Which approach is best suited to end Origins debate?

Conversation
, ,
14

You are talking about YOUR objection involving the logical impossibility to ever make the God hypothesis a scientific one. It is not that I am not paying attention to this objection. It’s that you won’t accept that your objection is primarily attacking a strawman version of my particular ID model.

For instance, Quantum mind or universal proto-consciousness theory does not advocate for dualism or for an additional supernatural force/substance, which would operate outside the rules of science. Instead, it advocates for consciousness being an essential ingredient of physical laws that is not yet fully understood by science.

You indirectly acknowledged this when you sent me this:

Diósi’s model is more complete, and testable, and early tests do not support either Penrose or Diósi.

In contrast, DI’s intelligent design model is dualistic/supernatural in nature and thus inherently unscientific.

They never said this service constituted actual scientific peer-review, but it is a close simulation of it.

Like what?

I went back and revised the format along with some other major improvements right before I made this thread. So this is not an issue now. Of course, it is still not perfect, but there are no major flaws nor is it lacking anything that would make it less than a scientific theory anymore.

I am just going to reiterate what I just told @Dan_Eastwood and hope you properly address the current construction of the model I presented on this forum.

It is not that I am no longer accepting your guy’s feedback. It’s that you won’t accept that your objections are primarily attacking a strawman version of my particular ID model.

For instance, DI’s intelligent design model is dualistic/supernatural in nature and thus inherently unscientific.

In contrast, Quantum mind or universal proto-consciousness theory does not advocate for dualism or for an additional supernatural force/substance, which would operate outside the rules of science. Instead, it advocates for consciousness being an essential ingredient of physical laws that is not yet fully understood by science.

Sadly, you guys refuse to read those sources and accept the science on these quantum theories that I use as a basis for my ID model.

No, not quite. DI is trying to do science in order to end the culture war. They are not trying to create culture war. To suggest otherwise would not make any sense.

I don’t think this is true anymore. We have a comprehensive scientific theory of ID now that has potential.

15

Peer-review is a process of vetting a completed manuscript for publication, by impartial referees who are only interested in the quality of science. You don’t have a completed manuscript. Or anything close to it. It’s not even that you haven’t gone to the right palace. Peer-review at this stage isn’t even possible.

And the service you used isn’t impartial, they have a vested interest in helping you, because you are paying them.

I guarantee it still is.

There is no possible way this is true. Instead, it is a demonstration you don’t understand what a scientific theory is in the first place. What you have is barely conjecture. It is not a theory in the scientific sense.

I have. Those papers are bad science, and not taken seriously by relevant fields. And the fact that you’re basing your conjecture on bad science is a part of the problem.

The fact that you can’t recognize it is bad science is another part of the problem.

The fact that you ignore the repeated notes that you’re basing your conjecture on bad science while pretending we are the ones ignoring you, is another part of the problem.

7 Likes
16

Let me be blunt here, nobody on this forum appears to agree with you on this point.

Further, I would suggest that nobody on this forum seems to think that your “theory” has even the slightest hope to “end Origins debate”.

Everybody here seems rather to be of the opinion that your “theory” is unsalvageable, and that it would be better if you stopped wasting your time and money pursuing it.

So my question here is why do you keep coming back to inform us of your theory’s (dubious) ‘progress’?

This is particularly so given that you reject our advice.

If this advice is so bad (“strawman”, etc, etc) then WHY do you keep coming back to seek it?

You seem to be simply wasting our time as well as yours.

5 Likes
17

I can’t speak for others, but I personally refuse to read your sources unless you explicitly state that you have read them yourself. You have on many occasions been caught citing ‘sources’ that you have not in fact read. Your use of Casey Luskin’s misquote and your misrepresentations of Yockey, for example.

No-one need waste their time reading something that might not be your actual source.

The DI is not trying to do science. The DI is fighting a culture war.

4 Likes
18

Again, the experts said in the quote that I adequately addressed a set of important objections made by PS users (i.e. no major reasons to reject it). They never said the paper had no other issues or was robust.

Moreover, the experts never said my paper was ready to be submitted or had a completed manuscript. Instead, they said the paper appeared to be “nearing submission readiness”.

Does this sound like a biased assessment of my paper from partial reviewers:

The peer reviewer comments have not been completely addressed and the manuscript is not submission ready yet. Please note my comments:

The literature mentioned by Reviewer 4 have not been cited.

Comments by reviewer 3 about new predictions have not been addressed.

Recent evolutionary theories have not been spoken about – for example, evolution model based on information theory.

Evolution happens in a number of ways, including horizontal gene transfer between unrelated species, epigenetic inheritance of genes, convergent evolution, etc. The authors have only touched up on horizontal gene transfer briefly. Other factors need further elucidation.

