Which violates nested hierarchy (NH). You don’t understand the meaning of the term or the concept. Why not just admit it?
Which violates NH. You don’t understand the meaning of the term or the concept? Why not just admit it?
Which violates NH. You don’t understand the meaning of the term or the concept. Why not just admit it?
None of those suggestions has anything to do with NH.
How do I know what? That copyright regulations exist, and that people can and do get into massive trouble for distributing without license things they didn’t author? Or that identity fraud exists and that people can and do get into massive trouble for committing it? Are you serious?
Oh, please. 
Beats me. If you have no reputation to preserve for future scientific career prospects, then I struggle to think of a detriment in having your name on an article in a creationist pseudo-journal. That’s why I asked.
Still, if it’s not original work, then perhaps you might instead try and petition the work’s actual authors to publish it. And if it’s a review article like what you describe, then perhaps you’d do well to understand all of the work you are attempting to assemble in it.
So either:
@Meerkat’s “universal common designer” is an abstract self-replicating cellular automaton that only exists in computer/mathematical simulations and generates 2-dimensional[1] non-living rectangular[2] abstract entities and which had to be designed, implemented and programmed by some other pre-existing entity; or
@Meerkat_SK5 hasn’t bothered to read let alone understand his sources before spouting ignorant gibberish.
I did not mean to suggests that modular design principles by themselves produced nested patterns in the study. It was the application of it to specific environments that produced nested patterns.
For instance, the role of global transcription factors in coordinating the activity of different functional modules or tissues is essential for the proper development, function, and adaptation of animals. This ensures that animals can respond effectively to changing environmental conditions and maintain homeostasis during changing physiological demands, which in turn produces nested hierarchies:
How do scientists try to understand the complex coordination and integration of multiple environmental cues on bacterial gene expression? Four components shape the functional architecture of bacterial regulatory networks: 1. global transcription factors, which are responsible for responding to general signals and for module coordination; 2. strict, globally regulated genes, which are responsible for encoding products important for the basal machinery of the cell and are only governed by global transcription factors; 3. modular genes, which are modules devoted to particular cell functions; and 4. intermodular genes, which are responsible for integrating, at the promoter level, disparate physiological responses coming from different modules to achieve an integrated response. All these functional components form a nonpyramidal, matryoshka -like hierarchy exhibiting feedback. In this functional architecture, well-defined independent modules are globally coordinated by global transcription factors, whose disparate physiological responses are integrated, at the promoter level, by intermodular genes.
Freyre-González and his colleagues observed that all the previously reported E. coli global transcription factors were involved in the response to general signals (e.g., energy levels, redox potential, stress by heat shock, general stresses, and nitrogen metabolism) (Figure 3)…
…… In contrast, Freyre-González and his colleagues showed, in fact, that all these functional components in cells form a nonpyramidal, matryoshka-like hierarchy that exhibits feedback (Figure 3).
This is exactly what common design theory entails. The designer would just be the global transcription factor that coordinates the different traits or archetypical genomes in organisms to produce coordinated adaptations to the environment.
For example, in a population of animals inhabiting an environment, the designer would preprogram favorable traits that are coordinated with each other. Contrastingly, individuals without these traits would not adapt to that niche.
Over time, these coordinated adaptations can result in the formation of distinct lineages or species that are adapted to different ecological niches. Moreover, this could lead to the emergence of subpopulations within the larger population that are specialized for different nutrient sources, which would create a nested hierarchy of species.
No no no, I am saying how do you know they will grant my request if I asked them I wanted to remain anonymous after it was published. This means my real name and contact information would not be on the article once it was published and they would not know who was as well. How do you know they would sign off on this?
Because people will contact and bug me after it goes public because what I am publishing is a big deal. Here is a quote from a prominent scientist named Edward O.Wilson to illustrate my point:
“Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame. They will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible. Even a combined Nobel prize and Templeton prize (the latter designed to encourage the search for just such harmony) would fall short as proper recognition. Every scientist would like to accomplish such an epoch-making advance. But no one has even come close, because unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science.”
Because Richard Owen is dead. So I fail to see how this is possible.
You did not read what I said carefully. I specifically said…
As you can see, this [Von Neumann’s universal constructor ] 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.
I don’t. I’m saying ask a lawyer about how to phrase and preserve your communications so you can make a decent buck off of them violating your rights as an author.
Oh, no need to flatter yourself. I assure you, neither the Nobel nor the Templeton committee are going to read in search of the next scientific breakthrough either BIO-Complexity or any other creationist rag masquerading as a journal.
Oh, those were suggestions, not why-questions. Anyway, I suppose Owen’s being dead may be an obstacle to him publishing his work. I guess an alternative might be you dusting off that document he signed giving you license to publish his theory in his stead. Or, again, if it is as you describe something more akin to a review article than to someone else’s work, then perhaps you’d do well to understand all of the work you are attempting to assemble in it. Surely studying any subject at all to any depth at all shouldn’t require Owen’s being alive, specifically.
It does no such thing. You don’t understand the meaning of NH.
Irrelevant.
No, it does not. Common descent produces them.
