We have phylogenies from sequences. They don’t support any creation events at all.
No it can’t, and you didn’t show anything of the sort.
How much sequence analysis have you personally done? All of the sequence data and most of the analytical tools are free to the public.
Considered by whom to be created kinds?
How can that be tested? We didn’t sort into families until after they had evolved.
I am afraid this other study suggests otherwise. It showed how the instances of high gene-tree conflict in mammals, birds, and several major plant clades correspond to rate increases in morphological innovation.
The study concluded that there is “an important link between genomic and morphological evolution at deep timescales. We suggest that episodic evolutionary and population events leave signatures of conflict within genomes that may offer important insight on the processes responsible not only for conflict but also for massive changes in phenotype across disparate lineages.”
Phylogenomic conflict coincides with rapid morphological innovation | PNAS
Let me refresh your memory then:
“Organisms that frequently exchange genes become more similar, and transfers between these groups may then be categorized as HGTs with a bias reflecting overall relatedness, even though the initial transfers may have been biased by other factors. We have previously shown that biased gene transfer CAN CREATE and maintain phylogenetic patterns that resemble the signal created through vertical inheritance [16].”
Biased gene transfer and its implications for the concept of lineage (nih.gov)
“Although observed rates of acquisition of horizontally transferred genes in eukaryotes are generally lower than in prokaryotes, it appears that, far from being a rare occurrence, HGT has contributed to the evolution of many, perhaps all, animals and that the process is ongoing in most lineages. Between tens and hundreds of foreign genes are expressed in all the animals we surveyed, including humans. The majority of these genes are concerned with metabolism, suggesting that HGT contributes to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.” [Emphasis added]
I am not sure why you think this negates the reality that common design can explain those phylogenetic sequences as well, which leaves common descent nothing to show for.
By Young earth creationists. Read their source for more:
Here is what the theory suggests…
All currently living animals have a common mechanism (i.e. HRT) that can be traced back to created animal kinds.
We can test prediction (A) from this theory by applying shared traits between nested groups to different environmental niches. The method was similarly used in the study of the red and giant panda that concluded they were unrelated. [21]
As a brief test run, we will evaluate the Equidae to determine whether they are a basic type since extensive work has been done already. For instance, the results of a recent study confirmed the results of earlier studies, which showed that all horses are of a single basic type [46]. Most importantly, preliminary results were obtained, and we found evidence that horses were, for the most part, sufficiently different from tapirs and rhino, which belong to their own created kind. [27]
Results
Are the common features of this group being used differently?
(A) Habitat? TBD
(B) Food? No
(C) Reproduction? No
(C) Predators? Yes
“Horse behavior is best understood from the view that horses are prey animals with a well-developed fight-or-flight response. Their first reaction to a threat is often to flee, although sometimes they stand their ground and defend themselves or their offspring in cases where flight is untenable, such as when a foal is threatened. “ [47]
“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.” [48]
DISCUSSIONS
According to the ecology study, horses, tapirs, and rhinos use their odd-toes differently pertaining to their habitats and predators. Horses use it to run from predators in open terrain; tapirs use it to swim and avoid predators in the water; and rhinos use it to charge predators.
CONCLUSION
We can conclude that Equidae is a legitimate created kind that shares a common design with tapir and rhino 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 currently liviing equids can be traced back to a single created kind…
I am certain that you are afraid of doing your own analysis. Quote-mining is not evidence of anything but pseudoscience. I’ll ask again:
How much sequence analysis have you personally done? All of the sequence data and most of the analytical tools are free to the public.
The only memory it refreshes is that you quote words you don’t understand while avoiding analyzing any evidence.
Why do you want me to do this? I have already tested one of the four predictions. What would this accomplish for you?
If I do this, would it convince you that Richard Owen’s common design explanation is a theory or a legit scientific alternative to common descent if not better?
I still don’t know why you are making a big deal about this.
The first thing you can do is convince us that you’re not MISREPRESENTING your own views as Owen’s.
