The journal of Cosmology? Sounds like an impressive reference. However:
“JOC is an astrology & spirituality website. The purpose of JOC is increasing positive uses of the arts/media by religious and community groups. We are devoted to becoming the best resource on spirituality, astrology and numerology online. This website was founded by a close group of friends devoted to creating a better resource on cosmology than anything that exists on the web so far.”
So not that impressive after all.
This is suspicious too:
Article Processing Fee: The Journal of Cosmology is a Peer Reviewed Open Access journal and requires the payment of a $35.00 Article Processing Fee to cover costs for processing and managing the peer review process. Manuscripts will not be processed until all Processing Fees have been paid.
All articles are peer reviewed. This $35.00 fee is not refundable if the article is rejected.
Article Publication Fee: $150.00 Publication Charge, which must be paid by the submitting author following the acceptance of the article for publication.
Accepted articles will not be published until the publication fee is received.
Looks like a vanity publisher. But at least this time @Meerkat isn’t misrepresenting his sources.
Well, then, the paper is wrong. I don’t know what else to say. Microtubules just aren’t involved in DNA replication.
That seems like nonsense. What is this paper?
Well, then, animals would be found on that part of the tree instead. They’re not, they form their own clade. So the original template for all extant animal ‘basic types’ must have been “multicellular animals.”
That doesn’t say that animals came from slime molds…
That is one of the most extreme examples of special pleading I have ever seen. “Why did it happen then?” “Because God wanted it to.” “Why isn’t it happening now?” “Because God doesn’t want it to.”
I would argue that there is no approach at all for determining ‘basic types,’ at least not one that you have advanced so far, since all of yours are deeply flawed.
Edit: After further research, it looks like this ‘Orch OR’ model was falsified in 2007. I don’t know why anyone is taking it seriously. Although I’m not sure anyone but Meerkat is taking it seriously.
Oh, my bad. I thought you wanted me to just provide support for a universal consciousness directly creating consciousness regardless of where it took place or who did it.
Where or who did it is actually my model and claim from the universal common designer theory. I mentioned this before.
The updated version of previous models are:
Around 3.8 billion years, billions of viroids, which contained all the required genes to make certain evolutionary trajectories more likely [11], were created within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the earth.
Through group selection, the groups of viroids evolved into different species of unicellular organisms [11], undergoing an extensive amount of HGT leading up to multicellular organisms [12].
I don’t know how to elucidate the predictions from this model, but it has definitely been shown to be testable and falsifiable.
Are you suggesting that most of them are not falsifiable? If so, you do make a good point. I totally forgot about this standard in science. With that said, what you are claiming could only be true for the first two predictions.
The other two have been shown to be falsifiable by multiple scientists. let’s define what a falsifiable prediction means before we go further:
A falsifiable prediction is one where (a) the system being predicted can be observed and (b) the prediction can unambiguously declared not to match the observed state or behavior of the system. How does science define a falsifiable prediction? - Quora
We should NOT find design flaws in nature related to survival, reproduction, and adaptation
In animals, injury can lead to long-lasting distress, whereby frequent exposure to pain-producing stimuli causes a progressively amplified response well after the injury has healed. This phenomenon has been referred to as “nociceptive sensitization.” Biomedical researchers have long viewed nociceptive sensitization as maladaptive because, in humans, it is associated with anxiety (Crook et al., 2014). [just ask for reference]
Furthermore, In his review of Dawkins most recent book,[ Jerry Coyne writes]:
"Even more evidence for evolution comes from the “bad designs” of animals and plants, which, Dawkins observes, look nothing like de novo creations of an efficient celestial engineer. His favorite example–and mine–is the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which runs from the brain to the larynx. In mammals it doesn’t take the direct route (a matter of a few inches) but makes a curiously long detour, running from the head to the heart, looping around the aorta and then doubling back up to the neck. In the giraffe, this detour involves traversing that enormous neck twice–adding about fifteen feet of superfluous nerve. Anyone who’s dissected an animal in biology class will surely agree with Dawkins’s conclusion: “the overwhelming impression you get from surveying any part of the innards of a large animal is that it is a mess! Not only would a designer never have made a mistake like that nervous detour; a decent designer would never have perpetuated anything of the shambles that is the criss-crossing maze of arteries, veins, nerves, intestines, wads of fat and muscle, mesenteries and more.”
