As I’m sure you realize, you can make a metaphorical analogy between any two things with enough time and creativity. So someone being able to make a metaphorical between two things is completely meaningless.
If you disagree, then it is your burden to explain why a metaphorical analogy should be accepted, not mine to show why it shouldn’t.
Great. Your argument is essentially an inference to the best explanation already, so including a premise that is itself an inference to the best explanation is a bad idea. Especially if it isn’t really needed. Since we’re striking that premise, We can move on…
No it has not. Nor do your references support this notion.
You cite:
Richert 2018, which is a comment and not an article and does not say or even suggest that life can’t happen naturally.
Witzany 2017, which doesn’t say anything about abiogenesis
at all.
Abel 2012, which is the work of a quack who doesn’t understand basic chemistry.
If you had others on this point I missed them, feel free to add them. But it isn’t likely they are any more useful to you, given your current record.
Life is fundamentally chemical, which is material.
So was I…
You rely on your interpretation and understanding of quantum physics for this claim, and you are not qualified in the field. As previously agreed, until you are able to get an actual physicist here to vouch for your interpretation, you’ll get no traction there.
You’ll especially get no traction citing as evidence for your understanding of quantum physics an obvious buffoon like Inspiring Philosophy. Who I wouldn’t trust to properly interpret a stop sign, much less quantum field theories.
Unfortunately, your misunderstanding of, and general unfamiliarity with, quantum physics is your problem. Or rather, one of your problems.
I would note that the last comment was directed at a comment of @CrisprCAS9’s that made no mention of quantum physics. This comment was therefore simply gratuitous.
It appears to be the opinion of many (all?), including the one physicist, on this thread that @Meerkat_SK5 themselves demonstrates no expertise in quantum physics.
@Meerkat_SK5 appears to be basing their ‘understanding’ (if it could be called that) of quantum physics of the Youtube apologetics of somebody who @CrisprCAS9 suggested they “wouldn’t trust to properly interpret a stop sign” – an evaluation that I’d support given the garbled mess I encountered here. (Does ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ actually have a formal background in philosophy? It seems hard to credit.)
Given that @Meerkat_SK5called Fazale Rana a “a well-established expert” (in the context of a comment on the informational similarity between human languages and DNA), cites Hugh Ross on biology, etc, etc, I would suggest that we have no evidence that they even know how to recognise expertise.
I would therefore request that @Meerkat_SK5cease and desist this repeated, and deeply flawed, credentialism.
I would note that I am not claiming any scientific expertise of my own. I have been basing my own criticism simply on reading comprehension – comparing the claims made to the text and context of the cited sources. If even a reasonably sophisticated layman can see through the claims, then these claims are deeply flawed. Sufficiently flawed that the only practical way forward would be to abandon them and start from scratch.
What’s wrong with it being arbitrary? All that is necessary is that it works. What you have is a philosophical question about chemistry, but that’s no problem for chemistry itself.
As it happens I believe there is a good reason for the coding we observe. It is efficient is terms of chemical binding energy, and so is favored by entropy/thermodynamics. I would have some difficulty finding the citation for that, but I can look for it if you like.
NO, this is equivocation:
[My change of emphasis]
Here you are using “interventions” to mean something very different from controlling the experimental variable.
I’d like to clarify that I have never objected to testing Divine action. My argument is that Divine action can never be ruled out, and is not falsifiable. I also have very relevant expertise in testing hypotheses; if the Divine can be tested then there is no reason my expertise should not apply.
Oh but I did. You just missed it: Again, the attributes of the Christian God have to work in accordance with each other in a logically consistent manner because he is who he is (i.e. the law of identity) and cannot not be who he is at the same time (i.e. law of non-contradiction). This means that God cannot make himself cease to exist because this would conflict with him being a necessary being. God cannot make a square circle because this would conflict with his omniscience. God cannot lie because it would conflict with his omnibenevolence. God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift because it would conflict with his omni-potency
God cannot create and develop a world that does not have God intimately involved in the process every step of the way because it would conflict with his “Personal’ nature. This includes previous experiments and observations that suggests God mimics the behavior of humans rather than Natural law.:
“The repetitive non-coding RNA sequences resemble that of a natural everyday language, i.e., the essential tool to coordinate and organize common behavior."
