No.
“That’s because” you have a (well-documented) bad habit of plagiarising other people’s quotations and citations, without having read the original cited source. You in fact have just been caught doing that, yet again, with Steven Holland and Michael Oard.
In order for us to willing to expend the effort of following you down the rabbithole of a controversial hypothesis, based upon a complex and ill-understoof subfield of physics, it is perfectly reasonable to first expect you to demonstrate that you have sufficient background to understand that subfield and that hypothesis. Given that your claimed source for your purported understanding of Quantum Physics is a Youtube apologist who has been described as:
an obvious buffoon … who I wouldn’t trust to properly interpret a stop sign, much less quantum field theories.
… our skepticism is well-earned. So I return to my questions:
Yes you can – you can do so by answering my questions above.
Again, your ignorance is showing.
Genetics isn’t “significant enough to be meaningful”?
Genetic Drift and Neutral Theory isn’t “significant enough to be meaningful”?
Recombination isn’t “significant enough to be meaningful”?
Evolutionary developmental biology isn’t “significant enough to be meaningful”?
Etc, etc.
Really, your claim is simply laughable.
Given that Natural Selection is at the very core of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, you are ‘ignoring the elephant in the room’ – which only reduces your credibility further.
That they “both use platonisitic[sic] idealism” does not mean that Penrose is building on Owen’s work, it means that he’s building on Plato’s. It establishes no direct connection between Owen and Penrose.
Your conspiracy theories are getting stupider and stupider. You have no evidence to support any of these wild conjectures. You just want to believe it because you don’t want to accept that Evolutionary Biology is widely tested and accepted.
Oh dear. 
That Darwin’s theory was incomplete until genetics was discovered to be the source of the “variation” that Darwin postulated is old news. It is actually a strength of his theory that it anticipated genetics.
There are two problems with this:
-
Owen’s work never anticipated the existence of HGT.
-
HGT is a source of variation, the same as mutation. It is not a source of adaptation – so not an alternative to Natural Selection. That you failed to notice this is further evidence that you have little to no understanding of the theory you are seeking to replace.
What part of the word “satisfactory” did you fail to comprehend?
satisfactory a. Sufficient for the needs of the case, adequate. Of an argument: Convincing. †Of an author: Treating adequately of his subject. b.A.4.b That justifies a feeling of satisfaction; such as one may be content or pleased with.
Your explanations have been described as “incoherent”, “blabber”, etc, etc – the exact opposite of “satisfactory”.
Repeating an unsatisfactory explanation will not make it satisfactory.
I would also note that you failed to answer another of my earlier questions: