# Universal Common Designer theory \[UPDATED and REVISED\]

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design\
**Created:** [August 29, 2021, 1:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182 "2021-08-29T01:46:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [September 1, 2021, 11:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/21 "2021-09-01T23:19:03Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> For instance, I thought maybe the sudden appearance of placental mammals involved many different families being created in a brief time in different locations without an ancestor.

Despair over human folly sets in again. I should stop reading.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2021, 10:08am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/22 "2021-09-02T10:08:42Z")

</div>

_Nota bene_

I did some background-checking on @Meerkat_SK5’s citation #11, ‘The finer scale of consciousness: quantum theory’, which he quotes from in his latest post.

1. It was not in fact published by [nih.gov](http://nih.gov), as can be seen from the boiler-plate at the end of the linked page that states: “Articles from Annals of Translational Medicine are provided here courtesy of AME Publications”

2. As that boiler plate notes it was published in _Annals of Translational Medicine_ which is published by AME Publications.

3. AME Publications is on [Beall’s List](https://beallslist.net/), a prominent list of “Potential predatory scholarly open‑access publishers”.

4. This suspicion is further confirmed by the fact that the paper’s topic appears to have nothing to do with the journal’s stated topic of [Translational medicine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translational_medicine).

This does not of course automatically falsify the paper’s claims. It does however mean that they should be viewed with a healthy level of skepticism, particularly as they are venturing opinions on what is already a “controversial hypothesis”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spinosaurus-729](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Spinosaurus-729](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Spinosaurus-729)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2021, 10:08am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/23 "2021-09-02T10:08:43Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> How so? you need to elaborate in a way that I can respond adequately

There’s nothing of substance in that claim. You’re just mixing quantum jargon to make it sound sophisticated.  
Suffice to say that ‘quantum’ behavior only affects at extremely small scales, this can be proved mathematically using the de Broglie equation. You won’t see any significant wave-like behavior in anything bigger than an atom, let alone in DNA.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2021, 2:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/24 "2021-09-02T14:06:59Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> **Introduction**
> 
> Previously, I argued for an origin of life model that combines all three origins of virus models into a single hypothesis.

But since those models are mutually contradictory unless viruses and/or bacteria travelled back in time, your hypothesis was doomed before you even began. You haven’t mentioned this.

Strike 1.

> [@](#):
>
> More importantly, I showed how the first life on earth must have been created by a common designer that is transcendent. This inference was based on four premises:
> 
> (A) There are strong similarities between biochemical and human information [1][2]
> 
> (B) Experiments show how the first life must be created by an intelligent designer [3][4][5]

Those experiments show no such thing, for the same reason that transporting butterflies from Canada to Mexico by DC-10 would not show they could not make the same journey unaided. You are committing the fallacy of ‘affirming a disjunct’.

Strike 2.

> [@](#):
>
> (C) Life could not have developed from metabolic-first prebiotic chemistry [5A]
> 
> (D) There is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that resembles reactions being determined by the genetic code
> 
> However, there are observations that suggest this agent also guides the evolutionary process of developing life from simple to complex.[6][7]

This first of those references is about the impact of mapping the human genome; the second is about varying mutation rates across the _E coli_ genome.

Both articles are about a single species; neither article discusses development of life from simple to complex, and neither mentions guidance from an external agent.

You are either still misrepresenting your sources, or still citing articles you haven’t read.

Strike 3.

**Back to the bunker for you.**

There are other fatal flaws too, but since you won’t fix these ones, I don’t need to point them out. The answer to your question:

> [@](#):
>
> Does Evolution proceed by Quantum consciousness?

…is “ **No** ”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2021, 3:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/25 "2021-09-02T15:44:20Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> I already included the most notable example in my above parenthetical. Another that I have previously mentioned would be Vasas _et al_ .

No, I mean the cut-off date in which an article is deemed considered outdated and obsolete. What is your cut-off date?

> [@Tim](#):
>
> Your quote remains nothing more than the _opinion_ of a quartet of researchers.

This is not what the article suggests…

“Even more exciting, with the emergence of new drugs, new research methods, and new quantum technologies, this theory is constantly being enriched and perfected. Especially in the research of anesthesiology ([96](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r96)-[100](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r100)), memory ([71](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r71)), cognition ([42](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r42),[101](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r101)-[103](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r103)), neural synchrony ([104](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r104)) and vision ([49](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r49)), mounting results and evidence indicated the Orch-OR theory could be self-explanatory and could be invoked to many different conscious backgrounds. More recently, Li _et al_ . found that xenon’s (one kind of anesthetic) nuclear spin could impair its own anesthetic power, which involves a neural quantum process ([105](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/#r105)). **Thus, the quantum theory of consciousness is increasingly gaining more supporters.** ”

> [@Tim](#):
>
> This does not of course automatically falsify the paper’s claims. It does however mean that they should be viewed with a healthy level of skepticism, particularly as they are venturing opinions on what is already a “controversial hypothesis”.