Have you even read Owen’s On the Nature of Limbs, where he sets out his views on this subject? I have a copy of it open in front of me (including some accompanying scholarly essays analysing his work).
Can you demonstrate, with Owen’s own words, how his views mirror your own?
Interesting, Owen apparently viewed the entirety of Vertebrata as a single ‘Archetype’:
To trace the mode and kind and extent of modification of the same elementary parts of the typical segment throughout a large natural series of highly organized animals like the vertebrata;…is one of the legitimate courses of inquiry by which we may be permitted to gain an insight into the law which has governed the successive introduction of specific forms of living beings into this planet
– On the Archetype and Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton (1848) p106, quoted in ‘Richard Owen and Animal Form’ by Ron Amundson, in On the Nature of Limbs: A Discourse, 2008.
This would appear to make it difficult for anybody wishing to subdivide up Vertebrata into further created ‘kinds’ to claim that their work is consistent with Owen’s views.
Further in that same essay, is a passage that makes me considerably doubt that Owen can be considered an ally of Design over Descent:
This concession was not Owen’s only response to Conybeare’s letter, however. Limbs did Platonize the Archetype, and Owen made use of the idealist rhetoric to express his piety. But Owen’s real target of criticism in both books was teleological biology as it had been practiced by Cuvier and the Bridgewater authors. He was championing structuralism; let Platonism fall where it may. Conybeare had likened the Archetype to a plan in the mind of a designer, “a manufacturer about to produce his work; a shipwright his ship.” Owen’s letter in reply to Conybeare explains that Conybeare’s analogy was mistaken. The structural facts of anatomy could not be accounted for by analogy to “works of human art” (Sloan 2003, 60–61). Unity of type is not like an intelligent designer’s plan, and merely attaching Plato’s name to it doesn’t change that fact. Owen did use Conybeare’s shipwright analogy in Limbs, but he stood it on its head. This almost satirical twist on the shipwright analogy will be discussed in the following section.
The statement about species origins at the end of Limbs is prefaced by a religiously motivated discussion that is difficult for modern readers to interpret. We are far too eager to read special creationism and other religious question-begging into passages that were only intended to express piety, not a scriptural grounding for scientific results. But I submit that the pious tone in these passages can be easily separated from Owen’s actual assertions. In the most directly religious passage, Owen claims that his “Platonic” views on the Vertebrate Archetype refute an obscure argument for atheism attributed to ancient Greek atomists. Shades of Bridgewater! But let us read carefully what he claims to have proven: “[T]he knowledge of such a being as Man must have existed before Man appeared. For the Divine mind which planned the Archetype also foreknew all its modifications” (Limbs, 85–86). This certainly affirms Owen’s theism. But it does not implicate special creation. Liberal theists all believed in God’s original creation of the world, along with its secondary causes. They also believed that God knew (“foreknew”) the eventual effects of these secondary causes. God created the force of gravity, and so foreknew the paths that the planets would take. For Owen, the Vertebrate Archetype was somehow involved in the secondary causes for species origins. God established those secondary causes, and of course foreknew their consequences. This does not imply that Man (or any other species) was created individually by God. Even in the midst of his rotund piety, Owen leaves ample room for natural species origins.
Owen’s discussions of the natural origins of species were guarded. But they occurred in a crucial location. They were embedded in discussions of the Unity of Type, and the forces that controlled organic form both within and between vertebrate bodies. The mention of naturalistic species origins in the context of Unity of Type was a bold step. It was too bold for many conservative critics. Adam Sedgwick criticized Owen in print the following year, expressing grave doubts about Owen’s pantheist tone. The Manchester Guardian angrily condemned Owen in an editorial for his theologically unacceptable expression of “what is called the theory of development” (E. Richards 1987, 163ff.). Unlike Conybeare’s letter, these were public condemnations. Stung, Owen ceased to publish on species origins. By the time he returned to the subject, he had already been scooped by Darwin’s Origin.
