Universal Common Designer theory [UPDATED and REVISED]

Sure, of course. I just wanted to make sure.

Nested hierachies through HGT:

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. [20]

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.

Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes | Genome Biology | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Nested hierarchy through the dependency graph model:

"Designing agencies can anticipate functional requirements. They also understand one does not have to re-invent the wheel every time a new car is being designed.

'Structural homology at a higher functional level, dictated by functional demands, may exist independently of its particular material substrate, because intelligent designers are not bound by the constraints of what might be called physical transmission or continuity. …

In precisely the same way, diverse vertebrates exhibiting the pentadactyl pattern in their forelimbs and hind limbs may possess that pattern not because they inherited it from a common ancestor- that is, not because of material continuity- but because there exists some functional requirement that the pattern satisfies.- J. Wells and P. Nelson, “Homology in Biology”, Design, Darwinism and Public Education , 319-20, 2003’

And although it is true that designing agencies can violate any hierarchal scheme that would not be the case in a common design scenario."

Intelligent Reasoning: Evidences for Common Design- Evidence 2 Nested Hierarchy

Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for the correction. They are incompatible because common descent claims that the discontinuities in the fossil record are artifacts of incompleteness, the Adam and Eve story is false, and there is a LUCA

On the other hand, common design claims that those discontinuities are real, Adam and Eve story is true, and there is no LUCA or there is only FUCA.
The First Universal Common Ancestor (FUCA) as the Earliest Ancestor of LUCA’s (Last UCA) Lineage | SpringerLink

These leads me to address your response to the last two…

NO, you are now equivocating between intelligent design and common design. They are not the same thing, as Fuz Rana explains why…

"In his day, the great debate among biologists related to whether “function” or “form” provided the theoretical framework to understand biological structures. At that time, while many scientists in Britain favored a teleological view (function), Owen preferred the transcendental view popular on the European continent. Owen’s goal was to come up with a theoretical framework that united both approaches, but he preferred “form” over “function.” In Owen’s mind, the archetype represented teleology of a higher order…

…Owen’s (and others’) conception of function and form were strongly theistic in orientation. According to Owen the archetype points to a “deep and pregnant principle…some archetypal exemplar on which it has pleased the Creator to frame certain of his living creatures.”

Archetype or Ancestor? Sir Richard Owen and the Case for Design - Reasons to Believe

No, you are wrong again. I know OEC and ID literature pretty well to know this is definitely false. Here take a look at this interview by Michael Behe himself:

'ML: In The Edge, you make a defense for common descent (p.182) and later attribute it to a non-random process (p. 72). Considering the convergent evolution of the digestive enzyme of lemurs and cows, hemoglobin of human and mice, and in your own work resistance mutations that also arise independently (p77), why such a commitment to common descent? Isn’t genetic convergent evolution or even common design (considering your view of mutations) good alternative explanations to common descent?

MJB: I don’t think so. Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution.’

An Interview with Dr. Michael J. Behe (ideacenter.org)

“resting” just means that God stopped doing creative acts. Stadler’s study provides some support for this. The study shows the decrease in the number of new species emerging in the recent past for this description of how species emerged. He concluded that the appearance of new mammal species peaked between 33 and 30 million years ago and declined significantly at 8.55 and 3.35 million years ago:

Mammalian phylogeny reveals recent diversification rate shifts (nih.gov)

I don’t have time or the space to correct all your flawed Hermeneutics of Genesis ch. 1 on here. I will just refer you to a source that will help you understand the text better regarding those things you mentioned here:

Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation (godandscience.org)

Genesis 8:1 states that God removed the floodwaters by sending a wind. Given the gentle slope of the land, evaporation plays a more significant role than gravity in removing the water. Just how effective is evaporation for removing flood waters?

During a typical Southern California summer the swimming pools lose an average of one inch of water per day to evaporation. Lower humidity, higher heat, and a strong wind can triple or quadruple that rate.

Over the 335 days during which Noah’s Flood receded, that would add up to 84-112 feet of evaporation. If gravity had removed about half that much water, the total water depth removed would have been 126-168 feet. That is easily enough water to account for Noah’s seeing nothing but water for as far as his eyes could see. That is easily enough water to destroy all of Noah’s contemporaries and their animals outside the ark. And, that is easily enough water to carry the ark to the foothills of Ararat.

You actually never explained why a metaphorical analogy could not still suffice as an appearance of design.

More importantly, you did not explain why the archaeologists argument that there was intentional activity of a hominid was NOT wrong or metaphorical compared to my appearance of design premise.