No, it is not healthy skepticism you are displaying here. Instead, it is paranoia and personal bias. The article was cited by multiple other articles that obviously saw nothing wrong with the 2019 article:

[Cited by … (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/citedby/)

> [@Tim](#):
>
> - It establishes Orch-OR as neither fact _nor_ the scientific consensus.
> - Even a quick skim of even the Wikipedia article on [Orchestrated Objective Reduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction) sees it prominently listed as **“a controversial hypothesis”** , with a whole bunch of physicists and neuroscientists cited as criticising it as a poor model of brain physiology.

There are 4 explanations as to why the Orch-OR theory lacks acceptance from the scientific consensus. Two out of the four are based on subjective reasons. Here is my analysis:

_The first explanation is that the Orch-OR theory was falsified or the authors failed to address a major flaw(s)._

The criticisms raised on their theory have all been adequately addressed in their 2014 peer-reviewed article that was published in a highly prestigious journal. It is highly unlikely that such a high impact journal like Physics of life reviews would publish their article if those objections were fatal or relevant.

For instance, although there are fraudulent articles that can and do get passed peer-review even in highly prestigious journals, Physics of life review has a special feature where additional experts can make up to 5 replies each after an article is published in which the editor informally reads those comments. In this particular case, the editor extended it to 7 replies from various outside sources and experts in which Penrose and Hammeroff adequately addressed all with replies of their own.

I say “adequately” because the editor informally peer-reviews it himself. They also have been bringing their theory in front of skeptics in conferences and publish subsequent articles afterwards to be scrutinized even more:

[The Quantum Origin of Life: How the Brain Evolved to Feel Good — University of Arizona (elsevier.com)](https://arizona.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-quantum-origin-of-life-how-the-brain-evolved-to-feel-good)  
[Full article: ‘Orch OR’ is the most complete, and most easily falsifiable theory of consciousness (tandfonline.com)](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17588928.2020.1839037)  
[Discovery of quantum vibrations in ‘microtubules’ corroborates theory of consciousness (phys.org)](https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html#jCp)

Lastly, I just gave you a recent review article on their work that does not suggest there is a criticism or objection they failed to adequately address. Thus, unless there is a new peer-reviewed criticism of their article after 2019, this explanation must be ruled out until further noticed.

_The second explanation is that the evidence is not convincing enough to warrant 51% acceptance or more._

Although only 6 out of 20 predictions have been confirmed for a quantum mind, most of the 14 other predictions survived falsification from testing. According to Karl Popper’s falsifiability principle, a theory is truly tested when it has survived falsification. More importantly, materialism in general has been officially disproven and there is a consensus on this as well, which means materialistic assumptions do not have preferred status but violate Occam’s razor. Thus, we can rule this out as well until further noticed.

_"The third explanation is that not enough of the old school paradigm of scientists have died off. "_

According to Max Planck, the founder of quantum physcists:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

This principle, which was famously laid out by German theoretical physicist Max Planck in 1950 along with Thomas Kuhn, has actually been confirmed according to a new study:

> **[Science really does advance one funeral at a time, study suggests](https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/science-really-does-advance-one-funeral-at-a-time-study-suggests/3010961.article)**
>
> The death of a scientific superstar can open up a field

For example, In regards to String Theory status as a Theory of Everything, Physicist Frank Close is blunt: “[M]any physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science.” Well, not by traditional standards, to be sure.

But string theorists offer a number of defences. They seek to change the rules, to allow “non-empirical theory confirmation,” or otherwise loosen the standards for science. At Nature, we learned in 2015 that feuding physicists were turning to philosophy for help, in “a debate over the integrity of the scientific method itself.”

At Smithsonian, theoretical physicist Brian Greene admits, “Evidence that the universe is made of strings has been elusive for 30 years, but the theory’s mathematical insights continue to have an alluring pull.” He adds, “I now hold only modest hope that the theory will confront data during my lifetime.”

Nevertheless, Evidence or no, string theory remains popular. Skeptical Columbia mathematician Peter Woit wonders why: “The result of tens of thousands of papers and more than 30 years of work is that all the evidence is that if you can get something this way that looks at all like the Standard Model, you can get anything. Normally when that happens you simply acknowledge the problem and give up, but for some reason that hasn’t happened.” In any event, string theorists have grown comfortable with their lack of evidence.

_“The fourth explanation is that its just philosophical/religious bias.”_

A study was conducted by the Rice University sociologist Elaine Ecklund reported in 2005 that surveyed over 1,600 faculty members at elite research universities. What Ecklund discovered was that the beliefs of scientists in God or not are typically formed before they chose their career path to go into science. It was when they were adolescents or younger, and then they chose to go into a particular field of study. She says their unbelief is for the reasons that typically attend adolescent unbelief.

For instance, “ they were not raised in a religious home; they have had bad experiences with religion; they disapprove of God or see God as too changeable.” Her research shows that this idea that science and the study of science produces unbelief is, in fact, a sociological myth. Elaine Howard Ecklund, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). p. 17.

