Do you not understand the plain meaning of the word “prediction”?
Are you incapable of distinguishing between someone who maybe wrong and someone who is dishonest?
I am not sure how many times I have to remind everyone that I am not an expert and I’m trying to get it right not be right.
Again, this is not what the study suggested:
“The adaptive value of this bias can be conceptualized by the analogy of loaded dice with a reduced probability of rolling low numbers (that is, deleterious mutations), and thus a greater probability of rolling high numbers (that is, beneficial mutations)” [emphasis added]
Yeah, but that is more your opinion because your claim is not peer-reviewed. Their conclusions have been peer-reviewed and corroborated by other studies like it.
No, I am asking about what you are referring to as being an analogy or metaphor regarding what I said.
I don’t disagree but I am trying to understand what you meant here. Let me just define selfish gene:
Genes promote their own survival without necessarily promoting the survival of the organism, group or even species.
Is this view of natural selection still a part of the modern synthesis? A Yes or No answer is desired if possible.
No, I just misunderstood what you were suggesting. What you were referring to before involved singular existential claims because they assert the existence of some particular thing.
In contrast, the predictions I showcased are considered to be categorical or deals with universals. For instance, the claim that we should find design trade-offs for suboptimal designs in nature has already been observed or confirmed. However, what has not been observed is that we should find design trade-offs for ALL suboptimal designs in nature
Both claims are verifiable and falsifiable according to scientific standards, which is what I was trying to articulate before.
However, if we did find out that the latter is true, then this would seriously improve our understanding of evolution.
Again, universals are considered falsifiable and thus scientific as the article has suggested:
"It is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white.
Even so, the statement all swans are white is testable by being falsifiable. For, if in testing many swans, the researcher finds a single black swan, then the statement all swans are white would be falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan."
What do you mean? The article specifically said…
"Popper noticed that two types of statements are of particular value to scientists.
The first are statements of observations, such as “this is a white swan”. Logicians call these statements singular existential statements, since they assert the existence of some particular thing. They can be parsed in the form: There is an x that is a swan, and x is white.
The second are statements that categorize all instances of something, such as “all swans are white”. Logicians call these statements universal."
Prove it then. Show me where I am being psuedo scientific with my hypothesis or predictions using an established criterion for determining pseudoscience.
When somebody keeps pushing the same wrong ideas over and over again, he begins to look dishonest.
That mutation rate depends on location on the genome is well known, and is a prediction of natural selection. If you are using that to argue against the randomness of mutations, then you clearly do not understand what biologists mean when they say that mutations are random.
“The selfish gene” is a metaphor. It does not require a definition. I’m dubious of the usefulness of your proposed definition.
Personally, I do not talk about selfish genes. I don’t find that metaphor at all useful.
The concept of universals is from philosophy, not from science. You seem confused.
Design trade-offs are the result of decisions made during design. For nature, we do not have any clear evidence of design. So no, such design trade-offs have not been observed or confirmed. Some of what we see in nature has been described as trade-offs, but the use of term is metaphorical and does not constitute a scientific hypothesis.
I really dislike this whole “white swan” story. It is usually said that black swans were discovered in Australia, which falsified the claim that all swans are black. It is nonsense. No black swans were ever discovered in Australia. Rather, a hitherto unnamed species of black water birds was discovered in Australia, and it was decided to name them “black swans”. That did not falsify anything that might have been considered a scientific hypothesis.
That’s not how science works. Scientists try to be quite specific, and to define criteria by which they will consider something to a swan.
I’m not sure that there are established criteria for identifying pseudoscience. However, in your case, you are presenting a lot of unscientific statements and trying to pass it off as science. To me, that sure looks like pseudoscience.
2 Likes
I am.
Expertise is irrelevant in this simple ethical matter. Don’t cite anything you haven’t read for yourself. You’re not trying; you’ve been called out for the same unethical practice 10-20 times now!
When you say “the study suggested” something, you need to refer to the evidence, not the authors’ interpretations. You don’t look at the evidence. In your shallow approach, you just look for words.
It’s an expert opinion, and you can check that for yourself because there’s nothing in the data in that paper regarding beneficial vs. deleterious. Have you bothered to look at my own papers yet?
What you cited was not peer-reviewed. Please cite the other studies that corroborate it. Remember, when you cite a study, you need to be familiar with the evidence in it. It’s not about the written words. You avoid the evidence, therefore you are engaging in pseudoscience, not science.