…
Instead of pointing out similarities between natural bodies and human inventions, he indicates a crucial difference in the cases. Human ingenuity adapts an invention directly to its purpose, and does not make modifications to a common plan in order to produce a new invention: “There is no community of plan or structure between a boat and a balloon” (Limbs, 10). Unity of type in the organic world does not correspond to a functional plan in the mind of a human inventor. The deepest truths in the organic world are those of Unity of Type and homology; these truths cannot be explained by teleological reasoning. Conybeare’s adaptationist shipwright is held up as the very model of adaptationist foolishness.
Let me first make some changes to the theory to make it more consistent with Owen’s theory:
All living animals have a common design that can be traced back to a universal common design.
Definition:
Common design is the optimal genetic code for the construction of created animal kinds through the process of horizontal regulatory transfer (HRT)
Owen envisioned many chain segments, each having its own archetype, and he considered the pearly nautilus to be “the living, perhaps sole living, archetype of a vast tribe of organized beings, whose fossilized remains testify their existence at a remote period” [8, p. 2]. According to Owen, the straight chambered shells (such as Orthoceras) represented now only as fossils had been produced by a gradual uncoiling of the archetype nautilus [9, p. 806].
On the nature of limbs
I beg to differ:
"I never asserted that creation (or the appearance of a new or modified fauna) was not by law. But by what law? Not, I may say, of natural transmutation- not by turning fishes into reptiles, whales into pachyderms, or monkeys into men, in the way of natural generation, but by a higher law, of which we may reach the conception hereafter, as you have reached the conception of an archetypal form. But that conception does not mutilate (it rather magnifies and consolidates) our conceptions of final causes and of a Creator. " page 96
"Now, however, the recognition of an ideal Exemplar for the Vertebrated animals proves that the knowledge of such a being as Man must have existed before Man appeared. For the Divine mind which planned the Archetype also foreknew all its modifications.
…To what natural laws or secondary causes the orderly succession and progression of such organic phænomena may have been committed we are as yet ignorant. But … we learn from the past history of our globe that she [i.e. nature] has advanced with slow and stately steps … from the first embodiment of the Vertebrate idea under its old Ichthyic vestment, until it became arrayed in the glorious garb of the Human form” (p.317).
Owen preferred the transcendental view of biological structures over the teleological view because it incorporated both function and commonality or unity, which explains much more:
“The satisfaction felt by the rightly constituted mind must ever be great in recognizing the fitness of parts for their appropriate function; but when this fitness is gained as in the great-toe of the foot of man and the ostrich, by a structure which at the same time betokens harmonious concord with a common type, the prescient operations of the One Cause of all organization becomes strikingly manifested to our limited intelligence.” [emphasis added]
Primary source: Owen, On the Nature of Limbs, 38.
Secondary source: Archetype or Ancestor? Sir Richard Owen and the Case for Design - Reasons to Believe
By which I take it that you have not read anything that Owen wrote.
Vague and incoherent gibberish.
This is not a definition, it is an assertion. Further evidence that you are unfamiliar with the English language. It is also a nonsensical assertion, as Horizontal Gene Transfer requires the pre-existence of life, so could not be a means of creation of that life, merely its transformation.
I would note that the piece you plagiarised only referred to cephalopods not vertebrates, so does not contradict my contention, supported by Owen’s own words, that Owen considered vertebrates to be a single archetype.
Those are the words of ‘Sedgwick’ (presumably Adam Sedgwick) to Owen, not Owen’s words.
Yes, this just means that, like all Christians, Owen believed that God was the ‘First Cause’ of all existence – not that he believed that God was the proximate cause of each individual ‘kind’.
But given that ‘Design’ is very closely related to the “teleological view” (hence, the ‘Argument from Design’ and the ‘Teleological Argument’ are different names for the same argument), this is highly problematical for somebody wishing to claim that their ‘Common Designer Theory’ is identical to Owen’s views.