No, you did not read what you said:
As you can see, this [Von Neumann’s universal constructor ] 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 are utterly clueless. Von Neumann’s universal constructor isn’t even a model in the sense you’re using the term.
NO IT WON’T!!! Modular design principles are the antithesis of nested hierarchies. Repeating what I said in another post in case you missed it.
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?
What are you talking about???
Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy, and this is due to modularity.
This claim is falsified by the nested hierarchy that is formed between orders and families.
That’s NOT what we see in biology. We don’t see species with feathers and teats. We don’t see species with flow through lungs and three middle ear bones. We don’t see millions and millions of possible combinations of features that modular design would allow. Instead, we only see vertical transmission of traits in a tree-like structure, exactly what we DON’T see in modular design.
And I am going to show you again how the study disproves this claim in case you missed it:
Were these regulatory networks randomly organized, or did they follow well-defined organizational principles? More recent studies of complex biological networks have shown that their organizations are not random; rather, they follow modular principles (Barabási & Oltvai 2004). Scientists defined a module as a group of genes cooperating to achieve a particular physiological function (Hartwell 1999). Nevertheless, despite these advances in knowledge, researchers did not have a deep understanding of the principles governing the systems-level coordination and integration of molecular responses to environmental cues…
… As discussed above, scientists learned in the early 1960s that the genes that respond to specific signals are grouped into operons and regulons, which are the first two levels of genetic organization. However, certain complex processes (e.g., flagellar assembly and sporulation) require coordinated expression over time, which cannot occur without a complex regulatory circuit. Therefore, operons and regulons must be embedded into a complex structure called the module that is responsible for well-defined physiological functions. Together, operons, regulons, and modules form a hierarchy (operon < regulon < module) that governs genetic organization. Are there parallels between the definitions of operon, regulon, and module? Certainly, in general terms, both operons and regulons themselves are kinds of modules. This similarity reflects the self-similar nature of genetic organization, in which some modules are nested inside other modules like a set of Russian nesting dolls, or matryoshka.
With these ideas in mind, scientists designed a way to analyze and reveal the complex interrelationships (architecture) of the functional components shaping regulatory networks (Freyre-González et al. 2008). The approach is a form of analysis called “natural decomposition,” which refers to the different functional components that are dissected, identified, and classified according to biologically pertinent premises and rules. These scientists based the natural decomposition approach on two biologically relevant premises: (1) A module is a set of genes cooperating to perform a particular physiological function (Hartwell 1999), and (2) given their multiple (pleiotropic) effects, global regulators should not belong to modules, but rather coordinate them in response to general environmental cues (Gottesman 1984). They studied the E. coli regulatory network and identified four key functional components by which to organize the regulatory network: global transcription factors, strictly globally regulated genes, modular genes, and intermodular genes. They chose these functional components because they play important roles in the coordination and integration of physiological responses in a cell.
I think you misunderstood the question being asked…You are claiming that common design violates nested patterns between species.
So my question to you is this… How could what you say be true if the transition from stem metazoans to invertebrates produces nested hierarchy according to the common descent model?
Alright, since you don’t want to listen to me or accept the results of the study, let’s ask a neutral third party:
Does the application of modular design principles to biology produce or lead to nested hierarchies?
ChatGPT
The application of modular design principles in biology can contribute to the emergence of nested hierarchies. Modular design refers to the organization of complex systems into discrete, functional units or modules that can interact and work together. This concept is observed in various biological systems, from molecular interactions within cells to the organization of organs and organisms.
When modular design principles are applied in biology, it can lead to hierarchical structures where larger modules consist of smaller modules, which, in turn, may consist of even smaller modules. These nested hierarchies arise as a result of the hierarchical organization and interplay of modular components.
For example, in molecular biology, proteins often consist of distinct functional domains or modules that perform specific tasks. These domains can be combined and recombined in various ways to generate a diverse range of protein functions. Similarly, within organisms, organs can be seen as modules that are composed of different types of tissues, which, in turn, are composed of cells. This hierarchical organization is evident in the way biological systems are structured and function.
Nested hierarchies provide a framework for understanding the complexity and organization of biological systems. They allow for modular components to be combined and arranged in a way that enables efficient functioning and adaptation to different environmental conditions. However, it’s important to note that while nested hierarchies are observed in many biological systems, they are not the only organizational principle at play, and other factors, such as evolutionary history and environmental interactions, also contribute to the overall complexity of biological systems.
It isn’t talking about nested hierarchy of relationship, it’s talking about the control of expression. It’s completely irrelevant to this conversation.
Well first off, you are missing the point of why I keep bringing this up. I am showing how the application of modular design principles can lead to the emergence of nested hierarchies regardless of the biological entity. This means that if they chose to use viruses instead of regulatory networks, then we would expect the same result based on those principles.
Secondly, the only reason you guys say it is irrelevant is because viruses are considered to be “species” under the common descent model. But, they are just parts and tools, or modules in the case, God used to construct animals according to the common design model.
This is definitely not an option.
I am not talking about organization like that. I am talking about religious and conservative organizations or individuals. (i.e. the non-scientific community)
This does not make sense. It is already published
It is not a review article. Instead, it is a much more selective type of article, such as a perspective or opinion article.