You reject the scientific method.
I’ll ask again: is English not your native language? Predictions are made regarding observations you haven’t made. Why do you have so much trouble with this simple word?
If it’s already observed, it cannot be a prediction.
So, use your hypothesis to make a prediction in the case I offered.
Does your hypothesis make a specific empirical prediction for the introduction of an invasive species to an island whose residents were not under predation?
Because you won’t use your hypothesis (which you misrepresent as a theory) to make predictions. You’re afraid to. You’re even presenting things you already know as predictions.
1 Like
People who are merely wrong cite their actual sources. They don’t copy misquotes from creationist sites and then provide a link to an article they haven’t read.
People who are merely wrong are open about their qualifications (or lack thereof). They don’t ignore questions about their background and expertise.
People who are merely wrong take note of responses to their claims. They don’t just repeat their claims as if no response had ever been made.
2 Likes
So am I. Not because it’s wrong, or unnecessary, but because it’s not actually @Meerkat_SK5’s definition, but been copied without attribution from elsewhere. There’s no reason to think @Meerkat_SK5 knows what it means.
3 Likes
When somebody keeps asserting without proving how these ideas are wrong over and over again, he begins to look dishonest.
According to Jerry Coyne, the idea of the Selfish Gene is just describing how natural selection works. Do you agree with him? If so, would you say this is still a part of the modern synthesis?
I have already developed this criterion for design on this topic. Here is the description of the ecology criterion along with the prediction again:
We should find that the same phenotypic traits between the three Perissodactyla groups evolved separately in response to similar needs (such as reproduction, survival, adaptation).
A four-question survey is used for each practical criterion is designated by a letter (A–D) and a title in the form of a question (food, predators, reproduction, and habitat).
If the answer to the question “Are the common features of this group being used differently in their habitats?” is ‘No’ or ‘TBD,’ a follow-up question is asked: “Do they respond differently in different habitats?” (this may require artificially planting them in different habitats for an answer). If the answer to either question is ‘Yes,’ we can conclude there is a common design.
However, if the answer is ‘NO’ or ‘TBD’ to both questions, we must apply the same question formula to prey and/or predator measures to make a definite conclusion. If the answer is still ‘NO’ or ‘TBD,’ then we ask, “Are the common features of this group being used differently in sexual reproduction?”
The results are inconclusive if every question yields a ‘NO’ or ‘TBD’ answer.
Well, maybe you can help me turn my predictions into real science then
Now, you switched the subject from “portraying a lay article as the peer-reviewed article” to “Don’t cite anything you haven’t read for yourself.” This is not the same thing.
More importantly, even when I do read an article in its entirety, this does not stop you guys from still claiming I did not read the article or understand it.
Besides, when you simply dismiss my theory as nothing more than quantum woo, you guys clearly show that you don’t read the Orch-OR articles I cite. Yet, you are telling me that I am not trying. Well, that is classic indeed!
It’s important to point out that the argument for goal-directedness within the coding regions of the DNA does not depend only on whether beneficial mutations are most likely to occur compared to deleterious ones. As the studies indicate, there was a limit on the amount of errors the cell makes in maintaining existing function rather than genetically engineering new function to improve fitness. This is equally important in establishing non-randomness.
How on earth do I do that when I don’t have direct access to the data from the article that requires you to pay?
Unfortunately, this is the best I can do for now:
"B. Key biological findings
-
Synonymous diversity varies by more than 20-fold among genes in the E. coli genome; however, selective and non-selective factors explain only a small proportion of this variation. Instead, our observations suggest that the variation in synonymous diversity results from large heterogeneity in the underlying neutral mutation rate.
-
Contrary to the commonly accepted evolutionary tenet, we observe that this mutation rate is not randomly distributed across the genome. Instead, the data suggest that genes under stronger purifying selection - i.e., those for which spontaneous mutations are most likely to be more deleterious - display a lower mutation rate. We propose that the non-random distribution of the mutation rate evolved by a process known as second-order selection.
-
The observations are consistent with a risk management model: by preferentially protecting
against mutations genes under stronger purifying selection, the risk of strongly deleterious
mutations is efficiently minimised at reduced cost to the organism"
martincorena-RiskManagement-Submission6-SI-Final (springer.com)
Yes, of course. However, I don’t know what species we can potentially test this on.