Thus, God must be true to “all” his attributes, because to do otherwise would be to deny his own self. On the other hand, If this common designer was finite and generic as described by ID theorists, it would be possible that this designer could violate this principle, which is another reason why their version of ID is untestable.
Why is this relevant to what I am trying to do with the model? Keep in mind, he is applying it things and making assumptions that I either don’t need or don’t agree with.
Sure, maybe not completely false but it does suggests that the bible did not accurately describe it:
King James Bible
And the LORD God formed man ofthe dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
King James Bible
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art , and unto dust shalt thou return.
Well, I will once you refute all three of my points on why they are incompatible. So far, you have not done this. This is no LUCA and Humans came from the ground NOT from animals according to the model. So even if I granted the distinction between common design and separate creation from the fossil record, common design and common descent would still be incompatible.
No, because it is not necessary to establish in order to show why they are incompatible models, as I said before. Nevertheless, just look into this source under sections “Origin of the major branches (supergroups) of eukaryotes” and “Origin of the animal phyla” for potential examples for basic type classification for the common design model.
Well, it is relevant to what you said. Theistic evolutionists or biologos do not support common design and only support intelligent design as it pertains to common descent This means that Common design and intelligent design are not the same. You can have an unknown or unconscious designer as an option according to ID theorists, which would not apply to a common designer like us.
Honestly, do you have any evidence you can find from theistic literature that explain how common design is considered compatible with common descent or is indistinguishable from it?
You keep making assertion after assertation without any support.
Alright, let me rephrase it since you seem to only want articles that provide a verbatim text that supports my premises.
Failure to Explain the Evidence through Unguided Natural Processes or Failure to Produce Evidence through Unguided Natural Processes
For example, current experiments and methods fail at producing a self-replicating RNA molecule without intervention { I gave you the study for this already]. Plus, current understanding of physics and chemistry do not explain the digital the code that life depends on for it’s existence.
If you have studies that refute these claims, please send them rather than make a bunch of assertions like you have been doing more and more in your response. Otherwise, this premise should be considered supported by the evidence.
No, I rely on evidence and consensus. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the standard that has been and still is the consensus or majority among physicists for decades now.
“According to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, the quantum state of material particles such as electrons can be described by a wave function Ψ. It seems strange to describe the state of a material particle by a wave function. However, this refers to one of the central postulates of quantum mechanics: wave-particle duality. It has been postulated that particles also have a wave character based on the observation that the detected character of a material particle (corpuscle or wave) depends solely on the experimental design. Therefore a particle can be described as a matter-wave [4]. A matter-wave can mathematically be represented by a wave function which is the solution of a wave equation. The appropriate wave equation for material particles is the Schrödinger equation [5-8] whose solution describes the behaviour of a particle in space and time (e.g. with respect to a potential barrier). It is therefore this equation which helps to explain the quantum tunnelling phenomenon.”
First off, Inspiring Philosophy did NOT craft those videos himself. A quantum physicist named Johanna Ratz helped him make those video because IP obviously was not an expert in the field. I can show you those videos from the actual expert if you would like. But since he is a Christian physicist, you will probably turned that into an excuse as well.
In addition, if you have actually bothered to look below his video for those citations I mentioned, you will see this…
"Materialism has been dead for decades and recent research only reconfirms this, as this video will show. This video was reviewed by physicist Fred Kuttner and Richard Conn Henry. A few other physicists reviewed this but asked to remain anonymous for privacy reasons.
…" At 12:34 we highlight an experiment. I want to note the authors do not agree with my philosophical views but think we ought to drop objectivity while keeping determinism and independence."
Lastly, I recommended you watch Inspiring Philosophy’s video as a potential source of information on the subject IF you cannot understand or don’t want to bother reading the sources and citations that are listed below his videos. This is because you clearly show that you lack understanding of the subject when you kept ignoring my points about your false assumptions on the nature of reality.
