Universal Common Designer, Part VI?

No. What he in fact said, and what you yourself quoted, was:

And the “something in [his] wheelhouse” he started with was your non-random mutation predictionnot ORCH-OR.

That you don’t get this point is further indication that you have difficulty with the English language.

No. You in fact made no attempt to paraphrase “their theory” in connection with the quote I discussed, you simply quoted it baldly.

My exact point is that “their theory” IS NOT the same as (or even remotely similar to) your own, so NO, I will not consider their theory to be yours.

The reason that they are not the same is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS:

  • Your ‘theory’ posits consciousness being created by a “universal consciousness”/“common universal designer”.

  • ORCH-OR, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly pointed out to you posits consciousness arising naturally through the following process:

The Orch OR hypothesis, which is based in quantum physics, proposes that, when a sufficient mass of tubulin molecules has assembled into cytoskeletal microtubules (MTs) within neuronal cells of the brain, these structures become sites of quantum computation and of quantum state reduction (OR) events resulting in moments of protoconsciousness.

This natural process renders your “universal consciousness”/“common universal designer” superfluous.

Therefore ORCH-OR is neither a ‘design hypothesis’ nor a hypothesis supportive of design.

Any further attempts by you to cite ORCH-OR as either the same as your ‘theory’, or supportive of it, will be treated simply as a further admission that you neither understand ORCH-OR, Quantum Physics nor the English language.


  1. It is not clear that “self-collapse” is a “known cause” – it appears to be rather a posited cause, without any strong evidence.

  2. As I have already pointed out above, your attempts to link your theory to ORCH-OR have failed miserably.

  3. As others have pointed out, your attempts to link quantum physics to “HGT and HRT” have failed miserably.

It can therefore easily be shown that your ‘theory’ does not measure up to the scientific standards discussed in the Panda’s Thumb post on this point.

Also I note that you have homed in on a single sentence in that post, ignoring all the other flaws that your ‘theory’ holds in common with ID.

Overall verdict: incoherent babble that largely misses the point. 0/10

People make claims. Studies do not. That’s another important distinction that you elide.

You are quoting from an article in Live Science, which is not peer-reviewed. You are clearly trying to deceive.

Basic integrity.

Wouldn’t a person seeking dialog have asked this question before replying?

You appear to lack that capability.

Your earlier babble does not suggest anything remotely resembling your highlighted statements. It is a non sequitor, in that it does not follow from your earlier statements.

As both I, and @John_Harshman, have pointed out to you on many occasions, this is a pervasive problem with your claims. Unless and until you learn to make logical inferences correctly, you will get exactly nowhere.

Beyond this, nothing in your incoherent babble demonstrates that your ‘predictions’ aren’t arbitrary.

So it turns out that your ‘predictions’ have not been falsified by evidence, they have merely been demonstrated as being sufficiently malformed as to be “not even wrong”!

This leaves you with:

You guys already demonstrated that my predictions are falsifiable by making critiques on these predictions:

<crickets chirping>

I dispute both your premise, and that (even if it were true) it would “suggest” anything of the sort. That you would conflate “similarity” and ‘identity’ means that you understand neither logic nor the English language!

This likewise does not follow from your earlier statements. Also, lacking a precise definition of “widespread”, this prediction is also worthlessly vague!

You mislabeled this – the correct title is:

Random articles that do not support my predictions

Yet again, this does not follow from your earlier statements.

Overall verdict: incoherent babble, six not even wrong predictions, and BLATANT EVIDENCE of fatal illogic – -1/10

Yes, what you point out is exactly what I am arguing this part of the quote is proof of this:

“these structures become sites of quantum computation and of quantum state reduction (OR) events resulting in moments of protoconsciousness.”

The feeling is mutual here. Any further attempts by you to cite ORCH-OR as either NOT the same as my ‘theory’, or supportive of it, will be treated simply as a further admission that you neither understand ORCH-OR let alone enough about Quantum Physics to have a fruitful discussion on .

Self-collapse is merely the definition of consciousness according to their theory and observations. Consciousness is obviously a well known cause from personal experience and the quantum mind theory.

No, you guys are just not convinced and this is because you refuse to try to understand and read their works. This is not my issue but yours. I gave you guys the sources on how they make the link already.

Other qualified scientists would beg to differ:

The Cosmological Constant - absolute proof that God created the universe for a purpose - YouTube

Yes, let me provide some better context:

According to observations, “molecular analyses indicate that each of the major multicellular clades contain a characteristic set of developmental ‘toolkit’ genes, some of which are shared among disparate lineages.”

