design. Since all your premises are false, your conclusion is not supported. And nothing you have quoted in support of your claim has anything to do with that claim; at the most it features some of the same words. Your inability to read sentences or construct a coherent one is a big problem.
That should be obvious. What you said is woo.
There is no reason to suppose that either would produce a nested pattern. To my knowledge, you have never produced a conclusion that actually follows from its premises, and few of your premises are true. This reduces the value of your arguments.
But there are plentiful transitional fossils connecting tapirs and rhinos to fossils that were formerly collected under Hyracotherium. Why?
My point is that what you said about Hyracotherium was wrong, as you have since acknowledged. But you still don’t understand just how wrong it is.
Please stop repeating the same canned, irrelevant quotes over and over. This is Einstein’s definition of insanity.
I disagree. A “functional role” that is “related to survival, reproduction and adaptation” could be easily attributed to Natural Selection.
This does not demonstrate Intelligent Design.
This is particularly true where different lineages exhibit different-but-equivalent features (e.g. vertebrate eye versus invertebrate eye), even when inhabiting the same or very similar niches. This strongly indicates that the difference is caused by descent with modification (i.e. evolution) and the nested hierarchy that this enforces (I would note that, in spite of numerous attempts, you have still failed to come up with a coherent argument for why design would enforce a nested hierarchy – a point that @John_Harshman has made to you on numerous occasions).
@Meerkat_SK5, if you’re wondering what fossils he is referring to, see here:
The point is that your criterion of fossil continuity, which you used to identify Equidae as a single ‘basic type,’ can also be used to identify all perissodactyls as a single ‘basic type’ since they display fossil continuity as well.
The internal structure of microtubule protein subunits (tubulin) appears analogous to the quantum underground of pi resonance chromophores in plant photosynthesis. Computer models of tubulin structure show pi electron resonance clouds in aromatic amino acid rings of tryptophan, phenylalanine, and tyrosine in clusters and channels (Craddock et al., 2012a). Thus pi resonance regions in both photosynthesis proteins and tubulin in microtubules are buried and arrayed in a (dry) nonpolar solubility region shielded from (wet) polar interactions in the quantum underground.
This particular solubility region is precisely where anesthetic gas molecules bind and selectively erase consciousness (the MeyereOverton correlationdsee below), and seems to be the origin of consciousness. Recent studies suggest anesthetics act by dampening terahertz (1012 Hz) quantum dipole oscillations in microtubule interiors (Craddock et al., 2015), these rapid oscillations being the inner apex of a spatiotemporal hierarchy leading to electroencephalography (EEG; see Fig. 20.15).
According to Orch OR, quantum states and dipole oscillations in pi resonance clouds in a Meyer-Overton quantum underground within neuronal microtubules are orchestrated by synaptic inputs, memory, and vibrational resonance. This enables superpositions to avoid random, noncognitive interactions, and solely process purposeful and meaningful information.
Thus when the EG ¼ h/t threshold is met in orchestrated conditions, fully conscious Orch OR moments are said to occur, resonating with deeper level Platonic values in spacetime geometry. In pursuit of good feelings, Orch OR connects consciousness to the fine-scale structure of the universe. Over appropriate time scales, Orch OR events optimize pleasurable qualia.
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.
Well, it depends on what you consider to be reality. For instance,
Realism (or philosophical naturalism) is the view point that external things are real and exist independently of mind in the form of either materialism or idealism. [Methodological] Naturalism is the viewpoint that only natural laws and forces govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws in the form of either materialism or idealism.
Materialism is the viewpoint that material things shape our ideas and ideologies. In contrast, idealism states that ideas come first and then changes in material things are consciously pursued in accordance with those ideas.
Substance dualism is the view that material things and ideas are both fundamental substances of existence (I.e. supernatural vs natural). Furthermore, this viewpoint states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot. Where the immortal souls occupy an independent realm of existence distinct from that of the physical world.
I am guessing you are presupposing materialism, correct?
What makes you say that?
What does “cluster with slime molds phylogenetically” mean? Can you provide an example or picture?
This is one place where I got it::
“We conclude that the extent to which multicellularity is achieved using the same toolkits and modules (and thus the extent to which multicellularity is homologous among different organisms) differs among clades and even among some closely related lineages.” [emphasis added]
HGT/viruses (and it does not matter for the model if this only applies to family level):
“ We have shown three lines of evidence for preferential gene transfer having the potential to create phylogenetic patterns comparable with those generated by shared ancestry. These transfers are characterized by the preference of taxa to exchange genes with partners more similar to themselves rather than rare HGTs that may occur randomly and indiscriminately.”