No, you shouldn’t have, as the study doesn’t do what you imagine it does. You may be relying on the title only.
Exactly.
What follows is not an argument for your claim. I didn’t miss anything. You are claiming that a handful of uncooked spaghetti is a four-course meal, and I’m claiming that it isn’t.
It shows that the model is not supported by the diagram. If the “modules” are purely ad hoc, then a dependency diagram doesn’t explain anything other than the existence of homoplasy. You can’t distinguish mimicry of nested hierarchy from an imperfect nested hierarchy, and your case collapses.
Do you even know what the GAE hypothesis posits? Based on your quotes, you don’t.
You have failed to specify that in your model, and you model will remain moot until you can say what any basic type is. You seem to be implying here that extant life is not a basic type and that humans (Homo? Homo sapiens?) are. Perhaps you would clarify. But that still has nothing to do with common design, just separate creation. Still, would you care to be specific in asserting at least one basic type and present evidence for its existence?
And you have failed to present any argument for that claim. I grant that you think you have, but that isn’t the same thing.
What source? You specify no source here. Are you asserting that supergroups or phyla are basic types?
So? You merely assert that common design is not compatible with common descent and assume that conclusion in this argument. If I made a claim that God had designed all life using evolution as his tool, would that be common design or something else?
Given that you made no attempt to show how your citations and quote support your interpretation and validate your understanding, this claim remains (like nearly everything else you have said on this forum), wholly unsupported.
If you know that he’s “not an expert in the field”, then why on Earth are you recommending his videos? Youtube videos are already a poor way of conveying information (and particularly complex information). When you combine this with the fact that he’s not an expert and, given he’s an apologist, his goal is not education, but rather winning religious arguments, you get a veritable perfect storm of a bad source of information.
I would further point out that you have proven yourself very poor at identifying actual expertise, so we have no reason to accept your word for it that Ratz is an actual quantum physicist.
I already addressed this empty claimhere. Repeating it does not make it any more credible.
No. The burden is on you @Meerkat_SK5, to prove why, in spite your lack of reading comprehension, and your resultant pervasive inability to tell when a cited source does not support your claims, your demonstrated inability to tell who is and isn’t an expert, and what is and isn’t a serious source, we should accept at face value your claims about what is one of the most difficult, esoteric and counter-intuitive fields in science.
So you admit you misread the paper I linked you, in which argues based on evidence that LUCA probably had a DNA genome. Not that it had to have a DNA genome for your argument to be a failure, but you need to be corrected and you need to acknowledge that you have been corrected when you clearly are misrepresenting the state of the field. It is not in any way settled science whether LUCA had a DNA or RNA genome, nor is there any reason to think an organism of LUCA’s complexity could not have an RNA genome.
Sorry but there are lots of concrete ideas of what LUCA is, but more importantly, even to the extend there are still serious doubts about many of LUCA’s attributes, we have incontrovertible evidence that LUCA lies at a significant distance from the origin of the evolutionary process, since it contains demonstrably paralogous gene families with much deeper histories of evolutionary divergence. In particular the two classes of aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases (Class I, and Class II) which each today consist of 10 paralogous enzymes, and implement the genetic code, have diverged from one common ancestral gene sequence. That means there must have been an even older and distant ancestor that had only one such gene, instead of the 20 which all derive from it. This is virtually proof of a deeper evolutionary ancestry going back before LUCA to the very origin of the genetic code and translation system.
Yes and one problem here is in part your entirely idiosyncratic use of the term “common design”, which you keep being unclear about what exactly means. In some posts you indicate it means merely guided evolution, in others you suggest it means independent creation of “basic types” which you have no idea how to define or distinguish.
I think John has been doing just fine explaining what is wrong with your position.
This shifts your argument from deductive to inductive. And the inference you are left with is quite weak.
Producing ‘self’ replicating RNA without intervention is unnecessary when you can make auto replicating RNAs by non-enzymatic template-directed polymerization without intervention.