We can infer that the same multicellular toolkit and modules were used to design basic types to survive, reproduce, and develop in environments of the globe. Here is the model for the theory:

*Around 3.8 billion years ago, billions of viroids likely containing all the required genes to make certain evolutionary trajectories were created within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the Earth through self-collapse of the wave-function.

Through natural selection and self-collapse, the groups of viroids evolved into different species of unicellular organisms, which underwent an extensive amount of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), leading to the formation of multicellular organisms and beyond.* (read Hammeroff’s model for more on this description)

If this is true , we must find HGT and HRT within vertebrates and invertebrates

Insects | Free Full-Text | Polydnaviruses of Parasitic Wasps: Domestication of Viruses To Act as Gene Delivery Vectors (mdpi.com)

Oh, I forgot about your rule. My mistake.

Not at first no. But now, I am trying to understand where you are going with this objection of yours. So I am politely asking you…

What do you mean by non-random with respect to fitness?

I have some other questions to ask you as well. Does the modern paradigm still hold to a gene-centered view of evolution i.e. the selfish gene?

If NOT, do you think this prediction would either be a waste of time or a meaningful contribution to confirm for science?

We should find sinister designs in nature to provide improvements (rather than impediments) on an organism or organisms’ ability to survive, reproduce, or fit an environmental niche, such as

Long lasting pain (or suffering) enhance animals’ survivability following an injury and recovery

Animal death and carnivorous activity prevent an overpopulation of prey

Offspring abandonment and filial cannibalism display forms of parental care

Mass extinction events trigger mass speciation events

And what about respect for someone who you are having a discourse with because this certainly does not show it:

But this quote has nothing to do with either your thesis of a “universal consciousness” nor anything to do with your unsubstantiated claim that this universal consciousness (or anything else) creates other consciousness.

Therefore it has nothing to do with your ‘theory’.


Except I’m not the one (i) confusing religious apologists with quantum physicists, (ii) unable to answer basic questions about my background in maths and physics, (iii) conflating “similar” with “identical”.

Nor am I even the only one questioning your understanding of basic English nor of logic.

In fact it would seem to be a reasonable generalisation to say that everybody here rejects everything you have presented – every claim that some article supports your position, every attempt to draw an inference, every definition, every malformed prediction, and most especially your ‘theory’.

You stand here entirely alone, rejected, and dismissed.

The blatant false equivalence of your “The feeling is mutual here” is pitiful.

Vague and incoherent babble. Mere “definitions” can often be arbitrary, so prove nothing. You do not state where in the peer-reviewed scientific literature have they published “observations” that explicitly claim demonstrate self-collapse, nor what evidence you have that these claims been accepted by the wider scientific community.

“Consciousness” is an ephemeral and poorly understood phenomena scientifically, “personal experience” is subjective, and so not scientific, and “quantum mind theory” is fringe science with very poor acceptance from the scientiufic community.

So, no, not a “known cause” from science’s perspective.

No, we are quite thoroughly “convinced” – that everything you say here is incoherent babble, unsupported by the scientific evidence.

Given the number of times you’ve been caught parroting quotes from other apologists without reading the original articles, have made basic mistakes of logic, and have made basic mistakes in your understanding of the English language, I find this claim to be pitiful.

These links were not made by them, but exist only in your mind.

  1. This video has nothing to do with the invalid inferences, “that Penrose’s mechanism of gravity-induced collapse is truly conscious” and “that this mind not only exists in all possible configurations of matter but must exist in them by necessity” you were attempting to draw from your previous babble that you claimed “suggests” them.

  2. That is not a “qualified scientist” on the video but another Apologist, you likely knows nothing about the science involved. It is just further evidence of the Apologetics echo-chamber.

Let me STOP you rtight there and correct this:

According to a short out of context quote I provide no citation for …

This inference is invalid in that it does not follow from your quote.

This, as others have pointed out, is complete balderdash! Viroid depend on pre-existing life for replication and transmission. Also viroids do not contain DNA, so do not “contain” any genes.

Given your complete failure to make any claim that is even remotely credible to anybody here, your inability to learn from any of your mistakes of comprehension and of logic, and your continued and insulting tendency to blame others for your failure, rather than your own ignorance and inability, I see no reason to continue talking to you any further. Good day sir.

You mean the Ninth Commandment? Aren’t you supposed to follow that rule too?

That individual mutations are biased toward being beneficial or harmful.

It’s an analogy.

What do you mean by sinister?

Does your hypothesis make a specific empirical prediction for the introduction of an invasive species to an island whose residents were not under predation?

