Let me rephrase that. The experiment does not show a violation of nested patterns when common design principles were used, which means that you guys don’t have any evidence to support your claim. All you have is conflicting evidence.
Again, if the transition from stem metazoans to invertebrates does not violate nested patterns under your model, how can this be impossible for every other animal group, such as rodents?
Please put an end to this. It’s too painful to watch.
@Meerkat_SK5, do you realise that there’s a better person currently active on this forum for providing you with a recommendation to the “ID theorists” and their journal?
@Eddie has repeatedly informed us (most recently in this post) of his intimate familiarity with “ID insiders” and their “private” discussions. You should ask Eddie (who you are already conversing with on another thread about aspects of your ‘Theory’) to promote your ‘Theory’ to the BIO-Complexity editors.
I had no idea what was being talked about here, and had to look back as far as November 2022 to find the post of Meerkat about a projected article.
Meerkat, if I understand him/her correctly, want to submit an article to Bio-Complexity anonymously. I do not believe that Bio-Complexity would publish any article that did not have the author’s real name on it. I have never seen a counter-example.
Also, Meerkat’s article would have to be vetted by people with background in the relevant scientific areas, and they might reject it, or they might demand changes prior to publication. Meerkat would have to be prepared for both of these outcomes.
Finally, Bio-Complexity articles tend to have a lot of technical material in them. Meerkat should look at a number of past articles, to determine if his/her presentation of a Common Design theory contains sufficient technical detail. If it’s a purely conceptual paper, arguing for the logical possibility of common design but not supplying any details of genetics, developmental biology, evolutionary trees, etc., it would be better placed in a different kind of journal, maybe a philosophy journal or some generalist journal that discusses broad scientific questions for the layman.
Yeah, I figured that. This is why I asked Dan whether I can get someone on this forum who has also made contributions to the paper to substitute their name in place of mine.
The arguments in the paper are not of my own, but came from more qualified individuals. I did not create this model or theory.
Instead, I just updated an already successful theory with current literature. More importantly, I made a concerted effort to not rely on my own opinion on the matter. So the technical details are offered by the previous articles
Here is the abstract to see what I mean:
Richard Owen and Charles Darwin both proposed different explanations for the similarities and differences observed in the diversity of life on Earth. However, while both Owen’s “common archetype” and Darwin’s “common ancestor” explanations attempted to account for the similarities and differences in the diversity of life, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection elucidated a specific mechanism for the process by which those similarities and differences arose. As a result, Darwin’s theory has established itself as a more complete and scientifically rigorous explanation for the diversity of life on Earth and has become widely accepted as the prevailing theory of biology.
The primary aims of this article are to provide a mechanistic model of design that Owen’s theory lacked, show how consciousness is a necessary part of the process, and analyze whether Owen’s theory can be considered a better explanation for the evolution of life. Moreover, a more detailed mechanistic model describing the nature of the designer, which could predict the biological phenomena of evolution, is provided. Subsequently, a method to test the hypothesis that could explain and predict the development of species on Earth, as well as its mechanism, is also provided. Finally, several scientific objections against the dysteleology of the theory are postulated, providing a sound methodology to further test this idea.
One analyzes a theory by testing its empirical predictions. At least that’s how we scientists do it.
Then employ the method to test it.
Then it would be best if the persons who did create it wrote in its defense for themselves.
If you see yourself as a popularizer, presenting and summarizing and drawing broad conclusions from the research of other scientists, that’s fine, but that sort of article doesn’t belong in Bio-Complexity, which publishes reports of research by the people who have actually done the research. Only if you have actually performed an investigation yourself (whether in a lab, or outside observing nature), or have come up with some new theory yourself, should you submit to Bio-Complexity. If you want to just summarize the work of others on Common Design and push for its acceptance, I’d recommend journals or magazines that deal with science in a more general way.