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.
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.
He goes on to say…
Well, then, animals would be found on that part of the tree instead. They’re not, they form their own clade. So the original template for all extant animal ‘basic types’ must have been “multicellular animals.”
As you can see, you are wrong about both those predictions. Here are few other predictions to evaluate for me please:
The same traits evolved separately in nested but unrelated groups of families in response to similar needs.
The cosmological constant did not vary in space and time.
We should NOT find examples of animal behavior displaying forms of human exceptionalism, 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 mammals, Birds, and small lizards
Likewise, your claim is nowhere near being true. Of course, you will fudge the definition of “functional” to only mean one thing in order to argue otherwise.
Yes, I do . I just don’t get your point, unfortunately.
How can you say that when it was peer-reviewed by 4 different experts?
Again, How so? What makes you say that? Elaborate please
I am still waiting for you to explain how this claim is true. Or did you change your mind?
It is not that. Only key events in life’s evolution were significantly helped by this “directed evolution.” according to the model. Such a dynamic may have been crucial to some early events in evolution yet given these states may have dissipated. In other words, the proximal design objectives were reached. No need to go any further with those particular designs.
This simply cannot be the case based on “Molecular analyses indicating that each of the major multicellular clades contains a characteristic set of developmental “toolkit”
genes, some of which are shared among disparate lineages”.
As further pointed out by Stuart Newman…
“Considering the shared and specific interaction toolkits of the various clades in relation to the physical forces and effects they mobilize helps explain how phyletically different organisms use genetically homologous components to construct phenotypically dissimilar but functionally similar (analogous) structures often without common ancestors exhibiting the character”.
How so? You have not explained how they are deeply flawed. Let me show you how the ecology method works again:
According to observations, “Molecular analyses indicate that each of the major multicellular clades contains a characteristic set of developmental “toolkit” genes, some of which are shared among disparate lineages “[17]
We can infer that the same multicellular toolkit and modules were used to design different basic types to survive, reproduce, and fill environments of the globe.
Null hypothesis: Universal fish common ancestor
Prediction
The same traits evolved separately in nested but unrelated groups of families in response to similar needs.
Methods
We can test this by first showing how shared traits, such as vestigial, have functional utility. Then, we apply those shared traits between nested groups to different environmental niches just like we did with the red and giant panda.
Now, tell me… What exactly is flawed about the same method that was used to show the convergent evolution of the red and giant panda?
I beg to differ. Take a look:
“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. As the enigmatic riddle of consciousness has remained intractable, we need more theories and hypotheses to attract enough attention and maintain lively debate. This conflict is the only way for human beings to explore the truth. Since there is no conclusive scientific mechanism of consciousness, as one of the most systemic and convincing theories among various theories of consciousness, the Orch-OR theory deserves our deeper understanding and study.”
My point was that neither “Eastern spiritual traditions, panpsychism, [nor] Objective Reduction theory” entail a consciousness that goes around creating conscious life. They all involve a diffuse, bottom-up view of consciousness. Fiat creation is rather the Western/Middle-Eastern Abrahamic view. You are conflating the Western and Eastern views of the divine.
Therefore you cannot get from
But Eastern spiritual traditions, panpsychism, and the Objective Reduction theory of Roger Penrose suggest that consciousness preceded life.
… to “a universal consciousness directly creating consciousness on earth” because the former makes no mention of creation nor does it entail creation.
So the latter statement STILL has no basis in ORCH-OR.