I was talking about your rule that secondary sources should not be used to describe primary sources.

How come this quote from the study does not suggests a mutational bias toward beneficial mutations:

“Hypomutation targeted to features enriched in functionally constrained loci throughout the genome would reduce the relative frequency of deleterious mutations. The adaptive value of this bias can be conceptualized by the analogy of loaded dice with a reduced probability of rolling low numbers (that is, deleterious mutations), and thus a greater probability of rolling high numbers (that is, beneficial mutations)”


I really would like to know how I am misunderstanding their study. I could not find where they were claiming what you guys are suggesting about the location of the mutations rather than fitness mutations.

What do you mean? What’s an analogy? Are you suggesting that the selfish gene is an example of how natural selection works?

A feature of an organism that is allegedly designed to impede on the population or an organism’s ability to survive, reproduce, and fit an environmental niche.

No, almost all the predictions the hypothesis makes are categorical statements, such as “all swans are white”, NOT observational statements, such as “This swan is white”. This is why the hypothesis is called Universal common design.


For instance, these statements are considered to be categorical:

We should find design trade-offs for all suboptimal designs in nature

We should find HGT and HRT for all vertebrates and invertebrates

We should find the same phenotypic traits evolved separately in nested but unrelated orders and family groups in response to similar needs.

We will find remnants or “fossils” of front-loading among all protozoa.

I consider these statements to be observational but I will let you be the judge of that:

We would expect to find the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions to better fit the data than species trees between apes and humans

We should find fossil dissimilarities between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds/mammals

That’s a clear subset of Ninth Commandment violations.

However, yours here is much more egregious: you were portraying a lay article as the peer-reviewed article. Why would you do that, if your intent is not to deceive?

Because it also reduces the frequency of beneficial mutations.

Because it only addressed location and they misrepresented the implications of that.

Is English not your native language? And to correct myself, it’s more of a metaphor.

No, neither analogies nor metaphors are examples. Do you disagree?

Then it’s not scientific. And statements are not predictions. Is English not your native language?

Scientific hypotheses make empirical predictions–direct observations. Your hypothesis is not scientific.

That’s why it’s not a scientific hypothesis. You lack sufficient faith in it to test it.

Why do you cite something you obviously don’t understand? It completely contradicts you, as it doesn’t mention categorical statements. It mentions observations.

Thanks. You are being pseudoscientific.


Do you not understand the plain meaning of the word “prediction”?

Are you incapable of distinguishing between someone who maybe wrong and someone who is dishonest?

I am not sure how many times I have to remind everyone that I am not an expert and I’m trying to get it right not be right.

Again, this is not what the study suggested:

“The adaptive value of this bias can be conceptualized by the analogy of loaded dice with a reduced probability of rolling low numbers (that is, deleterious mutations), and thus a greater probability of rolling high numbers (that is, beneficial mutations)” [emphasis added]

Yeah, but that is more your opinion because your claim is not peer-reviewed. Their conclusions have been peer-reviewed and corroborated by other studies like it.

No, I am asking about what you are referring to as being an analogy or metaphor regarding what I said.

I don’t disagree but I am trying to understand what you meant here. Let me just define selfish gene:

Genes promote their own survival without necessarily promoting the survival of the organism, group or even species.

Is this view of natural selection still a part of the modern synthesis? A Yes or No answer is desired if possible.

No, I just misunderstood what you were suggesting. What you were referring to before involved singular existential claims because they assert the existence of some particular thing.

In contrast, the predictions I showcased are considered to be categorical or deals with universals. For instance, the claim that we should find design trade-offs for suboptimal designs in nature has already been observed or confirmed. However, what has not been observed is that we should find design trade-offs for ALL suboptimal designs in nature

Both claims are verifiable and falsifiable according to scientific standards, which is what I was trying to articulate before.

However, if we did find out that the latter is true, then this would seriously improve our understanding of evolution.

Again, universals are considered falsifiable and thus scientific as the article has suggested:

"It is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white.

Even so, the statement all swans are white is testable by being falsifiable. For, if in testing many swans, the researcher finds a single black swan, then the statement all swans are white would be falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan."

What do you mean? The article specifically said…

"Popper noticed that two types of statements are of particular value to scientists.

The first are statements of observations, such as “this is a white swan”. Logicians call these statements singular existential statements, since they assert the existence of some particular thing. They can be parsed in the form: There is an x that is a swan, and x is white.

The second are statements that categorize all instances of something, such as “all swans are white”. Logicians call these statements universal."