Which ‘study’ are you referring to? The opinion piece that doesn’t actually support your position, or the commentary that doesn’t actual support your position?
It explains the chemistry, just not the necessity. There may not be a necessity, that’s not a problem.
[Guenther Witzany citation]
That citation is mostly to entirely nonsense, edited and reviewed by people either unqualified to do so or with explicit conflicts in its publication, and containing nothing of any actual merit or worth.
No, you need studies to support your claims! Studies! Not comments, not opinions, not conjecture! Studies! With methods sections and everything!
The Copenhagen interpretation, like all interpretations of QM, is an interpretation. It isn’t ‘true’, it is a way of thinking about the math. Nothing about Copenhagen, or any QM interpretation supports your claims. At most, you could say that your understanding of Copenhagen suggests something, or that your understanding of something said by someone that holds to Copenhagen suggests something. But either way you are relying on your understanding of QM, and all evidence suggests this is quite poor.
I doubt anyone has said that quantum effects are irrelevant to biology. Only that they don’t require a mind.
A quick google search finds no evidence of this person existing. Odd. If I gave you my name and scientific affiliation, I’d be the first hit. As I suspect would every other active scientist on this forum. And probably most of the non-scientists, too.
Unless they are university level lectures, YouTube videos will be completely uncompelling.
If I recommended you watch a video by Andrew Wakefield if you couldn’t understand immunology, it would demonstrate that I didn’t understand immunology well enough to know who the quacks were. Likewise with your recommendations.
Your citations are also listed. Your citations also do not support your claims. I’m detecting a pattern.
Of course common design isn’t a model at all, as it can accommodate common descent. It’s just a term that, if it means anything, means that a single person (usually God) has planned the biota. He could have accomplished that through hands-on evolution, hands-off evolution (the cosmic billiard shot) or special creation. The only thing relevant to the term is whether he was responsible. @Meerkat_SK5’s version appears to be separate creation, though of what is unclear, though it appears to also have something unclear to do with viruses, and he has appropriated the term “common design” as applying only to his ideas and to no others.
In that case, can you please justify the additional assumption of a LUCA by answering these questions for me…
" * If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that life only arose once, or in one pool of organisms?
If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a multicellular organisms must have had a single-celled organism as an ancestor?
If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a fossil sequence of high disparity is not the result of multiple abiogenesis events separated in time, rather than representing an ancestral lineage?
Even assuming a fully [unguided] abiogenesis, the above questions cannot be adequately answered unless a specific conception of abiogenesis is used as the basis "
How so? Explain and elaborate in a way that I can respond back properly and not have to shoot bullets in the dark.
Exactly what? explain which events that I did not support in my “Would this origin of life model work” topic.
Why? How so? I am not following you here.
Again, HGT and the dependency graph are just aspects of that overall model to make it robust and better than common descent because HGT does not go far enough to explain the phylogenetic patterns. For instance, HGT would explain the appearance of nested hierarchies while Winston’s model would explain it in a another way. There is a difference. This is why his model would not be ad-hoc since it is merely an attachment of the overall model. We can use both models.
Yes, we can. Finding Functional/sequence convergence and Functional pseudogenes and ERV’s helps us distinguish them.
Your link does not give me the article. Can you please give me a different link to it?
Common design is similar to what we see done by a Clay potter. When a clay potter crafts designs separately using clay, would you call this guided evolution or common design?
I am still waiting for you to provide the source that supports this claim.
Failure to Explain the Evidence through Unguided Natural Processes
I agree, that’s why I am primarily relying on the evidence portion of it in conjunction with the Orch-OR theory to support my conclusion NOT the philosophical interpretation. This leads me to address this…
According to quantum physics experiments, only the conscious observer has the ability to choose which aspect of nature his knowledge will probe, which is what the results of quantum physics experiments like “quantum erasure with casually disconnected choice” demonstrates.