You cannot even demonstrate a basis for your claims in even the fringe (and apparently disproven) claims of ORCH-OR. Lacking any empirical/scientific basis, your model/theory is of no interest to me.
How so? How much of junk DNA has been found to have a function? Being transcribed is not a function.
We can’t have a rational discussion if terms have more than one meaning. As a biologist, a stretch of DNA is functional if deleting it changes the phenotype of the organism. It’s pretty simple.
I don’t think you understand what “primary literature” means.
“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.”
… While mainstream theories assert that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebralneurons increases,[4][5] Orch OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computablequantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on cellular microtubules, a process significantly amplified in the neurons."
As you can see, conscioussness is directly created by another consciousness. It does NOT, emerge from bottom-up processes.
“According to Orch OR , the (objective) reduction is not the entirely random process of standard theory, but acts according to some non-computational new physics (see Penrose 1989, 1994).”[emphasis added]
Are you saying that transcription binding is not necessary for gene regulation?
If you are, then that simply isn’t correct as has been pointed out by many scientists to this day, such as Mattick and Dinger:
“Assertions that the observed transcription represents random noise…is more opinion than fact and difficult to reconcile with the exquisite precision of differential cell- and tissue-specific transcription in human cells.”
Here is what they were talking about:
“Most data acquisition in the project thus far has taken the biochemical approach, using evidence of cellular or enzymatic processes acting on a DNA segment to help predict different classes of functional elements. The recently completed phase of ENCODE applied a wide range of biochemical assays at a genome-wide scale to study multiple human cell types”
As suggested, they were able to find function based on that definition. Case closed!!!
Again, this approach is consistent with how scientists operate routinely where they perform experiments to determine cause-and-effect relationships. As Fuz Rana suggested:
“In science, cause-and-effect relationships (which include biological and biochemical function) need to be established experimentally and observationally independent of any particular theory . Once these relationships are determined, they are then used to evaluate the theories at hand. Do the theories predict (or at least accommodate) the established cause-and-effect relationships, or not?”
I have already explained how and why this is important when it comes to confirming Fuz’s model and Owen’s theory.
BTW, here are a few other predictions to evaluate:
The same traits evolved separately in nested but unrelated groups of families in response to similar needs.
The cosmological constant did not vary in space and time.
Can you please tell me whether these predictions are falsifiable as well?
your citations pervasivelyfail to support the conclusions you seek to draw from them; and
your syllogisms pervasivelyfail to support the conclusions you seek to draw from them.
This leads me to conclude that your ‘theory’ is nothing but a series of non sequitors, lacking any logical or scientific merit.
The best I can suggest is that you try to convince Hameroff, Penrose, Deepak Chopra, or some other purveyor of fringe pseudoscientific woo, to promote your claims. It is possible that they won’t be put put off by the fact that your theory is incoherent gibberish – as their standards on coherence are considerably lower than that of the scientific community.
I’m saying that “transcription binding” is gibberish. If you mean “transcription FACTOR binding,” it is necessary for regulation, but binding alone does not constitute function.
You’ve really got things backwards.
Baloney. You never cite any data. You only quote words that you think support your position.
He’s not a scientist. What you quoted is gibberish.
“…MTs are prime candidates for the quantum reduction events that generate protoconsciousness and which lead to the firing of brain neurons and axons that underpin episodes of consciousness. The recent discovery40 of quantum vibrations in MTs within brain neurons is considered to corroborate the theoretical expectation that MTs participate in consciousness by means of quantum reduction…”
"…MTs are held to be the sites where quantum state reduction (R) events take place which collapse to ‘objective reduction’ (OR) events in accordance with the Diósi-Penrose proposal in which quantised gravity plays a critical role.1,21 As mentioned, each OR event introduces to the brain a moment of protoconscious experience."