Despite no evidence, failed predictions, lack of falsifiability, and inability to explain the cosmological constant, String theory is still considered a theory of everything and the most popular quantum theory of gravity. On the other hand, the Orch-theory has a lot of evidence supporting it from many different fields, several predictions confirmed, and the rest have not been refuted after testing. Most importantly, its touted to explain the cosmological constant, which is one of the biggest problems in physics. Despite all this, it is not even mentioned as a potential candidate for a quantum theory of gravity or theory of everything among many others.

In conclusion, the lack of consensus for the Orch-theory does not create a reasonable doubt as to whether the theory is true or not because the overwhelming evidence clearly shows that the Orch-theory’s lack of scientific consensus is based on subjective reasons. In fact, this 3 min youtube video actually provides solid proof of this reality:

[![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/b/b1c61d05bff3a0aab7ee906b755993a9b2d11844.jpeg "The Cosmological Constant - absolute proof that God created the universe for a purpose") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZFZl9_1G4c)

> [@Tim](#):
>
> Beyond this, your sources **abjectly fail** to link this controversial hypothesis to evolution.

No, the theory is there to link the observer effect in quantum physics with consciousness, which is all that is needed to also link it to evolution in regards to origin of life experiments and beyond.

> [@Tim](#):
>
> > [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
> >
> > So let me explain…
> > 
> > > According to quantum physics experiments[12][13], only the conscious observer has the ability to choose which aspect of nature his knowledge will probe …
> 
> More balderdash. _Neither_ of these cited sources makes any mention of “mind”, “conscious observer” or anything similar.

No, the quantum erasure experiment are intended to prove the conscious observer plays a fundamental role. It’s called “It from bit”. Please read this article to help you understand the Participatory Universe interpretation of quantum mechanics and how those experiments confirm it:

[Do Our Questions Create the World? - Scientific American Blog Network](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/do-our-questions-create-the-world/)

> [@Tim](#):
>
> The crucial part of this quote is **“can be described by”**. _Description is not identity_ . If I _describe_ you in an article, that does not mean that this description _is_ you.
> 
> Again, it does not state, or imply, that life is “a non-local mathematical wave function”.

> [@Tim](#):
>
> Wrong, _wrong_ and **wrong**. It is _not_ a “study”, it is _not_ an ‘update’ of Yockey’s work (and in fact makes no mention of his work) and does not appear to make the claim that “There is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that resembles reactions being determined by the genetic code”.
> 
> I’d say that you were “throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks”, but given your abysmally low success rate, it would seem more accurate to state that you’re “throwing everything at _a Teflon-coated_ wall and seeing _that nothing_ sticks”.

I actually did not reference that source for that reason but whatever. Here is a source that does seem to be more consistent with those claims according to your liking:

[Is Life Unique? (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4187140/)

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> It is not the case. Consider that you may want to stop making claims about things you don’t know about. It’s also confused, as you claimed to be listing basic types, not large groups of basic types. And again, why would there even be such things as groups of basic types?

Again, if this is not the case, then nevermind. I will change the questions to “How many basic types are there?” and leave out the “groups”.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> No, it doesn’t. You are confusing mere similarity with nested hierarchy, which you should not do. Everything you say about evolution is word salad.

HGT from viruses does not just create similarities between organisms but it also potentially masquerades as nested hierarchies according to studies.

> [@Spinosaurus-729](#):
>
> There’s nothing of substance in that claim. You’re just mixing quantum jargon to make it sound sophisticated.  
> Suffice to say that ‘quantum’ behavior only affects at extremely small scales, this can be proved mathematically using the de Broglie equation. You won’t see any significant wave-like behavior in anything bigger than an atom, let alone in DNA.

Experiments in quantum physics have confirmed that “ _the classical Newtonian laws emerge out of the quantum laws_ .” In other words, the classical world is the same as the quantum world where what happens at the quantum world would directly affect the classical world.  
[http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/57254](http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/57254)

In fact, a team of scientists have even succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving. “ _These experiments show that the principles of quantum mechanics can apply to everyday objects as well as atomic-scale particles_ ”. Thus, you cannot separate the two realms because quantum mechanics is ultimately fundamental.

[Scientists supersize quantum mechanics | Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.130)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2021, 3:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/26 "2021-09-02T15:57:58Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Again, if this is not the case, then nevermind. I will change the questions to “How many basic types are there?” and leave out the “groups”.

This is not much of an improvement. If you know nothing about the subject, how can you even speculate as to how many basic types there are? You have no criteria for identifying them and no knowledge of the diversity of life.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> HGT from viruses does not just create similarities between organisms but it also potentially masquerades as nested hierarchies according to studies.

This is only true if the HGT is happening in a context of common descent, as the simulation of nested hierarchy happens because transfer is most likely between closely related species. You’re still pontificating on subjects you know nothing about.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2021, 4:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/27 "2021-09-02T16:56:57Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> No, it is not healthy skepticism you are displaying here. Instead, it is paranoia and personal bias.