Microtubules operates the same way as cellular automata:
“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 consciousness operating on microtubules rather than natural selection operating on random mutations. It is like someone who puts cookie dough in the oven and then it turns into hard cookies.
Actually, God could have used many types of multicellular organisms. Slim molds would just be one example.
The original template just could not have been multicellular animals.
No, I deny universal common ancestry, remember. My point was that phylogenetics do NOT show common ancestry, because it can be explained by common design as well. For this reason, we use the hybridization method for showing common ancestry between animal and plant organisms.
So you change your mind again and disagree with @T_aquaticus and @Mercer on this point?
Oh please, John. Are you this bias? Why would so many prominent scientific journals publish Stuart Hammeroff and Roger Penrose’s Orch-OR theory if it was psuedoscientific quantum woo?
HGT/viruses (and it does not matter for the model if it only applies to family level):
“ We have shown three lines of evidence for preferential gene transfer having the potential to create phylogenetic patterns comparable with those generated by shared ancestry. These transfers are characterized by the preference of taxa to exchange genes with partners more similar to themselves rather than rare HGTs that may occur randomly and indiscriminately.”
Microtubules operates the same way as cellular automata:
“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).”
[(PDF) Morphozoic, Cellular Automata with Nested Neighborhoods as a Metamorphic Representation of Morphogenesis (researchgate.net)]
"Overall, results from the current study confirmed those from earlier studies that showed all horses belong to a single created kind. Most excitingly, preliminary results were done and found evidence that horses were for the most part sufficiently different from other hoofed mammals to belong to their own created kind unto themselves. " by Tim Brophy
So you deny the panda study’s conclusions?
Yes, I agree. Natural selection is the designer but it is not considered intelligent. Again, I know it is not enough to show a functional role or efficient cause to show intelligent design. To demonstrate INTELLIGENT design, we have to show that it is designed first (I.e. functional) AND THEN demonstrate a reason behind why it is designed that way related to survival, reproduction and adaptation. Natural selection does not have a teleological reason for why the organism is designed that way just a reason for HOW.
No, my criterion is the ecology method. It was the same method that was used to show how the red and giant panda are examples of convergent evolution.
I am relaxed. It was obvious that Andrew had done that himself. It demonstrates contempt or an inability to comprehend clearly written English. These are not mutually exclusive.
Really? Was it? How would you possibly know?
Why do you think I explicitly specified primary scientific literature? Do you have any idea what “primary” means in this context?
Bill Cole “logic”: These organisms have differences, so evolution as a theory of change that entails differences, doesn’t explain their differences.
Bile Cole “logic”: These two organisms can’t have genetically and genealogically descended and changed from a common ancestor long ago, because they are reproductively incompatible in their present form.
If animals came from slime molds, then they would be in the same place on the tree as slime molds. Evidently, they are not.
I still don’t know where you got this idea. That quote doesn’t help.
So, if we put slime molds inside the earth and wait a few million years, new animals should gradually form? Why don’t we see this happening now?
What I’m saying is that the only way the hybridization criterion could be accurate at all is if organisms cannot naturally become reproductively isolated from one another. Observed speciation events show that this is not the case.
This is what comes from looking purely at number without any thought to homology. Or any thought at all, really. Are you not the least ashamed?
This would seem to be a callback to the “Howe diagram”, which has been explained to you many, many times. Will you ever notice?
Not a one of these is a real problem. Two of them aren’t even related to nested hierarchy at all. When buzzwords substitute for argument, you know (you should know) that you have nothing.
What order? Potatoes and chimps on the same day? Are you now going full-out YEC?
Genesis claims that plants were created on day three and land animals on day six. It may be Bill’s tongue-in-cheek attempt at humor saying that chimps evolved from potatoes, since Genesis says plants came before land animals.
Those are all based on assumptions that have no support in any empirical evidence from real biology.
Well if one is blind and/or have cognitive problems then I’m sure that’s what it looks like to you. But up above there’s some more detailed data that goes way beyond there mere number of chromosomes.
Even better, the potato variety Bill is talking about is tetrapoloid, and the actual diploid chromosome number for potatoes is 2n = 24. He can’t even do silly jokes competently. If he wants a ridiculous species with 2n = 48, try a hedgehog. For 2n = 46, I suggest a nilgai. Of course what this shows is that chromosome number is not a character well suited to phylogenetics; neither is hair color or first initial.
If it were overrated, we would not have made so many discoveries from re-examining alleged design flaws, vestigials, and evil designs. So I beg to differ.