"The advantage of this less conventional, but nevertheless supportive viewpoint is that consciousness can hereby be considered not only from a top-down (holistic) perspective, starting from the correlates of higher states of consciousness, but can also be linked with the more everyday, but nevertheless fundamental observations of this state. This means that the question of consciousness need not rely entirely on the bottom-up (reductionist) perspective, centered on sensory stimuli and response mechanisms, such as espoused by Crick and Koch,22but can also espouse more spiritual aspects of the question." [emphasis added]
Well, it does if there are going to be consequences. For instance, biochemical activity costs energy and random interactions among genome components would be very harmful to the organism.
Alight, let me cite that data then.
Professor Alistair Forrest of the Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research and his research team have found many more examples of function in the non-coding regions:
“There is strong debate in the scientific community on whether the thousands of long non-coding RNAs generated from our genomes are functional or simply byproducts of a noisy transcriptional machinery… we find compelling evidence that the majority of these long non-coding RNAs appear to be functional, and for nearly 2,000 of them we reveal their potential involvement in diseases and other genetic traits.”
Oh Yes he is. In fact, he is more qualified than YOU to speak on such matters because he is a biochemist. Take a look: Fazale “Fuz” Rana - Reasons to Believe
He does not even do that. He merely copies parrot-style a quote mine from Fazala Razaan apologist with absolutely NO expertise in this field!
I would further note that this same quote-mine has been employed by Casey Luskin, another apologist with absolutely NO expertise in this field on a couple of occasions: [1][2].
@Meerkat_SK5: this quote-mine does not constitute evidence of anything whatsoever. “Case closed.”
Given that your new quote LIKEWISE "neither states nor implies that ORCH-OR involves ‘a universal consciousness directly creating consciousness on earth’”, let’s NOT!
Likewise this quote does not contradict the fact that “Eastern spiritual traditions” (e.g. the pantheism of Taoism), panpsychism (under which everything in the universe has a low level of consciousness) and ORCH-OR (in which low-level “proto-consciousness” precedes conscious life), all of which involve a decentralised consciousness and/or divinity, that is at severe variance to “a universal consciousness directly creating consciousness on earth” that bears remarkable resemblance to the Creator God of Abrahamic traditions.
These two further epic fails lead me to ask what part of:
An Intelligent Designer would prevent that, in reality, such energy costs are widespread and immensely greater in other systems, such as your nervous system.
Not if they don’t change function. Are you unaware that transcription factor function is extremely combinatorial?
We were arguing about junk, not noncoding, DNA. The former is a subset of the latter. Why are you falsely conflating them?
Many lncRNAs are functional, but the genes that encode them are a tiny fraction of the genome. The genome is still mostly nonfunctional junk.
Do you have any idea how many fallacies of equivocation you are committing here?
Show me some science that he has performed and published then.
I’m not seeing your point. How did you assess my qualifications as a scientist? As a biochemist?
I don’t see anything there that supports your claim. Have you looked at my publications to compare?
Fuz earned a BS in chemistry with highest honors (West Virginia State College) and a PhD in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry (Ohio University) and completed postdoctoral work at the Universities of Virginia and Georgia. [my emphasis]
I would suggest that we’d need to assess how strong an “emphasis in biochemistry” it was, and if any of the “postdoctoral work at the Universities of Virginia and Georgia” (although that was apparently “in the biophysics of cell membranes” not biochemistry), or anything he’s published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature since then, was in the field of biochemistry, before assessing if there’s any validity to calling him a “biochemist” (as opposed to a “chemist”, or even a “former scientist working as an apologist”).
This is why I find it absurd how credulously you accept anything and everything Fazale Rana says.
Addendum:
His PhD was in “STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF OUTER MEMBRANES AND LPS FROM WILD-TYPE AND LPS-MUTANT STRAINS OF SALMONELLA TYPHIMURIUM AND THEIR INTERACTION WITH MAGAININS AND POLYMYXIN B.”
