You may believe that you have shown this. But nobody at PS has indicated any agreement.
You are making a huge mistake by pinning your ideas to quantum consciousness. Most of the people doing consciousness research have a poor opinion of quantum consciousness ideas.
Life is real. The wave function is abstract. They cannot be the same thing.
You don’t have a theory. You have a very poor idea of what scientists mean by “theory”. At most, you have a speculative hypothesis, but even that may be too generous. It reads more like an “Alice in wonderland” adventure story.
I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean. I doubt that Lenski sees any of his populations as failed. As far as I know, the experiment is still continuing.
What do you mean by “an entire genome full of metainformation”?
You are setting the conditions for failure to be so narrow, that they are unlikely to occur.
It looks as if you are defining “failure” so narrowly that “failure” is impossible. Will you then declare “success”? This seems like a form of cheating.
Any simulation is already guided. So your requirements cannot be met.
If you fail to trace them all back, will you count that as a failure of your idea?
Is that supposed to be the “how” of how you do the tracing? Or is that supposed to be the “how” of how the designing was done?
“Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now.”
The reasoning here is extremely poor. All of these are non-sequiturs, and some of them aren’t even coherent statements. Nothing in the Lenski experiments has “failed”. An experiment can’t fail to do something it was never intended or expected to do in the first place, and which it was not remotely designed to even test.
But more importantly, NONE of these would seem to follow from any theory that life on Earth is the product of intelligent design. That’s because the possibility of a physical and chemical origin of life is not mutually exclusive with the possibility that an intelligent designer can (and/or did) design and create life too.
It is possible that life could naturally originate through some mechanism, but that it was intelligently designed. Finding that life’s natural origin is possible would not somehow disprove the possibility that an intelligent designer also created life at some point. The fact that humans know how to start a fire doesn’t mean fires can’t also start naturally. And even if we didn’t know how to start fires, that wouldn’t mean fires couldn’t start naturally, nor that we couldn’t find a way to do it ourselves in the future.
Life could have been intelligently designed and planted on some planets, and have naturally evolved on others. Life could have originated naturally on some planet, evolved into intelligent designers, which then went on to create life elsewhere. And all other possible combinations of history here are possible. These aren’t dichotomies.
There’s just no principle that demands that if life on Earth was intelligently designed and created, it must then be impossible for life to also originate naturally. Nor the other way around, obviously.
That just doesn’t follow. Why are IDcreationists always so bent on this strange dichotomy where one has to occur to the exclusion of even the possibility of the other?
I made a number of quick changes to my initial post in response to criticisms here to bring more clarity. I will address the leftover comments in-depth later.
Please read carefully again
Previously, I argued for an origin of life model that combines all three origins of virus models into a single hypothesis. 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 lines of evidence:
(A) Biochemical and human information are analogous to each other 
(B) These COMBINED experiments show how the first life must be created by an intelligent designer 
(D) There is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that resembles reactions being determined by the genetic code [5B]
However, there are observations that suggest this agent also guides the evolutionary process of developing life from simple to complex.
So the question that comes up now is…
Does Evolution proceed by Quantum consciousness?
According to literature, it has been repeatedly found that what initially seemed to be design flaws caused by an unguided process instead of a divine agent turned out not to be flaws at all with increasing understanding of the design. As a result, these observations have provided us good evidence and insight into the motives of this designer. 
In this article, I am going to be tying everything together that I argued, learned and discussed with everyone from previous topics.
Universal Quantum consciousness theory
Quantum Consciousness is the vital mechanism that causes life on earth to change over time [11A]
Life: A non-local mathematical wave function
Quantum consciousness: A non-local choice to create and move particles
If my theory is true…
We should find novel genetic changes within one of Lenski’s failed E.coli populations when genetically engineering only additive mutations.
If my theory is false…
(A) The one successful E.coli population will eventually produce one large mutational change causing a single-step speciation and produce an entire genome of information (i.e. tells the cell how to maintain information or how to pass it on to the next generation).
(B) Lenski’s 11 other populations will eventually produce the same positive result.
(C) Metabolism-first pre-biotic experiments will produce a self-replicating molecule.
Positive results within an (unguided) experiment that simulates a possible natural environment
Watch 8:30-13:00 and 18:00-19:30 for more on how this is a validated method. 