Nothing about that shows anything about nested hierarchies of the sort relevant to this conversation.
The reason I said the quoted text was irrelevant to nested hierarchy is because it is irrelevant to nested hierarchy. Or viruses, for that matter.
So what? How does this hurt the point I am making?
You’re trying to say that modularity can cause nested hierarchies.
To support that, you quoted text you claimed said modularity can cause nested hierarchies.
Said text was not talking about nested hierarchies at all.
Do you really not see the problem?
From Wiki:
Nested hierarchy[edit]
Matryoshka dolls, also known as nesting dolls or Russian dolls. Each doll is encompassed inside another until the smallest one is reached. This is the concept of nesting. When the concept is applied to sets, the resulting ordering is a nested hierarchy.
A nested hierarchy or inclusion hierarchy is a hierarchical ordering of nested sets.[10] The concept of nesting is exemplified in Russian matryoshka dolls. Each doll is encompassed by another doll, all the way to the outer doll. The outer doll holds all of the inner dolls, the next outer doll holds all the remaining inner dolls, and so on. Matryoshkas represent a nested hierarchy where each level contains only one object, i.e., there is only one of each size of doll; a generalized nested hierarchy allows for multiple objects within levels but with each object having only one parent at each level. The general concept is both demonstrated and mathematically formulated in the following example:
square⊂quadrilateral⊂polygon⊂shape
A square can always also be referred to as a quadrilateral, polygon or shape. In this way, it is a hierarchy. However, consider the set of polygons using this classification. A square can only be a quadrilateral; it can never be a triangle, hexagon, etc.
Nested hierarchies are the organizational schemes behind taxonomies and systematic classifications. For example, using the original Linnaean taxonomy (the version he laid out in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae), a human can be formulated as:[11]
H. sapiens⊂Homo⊂Primates⊂Mammalia⊂Animalia
Taxonomies may change frequently (as seen in biological taxonomy), but the underlying concept of nested hierarchies is always the same.
In many programming taxonomies and syntax models (as well as fractals in mathematics), nested hierarchies, including Russian dolls, are also used to illustrate the properties of self-similarity and recursion. Recursion itself is included as a subset of hierarchical programming, and recursive thinking can be synonymous with a form of hierarchical thinking and logic.[
Now, THIS IS THE QUOTE FROM THE STUDY:
Were these regulatory networks randomly organized, or did they follow well-defined organizational principles? More recent studies of complex biological networks have shown that their organizations are not random; rather, they follow modular principles (Barabási & Oltvai 2004). Scientists defined a module as a group of genes cooperating to achieve a particular physiological function (Hartwell 1999). Nevertheless, despite these advances in knowledge, researchers did not have a deep understanding of the principles governing the systems-level coordination and integration of molecular responses to environmental cues…
… As discussed above, scientists learned in the early 1960s that the genes that respond to specific signals are grouped into operons and regulons, which are the first two levels of genetic organization. However, certain complex processes (e.g., flagellar assembly and sporulation) require coordinated expression over time, which cannot occur without a complex regulatory circuit. Therefore, operons and regulons must be embedded into a complex structure called the module that is responsible for well-defined physiological functions. Together, operons, regulons, and modules form a hierarchy (operon < regulon < module) that governs genetic organization. Are there parallels between the definitions of operon, regulon, and module? Certainly, in general terms, both operons and regulons themselves are kinds of modules. This similarity reflects the self-similar nature of genetic organization, in which some modules are nested inside other modules like a set of Russian nesting dolls, or matryoshka.
We are talking about a specific thing. That thing is the nested hierarchy of sequence relation. That article is not discussing that topic.
Your whinging is irrelevant. Stop.
No no no. Right now, we are not!!!
We are talking about whether the concept of common design theory can theoretically produce nested hierarchies in biology just like the concept of common descent.
This means that the focus is NOT on the concrete examples, but it is on the abstract and application of the concept of common design.
The subject is whether it is a possible scientific alternative explaination for those patterns NOT an actual alternative to those patterns
This…
Is contradicted by this…
The type of nested hierarchies in biology that we are discussing is that of clades. Of phylogenies.
NOT modularity.
NOT hierarchical control of development.
Cladistics. That is the thing to be explained.
What you miss is that while you might diagram a nested hierarchy of random or simple objects just by arbitrarily narrowing the set of traits you consider, the tree of life by necessity of reproduction with variation results in a nested hierarchy based on ALL defining traits, both present and absent. In nature, you do not get to just ignore the ones that do not fit.
If vehicle design were nested hierarchies, you would not ever find intermittent wipers on pickups if they appeared on sedans first, because sedans and trucks are independent branches.
If bats were modular, there would be nothing stopping them from licensing feathers from bird patents.
Everybody is trying to tell you that the concept of modularity is antithetical to nested hierarchy. This is not some sort of perspective, group think, doctrine, presupposition, evolution or worldview thing, this is just a matter of understanding the concepts. If you take away nothing else from this painful thread, please grasp this.
jkjl;ljjkjlk