Prove it then. Show me where I am being psuedo scientific with my hypothesis or predictions using an established criterion for determining pseudoscience.

When somebody keeps pushing the same wrong ideas over and over again, he begins to look dishonest.

That mutation rate depends on location on the genome is well known, and is a prediction of natural selection. If you are using that to argue against the randomness of mutations, then you clearly do not understand what biologists mean when they say that mutations are random.

“The selfish gene” is a metaphor. It does not require a definition. I’m dubious of the usefulness of your proposed definition.

Personally, I do not talk about selfish genes. I don’t find that metaphor at all useful.

The concept of universals is from philosophy, not from science. You seem confused.

Design trade-offs are the result of decisions made during design. For nature, we do not have any clear evidence of design. So no, such design trade-offs have not been observed or confirmed. Some of what we see in nature has been described as trade-offs, but the use of term is metaphorical and does not constitute a scientific hypothesis.

I really dislike this whole “white swan” story. It is usually said that black swans were discovered in Australia, which falsified the claim that all swans are black. It is nonsense. No black swans were ever discovered in Australia. Rather, a hitherto unnamed species of black water birds was discovered in Australia, and it was decided to name them “black swans”. That did not falsify anything that might have been considered a scientific hypothesis.

That’s not how science works. Scientists try to be quite specific, and to define criteria by which they will consider something to a swan.

I’m not sure that there are established criteria for identifying pseudoscience. However, in your case, you are presenting a lot of unscientific statements and trying to pass it off as science. To me, that sure looks like pseudoscience.


I am.

Expertise is irrelevant in this simple ethical matter. Don’t cite anything you haven’t read for yourself. You’re not trying; you’ve been called out for the same unethical practice 10-20 times now!

When you say “the study suggested” something, you need to refer to the evidence, not the authors’ interpretations. You don’t look at the evidence. In your shallow approach, you just look for words.

It’s an expert opinion, and you can check that for yourself because there’s nothing in the data in that paper regarding beneficial vs. deleterious. Have you bothered to look at my own papers yet?

What you cited was not peer-reviewed. Please cite the other studies that corroborate it. Remember, when you cite a study, you need to be familiar with the evidence in it. It’s not about the written words. You avoid the evidence, therefore you are engaging in pseudoscience, not science.

You reject the scientific method.

I’ll ask again: is English not your native language? Predictions are made regarding observations you haven’t made. Why do you have so much trouble with this simple word?

If it’s already observed, it cannot be a prediction.

So, use your hypothesis to make a prediction in the case I offered.

Does your hypothesis make a specific empirical prediction for the introduction of an invasive species to an island whose residents were not under predation?

Because you won’t use your hypothesis (which you misrepresent as a theory) to make predictions. You’re afraid to. You’re even presenting things you already know as predictions.

1 Like

People who are merely wrong cite their actual sources. They don’t copy misquotes from creationist sites and then provide a link to an article they haven’t read.

People who are merely wrong are open about their qualifications (or lack thereof). They don’t ignore questions about their background and expertise.

People who are merely wrong take note of responses to their claims. They don’t just repeat their claims as if no response had ever been made.


So am I. Not because it’s wrong, or unnecessary, but because it’s not actually @Meerkat_SK5’s definition, but been copied without attribution from elsewhere. There’s no reason to think @Meerkat_SK5 knows what it means.


When somebody keeps asserting without proving how these ideas are wrong over and over again, he begins to look dishonest.

According to Jerry Coyne, the idea of the Selfish Gene is just describing how natural selection works. Do you agree with him? If so, would you say this is still a part of the modern synthesis?

I have already developed this criterion for design on this topic. Here is the description of the ecology criterion along with the prediction again:

We should find that the same phenotypic traits between the three Perissodactyla groups evolved separately in response to similar needs (such as reproduction, survival, adaptation).

A four-question survey is used for each practical criterion is designated by a letter (A–D) and a title in the form of a question (food, predators, reproduction, and habitat).

If the answer to the question “Are the common features of this group being used differently in their habitats?” is ‘No’ or ‘TBD,’ a follow-up question is asked: “Do they respond differently in different habitats?” (this may require artificially planting them in different habitats for an answer). If the answer to either question is ‘Yes,’ we can conclude there is a common design.

However, if the answer is ‘NO’ or ‘TBD’ to both questions, we must apply the same question formula to prey and/or predator measures to make a definite conclusion. If the answer is still ‘NO’ or ‘TBD,’ then we ask, “Are the common features of this group being used differently in sexual reproduction?”

The results are inconclusive if every question yields a ‘NO’ or ‘TBD’ answer.

