Need reviewers for Common Design theory to be submitted to Science journal

[T_aquaticus]

@RTBsupporter

Owen’s front-loaded design model, implied in his archetype theory, provides a solution by proposing that all necessary instructions or mechanisms for life’s development were embedded at the system’s inception, such as in the genome of the first life forms.

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.

@RTBsupporter

This model suggests that nested hierarchies could naturally emerge from initial conditions combined with pre-programmed evolutionary-like processes. For instance:

Your model has life emerging supernaturally, not naturally.

@RTBsupporter

Variation and Adaptation: Built-in mechanisms could drive trait diversification in response to environmental pressures.

Recombination: Pre-loaded genetic instructions could recombine predictably, generating hierarchical patterns.

None of these will produce a nested hierarchy. You would know this if you understood what a nested hierarchy is.

@RTBsupporter

Moreover, it explains why nested hierarchies are not confined to a single genome but instead manifest between species.

No, it doesn’t.

Your model doesn’t predict a nested hierarchy, no matter how hard you push AI bots to put words together.

[RTBsupporter]

@T_aquaticus

Your model has life emerging supernaturally, not naturally.

Is this the fundamental reason or premise on why you claim our design model for nested patterns doesn’t make any sense?

[T_aquaticus]

@RTBsupporter

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?

[RTBsupporter]

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.

[Roy]

@RTBsupporter

@Roy

If the nested hierarchies extend further, beyond classes, to phyla or even kingdoms - such that e.g. all vertebrates or even all animals fall within a single ‘nest’ - then common descent prevails (albeit from a messy root) and common archetype theory should be abandoned.

Thank you for your insightful comment. While the idea that nested hierarchies could extend beyond the Order level to phyla or kingdoms might seem like a falsifiable prediction for the archetype theory, I would like to point out that observations suggest that even viruses can exhibit nested patterns. This indicates that the situation may be more complex than it appears at first glance.

Observations cannot affect whether that idea is a falsifiable prediction, they can only confirm, falsify or be irrelevant to that prediction.

If we were to detect a phylogenetic signal extending beyond the Order level, I am not entirely convinced that this would automatically invalidate the theory.

Of course you aren’t. Nothing could ever convince you to abandon your pet theory.

But convincing you is not necessary.

[T_aquaticus]

@RTBsupporter

Can you please clarify again why this explanation did not address your objection here:

@RTBsupporter

find a more coherent and purposeful explanation within a design framework. Intentional design, akin to nested hierarchies observed in human-engineered systems,

How many times have I told you that human-engineered systems do not fall into a nested hierarchy?

@RTBsupporter

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.

That’s nonsense. It is entirely made up.

[RTBsupporter]

@T_aquaticus

How many times have I told you that human-engineered systems do not fall into a nested hierarchy?

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.

[T_aquaticus]

@RTBsupporter

Now, I just need you to please clarify again why this next explanation did not address your objection here.

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.

[Roy]

Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

[RTBsupporter]

@T_aquaticus

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.

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.

[T_aquaticus]

@RTBsupporter

OK so are you suggesting that viruses, which exhibit modularity and adaptability, are not examples of human designs that produce nested patterns?

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.

[St.Roymond]

@T_aquaticus

Why would these blueprints inherently be nested hierarchies? I see no reason why this would be the case.

I can’t think of one either, neither scientific nor theological.

It still smacks of Platonism to me.

@RTBsupporter

Over time, this system unfolded and diversified according to pre-designed rules or constraints.

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.

@RTBsupporter

Built-in mechanisms
. . . .
Pre-loaded genetic instructions

Same as above – what? where? how?

@RTBsupporter

This addresses the objection by demonstrating how nested hierarchies between species could result from a single pre-designed system responding to environmental and internal pressures.

Moreover, it explains why nested hierarchies are not confined to a single genome but instead manifest between species.

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.

@RTBsupporter

Is this the fundamental reason or premise on why you claim our design model for nested patterns doesn’t make any sense?

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.

@RTBsupporter

Intentional design, akin to nested hierarchies observed in human-engineered systems

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.

@T_aquaticus

That’s nonsense. It is entirely made up.

Yeah – sophomoric word-dumping.

@RTBsupporter

viruses as . . . drivers of adaptability and creation of nested patterns

Don’t exist. Viruses don’t generate nested hierarchies in other species.

[RTBsupporter]

@T_aquaticus

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.

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?