Alright, this will be my last round of large scale changes to my hypothesis before I start creating another topic that deals with a common design model for my hypothesis.
To @Jordan, make sure you read my last response to you. No need to respond back though.
Observations
A) Life is immaterial
B) Information in DNA is mathematically identical to human language
C) Positive results in pre-biotic experiments require human intervention
D) Mutations appear to be goal-directed
Does Evolution proceed by Divine intelligence?
Consciousness interacts with DNA to increase or decrease the rates of spontaneous mutations to significantly alter the ability of an organism to evolve or alter its susceptibility to disease under environmental stresses.
How? Proton-tunneling and quantum entanglement
Why? Make sure species survive, reproduce, and fill the biosphere.
Where? Every mutation is directly caused for a specific purpose
When? From RNA viruses leading up to humans
Who? A Monotheistic God
What? A Self-collapsing Universal wave-function
Methods
The rationale behind my approach will be based upon a principle regarding causation from past events, which was popularized by Charles Lyell who also influenced Charles Darwin and Stephen Meyer, of course. “Lyell argued that when scientists seek to explain events in the past, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question. Historical scientists should cite ‘causes now in operation’ or presently acting causes, which would be humans in this case.
This is because experiments in quantum physics has shown that only the conscious observer has the ability to choose which aspect of nature his knowledge will probe. We have seen the same effect happen in biochemistry and biology.
For example, A hydrothermal vent simulation experiment by researchers reported that they created protocells with the capacity to self-replicate continuously for multiple generations, mirroring the behavior of biological cells. They concluded that their work demonstrated how “lifelike” cells emerged from nonliving matter under conditions similar to the hydrothermal vents found on the early earth. However, they artificially and carefully designed or selected certain molecules such as phospholipids that play a key role in forming stable vesicles.
A recursive vesicle-based model protocell with a primitive model cell cycle | Nature Communications
Another experiment suggested the same thing but within the context of actual living cells. For instance, researchers assumed that mutations were only additive and the effect of each mutation is done singly. With this assumption, the striking result of this design is that the simple additivity assumption was validated.
The success of the method implied that additive mutations is big enough for engineering potent changes in activity. Researchers said, “The natural prevalence of nonadditivity in mutations may still be a point of debate, but it might be irrelevant to the protein engineer if the case of γ-humulene synthase is representative of nature as a whole.”
The intelligent design of evolution | Molecular Systems Biology (embopress.org)
However, inserting a human observer into the experiment is not enough to establish that a Divine intelligence was the cause because we are contingent beings. This is why another experiment showing an unguided process , in accordance with the second experiment that shows a guided process, is required.
If the unguided experiment produces negative results, it would show that there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged and support the “necessary” attribute of this intelligent designer or conscious agent. This is because “necessity” is an intrinsic attribute of God’s nature, which means showing that God is not necessary in explaining and showing how a particular feature in nature is the same thing as falsifying the God hypothesis. Atheist Physicist ,Sean Carroll, would agree with me and I encourage everybody to watch this video from 3:00 to 20:00 for more:
God is not a Good Theory (Sean Carroll) - YouTube
However, it is important to note that we cannot apply the same reasoning to present day events because humans exist and ,thus, could have been responsible for the results equally as well. This is why I will propose other ways to test whether God is still guiding evolution in the present.
Predictions
If my hypothesis is true, then the second (unguided) experiments on hypothermal vents will produce negative results because it is not guided by the experimenter.
If my hypothesis is true, then the assumption of only additive mutations will produce the positive results in one of Lenski’s failed E.coli populations.
We should find enhanced survival capabilities from other animals that are undergoing “nociceptive sensitizations”.
We should find a different goal in mind from bad designs.
If my hypothesis is false, then the one successful E.coli population will eventually produce one large mutational change causing a single-step speciation and produce an entire genome chock full of metainformation.
If my hypothesis is false, then Lenski’s 11 other failed populations will eventually produce the same positive result.
If my hypothesis is false, then the second (unguided) experiment will produce a self-replicating molecule.
I think you are confusing “lifelike” with an actual living cell, which I agree they did not demonstrate. When I said “lifelike”, I meant it literally. What they produced imitated the first cell but was not actually living according to them. So there was no misrepresentation from me and if you insist that I did, then I honestly don’t know where you are getting that idea. Again, you need to actually provide a snippet of what they said to support your claim because I really don’t see where there is foul play here.