Well, maybe you can help me turn my predictions into real science then

Now, you switched the subject from “portraying a lay article as the peer-reviewed article” to “Don’t cite anything you haven’t read for yourself.” This is not the same thing.

More importantly, even when I do read an article in its entirety, this does not stop you guys from still claiming I did not read the article or understand it.

Besides, when you simply dismiss my theory as nothing more than quantum woo, you guys clearly show that you don’t read the Orch-OR articles I cite. Yet, you are telling me that I am not trying. Well, that is classic indeed!

It’s important to point out that the argument for goal-directedness within the coding regions of the DNA does not depend only on whether beneficial mutations are most likely to occur compared to deleterious ones. As the studies indicate, there was a limit on the amount of errors the cell makes in maintaining existing function rather than genetically engineering new function to improve fitness. This is equally important in establishing non-randomness.

How on earth do I do that when I don’t have direct access to the data from the article that requires you to pay?

Unfortunately, this is the best I can do for now:

"B. Key biological findings

  1. Synonymous diversity varies by more than 20-fold among genes in the E. coli genome; however, selective and non-selective factors explain only a small proportion of this variation. Instead, our observations suggest that the variation in synonymous diversity results from large heterogeneity in the underlying neutral mutation rate.

  2. Contrary to the commonly accepted evolutionary tenet, we observe that this mutation rate is not randomly distributed across the genome. Instead, the data suggest that genes under stronger purifying selection - i.e., those for which spontaneous mutations are most likely to be more deleterious - display a lower mutation rate. We propose that the non-random distribution of the mutation rate evolved by a process known as second-order selection.

  3. The observations are consistent with a risk management model: by preferentially protecting
    against mutations genes under stronger purifying selection, the risk of strongly deleterious
    mutations is efficiently minimised at reduced cost to the organism"

martincorena-RiskManagement-Submission6-SI-Final (springer.com)

Yes, of course. However, I don’t know what species we can potentially test this on.

It’s not so much that. You just want me to be more specific. For instance, instead of forming the prediction like this… We should find that the same phenotypic traits evolved separately in nested but unrelated orders and family groups in response to similar needs

It looks like you want me to do it like this…

We should find that the same phenotypic traits between the three Perissodactyla groups evolved separately in response to similar needs (such as reproduction, survival, adaptation).

Is that correct?

If so, I can structure the other predictions the same way. I have already provided some predictions that are constructed this way.

If not, then maybe you can give me an example of how these predictions can be constructed in a more specific way.

Correct. You do both, and both are blatant violations of the Ninth Commandment. Got it now?

You just admitted why right there by using “read.” You ignore the evidence. You clearly don’t understand the evidence.

I’m dismissing your fake theory as a hypothesis that doesn’t even explain the extant data.

You’re changing the subject. May I take that as a tacit admission that you don’t examine the evidence, only the words?

How can you know this if you were just asking me to define it yesterday?

You simply don’t do that. Typically, a polite email to the first or last author is all it takes. But again, YOU IGNORE DATA. You only do words, and you do them very badly.

So what does your hypothesis predict?

I do. What does your hypothesis predict? Note that you are avoiding using your hypothesis to make predictions. That’s pseudoscience.

It is. It’s temporal.

No, I expect predictions to apply to things you don’t already know. Again, you’re a pseudoscientist because you categorically reject the scientific method. This is another case in point.

No, it doesn’t. You’re just afraid to engage in the scientific method. Ironically, you have no faith in your hypothesis.


You’re desperately avoiding the temporal requirement for predictions by claiming that this is about specificity.

1 Like


As Ayala (2007) explains, evolution by natural selection describes designs in nature without a designer. [1] For instance, when scientists use the term “random” to describe mutations, they refer to the unintentional nature of the process; mutations do not “attempt” to supply what the organism “needs” within a given moment or place. Instead, environmental factors influence only the rate not the course of mutation. For example, contact with harmful chemicals might increase mutation rates but will not increase beneficial mutations that make an organism resistant to those chemicals. In this sense, mutations are considered random because there is no “conscious” intent involved, which suggests there is no personal agent selecting adaptive combinations in evolution. He further explains how this description of mutations essentially forms the basis of the Modern Synthesis theory, which was proposed between 1936 and 1947 and reflects the consensus on how evolution proceeds. The expansion of 19th-century evolutionary ideas by Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel, and others laboring on population genetics between 1918 and 1932 incentivized the Modern Synthesis theory, by showcasing that Mendelian genetics was consistent with natural selection and gradualism. [2]