You would do better if you based your understanding of Owen on the analysis of a genuine Historian of Science – not merely an apologist pretending to be one.
This is what I meant right here:
“The presence of HGT early in the evolution of life before the time of LUCA is also supported by the optimality of the genetic code itself, which likely depended upon extensive HGT to become established [30].”
As you can see, this is the very definition of design because the genetic code is the blueprint and HRT is the mechanism that implements this plan::
A design is a plan or specification for the construction of an object or system or for the implementation of an activity or process or the result of that plan or specification in the form of a prototype, product, or process.
Remember, the modifications Owen is referring to are abstract platonic forms that existed already in the mind of God where God foreknew all the changes that were going to happen from a universal common plan of organisms.
For instance, Humans would the created modified form of Neanderthals that was previously created from a preexisting non-material common blueprint rather than a common ancestor. Neanderthals would be the created modified form of Homo heidelbergensis. Homo heidelbergensis would be the created modified form of mammals. Mammals would be the created modified form of vertebrates. As a result, we get back to a single common archetypical plan for all vertebrates showing a nested hierarchical pattern from a common design perspective (i.e. Design with slight modification). This is almost precisely what Owen’s theory suggests:
"…the more modified the organism from the archetype, the higher its position in the ranks of nature. Eventually, furthest removed from the archetype of any vertebrate, one finds Man, “the highest and most modified of all organic forms, in which the dominion of the controlling and specially-adapting force over the lower tendency to type and vegetative repetition is manifested in the strongest characters” [3, p. 132].
I am going to have to rely on a secondary source to better describe Owen’s work here since you seemed to not understand some of what he has described in his work. For instance, “Owen describes the three types of homologies evident in the vertebrates:
I. Special homology: the “correspondency of a part or organ, determined by its relative position and connections, with a part or organ of a different animal; the determination of which homology indicates that such animals are con- structed on a common type.”
II. General homology: where “a part or series of parts stands to the fundamental or general type, and its enunciation involves and implies a knowledge of the
type on which a natural group of animals, the vertebrates for example, is constructed. . . .”
III. Serial homology: where “as in the vertebra, any given part of one segment may be repeated in the rest of the series in the same skeleton” [3, p. 7].”
"Using these categories, Owen claimed to have discovered the basic plan of vetebrate anatomy. First, all vertebrae (among which he emphatically and unfortunately included the skull) of a given vertebrate body were all serially homologous to one another. That is, despite their modification into thoracic vertebrae, tail vertebrae, skull, etc., they are homotypically identical.
Second, each vertebra of every fish, amphibian, reptile, and mammal was seen to be a general homologue of each other. Moreover, since Owen was able to show the same relationships between the limbs of all vertebrates, the limb appendages being both serially homologous within individuals and generally homologous between all groups of vertebrates, he stated his third, and unifying, conclusion: The limbs were specially homologous to the diverging regions of the vertebra. The shoulder blade, for instance, was seen as a special homologue to the pleurapophysis protruberance of the vertebra (and therefore, a modification of the rib). By these three conclusions, Owen believed that he had demonstrated the common pattern to all vertebrate bones and felt that his research had uncovered the basic plan by which the Creator had formed this branch of the animal kingdom [3, p. 127]." [emphasis added]
Owen’s Vertebral Archetype And Evolutionary Genetics: A Platonic Appreciation (psu.edu)
This does not contradict my contention. “Early in the evolution of life” means that life already existed, as I stated. I would also note that “early in the evolution of life” lifeforms were uniformly simple. It is unclear that “extensive HGT” would be viable in the more complex lifeforms that arose later.
“Remember”, you have not read Owen’s works, so you cannot, with any credibility, claim to know what he was talking about.