It’s not so much that. You just want me to be more specific. For instance, instead of forming the prediction like this… We should find that the same phenotypic traits evolved separately in nested but unrelated orders and family groups in response to similar needs
It looks like you want me to do it like this…
We should find that the same phenotypic traits between the three Perissodactyla groups evolved separately in response to similar needs (such as reproduction, survival, adaptation).
Is that correct?
If so, I can structure the other predictions the same way. I have already provided some predictions that are constructed this way.
If not, then maybe you can give me an example of how these predictions can be constructed in a more specific way.
Correct. You do both, and both are blatant violations of the Ninth Commandment. Got it now?
You just admitted why right there by using “read.” You ignore the evidence. You clearly don’t understand the evidence.
I’m dismissing your fake theory as a hypothesis that doesn’t even explain the extant data.
You’re changing the subject. May I take that as a tacit admission that you don’t examine the evidence, only the words?
How can you know this if you were just asking me to define it yesterday?
You simply don’t do that. Typically, a polite email to the first or last author is all it takes. But again, YOU IGNORE DATA. You only do words, and you do them very badly.
So what does your hypothesis predict?
I do. What does your hypothesis predict? Note that you are avoiding using your hypothesis to make predictions. That’s pseudoscience.
It is. It’s temporal.
No, I expect predictions to apply to things you don’t already know. Again, you’re a pseudoscientist because you categorically reject the scientific method. This is another case in point.
No, it doesn’t. You’re just afraid to engage in the scientific method. Ironically, you have no faith in your hypothesis.
No.
You’re desperately avoiding the temporal requirement for predictions by claiming that this is about specificity.
1 Like
Introduction
As Ayala (2007) explains, evolution by natural selection describes designs in nature without a designer. [1] For instance, when scientists use the term “random” to describe mutations, they refer to the unintentional nature of the process; mutations do not “attempt” to supply what the organism “needs” within a given moment or place. Instead, environmental factors influence only the rate not the course of mutation. For example, contact with harmful chemicals might increase mutation rates but will not increase beneficial mutations that make an organism resistant to those chemicals. In this sense, mutations are considered random because there is no “conscious” intent involved, which suggests there is no personal agent selecting adaptive combinations in evolution. He further explains how this description of mutations essentially forms the basis of the Modern Synthesis theory, which was proposed between 1936 and 1947 and reflects the consensus on how evolution proceeds. The expansion of 19th-century evolutionary ideas by Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel, and others laboring on population genetics between 1918 and 1932 incentivized the Modern Synthesis theory, by showcasing that Mendelian genetics was consistent with natural selection and gradualism. [2]
Challenging new data are currently being produced in multiple fields and as a result, a different vision of evolution is beginning to manifest wherein the processes by which organisms develop are recognized as causes of evolution. [2] For instance, analysis of the genomes of 46 sequenced isolates of Escherichia coli provides a statistically supported comparison of the topologies of the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions, their regulated genes, and the species tree. The results of this comparison strikingly show that evolution of the regulatory regions of over half of the core genes (i.e., genes shared by all isolates) was incongruent with that of the species tree. [3]
Moreover, “our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations. Current knowledge of factors influencing the mutation rate—including transcription-coupled repair and context-dependent mutagenesis—do not explain these observations, indicating that additional mechanisms must be involved.” [4]
Thus, new questions are raised in light of new evidence. Should evolution be considered a truly random process or a directed one? Do all living organisms share a common ancestor or a common mechanism?
The intelligent design (ID) theory much better agrees with new empirical evidence and can elegantly explain the abrupt origins we find throughout the fossil record and the incongruencies of species trees.
Based on previous studies and the literature, I aim to prove the existence of a universal common designer in nature by showing that there is a universal common design in evolution. Previous attempts to reintroduce an intelligent designer into science by ID theorists have failed for several reasons. ID theorists argue that the very presence of complex specified information (CSI) found in DNA automatically provides empirical support for the claim that an intelligent designer created and designed life because only human designers can produce CSI based on uniform experience. ID theorists attempt to provide more displays of irreducible complexity or specified information in nature to prove that an intelligent designer designed all living organisms. This involves showing how removing one part of a complex design, such as an eye, would cause the entire system to cease functioning. However, human designers are finite and fallible beings that design things based on limited prior knowledge by using and modifying preexisting material, which would merely mimic Neo-Darwinian mechanisms. More importantly, ID theorists have not yet attempted to prove or explore the nature of this designer.