Challenging new data are currently being produced in multiple fields and as a result, a different vision of evolution is beginning to manifest wherein the processes by which organisms develop are recognized as causes of evolution. [2] For instance, analysis of the genomes of 46 sequenced isolates of Escherichia coli provides a statistically supported comparison of the topologies of the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions, their regulated genes, and the species tree. The results of this comparison strikingly show that evolution of the regulatory regions of over half of the core genes (i.e., genes shared by all isolates) was incongruent with that of the species tree. [3]

Moreover, “our observations suggest that the mutation rate has been evolutionarily optimized to reduce the risk of deleterious mutations. Current knowledge of factors influencing the mutation rate—including transcription-coupled repair and context-dependent mutagenesis—do not explain these observations, indicating that additional mechanisms must be involved.” [4]

Thus, new questions are raised in light of new evidence. Should evolution be considered a truly random process or a directed one? Do all living organisms share a common ancestor or a common mechanism?

The intelligent design (ID) theory much better agrees with new empirical evidence and can elegantly explain the abrupt origins we find throughout the fossil record and the incongruencies of species trees.

Based on previous studies and the literature, I aim to prove the existence of a universal common designer in nature by showing that there is a universal common design in evolution. Previous attempts to reintroduce an intelligent designer into science by ID theorists have failed for several reasons. ID theorists argue that the very presence of complex specified information (CSI) found in DNA automatically provides empirical support for the claim that an intelligent designer created and designed life because only human designers can produce CSI based on uniform experience. ID theorists attempt to provide more displays of irreducible complexity or specified information in nature to prove that an intelligent designer designed all living organisms. This involves showing how removing one part of a complex design, such as an eye, would cause the entire system to cease functioning. However, human designers are finite and fallible beings that design things based on limited prior knowledge by using and modifying preexisting material, which would merely mimic Neo-Darwinian mechanisms. More importantly, ID theorists have not yet attempted to prove or explore the nature of this designer.

Unlike ID theorists, Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff have explored the nature of this intelligent designer, through a gravity-induced self-collapse, which they refer to as a “universal protoconsciouness.” They provide a comprehensive model of the nature and mechanism of this conscious agent that can explain the origin and evolution of life, species, and consciousness. [5] However, their theory does not go so far as to differentiate this conscious agent from mindless forces. For instance, even if the proposed experiments confirmed Penrose’s prediction, all it would prove is that non-biological settings are displaying elements that mirror conscious behavior. However, this would be considered as anthropomorphism.

The Modern Synthesis theory holds two key assumptions that are derived from the Extended Modern Synthesis theory [6]: (1) mutations are a random process and (2) all living organisms have a common ancestor. This article considers both assumptions but primarily focuses on the latter. I will show how the mechanism of consciousness can explain and predict how biological processes developed over time on earth. Finally, I will provide a model describing the nature of this designer in more detail and further improve on the Orch-OR theory.

Orch-OR Theory

According to the Orch-OR theory, the action of consciousness proceeds in a way that cannot be described by algorithmic processes. Consciousness can contemplate or freely think about 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.

The only thing in nature that does this is wave function collapse where you have a superposition of possibilities that collapses to one or the other. For example, the conscious observer must first specify or think of which wave-function he or she intends to measure and then, put in place a measuring device that will probe that aspect. The results of quantum physics experiments like “quantum erasure with casually disconnected choice” demonstrate this reality.

[2208.03726] Human Perception as a Phenomenon of Quantization (arxiv.org)

Furthermore, we have empirical support showing that the brain uses quantum mechanical processes, such as quantum tunneling and superposition, which would suggest more than correlation but causation is involved: For instance, researchers built an artificial cell-like environment with nano-scale engineering and repeated spontaneous growth of tubulin protein to its complex with and without electromagnetic signal.

They used “64 combinations of plant, animal and fungi tubulins and several doping molecules used as drugs and repeatedly observed that the long reported common frequency region where protein folds mechanically and its structures vibrate electromagnetically. Under pumping, the growth process exhibited a unique organized behavior unprecedented otherwise.”

Live visualizations of single isolated tubulin protein self-assembly via tunneling current: effect of electromagnetic pumping during spontaneous growth of microtubule | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

This means that we can use the action of consciousness as a mechanism that explains and predicts how biological processes developed over time on earth. In the next section, I am going to highlight observations that suggest a non-local consciousness exists in nature.

