Universal Common Designer theory [UPDATED and REVISED]

[Meerkat_SK5]

@CrisprCAS9

Please, for everyone’s sake: Pick a single premise and support it. Then we can move to the next and the next.

No, what I am doing now is a lot faster. Besides, I have already supported each premise and now I am addressing your objections as follow.

@CrisprCAS9

The paper has evidence that biology DOES NOT look like a designed system, so you shouldn’t use it as evidence of the appearance of design. It is literally showing the opposite of what you are wanting to show.

They don’t have to be the “same” in order for the claim to be supported because if it did, it would not be the appearance of design but actual design. This means that they just have to show strong similarities in a non-metaphorical way or be analogous for it to work. Thus, I still fail to see your point here.

@CrisprCAS9

We can test it in a reasonable time-frame, but you haven’t been asking for tests, but reproductions . And if the mechanism takes 300 million years to work, then we can’t reproduce it in a reasonable time-frame, now can we? We’ve been running tests for several decades now, it has been an extremely fruitful field with substantial progress all the time.

@Meerkat_SK5

This did not take million of years let alone months to reveal in experiments.

All of which you dismiss because chemists insist on testing the chemistry of their chemistry experiments, à la

You are just special pleading now. You need to provide a justification for making this exception going forward. Until then, I am just going to respond with this…

@John_Harshman

If you’re appealing to unknown future results, all you’re doing is ignoring current results. We have to judge hypotheses based on data we have, not data we hope might turn up some day. In particular, the data we have are conclusive. And we are very, very unlikely to find a new mammal species that doesn’t fit into the nested hierarchy we already have. We know about almost all mammal species that exist.

Since we have tested pre-biotics experiments under a wide range of conditions and found many mechanisms in a reasonable amount of time as a result , there is no reason why this line of reasoning would not apply here.as well.

@CrisprCAS9

I’m going to stop you right there. Unsound premise, invalid argument, do not pass go, do not collect your Nobel Prize. But it doesn’t matter, because humans are a product of the evolution of our species, so any entity that predates life on earth can’t be human by definition! So if you want Jesus as divine and human, he can’t be your creator. If you want him to just be divine, he can’t be tested. This would be a good choice of alternate premise to start with, as it is both necessary to your case, entirely unsupported, and superficially impossible.

Let me fix your metaphysical presuppostion first before I respond…

What is Objective Reality?

Realism (or philosophical naturalism) is the view point that external things are real and exist independently of mind in the form of either materialism or idealism. [Methodological] Naturalism is the viewpoint that only natural laws and forces govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws in the form of either materialism or idealism.

Materialism is the viewpoint that material things shape our ideas and ideologies. In contrast, idealism states that ideas come first and then changes in material things are consciously pursued in accordance with those ideas.

Substance dualism is the view that material things and ideas are both fundamental substances of existence (I.e. supernatural vs natural). Furthermore, this viewpoint states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot. Where the immortal souls occupy an independent realm of existence distinct from that of the physical world.

However, Substance dualism is unparsimonius and untestable while materialism has been disconfirmed so many times by experiments that a consensus on the matter has developed [just ask for reference]. This leaves us with a form of idealism that places digital information and human consciousness as representing objective reality where space-time is influenced and emerges from.

Therefore, your objections are essentially suggesting that since we don’t know of any minds that can exist outside of reality or a physical brain, which is a product of evolution, the burden of proof is on anyone who implies otherwise. However, it is actually the other way around; we don’t know of any objectively real spacetime containing an objectively real brain that can be rendered into physical existence without a mind.

For instance, It is not that the brain requires a mechanism to interact with mind, but that brains and bodies are representative of the constraints mind is subject to when operating within space-time. The brain is the image of a process, not the cause of a process. Thus, the natural vs. supernatural dichotomy is a hallmark of substance dualism, but I adhere to idealism where classical space time emerges from Digital information and only exists as a mental construct. In other words, the brain is the mind rather than the mind is the brain.

@CrisprCAS9

Taking the first: It is correct to say that the genetic code is not ‘dictated’ by physics, as it is an quasi-arbitrary contingency of physics. Many states are allowed by physics, without strong preference, and one occurred. So not ‘dictated’, as it may well have been another way. But does this ‘transcend’ physics? Absolutely not! To transcend physics would require that the outcome be wholly independent of physics, but this is certainly not true.