Unlike ID theorists, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff have explored the nature of this intelligent designer, through a gravity-induced self-collapse, which they refer to as a “universal protoconsciouness.” They provide a comprehensive model of the nature and mechanism of this conscious agent that can explain the origin and evolution of life, species, and consciousness. [5] However, their theory does not go so far as to differentiate this conscious agent from mindless forces. For instance, even if the proposed experiments confirmed Penrose’s prediction, all it would prove is that non-biological settings are displaying elements that mirror conscious behavior. However, this would be considered as anthropomorphism.
The Modern Synthesis theory holds two key assumptions that are derived from the Extended Modern Synthesis theory [6]: (1) mutations are a random process and (2) all living organisms have a common ancestor. This article considers both assumptions but primarily focuses on the latter. I will show how the mechanism of consciousness can explain and predict how biological processes developed over time on earth. Finally, I will provide a model describing the nature of this designer in more detail and further improve on the Orch-OR theory.
Orch-OR Theory
According to the Orch-OR theory, the action of consciousness proceeds in a way that cannot be described by algorithmic processes. Consciousness can contemplate or freely think about a plethora of ideas or information. Moreover, it can make judgements that one continually makes while in a conscious state. This involves distinguishing between true and false statements or what is morally right versus wrong.
The only thing in nature that does this is wave function collapse where you have a superposition of possibilities that collapses to one or the other. For example, the conscious observer must first specify or think of which wave-function he or she intends to measure and then, put in place a measuring device that will probe that aspect. The results of quantum physics experiments like “quantum erasure with casually disconnected choice” demonstrate this reality.
[2208.03726] Human Perception as a Phenomenon of Quantization (arxiv.org)
Furthermore, we have empirical support showing that the brain uses quantum mechanical processes, such as quantum tunneling and superposition, which would suggest more than correlation but causation is involved: For instance, researchers built an artificial cell-like environment with nano-scale engineering and repeated spontaneous growth of tubulin protein to its complex with and without electromagnetic signal.
They used “64 combinations of plant, animal and fungi tubulins and several doping molecules used as drugs and repeatedly observed that the long reported common frequency region where protein folds mechanically and its structures vibrate electromagnetically. Under pumping, the growth process exhibited a unique organized behavior unprecedented otherwise.”
This means that we can use the action of consciousness as a mechanism that explains and predicts how biological processes developed over time on earth. In the next section, I am going to highlight observations that suggest a non-local consciousness exists in nature.
Objective Reduction Theory
The acceleration of the expansion of the universe from inflation is thought to be produced from an explosion or collision of quantum fluctuations of particles—called the “cosmological constant”—that permeate the entire multi-verse where a billion (plus one) positive particles and a billion negative particles come into existence at once. [7]
The cosmological constant is placed at a precise measurement of 10 to the 120th power. When scientists trace the rate of expansion back one second after the Planck scale of our universe, the value becomes an astounding 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power.
Hypothetically, this indicates that if our universe’s expansion rate had different values with larger amounts of dark energy, the universes created in the expansion that formed planets and stars, where life of any kind might evolve, would have most likely blown apart the cosmic material instead. If our universe’s expansion rate had different values with smaller amounts of dark energy, the universes created in the expansion would have most likely collapsed back into a singularity before it ever reached its present size.
This would suggest that Penrose’s mechanism of gravity-induced collapse is truly consciousness, and that this consciousness necessarily possesses non-computable traits, such as omnipotence. For instance, our multi-verse will most likely accelerate forever in all directions and produce an infinite number of pocket universes from the universal wave-function, according to the eternal inflationary theory. This would suggest that this “mind” not only exists in all possible configurations of matter but must exist in them by necessity.
This non-computable choice seems to play a role in biology as well. For instance, as Mattick and Dinger pointed, it has long been argued that the presence of non-protein coding or so-called ‘junk DNA’ that comprises > 90% of the human genome is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionary debris by blind Darwinian evolution, which would argue against intelligent design, as an intelligent designer would presumably not fill the human genetic instruction set with meaningless information. This objection has been essentially refuted in the face of growing functional indices of noncoding regions of the genome, with the latter reciprocally used in support of the notion of intelligent design and to challenge the conception that natural selection accounts for the existence of complex organisms In fact, we now know that well over 80% of junk DNA is functional. It is noteworthy that there is controversy surrounding the ENCODE results (Eddy, 2012; Graur et al., 2013). I refer readers to this article that addresses and responds to objections.