If a journal on translation medicine is publishing on the underlying philosophy of consciousness, the editorial practice is so shoddy so as to render all publications suspect. You can dislike that all you want, that’s just how it is.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> The article was cited by multiple other articles that obviously saw nothing wrong with the 2019 article:

A few articles citing a clearly suspect paper makes me suspicious of the few articles, not less suspicious of the clearly suspect paper.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [September 2, 2021, 5:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/28 "2021-09-02T17:24:35Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> No, I mean the cut-off date in which an article is deemed considered outdated and obsolete. What is your cut-off date?

Who said there is a single, sharp-edged, cut-off date? Some fields move faster than others. But citing a scientist who started his career seventy-odd years ago and died five years ago probably isn’t the brightest idea. Nor is failing to check that later papers that cite a paper you cite don’t take a completely contrary viewpoint.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> This is not what the article suggests…

@Meerkat_SK5, I really don’t give a rat’s posterior on what a paper published in a journal purportedly focused on an _unrelated topic_, by a predatory publisher said. The chances that it received adequate peer review are _negligible_.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> The article was cited by multiple other articles that obviously saw nothing wrong with the 2019 article:
> 
> [Cited by … (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6861790/citedby/)

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Oh dear, you really are completely at sea aren’t you? Yes, it received a _handful_ of citations. I hate to tell you this, but even _withdrawn_ papers continue to receive citations (there was a big stink over this recently). Receiving a few citations is really _no evidence whatsoever_ of quality.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> There are 4 explanations as to why the Orch-OR theory lacks acceptance from the scientific consensus. Two out of the four are based on subjective reasons. Here is my analysis:

@Meerkat_SK5, given that you have shown _no understanding whatsoever_ about the scientific endeavor, I likewise don’t give a rat’s posterior about your “analysis”.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> In fact, this 3 min youtube video actually provides solid proof of this reality:

The only thing that this is “solid proof” of is that @Meerkat_SK5 is either unable to read, or unable to learn from, criticism:

> [@Tim](#):
>
> I in turn “highly recommend that” you avoid recommending Youtube videos by apologists as a serious source of scientific information in the future. The only qualification for being an apologist would appear to be the ability to spew bad argument with utter confidence – a skill that hardly adds to their credibility.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> No, the theory is there to link the observer effect in quantum physics with consciousness, which is all that is needed to also link it to evolution in regards to origin of life experiments and beyond.

Balderdash.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> > [@Tim](#):
> >
> > More balderdash. _Neither_ of these cited sources makes any mention of “mind”, “conscious observer” or anything similar.
> 
> No, the quantum erasure experiment are intended to prove the conscious observer plays a fundamental role. It’s called “It from bit”.

How do know that “the quantum erasure experiment are intended to prove the conscious observer plays a fundamental role” when the paper “makes any mention of ‘mind’, ‘conscious observer’ or anything similar”? Are you perhaps reading the authors’ minds?

Your claim is therefore nothing more than _unsubstantiated assertion_ (a pigeonhole that your entire output on this forum could comfortably fit).

In other words it is, as I previously said, _balderdash_.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Please read this article to help you understand the Participatory Universe interpretation of quantum mechanics and how those experiments confirm it:
> 
> [Do Our Questions Create the World? - Scientific American Blog Network](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/do-our-questions-create-the-world/)

**No @Meerkat_SK5.** I am sick and tired of trawling through a [Gish Gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop) of not-particularly-relevant papers to prove to my satisfaction that they _do not in fact_ substantiate your benighted Quantum Woo.

Does this pop-science article _explicitly_ link quantum phenomena to evolution, the development of life, or anything similar? **No it does not.**

Does it offer any substantiation at all for the half-baked idea that a _purported_ disembodied Quantum Consciousness could be responsible for the _ex nihilo_ creation of life on Earth? **No it does not.**

As such, it is _utterly irrelevant to your argument_.

Unless and until you either:

1. find a legitimate, peer-reviewed article that **explicitly** links Quantum Consciousness to evolution; or

2. manage to convince one or more of the physicists or neuroscientists on this forum that you have presented sufficient evidence that collectively demonstrates you have a solid argument to make for the link …

… I have **no interest whatsoever** in further engaging your claims on this topic (including your claims that this paper or that in some way supports your position).

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Here is a source that does seem to be more consistent with those claims according to your liking:
> 
> [Is Life Unique? (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4187140/)

Given that this article starts off “Is life physicochemically unique? No.” it is hardly an endorsement of your original Yockey quote-mine. But then, it was never clear what you actually thought that quote-mine actually proved. Neither the Yockey quote-mine nor this paper seem _even remotely_ relevant to your _still unsubstantiated_ claim that “the first life on earth must have been created by a common designer that is transcendent.”

So you are still exactly nowhere.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spinosaurus-729](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Spinosaurus-729](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Spinosaurus-729)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2021, 5:36am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/29 "2021-09-03T05:36:39Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> In other words, the classical world is the same as the quantum world where what happens at the quantum world would directly affect the classical world.