To bring context, I asked them whether I was able to address the objections of peer-reviewers from an ID paper I sent awhile ago to a secular scientific journal. As you can see, they were honest enough to tell me that I did not address their objections. After this, I changed my approach and model to overcome the objections that were made on this forum and from that journal.

So you along with @Dan_Eastwood @Faizal_Ali @Tim and @John_Harshman are all wrong to say that I am not accepting your feedback or paying attention. From the very beginning, I have been taking what you have said very seriously. In fact, I ended up throwing away a number of scientific arguments from various sources based on your guys objections.

Then, put your money where your mouth is and show me. I have been waiting for this but you guys have stopped critiquing because you know there are no more major flaws with it.

My particular ID model is primarily conjecture, correct. But, I was referring to Richard Owen’s universal common design/archetype theory and quantum mind theory, which is very well-supported or tested.

In one instance, you are telling me that my paper did not go through the proper peer-review channels because it did not come from impartial referees who are only interested in the quality of science.

Then, in another instance, you claim that my paper is based on bad science even though those quantum theories have gone through the normal peer-review process that you just described, dozens and dozens of times.

You CAN"T have it both ways.

Because you guys keep telling me that I am not taking your objections seriously and I am trying to show you that I have.

Not when it comes to the articles involving those quantum theories, which I did read.

I agree, let me rephrase it. DI is trying to dress up their philosophy/theology to look like science or frame their argument as a scientific endeavor in order to end the culture war.

19

Let me be again blunt with you @Meerkat_SK5 – there is no “universal proto-consciousness theory”. In fact there is virtually no mention of “universal proto-consciousness” in the scientific literature – and the majority of it is from Gregory L. Matloff, who is not a quantum physicist, and uses the term speculatively, e.g.:

To begin my research effort in preparation for the Stapledon symposium, it was first necessary to consider some means that a universal proto-consciousness field could interact with a star.[1]

Looking back to see where you got the phrase “universal proto-consciousness” from, I came across this piece you cited here. I would point out that this piece is under the heading of “Buddhist Wisdom for Our Time” – so its viewpoint is religious not scientific.

The reason we generally don’t bother to read your sources is:

  1. You are frequently caught out (as @Roy noted) not having read them yourself.

  2. Your sources very frequently don’t support the claim you cite them for.

  3. Your sources are very frequently of poor quality (like the one I referenced above).

  4. You cite too many sources to have a reasonable expectation that anybody would read them all.

I therefore would suggest that your garbled quantum woo has no “science” to it, and no chance of getting published in any respectable publication. You yourself have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no understanding of quantum physics, so I see no point in discussing anything to do with this field further with you.

4 Likes
20

Would you please STOP quoting me out of context!

What I in fact said was:

You have not taken seriously:

  • The ubiquitous viewpoint that you don’t “have a comprehensive scientific theory of ID now that has potential”

  • That nobody on this forum seems to think that your “theory” has even the slightest hope to “end Origins debate”.

  • That everybody on this forum seems to think your ‘theory’ is unsalvageable.

  • That nobody on this forum seems to think that your garbled quantum woo has any serious scientific foundation.

  • That we have repeatedly pointed out that your conclusions are pervasively non sequitors.

And on this very thread you seem to spend far more time quibbling about criticism than listening to it!

So again I ask:

Why do you keep coming back to inform us of your theory’s (dubious) ‘progress’?

6 Likes
21

Again, the experts were not performing peer-review, and had biased motivation given you were paying them. Nothing they say is meaningful to your case.

Meaning you admit, whether you realize it or not, that you’ve not had peer-review, and that peer-review is impossible at this stage.

Where is your updated draft?

No, it is not.

The two things you listed aren’t contradictory. At all. So… yes, I can have it both ways. Because there is no contradiction.

4 Likes
22

That I can answer - he thrives on negative attention.

3 Likes
23

According to their website, a vast majority of researchers would disagree:

“Over 97% of researchers believe that pre-submission peer review service improved the quality of their last published paper by identifying scientific errors and missing and inaccurate references.”

Again, they never said this service constituted actual scientific peer-review, but it is a close simulation of it:

Pre-Submission Peer Review Services: Eliminate major reasons for manuscript rejection | Editage

You’ve gotta be kidding me. This whole time you were claiming my paper was fatally flawed and was pure conjecture and yet you did not even read it!!! :rofl: :joy: :joy:

Is There Evidence for a Universal Common Designer? - Peaceful Science

Well, you did not even read the updated draft of my paper. So how the hell do you know.

Merely asserting it to be so, does not make it true . You need to explain how they are not contradictory. Again, Is my ID model based on bad science because it got passed bad reviewers over 50 plus times or is it quality science because it got passed good reviewers 50 plus times?