Objective Reduction Theory

The acceleration of the expansion of the universe from inflation is thought to be produced from an explosion or collision of quantum fluctuations of particles—called the “cosmological constant”—that permeate the entire multi-verse where a billion (plus one) positive particles and a billion negative particles come into existence at once. [7]

The cosmological constant is placed at a precise measurement of 10 to the 120th power. When scientists trace the rate of expansion back one second after the Planck scale of our universe, the value becomes an astounding 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power.

Hypothetically, this indicates that if our universe’s expansion rate had different values with larger amounts of dark energy, the universes created in the expansion that formed planets and stars, where life of any kind might evolve, would have most likely blown apart the cosmic material instead. If our universe’s expansion rate had different values with smaller amounts of dark energy, the universes created in the expansion would have most likely collapsed back into a singularity before it ever reached its present size.

This would suggest that Penrose’s mechanism of gravity-induced collapse is truly consciousness, and that this consciousness necessarily possesses non-computable traits, such as omnipotence. For instance, our multi-verse will most likely accelerate forever in all directions and produce an infinite number of pocket universes from the universal wave-function, according to the eternal inflationary theory. This would suggest that this “mind” not only exists in all possible configurations of matter but must exist in them by necessity.

This non-computable choice seems to play a role in biology as well. For instance, as Mattick and Dinger pointed, it has long been argued that the presence of non-protein coding or so-called ‘junk DNA’ that comprises > 90% of the human genome is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionary debris by blind Darwinian evolution, which would argue against intelligent design, as an intelligent designer would presumably not fill the human genetic instruction set with meaningless information. This objection has been essentially refuted in the face of growing functional indices of noncoding regions of the genome, with the latter reciprocally used in support of the notion of intelligent design and to challenge the conception that natural selection accounts for the existence of complex organisms In fact, we now know that well over 80% of junk DNA is functional. It is noteworthy that there is controversy surrounding the ENCODE results (Eddy, 2012; Graur et al., 2013). I refer readers to this article that addresses and responds to objections.

The vast majority of mutations in regions that do encode proteins are deleterious and would prevent beneficial mutations from being fixated within the population. However, in a study on 34 E. coli strains, Martincorena, Seshasayee & Luscombe (2012) discovered that the mutation frequency varies across bacterial genomes. Some regional “hot spots” have a reasonably high mutation rate, while “cold spots” display a reasonably low rate of genetic changes. The researchers discovered that the hot- and cold-spot locations are not random (Martincorena et al., 2012). Thus, it appears that the mutation rates have been fine-tuned to lower the risk of harmful genetic changes (Martincorena et al., 2012; Martincorena & Luscombe, 2013). Recent studies seem to have converged on the same conclusion as well.

I am incorporating the following Penrose’s Objective-reduction (OR) theory in my model:

“In the Copenhagen interpretation, postcollapse states selected by conscious observation are chosen randomly, probabilistically (the Born rule, after physicist Max Born). However, in Penrose OR, the choices (and quality of subjective experience) are influenced by resonate with what Penrose called noncomputable Platonic values embedded in the fine scale structure of spacetime geometry”

In other words, whether a quantum system is displaying particle- or wave-like behavior depends on a non-computable conscious choice.


Universal protoconsciousness: universal self-collapsing wave-function

In the next section, I am going to highlight some experiments and observations that show how this protoconsciousness does not simply simulate human consciousness but posseseses a human personality.

Universal common designer

A recent prebiotic experiment demonstrated how self-replicating RNA molecules could “evolve into complex living systems by expanding their information and functions open-endedly.” More importantly, the similarity between logic gates and DNA structure and metabolism suggests that the characteristics of objects produced by human designers and biochemical systems are identical. [8]

Given the prior support for the Orch-OR theory, cosmological constant and non-random mutations, this universal protoconsciousness probably operated like humans when designing life on earth. This indicates that we would not have to prove or assume that some supernatural force/substance existed first to consider the existence of God as a potential explanation for a biological phenomenon because the evidence in quantum physics is compatible with panpsychism (i.e., a form of idealism).

More importantly, we need not consider using an unfalsifiable theory that involves an omnipotent human because a non-computable being cannot violate his own nature.

In other words, the non-computable trait this designer possesses offsets the omnipotent trait the designer would also have to possess. Therefore, we would expect God to be consistent with human nature without the flaws that humans naturally commit because of their inherent physical limitations.

This is what enables us to treat an omnipotent God the same way we would with other intelligent agents (Neanderthals, modern humans, aliens, etc.) when considering a valid cause to explain a biological phenomenon over a mindless force.

Thus, all candidates are considered natural but immaterial causes that we can test because consciousness is fundamental but not classical physics.