This is why I was only agreeing for the sake of discussion that the study was referring to a metaphorical analogy. That being said, I will go a step further and accept the premise is false anyways since I agree with you that it is not a big deal for it to be true or not.

No, all this means is that we were not on the same page apparently or we misunderstood each other. That’s all.

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 been created and designed by conscious minds.

Under Metabolic-first models, it has not been experimentally demonstrated that life could have arisen from unguided material mechanisms or conditions either. That being said…

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.

Well first off, I was referring to life as we know it NOT life of any kind.

Secondly, this is false either way you spin it because there is no such thing as a concrete physical reality made of space-time, matter and energy in the first place. Instead, the so-called physical realm actually exists in a super positional state of all quantum possibilities that are mathematical in nature as I mentioned before. The intangible phenomenon of conscious observership is the only means that is capable of producing a final collapse of any given combination of quantum wave-functions, which imparts a concrete and physical reality to them:
The Measurement Problem - YouTube

This means that abiogenesis would still require intervention regardless of the time and physical scale it is needed to establish it according to current data on quantum physics.

And your misunderstanding of, and general unfamiliarity with, quantum physics is not my problem either.

No, we would not, as nested hierarchy is not mere similarity. Why do you keep pretending that it is?

As I read this line, I cannot do so without hearing the voice of Deepak Chopra.

1 Like

Aside from the fact that there is zero evidence for any of the events you posit, we would not expect to see a nested hierarchy resulting from what you describe. Nested hierarchy is not the same thing as “biochemical and morphological similarities”, nor does it have much to do with universal common ancestry.

You have presented no argument for this being the case. Note also that Ewert appeals to functional requirements, but fails to demonstrate that any such things exist.

Actually, common descent doesn’t demand that the Adam and Eve story is false. Do you have any idea what the point of this web site is supposed to be?

No, that’s what separate creation claims. Common design is silent on all these matters. Separate creation is your scenario, and you really ought to start calling it by the appropriate term. Mostly, though, separate creation differs from common descent in alleging that there are “basic types”. You have been unable to identify a single one. Shouldn’t that be cause for concern?

Your quote from Rana is, as usual, irrelevant to the point you were attempting to make.
Your quote from Behe comes closer to being relevant, but it’s not clear that he’s fastening onto the term “common design” in the way you imagine.

Ah, so you redefine “resting” too. And no, Stadler’s study does not. You misread almost everything.

And I likewise have no interest in correcting your flawed hermeneutics. Neither does it seem useful to correct your nonsense about the flood. I’d rather get you to talk about basic types and try to make your notions both concrete and consistent.

1 Like

It was your standard:

As I’m sure you realize, you can make a metaphorical analogy between any two things with enough time and creativity. So someone being able to make a metaphorical between two things is completely meaningless.

If you disagree, then it is your burden to explain why a metaphorical analogy should be accepted, not mine to show why it shouldn’t.

Great. Your argument is essentially an inference to the best explanation already, so including a premise that is itself an inference to the best explanation is a bad idea. Especially if it isn’t really needed. Since we’re striking that premise, We can move on…

No it has not. Nor do your references support this notion.

You cite:
Richert 2018, which is a comment and not an article and does not say or even suggest that life can’t happen naturally.

Witzany 2017, which doesn’t say anything about abiogenesis
at all.

Abel 2012, which is the work of a quack who doesn’t understand basic chemistry.

If you had others on this point I missed them, feel free to add them. But it isn’t likely they are any more useful to you, given your current record.

Life is fundamentally chemical, which is material.

So was I…

You rely on your interpretation and understanding of quantum physics for this claim, and you are not qualified in the field. As previously agreed, until you are able to get an actual physicist here to vouch for your interpretation, you’ll get no traction there.

You’ll especially get no traction citing as evidence for your understanding of quantum physics an obvious buffoon like Inspiring Philosophy. Who I wouldn’t trust to properly interpret a stop sign, much less quantum field theories.

Unfortunately, your misunderstanding of, and general unfamiliarity with, quantum physics is your problem. Or rather, one of your problems.


There seems to be an unfortunate pattern in @Meerkat_SK5’s comments on this thread:

To me:

To @Dan_Eastwood:

To the thread in general:

To @CrisprCAS9:

  1. I would note that the last comment was directed at a comment of @CrisprCAS9’s that made no mention of quantum physics. This comment was therefore simply gratuitous.

  2. It appears to be the opinion of many (all?), including the one physicist, on this thread that @Meerkat_SK5 themselves demonstrates no expertise in quantum physics.

