How about you move on to telling everyone why your ‘quote’ doesn’t match your ‘source’?
You didn’t copy it from the linked site, since the text there differs from your version in four distinct ways, not counting your added reference number:
M[1]olecular analyses indicate that each of the major multicellular clades contains[2] a characteristic set of developmental “toolkit”[3] genes, some of which are shared among disparate lineages (e.g., …[4]
So where is it from?
No, you’re asking us to take what you say about those other models and theories to be credible. But you clearly don’t understand them (and frequently haven’t even read about them).
Their ideas are credible. What you say about their ideas is utter garbage.
For example:
What the **** does convergent evolution in pandas have to do with the common ancestor of fish?
Given your repeated missteps with the English language, I find this assumption of yours to be absolutely ludicrous!
I will therefore continue to follow the working assumption that you have zero understanding of ORCH-OR, Quantum Physics, or Science in general, unless and until you can provide any evidence to the contrary.
This would appear to be an assumption about humans, rather than a usable definition.
I have no reason to believe you have sufficient understanding of Quantum Physics to know what “a self-collapsing wave-function” actually means. I rather suspect you simply parroted the phrase from some source. The fact that you refer to it as a “wave function” – which is an intangible abstraction, rather than a “wave form” --a tangible reality, further adds weight to this view.
“According to the theory” makes this all circular. We need definitions that are understood apart from your ‘theory’ in order to evaluate the theory itself.
It is most unclear how this extremely idiosyncratic definition compares with the common English definition – that of a living member of species Homo sapiens. Are members of this species also viewed as being “self-collapsing wave-function[s]”?
But even beyond all these problems, we still are left with the fact that:
It is not because a non-contingent self-collapsing wave-function would be omnibenevolent as well.
… is no more comprehensible or coherent than your original statement.
I am also almost certain that, after we get around the incoherence about what “non-contingent human/self-collapsing wave-function” means, the statement will also turn out to be yet another non sequitor.
Computation is no less completely unrelated to contingency than computability is.
But let’s add it into the mix:
It is not because a non-computational self-collapsing wave-function would be omnibenevolent as well.
Still a meaningless incoherent babble!
This is why I suggested dictionary definitions as the only way forward. Further substitutions of unrelated words and phrases will not be accepted!
Citation for where he “complained about it” please! Given your lack of understanding of the English language, I’m not at all sure that this will turn out to be what he said.
Firstly, none of this demonstrates that your predictions are necessitated by your ‘theory’, particularly given the whole field of Theodicy is devoted to explaining away far more severe contradictions to omnibenevolence than failure of your predictions would reveal.
Secondly, you have not demonstrated that either of “Fuz Rana and Mike Gene” have articulated a coherent “theory”, let alone that they are the same theory, let alone that it is the same theory as the incoherent muddle you have been peddling here. I would further note that you’ve provided no evidence that you’ve even read Mike Gene’s book – which is presumably his most comprehensive explication of his ‘theory’.
(Parenthetically, as “fuzz” can be defined as “a fuddled or muddled state”, I have a very hard time taking somebody who uses the nickname “Fuz” seriously – particularly when (i) he is an Apologist 
& (ii) he has no expertise in this matter whatsoever.)
That assertion does not follow from your earlier claim.
So all humans are universal common designers then, by definition?
So either I must be (i) not a human, or (ii) a universal common designer.
Which is it?
Balderddash!
[Addendum:
Not all algorithmic information is alive. Computer programs would be an obvious example.
Life requires more than simply algorithmic information – in the first instance it requires biochemical processes to sustain itself.
In other words, this is the sort of ignorant, not even wrong definition that only an apologist could confect. ]
We need to take you as credible in order to accept that what you are claiming about “the models and theories of other researchers” has any accuracy to it.
As far as I can tell, nobody on these threads is willing to believe that any of your claims about others’ writings are accurate.
This is because:
your claims about them are so frequently at very blatant odds with what the researchers themselves have written; and
you have been caught too many times simply parroting the quotes from other apologists, rather than having read, let alone comprehended, the writings of the researchers themselves.
No, they don’t require motives. In forensics, motive is important because it is legally important.
And motives are not the same thing as final causes, so your use of a slash between them makes no sense.
No, we are talking PAST each other, because I’m talking science, you are not. Is English not your native language?
Why must they include motives? Be specific and use your own words.
Arguments do not confirm theories, ever. Moreover, you don’t have a theory. You don’t even have a coherent hypothesis. Please stop with the delusions of grandeur.
We don’t test reasons, we test hypotheses.
Neither of them has any credibility we me, and I suspect the same is true for everyone else in this thread.
Try to stick to your own words and evidence, if you have any confidence in a hypothesis.
Objection. ‘Confect’ carries the connotation that the result can be pleasurably swallowed.
Let’s call it “purposes” instead since I don’t think motives is the best term to use now. I need to bring some context first before I answer your question…
The conventional view of consciousness is that it is preprogrammed algorithmic instructions that automatically follows a set of rules, such as unconscious actions of the brain that proceed by algorithmic processes
In contrast, quantum mind theory suggests that the action of consciousness is very different in that it proceeds in a way that cannot be described by algorithmic processes. A computer may win at chess but does not understand why it won. Consciousness has the ability to contemplate a plethora of ideas or information. Moreover, it can make judgements that one continually makes while in a conscious state. This involves distinguishing between true and false statements or what is morally right versus wrong.