No, it does not mean what you are saying it means.

“ _These experiments show that the principles of quantum mechanics can apply to everyday objects as well as atomic-scale particles_ ”.

The researchers also note in your article that this cannot be applied in the way you say. They used a 30 micrometer object, far from ‘everyday objects’. The quantum effect vanishes the more it interacts with it’s environment. Organisms and their genomes are far from the sterile, isolated, lab-condition objects used in this experiment. This is what they say.

So if trillions of atoms can be put into a quantum state, why don’t we see double-decker buses simultaneously stopping and going? Cleland says he believes size does matter: the larger an object, the easier it is for outside forces to disrupt its quantum state.

“The environment is this huge, complex thing,” says Cleland. “It’s that interaction with this incredibly complex system that makes the quantum coherence vanish.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2021, 3:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/30 "2021-09-03T15:28:12Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> @Meerkat_SK5, I really don’t give a rat’s posterior on what a paper published in a journal purportedly focused on an _unrelated topic_ , by a predatory publisher said. The chances that it received adequate peer review are _negligible_ .

Please read this article so you can see how manifestly bias and paranoid you are being here in regards to that article:

[Caution with the continued use of Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” open access publishing lists - Teixeira da Silva - AME Medical Journal (amegroups.com)](https://amj.amegroups.com/article/view/3946/4658)

> [@Tim](#):
>
> How do know that “the quantum erasure experiment are intended to prove the conscious observer plays a fundamental role” when the paper “makes any mention of ‘mind’, ‘conscious observer’ or anything similar”? Are you perhaps reading the authors’ minds?

Read this quote carefully for the answer:

'The question that intrigued the great American quantum physicist John Archibald Wheeler in the last decades of his life was: “Are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe, or are they central to it?” Wheeler originated the notion of a “participatory,” conscious universe, a cosmos in which all of us are embedded as co-creators, replacing the accepted universe “out there,” which is separate from us.

Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” He coined the term “Participatory Anthropic Principle” (PAP) from the Greek “anthropos”, or human. He went further to suggest that “we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.”

**This claim was considered rather outlandish until his thought experiment, known as the “delayed-choice experiment,” was tested in a laboratory in 1984.** This experiment was a variation on the famous “double-slit experiment” in which the dual nature of light was exposed (depending on how the experiment was measured and observed, the light behaved like a particle (a photon) or like a wave).

The results of this experiment, as well as another conducted in 2007, proved what Wheeler had always suspected – observers’ consciousness is required to bring the universe into existence. This means that a pre-life Earth would have existed in an undetermined state, and a pre-life universe could only exist retroactively."

[The Cosmos --“Is a Conscious Universe” | The Daily Galaxy](https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/07/a-smoky-dragon-the-cosmos-is-a-participatory-universe-weekend-feature/)

> [@Tim](#):
>
> Unless and until you either:
> 
> 1. find a legitimate, peer-reviewed article that **explicitly** links Quantum Consciousness to evolution; or
> 2. manage to convince one or more of the physicists or neuroscientists on this forum that you have presented sufficient evidence that collectively demonstrates you have a solid argument to make for the link …

I don’t know any neuroscientists or quantum physicists on this site other than @Jordan and supposedly @dga471. So if you are out there reading this, please come join the conversation or peer-review my case for others.

Until then, I will try to satisfy your first condition…

**Universal Common Designer theory**

Quantum Consciousness is the vital mechanism that causes life on earth to change over time [1]

This inference was based on 5 lines of evidence:

(A) Consciousness and digital information are non-local (I.e. Transcendent) [1A][2]

(B) Life’s existence is fundamentally dependent on agent causality (I.e. Designer) [3]

(C) Life is fundamentally digital information and resembles natural language (I.e. Common) [4]

[D] Origin of life experiments require human intervention [5]

Definition of Quantum Consciousness: causally disconnected or non-local choice to create and move particles [6][7]

[1] [The Quantum Origin of Life: How the Brain Evolved to Feel Good — University of Arizona (elsevier.com)](https://arizona.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-quantum-origin-of-life-how-the-brain-evolved-to-feel-good)

[1A] [Measurements on the reality of the wavefunction | Nature Physics](https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3233)

[2] [Full article: ‘Orch OR’ is the most complete, and most easily falsifiable theory of consciousness (tandfonline.com)](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17588928.2020.1839037)

[3] [Is Life Unique? (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4187140/)

[4] [Two genetic codes: Repetitive syntax for active non-coding RNAs; non-repetitive syntax for the DNA archives (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5398208/)

[5] [Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07219-5)

[6] [[1412.7790] Experimental Proof of Nonlocal Wavefunction Collapse for a Single Particle Using Homodyne Measurement (arxiv.org)](https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7790)

[7] [[1206.6578] Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice (arxiv.org)](https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6578)

> [@Spinosaurus-729](#):
>
> So if trillions of atoms can be put into a quantum state, why don’t we see double-decker buses simultaneously stopping and going? Cleland says he believes size does matter: the larger an object, the easier it is for outside forces to disrupt its quantum state.

