Universal Common Designer theory [UPDATED and REVISED]

[Tim]

Prefatory remark: it would be a lot easier to follow your citations if you placed them in-line, rather than at the end, e.g.:

Random statement.[1]

@Meerkat_SK5

(A) Biochemical and human information are analogous to each other [1][2]

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.

@Meerkat_SK5

(B) These COMBINED experiments show how the first life must be created by an intelligent designer [3][4][5][12][13]

[5] isn’t an experiment. It is merely a discussion of potential constraints on Abiogenesis research.
[3], [4], [12] & [13] have nothing to do with either "first life or “an intelligent designer”.

Therefore these citations show no such thing.

@Meerkat_SK5

(C) Metabolic-first prebiotic chemistry theoretically lack evolvability [5A]

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.

[My emphasis]

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.

@Meerkat_SK5

(D) There is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that resembles reactions being determined by the genetic code [5B]

This is only the opinion of a single scientist, writing 20 years ago. It is not an established fact.

@Meerkat_SK5

However, there are observations that suggest this agent also guides the evolutionary process of developing life from simple to complex.[6][7]

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.

@Meerkat_SK5

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. [8]

This claim appears to be cited to some random online MS-Word document. Inaccessible and likely of zero probative value.

@Meerkat_SK5

Quantum Consciousness is the vital mechanism that causes life on earth to change over time [9][10][11][11A]

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!