That’s a huge mistake. You WANT to seem dishonest. Remember, you’re submitting a paper to the Dishonesty Institute, and if they think it’s on the up-and-up, they’ll just chuck it without reading.
3 Likes
Do journals really allow for this to happen or does this only apply to the journal in question?
I seriously doubt that biocomplexity allows for this based on what I read on their website:
To submit a manuscript to BIO-Complexity you must first be registered as an author. Once registered, you may begin the five-step SUBMISSION process. To register for the first time, send an email from an institutional or corporate account (to establish your identity) to our support address.
Also, why can’t I get someone on this forum who has made contributions to substitute their name in place of mine?
Lastly, what about potentially leaving this part blank and telling them directly that I want to remain anonymous?
I suggest submitting under the name “Alan Smithee”.
3 Likes
In my case, it’s because I don’t want to appear to be an ignorant and incompetent quote-miner.
4 Likes
Given that the vast majority of participants of this forum have either (i) completely rubbished your ‘Theory’, or (ii) ignored it completely, this would appear to leave a very small pool of candidates – none of whom, from memory, have “made contributions” to it.
2 Likes
If that doesn’t fit, there’s always Ann Elk, well known for her theoretical insights into Brontosaurus. Of course, her theory was both coherent and testable, so maybe this is beneath her, or beneath Brontosaurus, as the case may be.
1 Like
As I rather doubt that @Meerkat_SK5 can come even close to:
prov[ing] to the satisfaction [anybody] that they had not been able to exercise creative control over [their theory]
… I would suggest that their employment of this pseudonym would be both inappropriate and defamatory to the prior users of that pseudonym.
Arguably the problem here is the exact opposite – this ‘Theory’ has so much of @Meerkat_SK5 in it that even @Meerkat_SK5 themselves appear embarrassed by it.
1 Like
Happily, it has now been thoroughly tested and the Apatosaurus controversy resolved in ‘her’ favour.
1 Like
If you want to avoid coming across as dishonest, don’t be dishonest.
Since what you want to do is avoid coming across as dishonest while actually being dishonest, that won’t work.
It didn’t work here either - and now you have confirmed that you have no qualms about being dishonest and trying to pretend you aren’t. It would explain why you are still trying to lie about your sources.
This is not accurate. Read this:
“The UC forms the foundation of von Neumann’s theory on self-replicating automata. However, an UC is a mindless robot, and must be told very specifically exactly what to do in order build the correct object(s). It must therefore be programmed to construct specific things, and if it is to replicate then it must also be provided with a blueprint of itself.6”
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2012.0869#d3e476
As you can see, this is almost exactly what the universal common designer theory entails. In fact, I don’t see any real differences between the two models other than the terms used to described them.
You just made my point that I was trying to get @John_Harshman to accept, but he claimed that I was misinterpreting the sources I gave him showing that functional components or requirements can produce nested patterns as well. He thinks ONLY a flesh and blood common ancestor can explain those patterns. I tried to explain to him that a conscious quantum computer can produce those same patterns, but he denies it.
Maybe you can do a better job than me in convincing him otherwise.
I’m pretty sure you could sue them and win if they publish without your consent or correct attribution. Of course, you must not assume someone else’s identity, but a reasonable pseudonym should not be a problem. And if they refuse, you are not obliged to give them permission to publish your work either and can look someplace else to publish. I hear General Science Journal[1] is rather accepting of controversial takes.
Anyway, what is so embarassing about your model that you would rather not have your name associated with it? Perhaps it needs some time longer in the oven yet, if you have so little confidence in its current state.
2 Likes
I think we time travelled to the future.
1 Like
Yeah, I’m very confused about what happened. Apparently 100+ of the posts in this thread are now from Oct 2022, a month before it even began.
just some old threads merged into this one because it’s the same content-wise.
1 Like
Something in this thread is so dense, it has warped space-time itself!
3 Likes
That’s exactly what the paper does. Did you read it?
Not only that, but we can predict that species with vertical inheritance and mutations will produce a nested hierarchy from first principles. It’s one of the most basic and well known predictions of the theory of common descent and evolution.
Your article does not address genome comparisons nor morphological comparisons between species. Do you not know what a nested hierarchy is? It appears you don’t. The nested hierarchy is not the arrangement of gene interactions in a single species.