If you had bothered to read Ron Amundson’s essay in the 2008 edition of On the Nature of Limbs, you would have discovered that Owen’s Platonism was highly mutable and extrinsic:
The conservative backlash against Owen's work of the 1840s was focused both on the passages that discuss natural laws of species origin, and on his characterization of the two forces said to be responsible for the forms of bodies. His description of the forces changed in the three years between the original publications of *Archetype* and *Limbs.* Of special interest is Owen's reference to Platonic idealism. Neo-Darwinian commentaries often emphasize Owen's Platonism as an indication of the spiritualistic basis of his thought. But the details of Owen's use of Platonism reduce its metaphysical significance.In Archetype, the structural force is described in virtually materialist terms. It is an “all-pervading polarizing force” (Owen 1848, 171). Owen’s use of the “polarity” concept aligns the vertebrate body, and its front-to-back bodily axis of segmental repetition, with contemporary explanations of phenomena like crystallization and magnetism. The adaptive force corresponds to “the ideas of Plato…which [Plato] defined as a sort of models, or moulds in which matter is cast, and which regularly produce the same number and diversity of species” (Owen 1848, 172). Structure is materialist in origin, and adaptation is Platonic. But in Limbs the story suddenly changed. Owen identifies the structural force (not the adaptive force) as Platonic. The nature (or signification, or Bedeutung) of a limb is “that essential character of a part which belongs to it in its relation to a predetermined pattern, answering to the ‘idea’ of the Archetypal World in the Platonic cosmogony” (Limbs, 2–3). In Archetype the adaptive force was Platonic, but in Limbs the structural force is Platonic. Owen gives no explanation for this flip-flop. But recent historical sleuthing has uncovered a probable cause. Owen reversed his Platonism in response to a challenge from the Oxbridge conservatives, who disapproved of Owen’s willingness to explain Unity of Type by natural causes.
Owen’s Platonic reversal followed a letter he received from the Cambridge conservative William Conybeare in 1848. Conybeare suggested that Platonic idealism be relocated in Owen’s theory, to replace materialist polarity as the structural force:
[Plato] meant the archetype forms of things, as they existed in the creative mind…. To me the true…analogy seems to be the mind of a manufacturer about to produce his work; a shipwright his ship—an instrument maker his piano, or organ. (Coneybeare quoted in Rupke 1994, 202)With the background of Conybeare’s letter, Nikolaas Rupke interpreted Owen’s 1849 redeployment of Platonism as an attempt to “placate the powerful Oxbridge faction among Owen’s supporters” (Rupke 1994, 204). Unity of Type had for years been a thorn in the side of adaptationist natural theology because of its apparent lack of need for theological underpinnings. Owen’s polarizing force simply drove the thorn deeper. But if Owen could be convinced to relocate his Platonism to Unity of Type, transcendental anatomy might be brought under Plato’s supernatural supervision. Owen cooperated.
This example would work only if you ignore Owen’s actual views.
Owen was not expressing advocacy of special creation:
The statement about species origins at the end of Limbs is prefaced by a religiously motivated discussion that is difficult for modern readers to interpret. We are far too eager to read special creationism and other religious question-begging into passages that were only intended to express piety, not a scriptural grounding for scientific results. But I submit that the pious tone in these passages can be easily separated from Owen’s actual assertions. In the most directly religious passage, Owen claims that his “Platonic” views on the Vertebrate Archetype refute an obscure argument for atheism attributed to ancient Greek atomists. Shades of Bridgewater! But let us read carefully what he claims to have proven: “[T]he knowledge of such a being as Man must have existed before Man appeared. For the Divine mind which planned the Archetype also foreknew all its modifications” (Limbs, 85–86). This certainly affirms Owen’s theism. But it does not implicate special creation. Liberal theists all believed in God’s original creation of the world, along with its secondary causes. They also believed that God knew (“foreknew”) the eventual effects of these secondary causes. God created the force of gravity, and so foreknew the paths that the planets would take. For Owen, the Vertebrate Archetype was somehow involved in the secondary causes for species origins. God established those secondary causes, and of course foreknew their consequences. This does not imply that Man (or any other species) was created individually by God. Even in the midst of his rotund piety, Owen leaves ample room for natural species origins.