Negative results in (unguided) experiment + Positive results in (guided) experiment
Both these experiments must simulate the same natural environment from the past.
Read these sources for more on how this method of confirming design is valid.  
Universal Common Designer Theory
All currently living organisms have a common design that can be traced back to a universal common designer.
How? Proton-tunneling and quantum entanglement 
Why? Make sure species survive, reproduce, and fill the biosphere 
Where? Every mutation is directly and indirectly caused for a specific purpose
When? From viruses leading up to humans and ongoing
Who? Jesus Christ who is both Divine and human 
What? A Self-collapsing Universal wave-function
Universal Common Design Model
Before the leftover meteorites were clumped together to form the primitive earth 3.8 billion years ago, virus-like RNA molecules were created within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the earth. Then, some of these virus-like RNA molecules were naturally selected into different species of unicellular organisms and they underwent a heavy amount of HGT from the viruses that were created within the deep-sea oceans. 
Then, the designer re-used these microbes and chemical constituents to separately construct basic types of animals from different locations and times around the globe. These basic types would be able to adapt to changing environments and diversify into kinds over long epochs of time.
This would involve the designer employing many familiar mechanisms, such as HGT, to facilitate this process and address a common set of problems facing unrelated organisms that are undergoing natural selection. As a result, we would see biochemical and morphological similarities among all living things that naturally give the appearance of Universal common ancestry. 
What are basic types?
They are families and within each of these families contains different genera (such as, dog/fox/ wolf) and each genus contains one or more species.
This means that families are created (not genera or species) where there would be a basic type of dogs, which are the ancestor of all the different kinds of dogs that evolved afterwards. Therefore, discontinuities in the fossil record are considered families according to the common design model.
How many groups of basic types are there?
Which group of organisms are considered basic types?
Avalon, Cambrian fauna, Ordovician, Nekton animals, Odontodes vertebrates, Land vertebrates, Insects, Dinosaurs/birds, Placental mammals, Genus Homo, and one Human pair. 
Why do shared similar ERV’s between species exhibit a nested hierarchy? (i.e. Teleology)
ERV sequences must resemble endogenized retroviruses in order to act as a defense mechanism against incoming harmful viruses.
Why do shared similar pseudogenes between species exhibit a nested hierarchy? (i.e. Teleology)
The ceRNA hypothesis elegantly explains the widespread existence of pseudogenes in genomes and their structural similarity to intact genes.
What are the key differences from Universal common descent?
(A) Functional/sequence convergence 
(B) Widespread examples of convergent evolution 
An analogy is not a “line of evidence” for the simple fact (that has been repeated many times on this forum) that analogies are not evidence. They are a purely explanatory device, of no probative value.
 isn’t an experiment. It is merely a discussion of potential constraints on Abiogenesis research.
, ,  &  have nothing to do with either "first life or “an intelligent designer”.
Therefore these citations show no such thing.
This is not clear from the cited source, which states that:
We conclude that this fundamental limitation of ensemble replicators cautions against metabolism-first theories of the origin of life, although ancient metabolic systems could have provided a stable habitat within which polymer replicators later evolved.
It should also be noted that later work is more optimistic about the evolvability of Autocatalytic Sets, e.g. here.
Further, you have presented no evidence that ‘metabolism-first’ is the only game in town in terms of viable Abiogenesis research.
This is only the opinion of a single scientist, writing 20 years ago. It is not an established fact.
This claim is not supported by either of these cited sources.
But again, even if these purported “lines of evidence” were established, they would in no way show that “the first life on earth must have been created by a common designer that is transcendent”.
Of these purported “lines of evidence” only (B) (which is wholly unsupported by your citations) appears to be relevant. But neither it (nor A, C or D) provide any evidence whatsoever that your purported designer is either common or transcendent.
This claim appears to be cited to some random online MS-Word document. Inaccessible and likely of zero probative value.
Utter, unmitigated, unsubstantiated balderdash!None of your cited sources make any such claim. None of them in fact link quantum consciousness to the evolution of life in any way shape or form.
@Meerkat_SK5: your so-called Universal Common Designer ‘theory’ has no more scientific basis or validity than the infamous Time Cube theory. You are simply wasting our time by repeatedly regurgitating this nonsense.
In spite of your pleading that we “Please read carefully again”, it is abundantly clear that you have not read our criticisms carefully!