I’m finding a few biochemistry/biophysics publications in the early 1990s.
It’s not at all clear to me that any of this would give him any expertise whatsoever in whether DNA stretches are functional.
Ohhhh, I think I see the disconnect now. You think that I am arguing that those articles are claiming the Orch-OR theory is advocating for creation ex nihilo or out of absolutely nothing. I am not suggesting this at all. They are arguing for a consciousness that is creating from digital information. Contrary to belief, this is what the bible advocates for too:
Hebrew 11:3, " Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
No, we were just not on the same page. That’s it.
That can’t be true. For instance, a study showed that high affinity non-functional binding sites are rare:
“In this study, we analyze DNA-binding proteins in 947 bacterial or archaeal genomes and the genomes of 75 eukaryotic species…Our analysis demonstrates that weak binding sites in genomes are preferentially avoided, a result that holds true across the domains of life. Put another way, we show that the global word composition of each genome has been molded by its DNA-binding proteins over the course of evolution.”
As you can see, if most of the binding was random it would mess up the process of gene regulation because random interactions among genome components would potentially be very deleterious to the organism. Without minimizing these disruptive interactions, biochemical processes in the cell would most likely grind to a halt. This means that most of the binding that was measured by the ENCODE project was probably functional binding.
In fact, a study by Harvard scientists indicated that the concentration of PPI-participating proteins in the cell is also carefully designed.
As Fuz Rana has further suggested and pointed out, “high-precision structures and interactions, exemplified by PPIs, are hallmark features of biochemical systems and, by analogy to fine-tuned human designs, point to the work of a Creator.”
Another study suggested that they do change function though:
…Second, there is a titration effect , where nonfunctional binding of a regulatory protein titrates copies of the protein away from its functional sites, thereby reducing the efficiency of gene regulation [17]…
…By correlating in vitro measurements of DNA binding with genome-wide word statistics, we show that genomes have evolved to reduce the occurrence of weak binding motifs. We demonstrate that the distinct set of DNA binding proteins coded in each species’ genome imposes a large set of global, evolutionary constraints that have ubiquitously shaped genome-wide motif statistics. We show that a hallmark signal of this process can be detected in all available genomes. We introduce a mathematical model of this process and use it to infer the time scales over which evolution under DNA binding constraints has shaped genomic motif composition across all domains of life."
Thus, it may be considered junk or not changing function because you are presupposing the selection-effect definition and completely disregarding the causal definition. But, this study (and others) shows that the biochemical activity that you consider to be noise or trivial is actually playing a crucial role in the so-called non-functioning regions.
No, I am just getting my information from experts or sources. Take a look:
"The biochemical approach for identifying candidate functional genomic elements complements the other approaches, as it is specific for cell type, condition, and molecular process. Decades of detailed studies of gene regulation and RNA metabolism have defined major classes of functional noncoding elements, including promoters, enhancers, silencers, insulators, and noncoding RNA genes such as microRNAs, piRNAs, structural RNAs, and regulatory RNAs (50–53).
"… Most data acquisition in the project thus far has taken the biochemical approach, using evidence of cellular or enzymatic processes acting on a DNA segment to help predict different classes of functional elements.
The recently completed phase of ENCODE applied a wide range of biochemical assays at a genome-wide scale to study multiple human cell types (69). These assays identified genomic sequences (i ) from which short and long RNAs, both nuclear and cytoplasmic, are transcribed; (ii ) occupied by sequence-specific transcription factors, cofactors, or chromatin regulatory proteins; (iii ) organized in accessible chromatin; (iv ) marked by DNA methylation or specific histone modifications; and (v ) physically brought together by long-range chromosomal interactions." [emphasis added]
I don’t see why this would be relevant since you are a molecular biologist not a biochemist. A biochemist would be able to assess better whether the causal role definition is valid because ENCODE used a biochemical approach NOT a genetic approach.
an apologist with absolutely NO expertise in this field!