Your article has nothing to do with comparisons between species.
Yes it is. There is absolutely no reason why common design would produce a nested hierarchy.
2 Likes
The very concept of modular design is that different modules can be mixed and matched with each other. For example, there would be a lung module, a feather module, a hair module, a three middle ear bone module, a mammary gland module, a gill module, and so forth.
So do we see many different combinations of these modules as we would expect from modular design? Do we see a mixture of feathers, three middle ear bones, tidal lungs, gills, and mammary glands?
Why can’t you see the most basic and obvious fact that modular design is the antithesis of a nested hierarchy?
3 Likes
How do you know this?
That is not the issue. I am not an expert or a practicing scientist. So this would not do anything for my career nor am I qualified to further advance this theory. More importantly, my main desire and priority is to advance the gospel by ending this culture war rather than advance science.
Besides, I did not create this model or theory, remember. I just updated an already successful theory with current literature. So why would I be embarrassed by it?
Again, as I told @John_Harshman and @Michael_Okoko, it does not matter what example is used in a study. If you use these modular design principles, it will produce nested hierarchies.
So this objection is irrelevant because if they chose to use viruses, then we would expect the same result based on those principles:
Broadly speaking, modularity is the degree to which a system’s components may be separated and recombined, often with the benefit of flexibility and variety in use.[1] The concept of modularity is used primarily to reduce complexity by breaking a system into varying degrees of interdependence and independence across and “hide the complexity of each part behind an abstraction and interface”.[2] However, the concept of modularity can be extended to multiple disciplines, each with their own nuances. Despite these nuances, consistent themes concerning modular systems can be identified.[3]
This includes biology as well:
Many plants and sessile benthic invertebrates[clarification needed] demonstrate this type of modularity (by contrast, many other organisms have a determinate structure that is predefined in embryogenesis).[20] The term has also been used in a broader sense in biology to refer to the reuse of homologous structures across individuals and species. Even within this latter category, there may be differences in how a module is perceived. For instance, evolutionary biologists may focus on the module as a morphological component (subunit) of a whole organism, while developmental biologists may use the term module to refer to some combination of lower-level components (e.g., genes) that are able to act in a unified way to perform a function…
… Altenberg’s work,[26] Wagner’s work,[27] and their joint writing[28] explores how natural selection may have resulted in modular organisms, and the roles modularity plays in evolution. Altenberg’s and Wagner’s work suggests that modularity is both the result of evolution, and facilitates evolution—an idea that shares a marked resemblance to work on modularity in technological and organizational domains.
Modularity - Wikipedia
The resemblance between the findings in biological and non-biological systems shows how modularity is a universal mechanism that enhances adaptability, robustness, and innovation.
This means that it does not matter whether the study involved regulatory networks instead of viruses or mouse strains. The APPLICATION of modularity in design will produce nested hierarchies in the same way that descent principles will produce them.
Both common descent and common design claim that the first animal body plans emerged from primitive stem metazoans. After this transition, my model suggests that the orders and family levels from each major animal groups emerged from stem metazoans rather than animals. This is what I mean by separate creation and it is the main difference between the two models.
So my question to you is… Why would it not produce the same nested hierarchy between families and orders as it does with common descent?
Because modularity allows for the flexibility and adaptability of organisms. It enables the evolution of new forms and functions by combining existing modules in novel ways. This involves recombining and modifying modules, which allows organisms to adapt to different environments, develop specialized adaptations, and diversify over evolutionary time. As suggested by Raff:
Biology scholars have provided a list of features that should characterize a module (much as Fodor did in The Modularity of Mind [22]). For instance, Rudy Raff[23] provides the following list of characteristics that developmental modules should possess:
- discrete genetic specification
- hierarchical organization
- interactions with other modules
- a particular physical location within a developing organism
- the ability to undergo transformations on both developmental and evolutionary time scales
To Raff’s mind, developmental modules are “dynamic entities representing localized processes (as in morphogenetic fields) rather than simply incipient structures … (… such as organ rudiments)” Modularity - Wikipedia
Wrong and wrong. Modular design principles are specifically designed to not produce nested hierarchies. Tree structures are not modular.
3 Likes