Rather he was expressing that species arose from the Archetype by natural law:
Owen’s discussions of the natural origins of species were guarded. But they occurred in a crucial location. They were embedded in discussions of the Unity of Type, and the forces that controlled organic form both within and between vertebrate bodies. The mention of naturalistic species origins in the context of Unity of Type was a bold step. It was too bold for many conservative critics. Adam Sedgwick criticized Owen in print the following year, expressing grave doubts about Owen’s pantheist tone. The Manchester Guardian angrily condemned Owen in an editorial for his theologically unacceptable expression of “what is called the theory of development” (E. Richards 1987, 163ff.). Unlike Conybeare’s letter, these were public condemnations. Stung, Owen ceased to publish on species origins. By the time he returned to the subject, he had already been scooped by Darwin’s Origin.
&
Here is Owen’s expression of that point in Archetype: “To trace the mode and kind and extent of modification of the same elementary parts of the typical segment throughout a large natural series of highly organized animals like the vertebrata;…is one of the legitimate courses of inquiry by which we may be permitted to gain an insight into the law which has governed the successive introduction of specific forms of living beings into this planet” (Owen 1848, 106). In Limbs, Owen’s discussion of naturalistic causes of species origins occurs prominently at the very end. The passage begins, “To what natural laws or secondary causes the orderly succession and progression of such organic phaenomena may have been committed we as yet are ignorant. But if, without derogation of the Divine power, we may conceive the existence of such ministers…“(Limbs, 86). Owen is clearly not a conservative creationist regarding species origins. He is pious, but he assumes the existence of secondary causes (natural laws) that brought new organic forms into being. He asserts that the study of homology will give us new insights into those laws.
Firstly:
Stop pretending that you know what Richard Owen meant, when you clearly don’t.
Secondly, nothing in that overly-long quote demonstrated that Owen “believed that God was the proximate cause of each individual ‘kind’.”
The statement that:
By these three conclusions, Owen believed that he had demonstrated the common pattern to all vertebrate bones and felt that his research had uncovered the basic plan by which the Creator had formed this branch of the animal kingdom
… only shows that Owen believed that God was (ultimately) responsible for the single Archetype of all vertebrates, not that Owen believed that God individually designed each and every species of vertebrate.
To the extent that your ‘Theory’ mirrors a 19th Century view, it is that of William Paley and his followers – a view that Owen no more wholeheartedly accepted than he did any of the other pre-existing views of morphology – those of Cuvier (whose ‘heir’ Owen was sometimes described as), of Geoffroy or of the Transcendentalists. Owen had commonalities with all four, but explicitly presented his ideas in contrast to each of them.
Let me show you what I meant in detail……
Origin of life model
Around 3.8 billion years ago, Pi electron resonance clouds in single-chain amphiphile molecules coalesced in geometric pi-stacks, forming viroids with quantum-friendly regions for Objective Reduction (OR) events within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the Earth.
Through natural selection and OR events, groups of viroids formed into highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules of a DNA virus or molecule, which later evolved into different species of unicellular organisms.
Through HRT, these unicellular organisms underwent extensive regulatory switching and rewiring in their non-coding regulatory regions, which led to the divergence of transcription start sites and gene expression levels in the formation of primitive multicellular organisms and beyond (for more details, read Stuart Hammeroff’s description of how microtubules played a part in origin of species).
Well, of course Tim. This is the way it is with any legit scientific theory, which is why I don’t get why you are making a big deal out of some the minor differences.
Correct, this is what I am arguing as well. Again, I need to use a secondary source to convey my point here:
" the entire geological history of vertebrates may be interpreted as a movement towards humanity, guided by natural forces ordained by God as secondary causes. Owen’s oft-quoted last paragraph provides a genuine expression of evolutionary views in this limited sense (transformations within an archetypal framework under unknown, but natural, laws established by God to implement His plans of progress)…"
“…Owen regards an archetype as a blueprint of myriad possibilities (made all the more intelligible by limiting their range to products of common elements in unvarying topological order). All realized examples on earth therefore include only a small subset of possible forms. Owen even felt free to speculate about the anatomy of life on other worlds, provided that the vertebral archetype can lay claim to universal status”.