Strongly disagree (still), not supported by citations (still).
Objectively wrong (still), citations not relevant (still).
Improved wording from last time. Possibly true (still), but not relevant to anything (still).
Objectively false (still), citation objectively wrong. It’s >20 years out of date, so maybe not surprising.
Instead of rewording the entire thing unsatisfactorily dozens of times, start by giving a successful defense of premise one. Once a degree of agreement can be found there, then (and only then) move on to your second line of evidence.
What do you mean by “groups of basic types”? Why should basic types be organized into groups, and in fact into groups within groups, i.e. a nested hierarchy?
This is worse than it was before. These can’t be basic types. They aren’t families, and many of them are nested within others. You have addressed nothing. I would point out also that Avalon is a location, the Ordovician is a time period, Odontodes are teeth. You clearly have no clue what you’re talking about here.
A nested hierarchy isn’t teleology. Once again your “clarification” serves only to confuse. This new post was useless and failed to respond to any of the criticisms of the original.
Meerkat and Bechly are just mixing together terminology from quantum mechanics in a way that would make Deepak Chopra proud. This is very annoying for a physics student like me. Try to make sense of a single sentence of Bechly’s rant.
I think a very large part of your problem is that you have failed to demonstrate (to anybody’s satisfaction it would seem but your own) how your claims are supported by your citations.
This is further rendered even more problematical by the fact that you tend to use outdated sources (most notably your continuing obsession with the opinions of the late Dr Yockey), rather than look at the full context of on-going research into the areas you are touching upon.
In turn you fail to demonstrate (again to anybody’s satisfaction it would seem but your own), how your “premises”/“lines of evidence” support what you believe you have “showed”.
I think you should seriously consider taking @CrisprCAS9’s advice to:
But before you do this, I think you first need to:
Reread carefully the sources you cite for each premise, and consider whether they precisely address that premise. It is not sufficient for them simply to be talking about the same general topic (let alone only a peripherally relevant topic).
Look up your cited sources in Google Scholar, find out what papers cite your sources, and thus find out how scientific research has advanced on the topic since the source came out.
I was just going off what the fossil record supposedly reveals. 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. If this is not the case, then nevermind. You certainly know more than me on the state of the fossil record.
Well, it depends on which “why” question you are referring to. If you were referring to the mechanistic “why”, then you would be correct but I have already explained how HGT in regards to viruses would be the mechanism, as I suggested in my model:
"This would involve the designer employing many familiar mechanisms, such as HGT, to facilitate this process and address a common set of problems facing unrelated organisms that are undergoing natural selection. As a result, we would see biochemical and morphological similarities among all living things that naturally give the appearance of Universal common ancestry.  "
Instead, I was just focusing on answering the “why” question from a teleological perspective since the common design model requires it. More importantly, it separates the model from common descent, which is why I am answering the “why” questions in that manner.
What’s considered an outdated source according to everybody on PS?
And this is completely one-sided because you guys don’t do the same on your end. For example…
You clearly did not read or understood the article if you think it said that :
“…Undoubtedly, the Orch-OR theory co-established by theoretical physicist Penrose and neuroscientist Hameroff is currently the most convincing theory. 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 (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), 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).” [emphasis added]
I agree. I am not trying to use the theory to explain the entire multiverse but just life on earth.
I think your lack of expertise in quantum mind theory is showing here. So let me explain…
According to quantum physics experiments, only the conscious observer has the ability to choose which aspect of nature his knowledge will probe, which is what the results of quantum physics experiments like “quantum erasure with casually DISCONNECTED choice” demonstrate. But, I am not suggesting that the conscious observer’s ability to collapse a waveform means they can control or affect reality using their mind alone like some sort of ESP psychic power.
Instead, since the mind is supposed to be non-local under Orch-OR theory [11A], the observer effect results automatically becomes relevant and supportive to my overall case for God because the immaterial mind is the only true measurement apparatus that performs measurements first on the brain to simultaneous cause a collapse to the wave function.
For example, the observer must first specify or think of which particular wave-function he intends to measure and then, put in place a measuring device that will probe that aspect. Then, only the observer can recognize the answer and understand the results after he chooses between the many possible outcomes.
This is fundamentally why I believe the experimental methods I proposed to test my theory are valid.