I never suggested they would.

As you go up in size, the probability wave gets smaller and smaller and eventually converges on a classical limit. This is why we don’t see cars quantum tunneling into garage doors, but this does not mean the system is not in superposition or interfering with itself and thus non-realistic. Instead, it would just be so negligible that quantum phenomena would go unnoticed.

Here is the latest study showing how quantum mechanics goes much further than what you think:

[Quantum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kDa | Nature Physics](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-019-0663-9.epdf?sharing_token=4lkI0zo1OVvmNzswXeAKJNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MQ7n-_yUmyvBsKfkN6FLBu98G0Nrx30Fucun-h3w8WX9IlwWelmQLTVb70WHA4Y1pxsdPmhmq4QvZ3kk0dRycJYLQj2nGzcgr-_Luzt2njbLKoy0xgCGL9REiByy0XPFu5cJIZDQ3yNb5x1TedXaOXJ55lCmkPMnAnJT9--TlXhfjXvrdaVb2Cg63jSKIDjPcXCKfYw4VhS6rEUlP2tRtjxgRMjIehV3Fz78CaZ-psxcY4-U7S1W0z82CMxhCkSA0AY9jtVtLoJYiU6lUVZLh1tEAM8I2Crx8ToW9h6RDaZ-EGuC477SX6cJdLSXz8Ffw%3D&tracking_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2021, 8:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/32 "2021-09-03T20:17:09Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Please read this article …

Why @Meerkat_SK5, do you think I would be convinced by an article in _an AME-published_ journal, that all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, AME is not a predatory publisher?

**Do I seem stupid to you?** If not, then why are you insulting my intelligence?

The paper, on the _controversial hypothesis_ of Quantum Consciousness was published in a journal whose stated topic is **wholly unrelated** to Quantum Mechanics or Neuroscience.

This, in itself, is grounds for a high degree of skepticism.

I would point out that this point was also made by @CrisprCAS9 [here](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/27).

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Read this quote carefully for the answer:

Or, instead of reading this blog post, I could instead take a quick look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and find that there is at least some evidence that at least some physicists appear to [dispute](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40509-014-0026-2) Wheeler’s interpretation of this experiment. I am not in a position to adjudicate this issue, but I would most certainly not take the word of some random apologist, who seems to base their claims upon (i) the claims of other apologists, and (ii) pervasive misinterpretation of the scientific record.

_This_ is why I am unwilling to accept _any_ of your claims about Quantum Consciousness until they have been vetted by people with genuine expertise in the subject (either a peer-reviewed paper that explicitly addresses your claims, or the opinions of experts on this forum).

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Until then, I will try to satisfy your first condition…
> 
> **Universal Common Designer theory**
> 
> …

What follows is **not** “a legitimate, peer-reviewed article that **explicitly** links Quantum Consciousness to evolution”, so is _in no way relevant_.

What follows is in fact yet more of exactly the sort of _unsubstantiated blather_ that I was trying to avoid.

None of your four new “lines of evidence” are in fact substantiated by your citations.

This means that you are, still, exactly nowhere.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2021, 8:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/33 "2021-09-03T20:17:10Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Please read this article so you can see how manifestly bias and paranoid you are being here in regards to that article:

I really can’t imagine why I wouldn’t trust an editorial about trusting predatory journals put out by a predatory journal…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2021, 11:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/34 "2021-09-03T23:03:28Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> 'The question that intrigued the great American quantum physicist John Archibald Wheeler in the last decades of his life was: “Are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe, or are they central to it?” Wheeler originated the notion of a “participatory,” conscious universe, a cosmos in which all of us are embedded as co-creators, replacing the accepted universe “out there,” which is separate from us.

I actually think Wheeler raises an interesting question. But I don’t think it has anything at all to do with quantum consciousness.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

My own view – reality is not created by observers. However, perceived reality is created by observers. Perception is a highly creative process. As I see it, we need to be clear on the distinction between perceived reality and actual reality.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 3:35am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/35 "2021-09-04T03:35:54Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> I actually think Wheeler raises an interesting question.

Mildly curious: what did Wheeler actually say about this? Was that an actual quote? If so, I’m forced to conclude that we have another example of a fine scientist in his decline, to go with Linus Pauling and vitamin C, etc.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 4:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/36 "2021-09-04T16:04:08Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Mildly curious: what did Wheeler actually say about this? Was that an actual quote?

