Common Design Theory, Revisited

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?


I occasionally communicate with the editor*, offering suggestions he might want to publish. The requirement is “First makes you laugh, then makes you think.” Tragedy might meet the first requirement, but this thesis seems unlikely to clear the second bar.

* He really liked the “parachuting beavers” article.

I still, after all these years, make reference to the National Geographic Doomsday Machine piece from time to time. What a great publication.


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. :blush:

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?

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

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


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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Let me refresh your memory:

Scientific Review Report


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.

There is no point in trying to explain anything to you. I will refrain.


I don’t think you need to go beyond identifying that the observation indicates a conscious mind is the mechanism. If you look at general relativity as a benchmark matter is the mechanism. How matter does this is beyond the scope of the theory,

I am saying that you are advocating for individually designed “kinds” vs common ancestry. I think we are on the same page here.

Ok so how did you determine this? If you can generate a reasonable standard for determining this that would be a huge step forward.

I would agree the chromosome difference is an indication of separate kinds.

Ah, a good example of the pot calling the window black.


Yes, yes, we all remember you saying that people you were paying told you everything was great. That means absolutely nothing.



22andHim | KQED


Please knock off the topic renaming. That’s supposed to be so members can be helpful, not for shenanigans.


@Meerkat_SK5 I set the title back to something more neutral. You have my permission to edit it yourself, back to what it was or something more appropriate, as you like (click on the pencil icon up top).

If you do that, please reply here with the new title so I know what it ought to be and can keep an eye on it. :slight_smile:

1 Like

And how many created kinds are there in the house mouse species Mus musculus?


You often refer to the human mind as a model, but of course no human mind has produced anything at all in the real world, never ever ever ever. Not so much as a pile of stones. Agency is always required, hands in the case of a pile of stones.

I’m no expert here, but it is mass-energy, not matter. Two, a mechanism is how something does something. GR cannot be both a mechanism and not a mechanism.

People with Down’s syndrome now need a place on the Ark.

Next Bill will tell us the Chinese man was created in some lab.

Back then, chromosomes 12 and 13 fused together to create what we now call human chromosome 2. The fused chromosome then slowly spread through the community. And then, for some reason, the group of humans with 46 chromosomes eventually supplanted the group with 48.

From your citation.

What assumptions would have to be made for this to be feasible using a population genetics model?

Without this the author is begging the question. As he is ignoring the possibility that humans and chimps are separate kinds and humans always had 46 chromosomes.

The challenge to making a feasible model is the deleterious nature of chromosome change and the relatively low frequency of this type of mutation.

In the case of Rino’s and horses they are separated by 18 chromosomes. Rino 82 and horse 64.