But, I am NOT suggesting that the conscious observer’s ability to collapse a waveform means they can control or affect reality using their mind alone like some sort of ESP psychic power. Furthermore, I am also NOT suggesting that these type of experiments by themselves demonstrate how the mind has the ability to collapse the wave form as well…
Instead, since the mind is supposed to be non-local under Orch-OR theory, the observer effect results automatically becomes relevant and supportive to my overall case for God because the immaterial mind is the only true measurement apparatus that performs measurements first on the brain to simultaneous cause a collapse to the wave function.
For example, the observer must first specify or think of which particular wave-function he intends to measure and then, put in place a measuring device that will probe that aspect. Then, only the observer can recognize the answer and understand the results after he chooses between the many possible outcomes inside his head. This is exactly what the Orch-OR’s theory of consciousness entails.
What do you mean? That’s exactly what he was highlighting in his video and provided sources to those lectures, interviews, and quotes by those same experts.
How do you know this if you are not an expert in quantum physics or don’t want to read up on it to familiarize yourself on the subject?
LUCA is not an assumption, and the justification for the inference of it’s existence is that we find the evidence expected on common descent: Consilience of independent phylogenies. And yes I can answer your questions.
I make no claims about how many times life might have arisen.
However many times life did arise, the life we currently know about on Earth appears to have derived from a universal common ancestor regardless.
Even if we stipulate hypothetically that life arose multiple times relatively simultaneously, and that there was some degree of HGT going on between these multiple different life forms, current life still appears to have gone through a bottleneck of just one common ancestral species of single-celled life.
From the evidence of common descent which shows that single-celled life massively predates multi-cellular life.
I have no idea what a “fossil sequence of high disparity” is supposed to be, but if this has something to do with “gaps” in the fossil record that really doesn’t undermine the inference of common descent on the basis of consilience of independent phylogenies. The data we have, all the data both molecular and anatomical/paleontological, is best explained by all extant life having evolved from a single universal common ancestor species that was a single-celled lifeform which lived at least 3.5 billion years ago.
The fact that every single evolutionary transition does not contain an unbroken chain of ancestors from each and every single generation that ever lived is just not relevant. The fossil record can be very incomplete, yet still be complete enough to support the inference of common descent. Combined with molecular and other types of data the inference just becomes better supported.
I don’t need to have the graves and remains of each of my direct ancestors five thousand generations back to the common ancestor I share with some other extant human being, to still have evidence that is good enough for me to be able to say with high confidence that we share common ancestry. In fact I don’t need to hav the graves and remains of ANY of my ancestors at all to make this inference.
The fossil record, though incomplete, still supports the inference of common descent, until at least we get to single-celled lifeforms, in which case genetics takes over and becomes the main line of evidence.
Clearly that statement is false, as I was able to adequately answer every single one without making ANY assumptions about life’s origins.
We don’t. We only know that all extant life (that we know of) and all fossils (that we know of) are related through common ancestors. Life could have arisen many times without leaving descendants.
Phylogenetic analysis showing, for example, that animals are nested within a series of unicellular groups, the closest being choanoflagellates.
Fossil sequences do not represent ancestral lineages. There is in fact no way to tell if a given fossil species is ancestral to any other or to any living species. But we know they aren’t multiple abiogenesis events because phylogenetic analysis shows the cladistic relationships among taxa.
Sorry, no, that doesn’t follow. This was apparently a quote from something. What?
One major point of that paper: HGT is biased toward transfer among closely related species such that the transfer reinforces the actual phylogeny rather than contradicting it. Read the paper.
“Most often, biased gene transfer will reinforce similarity because of recent shared ancestry. Thus, instead of eroding the phylogenetic signal retained in a genome, HGT may act to reinforce groups created through vertical descent.”
I’m saying that your argument is a series of unconnected claims. It’s incoherent. There’s no other way to critique it.
That’s a fine example of the complete incoherence of your claims. I have no real idea what you were trying to say. Neither HGT nor the dependency model explain nested hierarchy. Nor does being an attachment of the overall model (which doesn’t exist) prevent anything from being ad hoc. You are not using any models, just throwing them out as excuses and waving your hands in their direction.
How?