I can’t stop you from submitting an article to Bio-Complexity; I’m just letting you know its likely fate, if your article does not match the criteria the journal is looking for.
Meerkat, I’m cannot fathom your being that oblivious to the ethics of what you are suggesting. In the first instance, I thought you misspoke even though you seemed clear enough. You actually want somebody to plagiarize your plagiarized work.
That is not always the case. For instance, Penrose and Stuart Hameroff did not test their theory but had others test it for them.
Yes, the latter part is what my article entails. I added specific details to Owen’s theory that are novel and unique. But, it is “offered not as a demonstration of any new facts, but rather as an application
of existing facts, the potential significance being that this way of organizing them may provide new insights.”
This qoute is from a reasearch article that was published in biocomplexity. It is very similar in the way it is structured. The only real differnece is that it has figures in it:
Castro-Chavez (bio-complexity.org)
It is not plagiarizism because the users on this forum have made significant contributions to the formation of the article. I also had it edited by a well-known company so they would take some of the credit as well.
You never told Dan WHO you consider to have “made contributions to the paper”, and therefore should be asked.
(Though it is unclear as to why you think Dan doing the asking will yield a more positive response than asking them yourself.)
Nobody except you has made contributions to the paper. Everybody else has told you that it’s all garbage. Nobody at all would want their name associated with it in any way.
Just to let you know, It does not necessarily have to be published in bio-complexity since it is not going to do anything for my personal career or life. My main focus and desire is to advance the gospel and end the culture war or at least make significant progress in ending it. So if they can’t publish it without my name, I can just publish here on this forum. For the most part, I just want them to read it to see if they can do anything with it to help out in the fight.
The experiment did not produce different species using common design principles. Your experiment can’t show what you are claiming.
Better yet, look at human designs. Vehicles DON’T FALL INTO A NESTED HIERARCHY. This is because they use modular designs. That’s your experiment.
There is nothing in the study about comparison between species. The nested hierarchy exists between species, not within gene networks in a single species. Nothing in your study even addresses the nested hierarchy.
Just look around. Look at vehicles which don’t fall into a nested hierarchy. Look at all groups of human designs. None of them fall into a nested hierarchy. That’s because humans mix and match different modules without regard to a tree-like structure because there is no reason in design that you would have to limit combination of modules to a tree-like structure.
There is absolutely no reason why we would expect a tree-like structure without common descent between orders and families. No reason at all. If modular design principles were used we would expect numerous and obvious violations of a nested hierarchy as different modules are mixed and matched without the need for a tree-like structure.
ChatGPT??? Seriously???
Your study does nothing to address features and sequence shared between species.
At least you are upfront about not wanting to progress scientific understanding of nature.
The experiment is irrelevant to nested hierarchies as we are discussing them. It is no help to you at all.
This is an incoherent question.
Well I’m sure they won’t care a whit about what I think!
I inputted this paragragh into ChatGPT so you can see from a different source why your claim is not accurate:
ChatGPT
In the context of biological systems and the tree of life, the nested hierarchy arises from the evolutionary relationships among organisms, where shared traits and ancestry determine the hierarchical organization. This nested hierarchy is based on a comprehensive set of traits, including both present and absent traits, and reflects the patterns of descent with modification.
Modularity, on the other hand, refers to the organization of systems into discrete functional units or modules. These modules can have specific traits or features that contribute to their functionality. The concept of modularity is not inherently incompatible with the nested hierarchy observed in biological systems. Modularity can exist within the broader framework of the nested hierarchy.
While modularity allows for the differentiation and specialization of modules within organisms, it does not imply that modules can be freely transferred or acquired across independent branches of the tree of life. The transfer of traits between distinct lineages typically occurs through processes like horizontal gene transfer or convergent evolution, which have their own evolutionary mechanisms and patterns.
It is important to recognize that the concepts of modularity and nested hierarchy are not mutually exclusive but operate at different levels and have different underlying principles. The nested hierarchy reflects the historical relationships among organisms, while modularity provides a framework for understanding the organization and functionality of biological systems.