  3. @Meerkat_SK5 appears to be basing their ‘understanding’ (if it could be called that) of quantum physics of the Youtube apologetics of somebody who @CrisprCAS9 suggested they “wouldn’t trust to properly interpret a stop sign” – an evaluation that I’d support given the garbled mess I encountered here. (Does ‘Inspiring Philosophy’ actually have a formal background in philosophy? It seems hard to credit.)

  4. Given that @Meerkat_SK5 called Fazale Rana a “a well-established expert” (in the context of a comment on the informational similarity between human languages and DNA), cites Hugh Ross on biology, etc, etc, I would suggest that we have no evidence that they even know how to recognise expertise.

I would therefore request that @Meerkat_SK5 cease and desist this repeated, and deeply flawed, credentialism.

I would note that I am not claiming any scientific expertise of my own. I have been basing my own criticism simply on reading comprehension – comparing the claims made to the text and context of the cited sources. If even a reasonably sophisticated layman can see through the claims, then these claims are deeply flawed. Sufficiently flawed that the only practical way forward would be to abandon them and start from scratch.

1 Like

[… snip …]

What’s wrong with it being arbitrary? All that is necessary is that it works. What you have is a philosophical question about chemistry, but that’s no problem for chemistry itself.

As it happens I believe there is a good reason for the coding we observe. It is efficient is terms of chemical binding energy, and so is favored by entropy/thermodynamics. I would have some difficulty finding the citation for that, but I can look for it if you like.

NO, this is equivocation:

[My change of emphasis]
Here you are using “interventions” to mean something very different from controlling the experimental variable.

I’d like to clarify that I have never objected to testing Divine action. My argument is that Divine action can never be ruled out, and is not falsifiable. I also have very relevant expertise in testing hypotheses; if the Divine can be tested then there is no reason my expertise should not apply.

I knew I should have included this study as well to remind everyone that HGT accounts for the similarities AND the nested hierarchies:

Biased gene transfer mimics patterns created through shared ancestry | PNAS

Like what?

Oh but I did. You just missed it: Again, the attributes of the Christian God have to work in accordance with each other in a logically consistent manner because he is who he is (i.e. the law of identity) and cannot not be who he is at the same time (i.e. law of non-contradiction). This means that God cannot make himself cease to exist because this would conflict with him being a necessary being. God cannot make a square circle because this would conflict with his omniscience. God cannot lie because it would conflict with his omnibenevolence. God cannot make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift because it would conflict with his omni-potency

God cannot create and develop a world that does not have God intimately involved in the process every step of the way because it would conflict with his “Personal’ nature. This includes previous experiments and observations that suggests God mimics the behavior of humans rather than Natural law.:

“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)

Thus, God must be true to “all” his attributes, because to do otherwise would be to deny his own self. On the other hand, If this common designer was finite and generic as described by ID theorists, it would be possible that this designer could violate this principle, which is another reason why their version of ID is untestable.

Why is this relevant to what I am trying to do with the model? Keep in mind, he is applying it things and making assumptions that I either don’t need or don’t agree with.

Sure, maybe not completely false but it does suggests that the bible did not accurately describe it:

King James Bible
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

King James Bible
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art , and unto dust shalt thou return.

Genesis 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. (biblehub.com)

Here is Jesus clearly referencing this story:

4 Jesus answered, Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?…

Well, I will once you refute all three of my points on why they are incompatible. So far, you have not done this. This is no LUCA and Humans came from the ground NOT from animals according to the model. So even if I granted the distinction between common design and separate creation from the fossil record, common design and common descent would still be incompatible.

No, because it is not necessary to establish in order to show why they are incompatible models, as I said before. Nevertheless, just look into this source under sections “Origin of the major branches (supergroups) of eukaryotes” and “Origin of the animal phyla” for potential examples for basic type classification for the common design model.

Well, it is relevant to what you said. Theistic evolutionists or biologos do not support common design and only support intelligent design as it pertains to common descent This means that Common design and intelligent design are not the same. You can have an unknown or unconscious designer as an option according to ID theorists, which would not apply to a common designer like us.

Honestly, do you have any evidence you can find from theistic literature that explain how common design is considered compatible with common descent or is indistinguishable from it?
You keep making assertion after assertation without any support.

Alright, let me rephrase it since you seem to only want articles that provide a verbatim text that supports my premises.

Failure to Explain the Evidence through Unguided Natural Processes or Failure to Produce Evidence through Unguided Natural Processes

For example, current experiments and methods fail at producing a self-replicating RNA molecule without intervention { I gave you the study for this already]. Plus, current understanding of physics and chemistry do not explain the digital the code that life depends on for it’s existence.