Sure, I can grant that the articles I provided in our discussion only show how the genetic code transcends classical space-time physics but not all physics. However, I explained and provided sources in my discussions with @Tim and others that show how the genetic code transcends quantum physics as well where it ultimately exists as a state of a wave-function. This wave-function is digital information that exists not only as a useful tool but as an objective part of reality. Read this source for more:

Wave function gets real in quantum experiment | New Scientist

@CrisprCAS9

To the second: natural languages are the product of slow evolution of ideas conveyed by vibrating meat and then squiggly lines. Biochemistry works by slapping noodles against one another until they stick together in a weird way, usually making one of them bend a bit, sometimes breaking something. These are not particularly similar.

Again, you are presupposing that digital information and consciousness emerged from the laws of quantum physics. According to Orch-OR theory, the brain is actually a quantum mechanical wave-function and consciousness does not emerge from brain chemistry or matter. Instead, consciousness is created directly by a universal consciousness, which would represent a new kind of physics:

….According to Orch OR, the (objective) reduction is not the entirely random process of standard theory, but acts according to some non-computational new physics (see Penrose 1989, 1994). The idea is that consciousness is associated with this (gravitational) OR process, but occurs significantly only when the alternatives are part of some highly organized structure, so that such occurrences of OR occur in an extremely orchestrated form. Only then does a recognizably conscious event take place. On the other hand, we may consider that any individual occurrence of OR would be an element of proto-consciousness…

….Our criterion for proto-consciousness is OR . It would be unreasonable to refer to OR as the criterion for actual consciousness, because, according to the DP scheme, OR processes would be taking place all the time, and would be providing the effective randomness that is characteristic of quantum measurement. Quantum superpositions will continually be reaching the DP threshold for OR in non-biological settings as well as in biological ones, and usually take place in the purely random environment of a quantum system under measurement.”

Microsoft Word - penrose consciousness.docx (neurohumanitiestudies.eu)

If you cannot understand the source well enough to accept my claims, then watch this video that is made for laypeople:

Quantum Biology: Irreducible Mind (Part 4) - YouTube

@CrisprCAS9

Firstly, I’m talking about non-enzymatic template directed polymerization of RNA.

I don’t get your point here then, because those experiments still involve steps where the experimenter takes the role of the artificial selector . That is why it is called directed polymerization of RNA.

@CrisprCAS9

Second, thank you for demonstrating that you will dismiss all tests of abiotic pathways if the experiments actually look at it.

Great point!

Because all experiments are performed by an experimenter, they must involve investigator intervention. However, there are experiments that must be viewed as an ineligible prebiotic simulation when certain aspects of observer interference are crucial to their success.

In constructing a prebiotic simulation experiment, the investigator creates the setting; supplies the aqueous medium, the energy and, the chemicals; and establishes the boundary conditions (Thaxton 1984 p.99-110; Jekel 1985). This activity produces the overall background conditions for the experiment, and although it is vital to the success of the experiment, it is relatively legitimate because it simulates conceivable natural conditions.

However, the intrusion of the researcher becomes critical in an illegitimate sense whenever laboratory conditions are not defensible by association to consistently credible features of natural processes and conditions . Thus, the illegitimate intervention of the investigator is directly comparable to the geochemical implausibility of the condition arising from the researcher’s experimental design and/or procedure, and the level of such intrusion would be the greatest when such plausibility is missing altogether (Thaxton 1984 p.99-110; Jekel 1985).

Thaxton et al. (1984) established these criteria for the amount of observer interference acceptable for attempts to prove that unguided material processes produced life:

Degree of investigator interference

8. Selected chemicals, isolated from other soup ingredients
9. Selected wavelengths of UV, heat, isolated from other energy sources
10. Spark, shock waves, isolated from other energy sources
11. Concentrated solutions where reactions depend on concentrated conditions (e.g., HCN polymerization)
12. Traps
13. Photosensitization

Threshold of illegitimate interference

2. Concentrated solutions where law of mass action is validly extrapolated +
3. “Synthesis in the Whole”: dilute solutions mixed together

As shown in the outline, the demarcation line between legitimate and illegitimate interference is between 2) and 3). Any situation higher than 3) (i.e. 2) and 1)) would be illegitimate because the experimenter is deviating from plausible prebiotic conditions, and there is no analogy between the techniques and reliably plausible prebiotic conditions (Thaxton 1984 p.99-110; Jekel 1985).

@CrisprCAS9

Did you botch the grammar of this? Showing that researchers can do something one way can never be evidence that the thing can’t be done some other way, so showing a study where scientists ‘did’ make a virus from scratch says nothing ( and could NEVER say anything ) about whether or not scientists are required to do it. This is basic logic you are stumbling over, here.

I was merely providing examples of what they said in this article…

“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.”