If this theory is true, we would expect all currently living organisms to have a common design that can be traced back to this universal common designer.


Universal common designer: universal self-collapsing wave-function

Universal Common Design Hypothesis

This non-computable conscious agent chose to re-use viruses and microtubules to develop created kinds of animals to survive, reproduce, and develop in different environments

Origin of life and species model

Around 3.8 billion years ago, billions of viroids, likely containing all the required genes to make certain evolutionary trajectories, were created within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the Earth through self-collapse of the wave-function. Through natural selection and self-collapse, these groups of viroids evolved into different species of unicellular organisms, which underwent extensive horizontal regulatory gene transfer (HRT), leading to the formation of multicellular plants and fungi .

Subsequently, HRT and microtubules to develop cell differentiation, sexual reproduction, and consciousness into the first group of marine basic types (fish, marine invertebrates, amphibians).

Then, reptiles, birds, and mammals were later developed from different times and global locations within the earth.


(A) We would expect similar phenotypic traits to evolve separately in nested but unrelated taxa in response to similar needs.

(B) We expect to find functional ERV’s and pseudogenes in nested but unrelated taxa

(C) We would expect to find that the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions in nested but unrelated taxa to better fit the data than species trees.

(D) We expect to find adaptive convergent genes in genomes between nested but unrelated taxa

(F) We would NOT expect to find examples of non-human animals displaying forms of human exceptionalism, such as:

  1. Ability to invent and use grammar, verb tenses, and vocabulary up to hundreds of thousands of words

  2. Ability to invent and use complex trading and transportation systems like modern humans

  3. Ability to engage in mathematics, literature, philosophy, and theology

  4. Ability to tame, domesticate, and train mammals, birds, and small lizards


We can test prediction (A) by first showing how shared traits, such as vestigial structures, have functional utility. Then, we apply those same traits between nested groups to different environmental niches. This method was used in the study of the red and giant pandas that concluded they were unrelated.

As a test run, we will evaluate Equidae to determine whether they are a basic type, drawing on data from the extensive work that has been previously done. For instance, it has been shown that all horses are of a single basic type. Most importantly, based on preliminary results, we found evidence that horses were, for the most part, sufficiently different from tapirs and rhinos, which belong to separate taxonomic groups.

The results from the preliminary test are shown below:


Are the common features of this group being used differently?

(A) Habitat? TBD

(B) Food? No

(C) Reproduction? No

(C) Predators? Yes

It is reported that “horse behavior is best understood from the view that horses are prey animals with a well-developed fight-or-flight response. Their first reaction to a threat is often to flee, although sometimes they stand their ground and defend themselves or their offspring in cases where flight is untenable, such as when a foal is threatened."

Scholars have stated that “tapirs are strong swimmers who may walk along the bottom of river beds to find food. They instinctively escape predation by moving into the water and they can stay submerged in deep water long enough to make any predators clinging to their back let go.” [just ask for references]


Horses, tapirs, and rhinos all have odd numbers of toes, which they use differently pertaining to their habitats and predators; horses run from predators in open terrain, tapirs swim to avoid predators in the water, and rhinos charge predators. Therefore, we can conclude that Equidae is a legitimate basic type that shares a common design with tapirs and rhinos, based on these lines of evidence:

Fossil dissimilarities between Equidae and other Perissodactyls.

A clear-cut fossil lineage within the Equidae family.

The odd toe evolved separately in response to similar needs.

However, this conclusion is tentative because new research, with a greater sampling of non-equid outgroups, is still required to test the hypothesis that all equids form a single holobaramin or a basic type…

Repeating your hypothesis, which isn’t even mechanistic, and falsely labeling it as a theory isn’t helping.


Why would a designer not be capable of producing two or more completely independent designs for organisms?

Having a common designer does not necessarily mean having a common design.

Here are two designs by the same designer that have virtually nothing in common.

But for some reason the Universal Common Designer isn’t capable of similar versatility.

(Come to think of it, this also works against ID too. With evolution we’d expect that eventually all life-forms would have a common ancestor, and hence common features. Under ID, there’s no such expectation.)

(Also, there’s no link whatsoever between particle/wave behaviour and a common design of life.)


No, you are wrong on both accounts. The common designer theory is described to be mechanistic and is a theory because it has survived empirical testing.

I went back and added more information to my previous post to help everyone understand why it is mechanistic and why it is a theory.

So I encourage you to go back and read sections “Introduction”, “Orch-OR theory” and “Objective reduction theory” in my previous post. You should be able to understand the full context of why I arrived at my conclusion.

I am encouraging you to do the same @Roy