These unknown secondary causes or natural laws have been revealed by science to be proton tunneling, and quantum entanglement (i.e. quantum evolution). Moreover, the universal vertebral archetype is a virtually identical description of the Universal wave-function described in quantum physics, which is also experimentally confirmed:
"The universal wave function is the wavefunction or quantum state of the totality of existence, regarded as the “basic physical entity”[8] or “the fundamental entity, obeying at all times a deterministic wave equation.”
If you don’t know, wave-functions are possible configurations of matter or universes. Anyhow, it really is remarkable how much Owen’s theory resembles quantum physics or quantum mind theory. In fact, I see no contradiction between my theory and Owen’s but it is merely an expansion of it.
Secondary source again:
"But Owen was not content merely to observe such great manifestations of order. He postulated a mechanism which could account for such unity among the diverse vertebrates. First, vertebrae were homotypic by virtue of some “vegetative repetition of a single vertebral element” [3, p. 87]. Each of these serially repetitive vertebral elements could then be teleologically modified independently of each other until it became evident only to the most trained observer that certain of the parts are homologous. " .
"…the more modified the organism from the archetype, the higher its position in the ranks of nature. Eventually, furthest removed from the archetype of any vertebrate, one finds Man, “the highest and most modified of all organic forms, in which the dominion of the controlling and specially-adapting force over the lower tendency to type and vegetative repetition is manifested in the strongest characters” [3, p. 132]. Yet even here, says Owen, “We find the vertebrate pattern so obviously retained.” [emphasis added]
Primary sources: .R. Owen. On the archetype and homologies of the vertebrate skeleton.
London, 1848
R. Owen. On the nature of limbs. London, 1849.
Rev. R. Owen. The life of Richard Owen, p. 387. New York: Appleton,
1894.
Secondary source: Owen’s Vertebral Archetype And Evolutionary Genetics: A Platonic Appreciation (psu.edu)
And this is the most obvious place where this whole house-of-cards fantasy falls apart. Viroids are “infectious pathogens” that “are inhabitants of angiosperms”. [1]
Lacking pre-existing flowering plants, we have no evidence that viroids either would develop, or could survive.
Your “Origin of life model” appears to be nothing but an ill-fitting kitbash of ill-understood fragments of information from disparate fields, with no understanding of the additional research that would be necessary to make them fit together.
Given that, to the best of my knowledge, you have never cited this “description”, this would appear to be impossible to do.
But given that Hammeroff appears to have no expertise whatsoever in Origin-of-Life research, it is hard to see that he would have any credibility on this subject. This is particularly true given that Orch-OR, on which it is presumably based, has limited scientific acceptance.
There is no “legit scientific theory” here – merely (i) a long-discarded and not particularly well-fleshed-out (one of the main reasons it lost out to Darwinian evolution is that it lacked the latter’s explanatory power) viewpoint, and (ii) the half-baked and frequently-incoherent claims of a random internet would-be-apologist.
My point was that your claim that “the modifications Owen is referring to are abstract platonic forms that existed already in the mind of God” is discredited by the fact that Platonism (and thus platonic forms) were not at the centre of (intrinsic to) Owen’s view, but an extrinsic gloss he placed upon certain parts of his thesis (and changing which parts between books) in order to make his thesis more acceptable to his conservative patrons.
NO YOU ARE NOT!
Taking your initial statement together with your definition assertion:
All living animals have are constructed as created animal kinds that can be traced back to a universal created animal kind.
This viewpoint is not compatible with Owen’s viewpoint that species arose from the Archetype by natural law.
What utter and egregious balderdash and complete quantum woo!