The vast majority of mutations in regions that do encode proteins are deleterious and would prevent beneficial mutations from being fixated within the population. However, in a study on 34 E. coli strains, Martincorena, Seshasayee & Luscombe (2012) discovered that the mutation frequency varies across bacterial genomes. Some regional “hot spots” have a reasonably high mutation rate, while “cold spots” display a reasonably low rate of genetic changes. The researchers discovered that the hot- and cold-spot locations are not random (Martincorena et al., 2012). Thus, it appears that the mutation rates have been fine-tuned to lower the risk of harmful genetic changes (Martincorena et al., 2012; Martincorena & Luscombe, 2013). Recent studies seem to have converged on the same conclusion as well.
I am incorporating the following Penrose’s Objective-reduction (OR) theory in my model:
“In the Copenhagen interpretation, postcollapse states selected by conscious observation are chosen randomly, probabilistically (the Born rule, after physicist Max Born). However, in Penrose OR, the choices (and quality of subjective experience) are influenced by resonate with what Penrose called noncomputable Platonic values embedded in the fine scale structure of spacetime geometry”
In other words, whether a quantum system is displaying particle- or wave-like behavior depends on a non-computable conscious choice.
Definition
Universal protoconsciousness: universal self-collapsing wave-function
In the next section, I am going to highlight some experiments and observations that show how this protoconsciousness does not simply simulate human consciousness but posseseses a human personality.
Universal common designer
A recent prebiotic experiment demonstrated how self-replicating RNA molecules could “evolve into complex living systems by expanding their information and functions open-endedly.” More importantly, the similarity between logic gates and DNA structure and metabolism suggests that the characteristics of objects produced by human designers and biochemical systems are identical. [8]
Given the prior support for the Orch-OR theory, cosmological constant and non-random mutations, this universal protoconsciousness probably operated like humans when designing life on earth. This indicates that we would not have to prove or assume that some supernatural force/substance existed first to consider the existence of God as a potential explanation for a biological phenomenon because the evidence in quantum physics is compatible with panpsychism (i.e., a form of idealism).
More importantly, we need not consider using an unfalsifiable theory that involves an omnipotent human because a non-computable being cannot violate his own nature.
In other words, the non-computable trait this designer possesses offsets the omnipotent trait the designer would also have to possess. Therefore, we would expect God to be consistent with human nature without the flaws that humans naturally commit because of their inherent physical limitations.
This is what enables us to treat an omnipotent God the same way we would with other intelligent agents (Neanderthals, modern humans, aliens, etc.) when considering a valid cause to explain a biological phenomenon over a mindless force.
Thus, all candidates are considered natural but immaterial causes that we can test because consciousness is fundamental but not classical physics.
If this theory is true, we would expect all currently living organisms to have a common design that can be traced back to this universal common designer.
Definition
Universal common designer: universal self-collapsing wave-function
Universal Common Design Hypothesis
This non-computable conscious agent chose to re-use viruses and microtubules to develop created kinds of animals to survive, reproduce, and develop in different environments
Origin of life and species model
Around 3.8 billion years ago, billions of viroids, likely containing all the required genes to make certain evolutionary trajectories, were created within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the Earth through self-collapse of the wave-function. Through natural selection and self-collapse, these groups of viroids evolved into different species of unicellular organisms, which underwent extensive horizontal regulatory gene transfer (HRT), leading to the formation of multicellular plants and fungi .
Subsequently, HRT and microtubules to develop cell differentiation, sexual reproduction, and consciousness into the first group of marine basic types (fish, marine invertebrates, amphibians).
Then, reptiles, birds, and mammals were later developed from different times and global locations within the earth.
Predictions:
(A) We would expect similar phenotypic traits to evolve separately in nested but unrelated taxa in response to similar needs.
(B) We expect to find functional ERV’s and pseudogenes in nested but unrelated taxa
(C) We would expect to find that the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions in nested but unrelated taxa to better fit the data than species trees.