It appears to be a widely-used paraphrase (which I have not seen cited to a specific work by Wheeler). I tracked down the following in his chapter ‘World as System Self-Synthesized by Quantum Networking’, in _Probability in the Sciences_ (1988):

> Are life and mind indeed unimportant in the workings of existence? Is life never to inherit the vastness of space because today its dominion is so small? Or is not rather life destined to take possession of all the out-there because the time available for conquest is so large? How easy it is to be overimpressed by the remoteness of the quasars; how tempting to discount as anthropocentric any purported place for life and mind in the construction of the world. Is it not even more anthropocentric to take man's migration by foot and ferry in fifty thousand years as the gauge of where life will get in fifty billion years?
> 
> The fight against here-centeredness began with the 1543 _De revolutionibus orbium coelestium_ of Copernicus. The time- bridging power of the elementary quantum phenomenon warns us today to battle against now-centeredness.
> 
> Life and mind: for how much can they be conceived to count in the scheme of existence? Nothing, say the billions of light years of space that lie around us. Everything, say the billions of years of time that lie ahead of us.
> 
> It cannot matter that man in time to come will have been supplanted by, or will have evolved into, intelligent life of quite other forms. What counts - in the idea view being explored in this paper - is the rate of asking questions and obtaining answers by elementary quantum phenomena, acts of observers-participancy, exchanges of information. If space is closed, if - following on the present phase of expansion - the system of galaxies contracts, if temperatures rise, all in line with the best known Friedmann cosmology, and if life wins all, then the number of bits of information being exchanged per second can be expected to rise enormously compared to that number rate today. The total count of bits: how great will it be before the counting has to cease because space is within a Planck time of total crunch? And how great must that future total be - tally as it is of times past - to furnish enough iron posts of observation to bear the smooth plaster which we of today call existence?
> 
> Bits needed. Bits available. Calculate each. Compare. This double undertaking, if and when it becomes feasible, will mark the passage from clues about existence to testable theory of existence.

He apparently said something similar in his book _At Home in the Universe_, New York Institute of Physics, 1994.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 4:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/37 "2021-09-04T16:08:51Z")

</div>

What, if anything, did that all mean?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 11:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/38 "2021-09-04T23:48:39Z")

</div>

I must apologise, on further investigation, it _does_ seem to be a direct quote, but from further back in Wheeler’s career:

> The brain is small; the universe is large. In what way, if any\* is the universe, the observed, affected by man, the observer? Is the universe deprived of all meaningful existence in the absence of mind? Is it governed in its structure by the requirement that it give birth to life and consciousness? Or is man merely an unimportant speck of dust in a remote corner of space? **In brief, are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe --or are they central to it?** Lack of conclusive evidence on so cosmic an issue suggests that something is still to be learned about how the universe came into being.

Wheeler, J. A., “The Universe as Home for Man.” In The Nature of Scientific Discovery, ed. O. Gingerich, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1975, pp. 261-96.

My previous quote would appear to be merely Wheeler’s (somewhat verbose) expansion on this idea.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 11:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/39 "2021-09-04T23:48:49Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> Why @Meerkat_SK5, do you think I would be convinced by an article in _an AME-published_ journal, that all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, AME is not a predatory publisher?

This is where your personal bias is inherently manifested. As the author pointed out, The Beall lists are inaccurate ([9](https://amj.amegroups.com/article/view/3946/4658#B9)), which means the basis for Beall’s call for a ban ([10](https://amj.amegroups.com/article/view/3946/4658#B10)) was deeply flawed because of the lack of clearly defined and quantifiable criteria for each entry in those lists, making calls by others ([11](https://amj.amegroups.com/article/view/3946/4658#B11)) to formalize “predatory” journals in _curriculum vitae_ dangerously unscholarly and discriminatory, and leading to considerable criticism on PubPeer ([12](https://amj.amegroups.com/article/view/3946/4658#B12)).

‘The final nail in the coffin of Beall’s blog was Beall’s lax use of the term “predatory”. Initially, Beall had coined the term exclusively for OA journals and publishers, as exemplified by his lists ([6](https://amj.amegroups.com/article/view/3946/4658#B6)), but in some of his latest publications, Beall conveniently, or purposefully, eliminated the limited characterization of OA, simply referring to them more broadly as “predatory” journals or “predatory” publishers ([17](https://amj.amegroups.com/article/view/3946/4658#B17)), and in essence invalidating his own lists.’

Despite all this, you still consider Beall’s unreliable, non-peer reviewed, unmitigated list that has since been deactivated 4 years ago, a legit source in order to reject that article. This is a very desperate attempt to refute an article and theory.

> [@Tim](#):
>
> The paper, on the _controversial hypothesis_ of Quantum Consciousness was published in a journal whose stated topic is **wholly unrelated** to Quantum Mechanics or Neuroscience.

How do you know that?

> [@Tim](#):
>
> What follows is **not** “a legitimate, peer-reviewed article that **explicitly** links Quantum Consciousness to evolution”, so is _in no way relevant_ .

My bad on that article. At first glance, it looked like it was relevant until I read it again carefully. This article is the right one:

"…Indeed, Orch OR may also help explain other mysteries including how anesthesia works, **the origin and evolution of life** , free will, the flow of time, memory, dreams, and how general relativity relates to quantum mechanics.

…Spanning disciplines and scale, with high explanatory power, Orch OR is the most complete theory of consciousness."

