Finally. He’s starting to make sense.
5 Likes
Yes but I gave you a possible explanation for how that could have come about from a common design perspective. For instance…
Although modular design principles were exclusively applied to regulatory networks in the study, they could be extended to entire populations. The designer would 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.
You just straw manned my point. I am basing my argument on what the study produced as a result of using modular design principles. It is NOT based on an arbitrary diagram.
You need to address the actual argument Ron NOT ignore it like the others because I am just going off what the study suggests.
So I ask you: How do you know we would not get the same results if we extend our application of modular design principles to entire populations as we did with regulatory networks in the study?
I tried. You do you.
1 Like
And I am trying to get you to try a little harder by answering my question please…
How do you know we would not get the same results if we extend our application of modular design principles to entire populations as we did with regulatory networks in the study?
That’s the most coherent comment you’ve ever made on this forum. Keep it up.
1 Like
They could not. That is simply wrong.
This is completely incoherent, and is little more than a demonstration you understand none of the words you just used.
This would produce populations that violate nested hierarchy. It could not possibly produce the observed phylogenetics.
1 Like
Again, how do you know it could not if someone chose to do the experiment on viruses rather than regulatory networks?
No, we are just operating on different worldview perspectives. For instance, my model defines certain concepts differently, such as “species”, because they are different explanations for the same data. Right now, you are trying to shoehorn your model into the common design model.
Well, this goes back to the question I asked @T_aquaticus. First, I reminded him that…
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 continued to emerge 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 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?
Because I understand what the words involved mean.
The experiment is irrelevant to the conversation.
The notion that each of the families of rodents emerged independently is literally insane.
1 Like
So I wil take that as a NO … 
Well, you did not answer my question so there is no support for this claim.
This does not answer my question but why do you think this is insane? Or is this your personal opinion?
If the experiment isn’t relevant to the conversation, then variants of it won’t be either.
Because of their genetics. And their morphology. And the fact that I have eyes.
The genetics and evolution of rodents is an area of expertise.
1 Like
Observing nested hierarchy in real-time within viruses populations would also be irrelevant according to your logic because it is not sexual reproduction at display.
I don’t know how I should respond to this but… if the transition from stem metazoans to invertebrates is perfectly normal under your model, I don’t see how it can’t be the case for rodents.
Is it really worth your time to keep him going with his gibberish?
1 Like
You would indeed observe nested hierarchies in real-time with viruses, in ways that are completely and fundamentally incompatible with your model.
Because rodents happening once is more reasonable than them happening dozens of times.
I think it’s funny. It’s like watching a hamster stuck on an out-of-control wheel.
2 Likes
Now, you are telling me you know more than me about my own model. This is comedy central at its best. 
So parsiimony is the only counter you have?
Your model can’t produce nested hierarchies, and viruses demonstrably do, so…
It’s the only counter I need. We’re talking about science, after all. Unparsimonious explanations are not explanations.
You never explained how my possible model for nested hierarchies of species couldn’t produce the same results if viruses were used in the experiment instead. Thus, you still have no support for your claim. Again, the experiment is relevant to my point and it is irrelevant to point whether they used viruses or regulatory networks.
Not true, the design process can be observed in real time, which means that it is not assumption but an inference. In this case, stem metazoans would be the artificial template God used to convert it into animal families.
For instance, scientists synthesized RNA molecules of a virus and reconstructed a virus particle from scratch [19]. They accomplished this by creating another virus and using its parts, such as specialized proteins (enzymes), to construct an RNA virus to solve the problem of unstable RNA. They built the virus’s genetic code using a chemical synthesis method. By layering together short DNA stretches obtained from a biotechnology firm and inserting markers for identification, they reconstructed the genetic material of the poliovirus.
Once the complete cDNA was synthesized, the researchers converted it back to RNA, which is the natural form of the poliovirus genome. When they introduced this synthetic RNA into cells, it was capable of generating infectious poliovirus particles. This demonstrated the successful design and generation of an infectious virus in the absence of a natural template.
Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template | Science
The former is one of mine as well. As is neuroscience, molecular motors, and the cytoskeleton. I agree that Meerkat’s claims have no basis in reality.
2 Likes
The experiment in question is not relevant to your model, so no results from it, or any variant of it, could support your model in any fashion.
It is not.
And when it’s observed, it violates nested hierarchy. Thus, the problem.
And this violates nested hierarchy. Congrats on proving yourself wrong.
Again.
1 Like
Yes, I agree but I was not trying to say that the experiment itself supports the claim that common design principles can produce nested hierarchies. Instead, my point was that the experiment demonstrates how using common design principles do not violate nest patterns, as suggested by @T_aquaticus, @RonSewell @Mercer.
According to your model, yes it does theoretically violate nested patterns. However, this does not apply to my model because stem metazoans are parts or tools God used to assemble animals.
In other words, they are considered artificial templates not natural ones.
The experiment demonstrates no such thing.
Not ‘according to my model’, according to observation. What you are suggesting is fundamentally impossible.