You have provided no credible evidence that “these unknown secondary causes or natural laws have been revealed by science to be proton tunneling, and quantum entanglement (i.e. quantum evolution).”
You hasve provided no credible evidence that “the universal vertebral archetype is a virtually identical description of the Universal wave-function described in quantum physics”.
Neither of these concepts have been “experimentally confirmed”. The latter is in fact a purely theoretical construct, whose utility has been doubted:
The idea of the wave-function of the universe is meaningless; we do not even know what variables it is supposed to be a function of. […] We find the laws of Nature by reproducible experiments. The theory needs a cut, between the observer and the system, and the details of the apparatus should not appear in the theory of the system.[1]
That claim might be minimally credible if you had not already proved completely ignorant of Owen’s views, Biology, Quantum Physics (and the Physics and Mathematics underlying it) and Orch-OR (and its level of scientific acceptance). That you see “no contradiction” is simply a symptom of your complete ignorance!
Let me summarise your ‘theory’ for you:
Meerkat_SK5’s ‘Theory’ of Universal Common Design
[Nothing credible.]
If you continue to propose the following, you will simply be laughed at:
The claim that viroids could have played a part in origin of life, millions of years before they could have existed.
Any of your myriad forms of ‘quantum woo’, which for the avoidance of doubt includes: (i) any airy claims of "quantum-friendly regions, (ii) any extrapolation of Orch-OR, (iii) any speculation of “quantum evolution”, (iv) any speculation juxtaposing anything with the “Universal wave-function”.
Such claims are complete balderdash, from somebody who quite simply shows not the slightest vestige of the level of knowledge that would be required to make credible speculations about such things (these are the sort of speculations that even those made by people with PhDs in relevant subjects regularly get shot down), so there really is no point in detailed demolition of them.
I think probably the most obvious feature differentiating @Meerkat_SK5’s ‘theory’ from Owen’s viewpoint is that Owen’s viewpoint lacks anything analogous to Meerkat’s “universal common design”. That this would be so is obvious from the fact that Owen’s viewpoint was an interpretation of morphology, and that there is little or no morphological similarity discernable between the various Archetypes that Owen identified. His Vertebrate Archetype did not share any clear morphological similarity to his Cephalopod Archetype, etc, etc. For this reason, Owen never proposed a ‘Universal Archetype’.
Did you even bother to read the secondary source by Stephen Jay Gould:
" the entire geological history of vertebrates may be interpreted as a movement towards humanity, guided by natural forces ordained by God as secondary causes. Owen’s oft-quoted last paragraph provides a genuine expression of evolutionary views in this limited sense (transformations within an archetypal framework under unknown, but natural, laws established by God to implement His plans of progress)…"
“…Owen regards an archetype as a blueprint of myriad possibilities (made all the more intelligible by limiting their range to products of common elements in unvarying topological order). All realized examples on earth therefore include only a small subset of possible forms. Owen even felt free to speculate about the anatomy of life on other worlds, provided that the vertebral archetype can lay claim to universal status”.
I am pretty much done and I’m ready to move on to the next phase.
Before I do…….
Does anybody have anymore new objections they may have that need to be addressed? Or old objections that you feel did not fully get addressed?
All of them.
Like what then and why?
This quote DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POSITION!
SJG writes about “an archetypal framework” and “an archetype”, meaning that he was clearly talking about individual archetypes among a group of archetypes. If he was referring to a universal archetype, he would have used the definitive article: “the archetypal framework” and “the archetype”. When he writes about “universal status” he is explicitly doing so in connection to " the vertebral archetype" NOT some universal archetype that would cover all life, vertebrate and invertebrate.
You have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand what Gould wrote!
You also provide further evidence that you lack a clear understanding of the English language.
What would be the point, when everybody has objected to pretty much everything you have said, and nobody accepts any of your purported responses to these objections?
Your entire half-baked ‘theory’ has been, and remains, objected to. There is really no point in elaborating further.
If your “next phase” involves taking your inane drivel somewhere else, then I’m all for it.