[Full article: ‘Orch OR’ is the most complete, and most easily falsifiable theory of consciousness (tandfonline.com)](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17588928.2020.1839037)

> [@Tim](#):
>
> None of your four new “lines of evidence” are in fact substantiated by your citations.

**(A) Consciousness and digital information are non-local (I.e. Transcendent mind)**

"(B) Consciousness is a separate quality, distinct from physical actions and not controlled by physical laws, that has always been in the universe. Descartes’ ‘dualism’, religious viewpoints, and other spiritual approaches assume consciousness has been in the universe all along, e.g. as the ‘ground of being’, ‘creator’ or component of an omnipresent ‘God’ ……

“…Nonetheless, in the Orch OR scheme, these events are taken to have a rudimentary subjective experience, which is undifferentiated and lacking in cognition, perhaps providing the constitutive ingredients of what philosophers call qualia. We term such un-orchestrated, ubiquitous OR events, lacking information and cognition, ‘proto-conscious’. _In this regard, Orch OR has some points in common with the viewpoint (B) of Section 1, which incorporates spiritualist, idealist and panpsychist elements, **these being argued to be essential precursors of consciousness** that are intrinsic to the universe .”_ [emphasis added]

[Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory - ScienceDirect](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188)

[Experimental proof of nonlocal wavefunction collapse for a single particle using homodyne measurements | Nature Communications](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7665#Sec6)

**(B) Life’s existence is fundamentally dependent on agent causality (I.e. Designer)**

Look in section “choice-contingent causation and control” of this article for this quote:

“CCCC steers events toward pragmatic results that are valued by agents. **CCCC** is a true primary cause leading to very real effects, particularly the effect of useful work rather than mere physicodynamic constraint. CCCC can generate extraordinary degrees of _unique functionality_ that have never been observed to arise from randomness or law-described necessity. Neither physicodynamics nor evolution can pursue _potential_ utility (e.g., the programming of computational success prior to its realization). CCCC does. CCCC is the only known cause and governor of formalisms.”

[Is Life Unique? (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4187140/)

**C) Life is fundamentally digital information and resembles natural language (I.e. Common)**

From the conclusions section of this article:

"The repetitive non-coding RNA sequences resemble that of a natural everyday language, i.e., _the essential tool to coordinate and organize common behavior._ "

[Two genetic codes: Repetitive syntax for active non-coding RNAs; non-repetitive syntax for the DNA archives (nih.gov)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5398208/)

From the conclusions of the “Is Life Unique” article:

'What is the ingredient missing from inanimate physicodynamics that makes life possible? The answer is _formal control mechanisms._ This “regulation,” as it most often appears in the literature, is instructed by Prescriptive Information (PI) and its algorithmic processing—both elements being uniquely produced by life. In addition, both elements seem to have been inherent _in_ life at the subcellular level in its earliest and simplest forms…

…All of these phenomena are as nonphysical and formal as mathematics; and unique to life.’

**[D] Origin of life experiments require human intervention**

“For experiments aimed at demonstrating chemically more complex processes, **such as multistep syntheses mimicking biochemical pathways or genetic replication** , repeated interventions by the experimentalist have been necessary.”

[Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07219-5)

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> This is not much of an improvement. If you know nothing about the subject, how can you even speculate as to how many basic types there are? You have no criteria for identifying them and no knowledge of the diversity of life.

Correct, I don’t but others do:

[The Current Status of Baraminology (creationresearch.org)](https://www.creationresearch.org/current-status-baraminology)

[16-Article Text-239-1-10-20160927.pdf](file:///C:/Users/Ken%20Frazer/Downloads/16-Article%20Text-239-1-10-20160927.pdf)

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> This is only true if the HGT is happening in a context of common descent, as the simulation of nested hierarchy happens because transfer is most likely between closely related species.

That’s not what the study suggests:

“Although observed rates of acquisition of horizontally transferred genes in eukaryotes are generally lower than in prokaryotes, it appears that, far from being a rare occurrence, **HGT has contributed to the evolution of many, perhaps all, animals and that the process is ongoing in most lineages**. Between tens and hundreds of foreign genes are expressed in all the animals we surveyed, including humans. The majority of these genes are concerned with metabolism, suggesting that HGT contributes to biochemical diversification during animal evolution.”

[Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes | Genome Biology | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)](https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0607-3)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlanFox](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/alanfox/32/3495_2.png) [@AlanFox](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AlanFox)\
**Post date:** [September 4, 2021, 11:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/40 "2021-09-04T23:48:54Z")

</div>

You can’t predict the future by extrapolating from the past?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 5, 2021, 4:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182/41 "2021-09-05T04:10:41Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Correct, I don’t but others do:
> 
> [The Current Status of Baraminology (creationresearch.org)](https://www.creationresearch.org/current-status-baraminology)

If you think that’s true, please identify the relevant criteria. You can’t just cite an article you haven’t read.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> That’s not what the study suggests

And then you go on to quote, even highlight, a bit that says nothing that contradicts what I said. You must try to do better.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/universal-common-designer-theory-updated-and-revised/14182.md?page=3)