You have to be exceedingly incompetent not to be able to fine the GAE model on a web site devoted to it. Or you could try looking at the book. I refuse to spoon-feed you.
You did. You also forgot to answer my question: are you asserting that supergroups or phyla are basic types? What is your point in citing that article? What do you think it says that supports this point, whatever it may be?
the video linked above is by Johanan Raatz NOT “Johanna Ratz”, and
there is absolutely no evidence (either on his Youtube channel, or anywhere else I could find) that this Johanan Raatz is a “quantum physicist”: no university affiliation, no peer-reviewed publications. In fact, according to his Patreon page, he would appear to an Apologist doing a Masters in Philosophy (and no mention of any formal training in Quantum Physics). He’s currently listed as a postgrad student at Biola. Further evidence that @Meerkat_SK5 is incapable of identifying real expertise.
@Meerkat_SK5, please try to process this important point. Abiogenesis could have occurred a thousand times before the LUCA. Abiogenesis could occur a thousand times in an hour today. Neither would have the slightest effect on the massive evidence pointing to a universal common ancestor of all life we observe today.
I did earlier. From one of the authors you kept citing. Scroll up.
Bunch of links
Of your nine links, only two are actually studies. Only one is actually relevant. None actually support your position. This is a shockingly comprehensive demonstration of your abject ignorance of what constitutes actual evidence.
This isn’t even coherent. The evidence portion of ‘what’? There is no ‘evidence for’ Copenhagen, all evidence is consistent with all interpretations.
No, according to your interpretation of QM experiments.
What @Tim said. Not an expert, not qualified, not interested.
Sources to lectures that don’t say what he claims. Interviews aren’t valid sources, they are extemporaneous and not intended for academic consumption.
I’m familiar enough to recognize nonsense. IP is nonsense.
It’s like someone filtered Dada through more Dada, then someone else saw that and tried to copy it without any understanding of art or irony.
In that case, please justify the assumption that LUCA is not or cannot be the first life according to my model or the evidence.
Yes, I agree. It APPEARS that way.
No, I am saying how do you know it was not a population of LUCA’s rather than one cell that self-replicated into a population? Or was that what you were suggesting here?
I gave it to you already in a later post.
Right, this is another one of the many abilities viruses/HGT can do that the paper argued. But, this was not the crux of the paper. If you actually read the discussion, you will see them reiterate my point:
“ We have shown three lines of evidence for preferential gene transfer having the potential to create phylogenetic patterns comparable with those generated by shared ancestry. These transfers are characterized by the preference of taxa to exchange genes with partners more similar to themselves rather than rare HGTs that may occur randomly and indiscriminately.”
The last thing they said shortly after this was what you said about HGT maintaining patterns among closely related organisms but they did not suggest that this negated or refuted their main point.
The reason why we would not expect God to violate any hierarchal scheme under the common design scenario is because God has a human-like nature according to observations I showed you. More importantly, He cannot violate his own nature but must be consistent with it according to the laws of logic.
By sequencing segments of genes between two species, which encompass the entire second exon and large parts of both flanking introns.
All those models that Josh presented are not considered scientific, which makes this still an example that would make common descent and common design mutually exclusive.
From Winston’s model:
"They explain similarities among species by appealing to functional constraints or common design instead of common
descent [17, 22].
Many species face similar functional constraints and thus must solve some problems in similar ways. Common design leads to similarity because designers frequently reuse components, modules, and solutions leading to similarity. "
This includes Viruses since they can be manipulated to produce more than one process for more than one motive.
“RNA viruses can be engineered to interact with the host miRNA pathways, and miRNAs can be used to control viral tropism.”
VIruses explain the biochemical similarities and the phylogenetic patterns from distant relatives, psuedogenes and ERV’s. Both involve RNA or viruses to facilitate the process. The mechanisms that confirm this claim are well-established. I argued this in the topic “would this origin of life model work”.