They are arguing for a new kind of physics altogether that violate quantum mechanics. More importantly, they are also arguing for a non-contingent consciousness that directly created finite conscious agents rather than indirectly from an evolutionary process:
"The choice of classical states in OR events are influenced by (resonate with) what Penrose termed Platonic values embedded in the fine scale structure of the universe. The qualitative feeling of each quale, ie, good, bad, or otherwise, would depend on resonance and geometry of specific spacetime separations with deeper, Platonic levels of the universe. Most significantly, unlike the Copenhagen interpretation in which consciousness causes collapse, Penrose OR proposes that collapse causes consciousness (or that collapse is consciousness) "
“Mainstream science and philosophy assume that consciousness emerged at some point in the course of evolution, possibly fairly recently, with the advent of the brain and nervous systems. But Eastern spiritual traditions, panpsychism, and the Objective Reduction theory of Roger Penrose suggest that consciousness preceded life.” [Emphasis added]
I think the confusion here is that this proto-consciousness that Penrose describes as preceding life is NOT the same thing as our actual consciousness:
“Our criterion for proto -consciousness is OR . It would be unreasonable to refer to OR as the criterion for actual consciousness, because, according to the DP scheme, OR processes would be taking place all the time, and would be providing the effective randomness that is characteristic of quantum measurement. Quantum superpositions will continually be reaching the DP threshold for OR in non-biological settings as well as in biological ones, and usually take place in the purely random environment of a quantum system under measurement.”
Yes, I know but what does this have to do with me not actually making the claim?
This is false based on the paper:
*"Within cell cytoplasm, centrioles and microtubules fostered mitosis, gene mixing, mutations (influenced by Penrose ORemediated Platonic influences in DNA pi stacks) and evolution, all in pursuit of more and more pleasurable qualia. Cells began to communicate, compete and/or cooperate, guided by feedback toward feeling good. Cells joined through adhesion molecules and gap junctions, resulting in multicellular organisms. *
*"Within cell cytoplasm, centrioles and microtubules fostered mitosis, gene mixing, mutations (influenced by Penrose OR mediated Platonic influences in DNA pi stacks) and evolution, all in pursuit of more and more pleasurable qualia. Cells began to communicate, compete and/or cooperate, guided by feedback toward feeling good. Cells joined through adhesion molecules and gap junctions, resulting in multicellular organisms. *
*Specialization occurred through differentiation via gene expression through cytoskeletal proteins. In some types of cells, the cytoskeleton became asymmetric and elongated, taking on signaling and management roles as axonemes and neurons. *
*Neurons and other cells fused by gap junctions, and chemical signaling ensued at synapses between axons, and dendrites and soma within which microtubules became uniquely arranged in mixed polarity networks, optimal for integration, recurrent information processing, interference beats, and orchestration of OR-mediated feelings. Neurons formed networks, EG grew larger, t grew shorter and conscious experiences became more and more intense. *
At EG of roughly 1011 tubulins in w300 neurons or axonemes in simple worms and urchins, t became brief enough to avoid random interactions, prompting, perhaps, the Cambrian evolutionary explosion (Hameroff, 1998). The brain evolved in pursuit of pleasure, and in the musical metaphor, the band began to play. " [emphasis added]
Again, slim molds would just be one example.of primitive multicellullar organisms.
God could have used many types of primitive multicellular organisms.
The original template just could not have been multicellular animals.
No, this would not happen because it requires a special creative power that only God can achieve. which is why we don’t see it happening today.
I acknowledge that it has its limitations just like any method, but this is why there is no one single approach for determining basic types.
How so? What makes you say that? Elaborate please.
Then, tell us which prediction from this list is false as well:
We should find a ubiquitous number of functional, structural, and mechanistic convergent examples
We should find more examples of systemic convergence
We should determine that most junk DNA are functional
We should find more teleological reasons for alleged design flaws, evil designs and vestigials in nature
We will find remnants or “fossils” of such front-loading among protozoa. Specifically, we will find information necessary for multicellular life but not for single-cell existence, which is present **in many single-cell organisms.
As it seems always happens with your claims (and as @John_Harshman has pointed out on numerous occasions), your “then” statement does not follow from you “if” statement. It is a non sequitor.
NOTHING in that quote is claiming that “a universal consciousness directly creating consciousness on earth”, or anything even vaguely resembling that claim!
NOTHING in this quote supports your claim either. “Eastern spiritual traditions, panpsychism” in no way resemble the Creator Deity of (Western/Middle Eastern) Abrahamic Religions.
A “proto -consciousness” is likewise not the Creator Deity of (Western/Middle Eastern) Abrahamic Religions.
I say again:
Orch-OR theory says NOTHING about “a universal consciousness directly creating consciousness on earth.”
And NOTHING you have stated has come even close to suggesting otherwise.
You spout gibberish about “a new kind of physics altogether”, but every time you post you demonstrate that you have no understanding of physics whatsoever.