(D) We expect to find adaptive convergent genes in genomes between nested but unrelated taxa
(F) We would NOT expect to find examples of non-human animals displaying forms of human exceptionalism, such as:
-
Ability to invent and use grammar, verb tenses, and vocabulary up to hundreds of thousands of words
-
Ability to invent and use complex trading and transportation systems like modern humans
-
Ability to engage in mathematics, literature, philosophy, and theology
-
Ability to tame, domesticate, and train mammals, birds, and small lizards
Methods
We can test prediction (A) by first showing how shared traits, such as vestigial structures, have functional utility. Then, we apply those same traits between nested groups to different environmental niches. This method was used in the study of the red and giant pandas that concluded they were unrelated.
As a test run, we will evaluate Equidae to determine whether they are a basic type, drawing on data from the extensive work that has been previously done. For instance, it has been shown that all horses are of a single basic type. Most importantly, based on preliminary results, we found evidence that horses were, for the most part, sufficiently different from tapirs and rhinos, which belong to separate taxonomic groups.
The results from the preliminary test are shown below:
Results
Are the common features of this group being used differently?
(A) Habitat? TBD
(B) Food? No
(C) Reproduction? No
(C) Predators? Yes
It is reported that “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 is threatened."
Scholars have stated that “tapirs are strong swimmers who may walk along the bottom of river beds to find food. They instinctively escape predation by moving into the water and they can stay submerged in deep water long enough to make any predators clinging to their back let go.” [just ask for references]
Discussions
Horses, tapirs, and rhinos all have odd numbers of toes, which they use differently pertaining to their habitats and predators; horses run from predators in open terrain, tapirs swim to avoid predators in the water, and rhinos charge predators. Therefore, we can conclude that Equidae is a legitimate basic type that shares a common design with tapirs and rhinos, based on these lines of evidence:
Fossil dissimilarities between Equidae and other Perissodactyls.
A clear-cut fossil lineage within the Equidae family.
The odd toe evolved separately in response to similar needs.
However, this conclusion is tentative because new research, with a greater sampling of non-equid outgroups, is still required to test the hypothesis that all equids form a single holobaramin or a basic type…
Repeating your hypothesis, which isn’t even mechanistic, and falsely labeling it as a theory isn’t helping.
2 Likes
Why would a designer not be capable of producing two or more completely independent designs for organisms?
Having a common designer does not necessarily mean having a common design.
Here are two designs by the same designer that have virtually nothing in common.
But for some reason the Universal Common Designer isn’t capable of similar versatility.
(Come to think of it, this also works against ID too. With evolution we’d expect that eventually all life-forms would have a common ancestor, and hence common features. Under ID, there’s no such expectation.)
(Also, there’s no link whatsoever between particle/wave behaviour and a common design of life.)
3 Likes
No, you are wrong on both accounts. The common designer theory is described to be mechanistic and is a theory because it has survived empirical testing.
I went back and added more information to my previous post to help everyone understand why it is mechanistic and why it is a theory.
So I encourage you to go back and read sections “Introduction”, “Orch-OR theory” and “Objective reduction theory” in my previous post. You should be able to understand the full context of why I arrived at my conclusion.
I am encouraging you to do the same @Roy
Did that.
Your first sentence (“According to quantum mind theory, the action of consciousness proceeds in a way that cannot be described by algorithmic processes.”) isn’t true - quantum mind theory says consciousness cannot be described by classical mechanics, and that quantum mechanics may be involved. Algorithms aren’t limited to classical mechanics.
The context of why you arrived at your conclusion is clear, and has nothing to do with anything you have posted here. It’s clear you started with your conclusion and are looking for things that might support it. Any things, with no regard to source credibility or whether you understand or have even read them.
2 Likes
In this post, I am going to recap and summarize all the important objections you guys mentioned before.
We are almost done guys. I just need everyone to evaluate my responses to your objections. This will allow me to see if there is anything else that is lacking in my hypothesis. I do appreciate everything that you guys have done up to this point. Just hang in there for a little bit longer.
I don’t see how this is true. Only humans could have designed viruses from the origin of life and then use them to facilitate the evolutionary process :
“RNA viruses can be engineered to interact with the host miRNA pathways, and miRNAs can be used to control viral tropism.”
RNA viruses and the host microRNA machinery | Nature Reviews Microbiology
For this reason, we would expect different predictions that would confirm separate ancestry, such as these…
(A) We would expect analogous traits to evolve separately in nested but unrelated taxa in response to similar needs.
(B) We expect to find functional ERV’s and pseudogenes in nested but unrelated taxa
(C) We would expect to find that the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions in nested but unrelated taxa to better fit the data than species trees.