For instance, another quantum experiment done on a mathematical theorem showed that “the values that you obtain when you measure its properties depend on the context. So the value of property A, say, depends on whether you chose to measure it with property B, or with property C. In other words, there is no reality independent of the choice of measurement.”
In conclusion, this means that we are not purely passive observers whenever we perform an experiment but are actively affecting what the outcome will be. More importantly, you cannot separate the implications of the experiments in physics from the experiments in chemistry and biology. They all show support for the claim that life must have been created by an intelligent designer or conscious observer .
I highly recommend that you watch this video where I got my information of quantum physics from. It illustrates both my points in a clear and concise manner for laypeople on the subject of quantum physics:
"According to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, the quantum state of material particles such as electrons can be described by a wave function Ψ. …
…The appropriate wave equation for material particles is the Schrödinger equation [5-8] whose solution describes the behaviour of a particle in space and time (e.g. with respect to a potential barrier). It is therefore this equation which helps to explain the quantum tunnelling phenomenon." [emphasis added]
This leads me to address this…
Although the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics does not require the observer to be conscious or non-local, it does not matter. Again, the Orch-OR theory and the quantum physics experiments I mentioned show that it does and ,therefore, my COMBINED sources do show a quantum consciousness being a vital mechanism for the evolution of life on earth.
Under replicater-first models, it has been repeatedly shown that life cannot and did not arise from classical space-time constituents because life is fundamentally digital, which is non-material. This can and has only be created and designed by conscious minds. [5B]
Under Metabolic-first models, it has not been experimentally demonstrated that life could have arisen from unguided material mechanisms or conditions. That being said…
Yes, it is possible that future experiments may show how life could have arose from classical space-time constituents without intervention under metabolic-first scenarios. But, I acknowledged this already and explained how this actually makes my theory falsifiable. In fact, this aspect of my theory is what separates it from arguments that ID theorists propose since they mainly argue for a generic but contingent agent.
Again, Watch 8:30-13:00 and 18:00-19:30 of the Youtube video in source  to see what I mean.
Hey Dan, if you finally want support for the claim that God mimicks the behavior of humans based on the interplay we see between human and biochemical information, please read this article:
Your quote remains nothing more than the opinion of a quartet of researchers. It establishes Orch-OR as neither fact nor the scientific consensus.
Even a quick skim of even the Wikipedia article on 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.
Beyond this, your sources abjectly fail to link this controversial hypothesis to evolution.
So again I say, Utter, unmitigated, unsubstantiated balderdash !
And it is no more an explanation of the creation of “life on earth” ex nihilo than it is an explanation of “the entire multiverse” ex nihilo.
Even if Orch-OR is confirmed, it would still leave only human minds as the only known example of Quantum Consciousness. There is no reliable evidence (in spite of decades of parapsychological research) of human minds being able to affect things remotely through the power of the mind alone (e.g. by conscious control of non-localised quantum effects). Therefore there is no established mechanism for Quantum Consciousness to affect evolution.
You are, again, exactly nowhere.
So tell me, @Meerkat_SK5, on what basis are you claiming “expertise in quantum mind theory”?
More balderdash. Neither of these cited sources makes any mention of “mind”, “conscious observer” or anything similar.
Your New Scientist quote likewise in no way supports your claims.
More utter balderdash, completely unsupported by your cited sources.
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.
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”.
Again, they show no such thing.
It is completely opaque what you mean by “this” in this context (in fact it is highly questionable even if you even have a coherent meaning for it).
This source does absolutely nothing to contradict my point that analogies are not evidence, so your analogy still has exactly zero evidentiary value.
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”.
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?
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.
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.
It was not in fact published by 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”
As that boiler plate notes it was published in Annals of Translational Medicine which is published by AME Publications.
AME Publications is on Beall’s List, a prominent list of “Potential predatory scholarly open‑access publishers”.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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:
No, I mean the cut-off date in which an article is deemed considered outdated and obsolete. What is your cut-off date?
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 (96-100), memory (71), cognition (42,101-103), neural synchrony (104) and vision (49), 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). Thus, the quantum theory of consciousness is increasingly gaining more supporters.”
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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”.
HGT from viruses does not just create similarities between organisms but it also potentially masquerades as nested hierarchies according to studies.
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
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.