Common Design Theory, Revisited

[Meerkat_SK5]

@colewd

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.

Despite what my article may have suggested, I actually did not mean to suggest that my hypothesis relied on Penrose’s particular interpretation of objective reduction, which involved a gravity induced collapse. Nor did I mean to presuppose its validity. I agree with you that this is incomplete and a highly speculative hypothesis right now.

Instead, I am relying on the Orch-OR theory’s support of human consciousness that is primarily pioneered by his co-partner Hammeroff, which is very well established and used by other scientists for their work. Then, I combine the Orch-OR theory’s findings with the findings coming from the fine-tuning constants and quantum cognition theory to show that this universal protoconsciousness exist, which allows us to use it predict biological phenomena.

I just mentioned Penrose’s views because it is included with Hammeroff’s theory and Penrose describes his gravity-induced collapse to be a universal consciousness . Richard Owen’s theory also involves a universal consciousness .

But again, I don’t know whether the characteristics of this universal protoconsciousness involves gravity or general relativity, as Penrose describes it.

Do you have any other issues you need me to clarify or expound upon? It will be greatly appreciated.

@colewd

Another part of your thesis appears to be multiple trees vs a single tree of life.

No, it is not advocating for universal common ancestry. It is advocating for universal common design that naturally simulates common ancestry because the designer is using the same mechanism to achieve the same purposes for every animal. What made you think otherwise from reading my article? Or were you referring to specifically phylogenetic patterns?

@colewd

For instance Rino’s have 82 chromosomes and horses have 64. Given this how would you hypothesize they are the same kind?

I don’t view them as the same kind, but two separate created kinds.

@Rumraket

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.

No, you misunderstood me.Here is what I meant by my field of research:

EFFICIENT

Assigning the right expert

• Choose a plan and submit your manuscript.
• A suitable expert with experience in your subject area is paired with your work

ACCURATE

A rigorous two-expert check

• Your work is paired with a subject matter expert
• Our expert completes the assigned work
• Another senior expert then reviews your document for high accuracy

@John_Harshman

It has the advantage that it’s compatible with the historical scientific evidence, which your notions are not.

How could this be the case John_Harshman? What are you talking about here?

@John_Harshman

You have been told over and over that your theory has no value, explains nothing, and is not even coherent.

And I have told you guys over and over again that I did not create this theory!!! This is Richard Owen’s theory combined with Penrose and Hammeroff’s theory. They are well tested and established theories. Just because these theories don’t have a consensus yet does not mean they are incoherent or have no value. This is why I know you guys are either willfully ignorant or are just motivated by philosophical bias.

@John_Harshman

You woj’t believe it coming from any non-Christian.

No, I won’t believe it coming from any non-Christian who simply dismisses whatever follow-up response I may have to their objections and does not put in a sincere effort. At this point, all of the non-believers are just making assertion after assertion that my paper is bunk despite what the peer reviewers said.

@John_Harshman

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.

Christians on here are going to have to do more than just tell me I am wasting my time, but show me. This is lacking right now with the non-Christians on this forum.

@RonSewell

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.

Let me refresh your memory:

Scientific Review Report

TARGET TOP RATED JOURNALS WITH THE RIGHT EXPERTISE

A Scientific Review Report is created by peer reviewers for top journals like Nature, premium editors with 20+ years of experience, and our managing editors. This team of 3 experts shares critical feedback on improvements to your paper based on the scope of your target journal. Their feedback shortens the time a journal takes to evaluate your paper and increases your chances of acceptance in the high-impact journals.
Scientific Editing Services: Top Journal Editing by Scientific Publication Experts | Editage

I believe you have addressed the objections adequately. However, there are still a few areas that need further clarification. There are also some good arguments in the appendices that could be incorporated into the main text if you feel they are important enough. Please see my notes for more details. Overall, the manuscript is much more clear and detailed than in previous rounds of editing, and is coming together very nicely. It appears that you are nearing submission readiness; if you require help with journal formatting or cover letter creation, please contact us and we will be happy to help.