M point is organisms such as trilobites (phylum Arthropoda) or Invertebrate phyla. The Vendian fossils, such as Kimberella, Dickinsonia, and sponges are examples of basic types. In addition…
Gosh, John. You continue to get this wrong. Please watch this 3min video from an ID theorist explaining why common design and common descent are entirely different:
I also forgot to mention that biogeography is another reason why common design and common descent are mutually exclusive. For instance, traditional evolutionary explanations of biogeography, such as plate tectonics and migrations routes or land bridges, fail when terrestrial (or freshwater) organisms appear on an island or continent without any standard migratory mechanism for them to have arrived there from some ancestral population.
There have been models proposed to explain away these discrepancies within the common descent model, such as the “rafting hypothesis”, which is a type of oceanic dispersal method for species to migrate to other areas around the globe (Fleagle and Gilbert 2006).
But, the common design model suggests that the designer re-used microbes and chemical constituents to separately construct basic types of animals from different locations and times around the globe rather than diversifying outward from one location or something along those lines.
Like what? How so? explain and elaborate/describe or else I am just going to assume your assessment is rooted in personal bias rather than objective and professional criticism .
NO, this has nothing to do with the different interpretations of quantum mechanics because the Orch-OR theory is supposed be a scientific theory like string theory that proposes a mechanism as to HOW quantum mechanics becomes classical. More importantly, the Orch-OR theory is supposed to be a “violation” of quantum mechanics where the non-local mind can also collaspe the wave-function as well as material states. This means that the mind would be the first cause of collasping wave-functions that performs measurements first on the brain to simultaneous cause a collapse to the wave function under measurement:
Bartel and Szostak 1993 and Fredens et al. 2019 are the studies. The rest are not studies, as they are not presenting original research. As I explained in an earlier comment, you want things that have methods. This is not to say that reviews can’t have valid or useful information, but you gave these links in response to a request for actual studies, so clearly you thought that’s what you were providing.
Fredens et al 2019 is not relevant. Bartel and Szostak 1993 shows that random sequences of RNA can produce biochemically relevant effects, which is not supportive of your position.
It isn’t a scientific theory.
Wait! I take that back! It is a scientific theory like string theory! It is on exactly the same grounding as string theory! Should I assume you don’t understand physics well enough to understand why that sentence is hilarious?
So you’re admitting that IP does not have qualified help in the production of his videos? That’s a ‘yes or no’ question.
According to your separate creation model there is no LUCA, so I’m confused about how to justify any such thing.
Is it too much to ask for you to cite your references in the same post in which you quote them?
It doesn’t negate or refute the point. It clarifies the point, which isn’t what you think.
But humans violate hierarchical schemes all the time. Nor have you actually shown that god has a human-like nature.
What? That seems oddly specific and yet also irrelevant to any point.
You could argue that point with him if indeed he were paying attention to this rabbit hole of a topic.
Sadly, this doesn’t explain nested hierarchy, which is not just similarity. Nor can most similarities be explained by functional constraint, nor can nested hierarchy be explained by common design.
This is somewhat true on the morphological level, and in fact we see frequent convergence. It’s seldom true on the genetic level, and convergence there is rare. It certainly doesn’t affect whole genomes. And of course most of your genome doesn’t actually have a function.
All the stuff about viruses is mostly word salad and misappropriation of quotes, as is your habit.
That sentence no verb. Therefore it no sense. And you my question no answer. You cite a number of things, but I was asking whether you propose any basic types. Do you? This is all useless. Why do you go on? You’re wasting your time and mine.
No. Denton believes in both.
More word salad ensues. You use “common design” to mean “separate creation”, which it does not. You then attempt to show that common descent is wrong, not that two concepts are mutually exclusive. And another useless, incomplete citation. What is “Fleagle and Gilbert 2006”? Biogeography actually argues against separate creation. Why are there no marsupials in Eurasia and Africa? Why almost no placentals except bats in Australia? And so on.
Seriously, your level of scholarship is criminal and your responses to challenges are inept. As I’ve said, you are wasting your time and everyone else’s. We would all be better served if you would give up this futile and incompetently performed effort. Pay attention to this advice if to nothing else.