How do you like them oven-roasted cocktail franks?

Burnt to a crisp, thanks! lol…

[true confession: I never touch the stuff, confirmed semi-vegetarian].

Looks like the "new" evolution will have to call on everything back from information theory to shades of Blythe, Lamarck and Goldschmidt.

Makes me want to say something like …

How do you like them oven-roasted cocktail franks?

Yep.

LOL!!! After me own heart, are we? Just thought I'd link some sideline EAM-related bits and pieces (collected as of 2005) in case anybody's interested…

Mike Turner's EAM [Castro-Chavez]
Wired: Your DNA isn't your destiny [epigenetics]
A 21st Century view of evolution [Shapiro]

It's a fair starting place, various angles under current development. It has its interested supporters here and there… §;o)

What parts of the Third Choice are in direct conflict with your model?

None.

For example, NDS and the Third Choice have a direct conflict in NDS's presumption of natural randomness.

Right.

Is the Third Choice simply a superset of your model?

Hmm. Maybe. Or an undetermined hypothetical add-on, perhaps.
This doesn't put the two in conflict, or make it wrong, mind you.

So then back to the question I've asked you on two different threads which always causes you to admonish me to come discuss the issue on this thread:
Why isn't "Purposeful Design" a model?

What I have outlined in this thread is what I think is an ID model with the intent of comparing it to other models (i.e. "choices"), especially the status quo model(s).

Newton developed/stole the concept of calculus in order to provide a mathematical model that corresponded with observations. He offered a description for the mechanics of planetary motion that was comparatively more understandable then previous models (e.q,. planetary spheres). I understand Newton believed this was all designed by God. You could have just as easily said "Purposeful Design" in 1687 in response to Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. I suggest it would have been just as meaningless as a model to Newton as it is to me, regardless of whether either or both of us agree with the sentiment.

How about we try a different tact?

What parts of the Third Choice are in direct conflict with your model?

For example, NDS and the Third Choice have a direct conflict in NDS's presumption of natural randomness.

The Third Choice is not a superset of NDS.

Is the Third Choice simply a superset of your model?

Why isn't "Purposeful Design" a model?

It *is* a model, Pez. Isn't "purposeful" what "telic" means? In fact, it avoids the particular sticking points TP has with the definition of intelligence, since consciousness need not be particularly intelligent in order to be aware and seek its own purposes. I think this is just a matter of semantics and preferences.

So. If it's a matter of semantics and preferences, please do offer any version of purposeful design in life that suits your fancy! I like to examine various ideas. Some synthesis of the best of 'em is what will most likely be a viable scientific alternative in the end, I'm not 'stuck' on any of those out there right now. I've just got a couple of approaches that explain a lot and look to have real scientific potential. They could use help on various angles, so I'm open!

TP [citing Dembski]:

EAM appears to be considered an ID alternative even if it is ""¦way down the totem pole for most people".

Yeah, yeah. Somebody's got problems with everything but their own favorite in the race. I think we need pieces-parts of several. It's a work in progress, so bring 'em on! …though I still predict what ends up being accepted by science will look a lot like EAM. They just won't call it that.

So then back to the question I've asked you on two different threads which always causes you to admonish me to come discuss the issue on this thread:
Why isn't "Purposeful Design" a model?

You asked…

What is the 'I' in the ID of the Penrose Hameroff (no longer 'your') model?

I have asked multiple ID proponents multiple times for the definition of the term "Intelligence". While Joy agrees that the definition includes the attribute of an ability to learn and/or adapt many ID advocates appear to discount this as a requirement. "Purposeful Design" seems to me to be a more apt description. With, possibly, the addition of some form of consciousness.

For example, here is something from a Dembski paper, Searching Large Spaces: Displacement and the No Free Lunch Regress

"By intelligence, here, I mean something quite definite, namely, the causal factors that change one probability distribution into another and thus, in the present discussion, transform a blind search into an assisted search. A logically equivalent, information-theoretic reformulation of this definition takes intelligence as those causal factors that induce a net increase in information as measured by the information measure I. Note that by a stochastic mechanism, here, I mean any causal process governed exclusively by the interplay between chance and necessity and characterized by unbroken deterministic and nondeterministic laws.

Intelligence acts by changing probabilities. Equivalently, intelligence acts by generating information. For instance, a slab of marble temporarily has a high probability of remaining unchanged. Then, without warning, Michelangelo decides to sculpt David, and the probability of that marble slab taking on a new form (i.e., receiving new information) now changes dramatically. This definition of intelligence as the causal factors responsible for changes in probabilities or, equivalently, for net increases in information is noncircular and, on reflection, should seem unproblematic. If there is a problem, it concerns whether intelligence is reducible to stochastic mechanisms."

The shorter version of why I feel the Third Choice is a ID alternative comes from this Dembski comment posted by him on Uncommon Descent…
"…time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature are ID alternatives that don't require God…".

Dembski has made similar comments when asked whether or not ID inherently requires an agent. EAM appears to be considered an ID alternative even if it is "…way down the totem pole for most people".

It is my understanding of an ID model that doesn't presume an omnipotent designer.

What is the 'I' in the ID of the Penrose Hameroff (no longer 'your') model?