That doesn’t even make sense. Do mammals have the instructions for feathers? No. Do mammals have the instructions flow through lungs? No. Your model makes zero sense.
Your model has life emerging supernaturally, not naturally.
None of these will produce a nested hierarchy. You would know this if you understood what a nested hierarchy is.
No, it doesn’t.
Your model doesn’t predict a nested hierarchy, no matter how hard you push AI bots to put words together.
Is this the fundamental reason or premise on why you claim our design model for nested patterns doesn’t make any sense?
Because there is no reason why your model would predict a nested hierarchy. For example, what is stopping one of the blueprints from having three middle ear bones and flow through lungs?
Can you please clarify again why this explanation did not address your objection here:
Nested patterns in biological systems, while theoretically explainable through evolutionary processes, find a more coherent and purposeful explanation within a design framework. Intentional design, akin to nested hierarchies observed in human-engineered systems, optimizes for survival, reproduction, and environmental integration.
This perspective addresses a critical question: why would a universal common designer predominantly use nested patterns? The answer lies in the efficiency, scalability, and adaptability these patterns provide, enabling the integration of diverse biological components while optimizing survival mechanisms. For example, convergent co-option and gene duplication of viruses can be likened to software engineering practices like code reuse and modularity. Genetic components, much like reusable code blocks, are conserved and adapted across different organisms to optimize functionality and adaptability.
Unlike evolutionary explanations, which often attribute nested patterns to the cumulative effects of chance mutations and natural selection from a last common ancestor, the design framework views these hierarchies as intrinsic to an intentional blueprint. This perspective aligns with Owen’s archetype, where a universal structural pattern underpins the diversity of life. It also explains why disruptions in one part of a biological system often affect the whole—indicating a unified design rather than piecemeal evolutionary assembly.
Observations cannot affect whether that idea is a falsifiable prediction, they can only confirm, falsify or be irrelevant to that prediction.
Of course you aren’t. Nothing could ever convince you to abandon your pet theory.
But convincing you is not necessary.
How many times have I told you that human-engineered systems do not fall into a nested hierarchy?
That’s nonsense. It is entirely made up.
Thank you.
Now, I just need you to please clarify again why this next explanation did not address your objection here. Backtracking like this will help me find the disconnect or issue in our discussion. Just bare with me:
The direct design framework surpasses theistic evolutionary frameworks by accounting for life’s complexity through universal archetypes and adaptive processes. The integration of viruses as both disruptive agents and drivers of adaptability and creation of nested patterns further strengthens the case for intentional design. Nested patterns, modularity, and design principles observed in human-engineered systems provide a coherent foundation for understanding life’s origins.
For example, the artificial synthesis of viruses parallels natural processes in virus origins and design, suggesting a common design framework. Researchers have engineered bacteriophages like T7 and reconstructed infectious poliovirus particles from synthetic components, such as specialized proteins (enzymes), to construct an RNA virus capable of addressing the problem of unstable RNA [97]. The instability of RNA is a well-known challenge in the RNA world hypothesis, and similar solutions have been propose, such as the Protein-first hypothesis [7].
This phenomenon mirrors modularity in software engineering, where components are reused to optimize functionality and adaptability. For example, endogenous viral elements (EVEs) in wasps reveal how viral sequences can integrate into host genomes to enhance survival and reproduction, much like gene therapy applications in human-engineered systems. These parallels between viruses and design principles suggest that the nested patterns observed in biological systems reflect intention.
In contrast, guided evolutionary frameworks, such as theistic evolution, struggle to account for key phenomena in the origin and diversification of life. Prebiotic chemistry, for instance, lacks the self-replicating entities necessary for natural selection to operate, making the transition from non-life to life an unresolved problem. Without enzymes or other biological machinery, molecules in early environments would have needed to form highly specific structures—such as functional proteins or nucleotide sequences—through random chance, an explanation that stretches plausibility.
It didn’t address my objection because you are keeping at least this sentence (and probably others):
“Nested patterns, modularity, and design principles observed in human-engineered systems provide a coherent foundation for understanding life’s origins.”
This is false. It needs to be removed, as do all other sentences that make a similar claim. Human-engineered systems do not fall into a nested hierarchy.
Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
OK so are you suggesting that viruses, which exhibit modularity and adaptability, are not examples of human designs that produce nested patterns? Or are you asserting that design principles such as the convergent co-option observed in viruses do not align with nested hierarchies? I would appreciate clarification so that I can better address your concern and ensure the accuracy of my claims.
I am saying that viruses designed by humans do not fall into a nested hierarchy. They regularly violate a nested hierarchy, as do almost every other human-designed system. I’ve repeated this I don’t know how many times now.
I can’t think of one either, neither scientific nor theological.
It still smacks of Platonism to me.
What constraints? Where are they found? How do they work?
It seems to me that your options are either in the DNA or you’re venturing into mysticism.
Same as above – what? where? how?
This word smorgasbord just shows again that there is no understanding of what a nested hierarchy is.
More and more this is looking to me to be no different than people who have a best a high school grasp of physics thinking they have found an error in Einstein’s work.
No, people are telling you that your “design model for nested patterns” doesn’t make sense because it’s plain that the model is based on a total failure to grasp what a nested hierarchy is.
I have five engineers in the family. None of them have a clue what you’re talking about. What human-engineered systems show is abundant horizontal transfer of design with little to no nested hierarchies.
Yeah – sophomoric word-dumping.
Don’t exist. Viruses don’t generate nested hierarchies in other species.
I want to clear this up. When I said that all necessary instructions or mechanisms for life’s development were embedded at the system’s inception, I was referring to the instructions for survival and reproductive capabilities.
Also, the model and theory put forth provide an explanation for the bush-like structure observed at the base of the tree of life. It also accounts for observations where phyletically different organisms use genetically homologous components to construct phenotypically dissimilar but functionally analogous structures, often without any common ancestor exhibiting the shared character.
I hope this front-loaded interpretation of Owen’s theory is clearer to you now and that you can respond accordingly. To clarify, the purpose of this exercise is not necessarily to demonstrate how the model functions in detail but to illustrate how the study, “Software in the Natural World: A Computational Approach to Hierarchical Emergence,” ultimately addresses this question:
Why would a universal common designer predominantly use nested patterns? The answer lies in the efficiency, scalability, and adaptability these patterns provide, enabling the integration of diverse biological components while optimizing survival mechanisms.
It is this ok? @Mervin_Bitikofer
Now, are you asserting that viruses artificially designed in the lab consistently violate nested patterns, even when they are modeled to mimic natural processes, which in some cases exhibit nested patterns?
Or are you suggesting that viruses, by their very nature, inherently violate nested patterns in all situations, regardless of whether they are naturally occurring or artificially designed?
I realize I need to address this more directly this time. Previously, I provided … [remaining content removed by moderator]
I really hate to see the editing bill that @RTBsupporter is racking up here for @T_aquaticus’ generously-provided services.
$150 / hour! Holy cow! The mortgate could be paid off by tomorrow!
Again - the bulk of content was removed from your long post just now. A rehearsal of all the things that have already been written isn’t what’s needed here.
A truer word couldn’t be spoken. Of course - I’m not sure the word ‘directly’ means what you think it means. At least not what it means to everyone else!
A basic challenge is how to assess relative probabilities. Technically, common design can explain anything, since a designer might design things in any possible way. But common ancestry (with a certain amount of hybridization and lateral transfer) makes very specific predictions about the patterns that we should see if it is true, and we do see those patterns. In principle, it is possible to use Bayesian reasoning to assess this sort of probability, but it is complex and debated. For example, before Einstein, the fact that Mercury’s orbit didn’t quite match with predictions was suggested to reflect an undiscovered planet. But any number of undiscovered planets could exist with various masses and orbits - another planet could explain any number of variations in Mercury’s orbit. Einstein’s model of relativity, however, predicted Mercury’s orbit precisely, besides not requiring undiscovered planets in the inner solar system. The match of a more specific prediction is more impressive than a general “this could match anything”. But quantifying that is a challenge.
Adjusted for inflation, that’s about what I charged back in college for writing papers for people – they provided an outline and their research with sources, I turned it into a paper (the hard part was reading a dozen or so papers they’d written so I could get the paper to sound like them).
Skills to pay the bills.
I suspect the generous people here are not making a dime.
Well, not from participating in the forum.
Some of the posts here are priceless 
And I learn things too.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