Damn! You finally figured me out. :grin:

However, I would prefer to call it negative feedback on my arguments.

1 Like
24

Yes, but unlike you, they fixed the errors and inaccuracies.

2 Likes
25

I have to question the credentials of these supposed “reviewers” in the relevant fields, which would appear to be physics, neuroscience, origins of life, systematics, paleontology, and evolutionary biology. I only count myself expert or informed in three of those, but those parts of the revised manuscript are indeed incoherent. I have no reason to suppose that the rest of it is any different.

No, it is not nearly ready for publication. It will never be nearly ready for publication.

As an example, I offer this word salad:

Didn’t your reviewers even suggest that you use complete sentences?

5 Likes
26

So… not peer review. So you can stop saying you’ve had peer review now, right?

I’d read the prior version, you said you had updated it. I checked that link and saw it was still worthless, so I assumed you had posted it somewhere else. Apparently I had seen the best you had when I commented, and the best you had was crap.

You have no results, your ‘paper’ is worthless.

I had read the updated draft, I had just hoped it wasn’t the updated draft. Because of how immensely embarrassing that would be for you.

Because I’m familiar with the state of the field and I’ve read the underlying references.

Correct, your merely asserting the two things to be in contradiction doesn’t make it true.

You have that backwards. I’m not shocked you don’t understand basic logic, given what I’ve seen from you so far.

4 Likes
27

The Discovery Institute has as much of a chance to “end the debate” as Flat Earthers have a chance to end the debate on the shape of the Earth. The Discovery Institute and ID on a larger level has no real interest in explaining the data in biology. Their primary cause is to protect a belief from that data.

3 Likes
28

Yes, I agree. That is why I am going out of my way to provide a viable template for researchers who truly want to do scientific research to find out whether there is validity in ID.

BTW, long time no see. A lot has happened since you have been gone.

29

So how do you hope to explain the nested hierarchy, or the patterns of genetic diversity? Only common descent predicts a nested hierarchy. For example, if common design is the rule then bats should have feathers and wings like birds. That’s even before we get to the section on ERV’s which gets a lot wrong.

Your efforts have the same problem as that found at the DI. You start with a conclusion and then distort the evidence to fit that conclusion.

6 Likes
30

@Meerkat_SK5, if you do try to explain the nested hierarchy with your model, please keep in mind everything that we discussed in this thread: Common Ancestry and Nested Hierarchy

1 Like
31

Yes, I took a look and saw that you said this:

(Whether or not ‘common design’ happened can’t be determined by phylogenetics because common ancestry is compatible with both design and unguided evolution.)

Not true, we can determine this and the results show that common design is a better explanation:

A phylogenetic tree built from BovB sequences from species in all of these groups does not conform to expected evolutionary relationships of the species, and our analysis indicates that at least nine HT events are required to explain the observed topology. Our results provide compelling evidence for HT of genetic material that has transformed vertebrate genomes.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1205856110

" we statistically tested for incongruence between the topology of the promoter sequences against the species tree. The null hypothesis of this test is vertical inheritance (as defined by the species tree); therefore, rejection of the null hypothesis is a strong indication of HRT. We found that 51% of all core gene promoters are incongruent with the species phylogeny, indicating that regulatory regions, similar to coding genes, are frequently transferred. " Transfer of noncoding DNA drives regulatory rewiring in bacteria | PNAS

“Because of the critical tasks of translation elongation factors, it is widely believed that EF-1α/EF-Tu genes have been vertically inherited from the last universal common ancestor (3–5), and the gene products are ubiquitous in all extant cells. However, large-scale sequence data from phylogenetically diverged organisms started unveiling cases that clearly violate the above preconception about EF-1α/EF-Tu evolution.”
Direct phylogenetic evidence for lateral transfer of elongation factor-like gene - PMC (nih.gov)

32

Then why do you link to studies that have horizontal transfer as the better explanation? Naturally occurring horizontal genetic transfer is capable of producing the observations, so why would a supernatural process be the better explanation? When has a supernatural explanation ever been the better explanation when there is a known natural process capable of producing the observations?

5 Likes
33

I am just going to reiterate what I just told everyone else on this forum because your objection here is primarily attacking a strawman version of my particular ID model.

For instance, DI’s intelligent design model is dualistic/supernatural in nature and thus inherently unscientific.

In contrast, Quantum mind or universal proto-consciousness theory does not advocate for dualism or for an additional supernatural force/substance, which would operate outside the rules of science. Instead, it advocates for consciousness being an essential ingredient of physical laws that is not yet fully understood by science.

Sadly, you guys refuse to read those sources and accept the science on these quantum theories that I use as a basis for my ID model.