Correct, but it does not show what you are claiming either, which is why I keep pointing out the experiment. If modular design principles inherently violate nested patterns, we would have seen it in the experiment. We didn’t see it. Therefore, your prediction is falsified!!
You misunderstand the point of why I bring up the experiment. I was using the study to argue that common design does not violate nested patterns within a species NOT between species.
I inputted this into ChatGPT:
do modular design principles violate nested hierarchies
ChatGPT
No, modular design principles do not inherently violate nested hierarchies. In fact, modular design can be compatible with nested hierarchies in certain contexts. Let me explain further:
Nested hierarchies in biology, such as the classification of organisms into taxa like species, genus, family, etc., are primarily based on evolutionary relationships and the concept of common descent. They reflect the branching patterns of ancestry and the shared inheritance of traits. This hierarchical structure arises from the gradual accumulation of traits over time.
Modular design principles, on the other hand, involve the organization of systems or structures into discrete and semi-independent modules. These modules can be thought of as functional units that can be combined or rearranged to create different variations. Modularity provides benefits such as adaptability, flexibility, and ease of modification.
While modular design allows for the mixing and matching of different modules, it does not necessarily contradict the existence of nested hierarchies. In biological systems, modules can themselves have a nested hierarchical structure. For example, within a complex organism, organs can be considered modules, and within organs, tissues can be considered modules, and so on. This nested modular organization can coexist with the larger nested hierarchy of evolutionary relationships.
It’s important to note that the specific relationship between modularity and nested hierarchies can vary depending on the context and scale of analysis. Modularity allows for variation and flexibility within and between modules, while nested hierarchies reflect broader patterns of evolutionary relatedness.
So, modular design principles and nested hierarchies are not mutually exclusive. They can exist simultaneously and complement each other in different ways within biological systems.
The point here is that modularity does not inherently violate nested patterns as you have been arguing. It only violates nested patterns under certain circumstances because humans have free-will and unique personalities.
According to your model, stem metazoans are considered to be ancestors. In contrast, my model views stem metazoans as parts or tools God used to assemble animals. In other words, they are considered artificial templates not natural ones.
Moreover, a common design model would not violate nested hierarchies between species like what you suggested.This is why I asked the question before. My point was that separate creation/designs from stem metazoans would still produce nested patterns just like common descent. But, it would still be an exclusively common design process.
Whoa. I never said it was the only focus of mine. I definitely want to advance science as well. In fact, if I were qualified, I would definitely test my own model myself as @Mercer suggested.
It does not support your case either when it comes to claiming that common design inherently violate nested hierarchies.
My point was that separate creation/designs from stem metazoans would still produce nested patterns just like common descent. But, it would still be an exclusively common design process.
It is ok. I just realized that It does not necessarily have to be published in bio-complexity since it is not going to do anything for my personal career or life anyways. My main focus and desire are to advance the gospel and end the culture war or at least make significant progress in ending it. So if they can’t publish it without my name, I can just publish here on this forum. I mainly just want them to read it to see if they can do anything with it to help out in the fight.
Human designs do show us. Human designs use modular principles, and they don’t fall into a nested hierarchy.
No, we wouldn’t. The genomes of different species were not compared.
The nested hierarchy we are talking about exists between species.
Why would modularity necessarily produce a nested hierarchy between species?
Yes, it would. There is no reason why we wouldn’t see numerous and obvious violations of a nested hierarchy. Why not have a species with feathers and teats? Why not have a species with flow through lungs and fur? Why not have a species with three middle ear bones and feathers? Why not have a species with scales and a forward facing retina? Why don’t we see mixtures of modular features that would violate a nested hierarchy?
We’ve now gone from ‘it supports me’ to ‘well, but it doesn’t support you, either!’
How embarrassing for you.
They certainly would not.