I beg to differ. Only human consciousness has the ability to contemplate and freely make intellectual and moral judgement. This involves distinguishing between true and false statements or what is right versus wrong.
This means that…
We would expect to NOT find organisms with features that hinder its [usability] for the purpose for which it was designed (I.e. design flaws)
We would expect to NOT find animals with features that impede on the population or another animal’s ability to survive, reproduce, and fit an environmental niche. (i.e. sinister designs)
We would NOT expect to find examples of non-human animals displaying forms of human exceptionalism, such as:
- Ability to invent and use grammar, verb tenses, and vocabulary up to hundreds of thousands of words
- Ability to invent and use complex trading and transportation systems like modern humans
- Ability to engage in mathematics, literature, philosophy, and theology
- Ability to tame, domesticate, and train mammals, birds, and small lizards
The Equidae arose from out of the ground within the earth.
Equidae is a legitimate basic type that shares a common design with tapirs and rhinos, based on these lines of evidence:
Fossil dissimilarities between Equidae and other Perissodactyls.
A clear-cut fossil lineage within the Equidae family.
The odd-toe shared between the Perrisodactyl groups evolved separately in response to similar needs.
However, this conclusion is tentative because new research, with a greater sampling of non-equid outgroups, is still required to test the hypothesis that all equids form a single basic type (holobaramin).
Because this conscious agent designed and re-used viruses to develop the horses, tapir, and rhinos to survive, reproduce, and fill different environments (i.e. common mechanism)
If you want me to show you different sources that show how HGT can create those same patterns even above the family level, I can do this.
According to the Orch-OR theory, it most certainly is a mechanistic theory.
If you just read the sources I gave you regarding their theory, you would not say that. I encourage you to do so, especially if you guys are going to beat me over the head about not reading every source I cite.
Nonetheless, I gave you everything else you wanted to me to do.
(A) We would expect analogous traits to evolve separately in nested but unrelated taxa in response to similar needs.
(B) We expect to find functional ERV’s and pseudogenes in nested but unrelated taxa
(C) We would expect to find that the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions in nested but unrelated taxa to better fit the data than species trees.
(D) We expect to find adaptive convergent genes in genomes between nested but unrelated taxa
Because a non-computable human consciousness cannot violate his own human nature according to the law of identity and law of non-contradiction. In contrast, finite contingent humans can violate their nature or common design patterns and produce completely independent designs for organisms.
If we were comparing finite humans to other finite humans, I would agree to some extent. However, the common designer theory involves a non-computable human. So we would expect this being to be consistent with his nature and produce designs that only humans could have created, such as RNA or viruses:
“RNA viruses can be engineered to interact with the host miRNA pathways, and miRNAs can be used to control viral tropism.”
RNA viruses and the host microRNA machinery | Nature Reviews Microbiology
In fact you have never begun. Pointless.
3 Likes
Ok.
I’m evaluating that as unsupported question-begging irrelevant gibberish.
I’m evaluating that as unsupported speculative gibberish.
I note that you have not responded to my main objection, which is that you lie about your sources and cite articles you haven’t read.
4 Likes
(A) is not different from common descent, which results in nested and related taxa: similar needs result in convergent evolution either way.
(B) is not different from common descent, similarly.
(C) needs clarification. What is “the data”? And what is a “species tree”? I think you may mean a tree based on visible physical features, as opposed to a phylogenetic tree, which is based on DNA sequences.
(D) is not different from common descent. I think that convergent genes are DNA sequences in two lineages that are more similar to each other now than they were in those lineages at some point in the past. Common design might result in more (or fewer) such sequences than common descent, but you would need to provide some quantification of how much difference there would be.
(F) assumes the common designer does not want the human capacities to evolve in other lineages and has the means and opportunity to prevent it. We need more info on the designer to determine whether this prediction follows from the design hypothesis.
2 Likes
Obviously, because you rant on about viruses, rather than addressing the point.
Then you don’t understanding falsification.
2 Likes
But if they think they’re done, maybe they’ll peddle their wares somewhere else. (faint hope)
But I suppose, given the way they mangle the English language, it’s possible that they’ll end up wearing their peddles somewhere else instead – but it’s probably the “somewhere else” part that’s important. 
1 Like
That’s all word salad. Even if we could untangle it, I suspect it would reveal that you don’t understand the concept of prediction.
1 Like