For instance, let’s say there is some goal in mind and we are calculating how to get to it. But, the reason for why this is a goal and reflect on the nature of the ends and purposes is distinct from the kind of thinking you would engage in to calculate your way to a goal.
The only thing in nature that gives this is wave function collapse where you have a superposition of possibilities that collapses to one or the other.
The results of quantum physics experiments like “quantum erasure with casually DISCONNECTED choice” demonstrate this reality. For example, the conscious observer must first specify or think of which particular wave-function he intends to measure and then, put in place a measuring device that will probe that aspect.
Then, only the consciousness of the observer can recognize the answer and understand the results after he chooses between the many possible outcomes. The non-algorithmic conscious part of the mind is the only true measurement apparatus that performs measurements first on micro-tubules to simultaneous cause a collapse to the wave function under measurement.
(On a side note, consciousness is considered quite different from animal consciousness as well because of our ability to contemplate. This involves being consciously aware of abstract ideas and gain access to this higher form of complex information, such as digital information, from the precursor universal consciousness. Furthermore, unlike our consciousness, the precursor consciousness lacks algorithmic processing and computational effects. In other words, it does not have a brain or body that was orchestrated for its existence within classical physics. )
In summary, the act of human consciousness, such as contemplation and judgements, cannot be reduced to mechanistic algorithmic processes. Moreover, human consciousness allows us to gain access to digital information and this universal consciousness.
To answer your question now, you have to include “purposes” for quantum mind or ID models because they involve higher forms of complex information that only human consciousness can obtain through contemplation.
Contemplation - Wikipedia
The is because it is essentially the same as Penrose’s interpretation. So I did not feel compelled to go in depth an explaining the mechanism of consciousness. With that said, since there are some differences, I will go ahead and get more specific.
Penrose interpretation - Wikipedia
Just read what he said in the previous post.
Just read everything I said to @Mercer
Just read the second thing I said to @Mercer
Non-responsive: he makes no such complaint in his previous post.
Working assumption: @Mercer made no such complaint.
Non-responsive: none of that addresses your claim that:
It is not because a non-contingent human would be omnibenevolent as well.
Working assumption: this statement is a non sequitor, and so logically fallacious.
Non responsive: nothing you said to @Mercer at_SK5 addresses these fatal flaws in your definition.
Working assumption: you do not have any understanding of what “algorithmic information” entails.
Definitions:
@Meerkat_SK5’s “Universal Common Designer Theory”: an incoherent and fallacious babble, unsupported by the articles they cite in support of it.
@Meerkat_SK5’s “predictions”: a series of non sequitors (in that they are not necessitated by Meerkat_SK5’s ‘theory’), that are found on closer examination to be either (i) heavily subjective, or (ii) indistinguishable from the predictions of Evolutionary Biology.
@Meerkat_SK5’s “results”: a series of quotes and citations from articles that @Meerkat_SK5 is found not to have read, but rather to have copied from other apologists – who themselves are inexpert in the scientific fields involved, and are pervasively found to be blatantly non-supportive of their claims.
Based on all this, your credibility with me is so low that if you said it was raining, I would feel obliged to first stick my nose out the window to check the weather before believing you.
Nothing you say can be assumed to be credible, and nothing you say pans out under further scrutiny.
As I said before:
A point you carefully failed to address.
That may be one contemporary view of consciousness. There are many who dissent from that view.
Then why did you use it?
What you call context, I call incoherent handwaving.
Not necessarily – some confections are sickly sweet. 
Because “motives” and “purpose” are related concepts. Take a look:
The act of human consciousness, such as making moral judgements, cannot be reduced to mechanistic algorithmic processes according quantum physics. Moreover, human consciousness allows us to gain access to digital information and this universal consciousness through contemplation.
If you or @Tim still think this is incoherent, then my question is… How do you know it is not because of your worldview starting point?
How?
Because you have demonstrated no competence whatsoever with Quantum Physics, Biology, any other field of Science, basic Logic, or even basic understanding of the English language.
Because you are so ignorant that you cannot tell the difference between an apologist and a quantum physicist
Because you are unable to answer these basic questions, that have put to you repeatedly:
I am SICK TO DEATH of you REPEATEDLY casting aspersions on others understanding of Quantum Physics, when you have demonstrated EXACTLY ZERO COMPETENCE with the field yourself.
I find such aspersions to be RUDE AND INSULTING!
Relax. I just asked a question to try to understand what the issue is so I can respond properly. Ok @Mercer
I’d dispute this. Distinguishing between true or false statements and morally right versus wrong are not features of consciousness. Just ask Mr D Trump of Florida.
If they are so related, why is the one you used not appropriate?
I didn’t say it could. I said that what you wrote was incoherent.
Or not, as you have chosen.
My starting point is as a native English speaker and competent scientist. How is yours different?
redoing this part
This “issue” has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and by multiple people – without any improvement on your part (either in competence, or in refraining from casting aspersions).
I thus see little reason for relaxation.
If this is actually the case, then it is an opportunity to dissect the question down to first principles. Otherwise, it seems kind of insulting.