Common Design Theory, Revisited

I hope you understand that very few of the people you mention below are biologists or even scientists of any sort. Nevertheless, I will predict that any of them who bother to respond will not find your theories very sound or even comprehensible.

Still, congratulations to your editing service for making some good money off your sow’s ear.


Are you saying that this is the best way forward in your opinion?

@swamidass I appreciate your desire to be as empathetic and open minded as you can with most people. But I think this is an instance where a person is best served by brutal honesty from someone whose opinion he seems to value. FWIW.


With some tongue in cheek I would suggest submitting the paper to the Journal of Theoretical Biology. They have on more than one occasion published related papers.

Are you using the “Royal we”, or are you extending some degree of “ownership/investment” in this theory to all the persons who responded to the various threads on PS, or perhaps even PS itself?

I actually agree with this but the reasons behind this will not be based on the merits but on bias.

I know. I just included them anyways to fellowship with Christians on this forum since I have been ignoring them, for the most part, all this time.

Well, like I said before, if they have any further questions, I will do my best to answer and make it easier for them to accept my claim.

I agree.

Are you saying submitting it directly to a scientific journal is the best way forward in your opinion?

Yes, actually. There is no way this paper would have gone the distance without the contributions of PS users, specifically the non-believers on this forum. Is this going to be a problem? I thought the main purpose of this forum was to find a way to end the origins debate.


1 Like

(opens Visual Studio and starts hacking on some experiments with evolutionary algorithms)

You are wrong. The main purpose is to promote the genealogical Adam and Eve, which is thought by some to be able to end or at least mitigate the “origins debate”. It has the advantage that it’s compatible with the historical scientific evidence, which your notions are not.

You have been told over and over that your theory has no value, explains nothing, and is not even coherent. You woj’t believe it coming from any non-Christian. It’s my hope that some Christian here will be blunt and tell you the same thing. Perhaps then you would believe it and stop wasting your time and, apparently, your money on this pointless excercise.


I’d suggest:

(1) The Journal of Irreproducible Results (though I’m unclear as to whether they accept tragedy – it may be comedy only);
(2) The Worm Runners’ Digest (though they’ve been out of print for decades, perhaps they’ll do a special issue?);
(3) The Newsletter of the David Hasselhoff fan club. They have a hell of a time finding anyone to write about anything.


Let’s be clear that you don’t actually have a field of research. You have no credentials or education of even cursory relevance, or worth, on any topic you write about. There is no coherency to your ideas at all. They are not even ideas as much as they are just some hodge-podge mix of unrelated topics, not even comprehended at title-level only, you’ve cobbled together.


Hi Meekrat
My opinion for what it is worth is that you are trying to do too many things with this thesis. I think the quantum wave form collapse consciousness idea is too complex and poorly understood to be a viable thesis at this point. Wait to see if it becomes more developed by Penrose and others.

Another part of your thesis appears to be multiple trees vs a single tree of life. There is lots of potential evidence that may support this thesis including looking at genes, chromosomes and other cellular material that is not supporting a single tree. For instance Rino’s have 82 chromosomes and horses have 64. Given this how would you hypothesize they are the same kind?

Comedy is tragedy plus time, and this has been going on long enough.


I agree that @Meerkat_SK5’s post makes this service look rather sketchy. But do we know that it is sketchy, or is it something that is also used by more legitimate writers who might need help polishing the English prose of their papers, especially if they primarily speak a different language?

The service looks legit to me. The notion of regarding its work as “peer review” is of course hilarious, but there are people (including particularly, as you point out, people who do not have strong skills in English) who probably find that sort of work quite valuable.

1 Like

It’s almost as good as this guy, who quoted the rejection letters he had received from various journals as examples of peer review.


I expect there is legitimate demand for such a service, especially for aspiring ESL academics, and some of the output is worthy, just as some “self publishing” type houses put out some decent books that would not attract commercial interest from other publishers. Poor presentation and grammar does reflect on perceived competence and results. But some things you cannot polish, and should not publish.

If the paper, which looks to be about a count of 7000 words, has been through 10 rounds of review, from the fee schedule that works out to several thousands of dollars. It does seem to read better than the earlier raw posts, but is still an incoherent assemblage. The scientific peer review, of course, is hopeless. If this is truly the sunk cost, I do not know how to respond and am actually concerned. I doubt even Bio-Complexity would indulge any time. Perhaps it could be blogged at Uncommon Descent, which is, after all, the point of the essay.


Given that if this article’s finding still hold true, @Meerkat_SK5 could probably find themselves an editor position with a ‘journal’ with a very small amount of creativity, I rather doubt if they’ll have problems getting their work published in a journal of similar quality, particularly with reasonably deep pockets (and as Editage’s ‘Scientific Editing’ for a document of 5k words appears to cost $1000, this would seem not to be an issue for them).

It is the latter.


Bee Culture have a history of articles about scientific experiments completely irrelevant to bees. Maybe worth a try?