Frontiers | What is Life? | Astronomy and Space Sciences (frontiersin.org)

If you have studies that refute these claims, please send them rather than make a bunch of assertions like you have been doing more and more in your response. Otherwise, this premise should be considered supported by the evidence.

No, I rely on evidence and consensus. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the standard that has been and still is the consensus or majority among physicists for decades now.

Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia

Read this also:

“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. It seems strange to describe the state of a material particle by a wave function. However, this refers to one of the central postulates of quantum mechanics: wave-particle duality. It has been postulated that particles also have a wave character based on the observation that the detected character of a material particle (corpuscle or wave) depends solely on the experimental design. Therefore a particle can be described as a matter-wave [4]. A matter-wave can mathematically be represented by a wave function which is the solution of a wave equation. 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.”

Quantum Tunnelling to the Origin and Evolution of Life (nih.gov)

First off, Inspiring Philosophy did NOT craft those videos himself. A quantum physicist named Johanna Ratz helped him make those video because IP obviously was not an expert in the field. I can show you those videos from the actual expert if you would like. But since he is a Christian physicist, you will probably turned that into an excuse as well.

In addition, if you have actually bothered to look below his video for those citations I mentioned, you will see this…

"Materialism has been dead for decades and recent research only reconfirms this, as this video will show. This video was reviewed by physicist Fred Kuttner and Richard Conn Henry. A few other physicists reviewed this but asked to remain anonymous for privacy reasons.

…" At 12:34 we highlight an experiment. I want to note the authors do not agree with my philosophical views but think we ought to drop objectivity while keeping determinism and independence."

Lastly, I recommended you watch Inspiring Philosophy’s video as a potential source of information on the subject IF you cannot understand or don’t want to bother reading the sources and citations that are listed below his videos. This is because you clearly show that you lack understanding of the subject when you kept ignoring my points about your false assumptions on the nature of reality.

Oh really, prove it then.

No, you shouldn’t have, as the study doesn’t do what you imagine it does. You may be relying on the title only.


What follows is not an argument for your claim. I didn’t miss anything. You are claiming that a handful of uncooked spaghetti is a four-course meal, and I’m claiming that it isn’t.

It shows that the model is not supported by the diagram. If the “modules” are purely ad hoc, then a dependency diagram doesn’t explain anything other than the existence of homoplasy. You can’t distinguish mimicry of nested hierarchy from an imperfect nested hierarchy, and your case collapses.

Do you even know what the GAE hypothesis posits? Based on your quotes, you don’t.

You have failed to specify that in your model, and you model will remain moot until you can say what any basic type is. You seem to be implying here that extant life is not a basic type and that humans (Homo? Homo sapiens?) are. Perhaps you would clarify. But that still has nothing to do with common design, just separate creation. Still, would you care to be specific in asserting at least one basic type and present evidence for its existence?

And you have failed to present any argument for that claim. I grant that you think you have, but that isn’t the same thing.

What source? You specify no source here. Are you asserting that supergroups or phyla are basic types?

So? You merely assert that common design is not compatible with common descent and assume that conclusion in this argument. If I made a claim that God had designed all life using evolution as his tool, would that be common design or something else?

This is getting really silly.

Given that you made no attempt to show how your citations and quote support your interpretation and validate your understanding, this claim remains (like nearly everything else you have said on this forum), wholly unsupported.

If you know that he’s “not an expert in the field”, then why on Earth are you recommending his videos? Youtube videos are already a poor way of conveying information (and particularly complex information). When you combine this with the fact that he’s not an expert and, given he’s an apologist, his goal is not education, but rather winning religious arguments, you get a veritable perfect storm of a bad source of information.

I would further point out that you have proven yourself very poor at identifying actual expertise, so we have no reason to accept your word for it that Ratz is an actual quantum physicist.

I already addressed this empty claim here. Repeating it does not make it any more credible.

No. The burden is on you @Meerkat_SK5, to prove why, in spite your lack of reading comprehension, and your resultant pervasive inability to tell when a cited source does not support your claims, your demonstrated inability to tell who is and isn’t an expert, and what is and isn’t a serious source, we should accept at face value your claims about what is one of the most difficult, esoteric and counter-intuitive fields in science.

1 Like

So you admit you misread the paper I linked you, in which argues based on evidence that LUCA probably had a DNA genome. Not that it had to have a DNA genome for your argument to be a failure, but you need to be corrected and you need to acknowledge that you have been corrected when you clearly are misrepresenting the state of the field. It is not in any way settled science whether LUCA had a DNA or RNA genome, nor is there any reason to think an organism of LUCA’s complexity could not have an RNA genome.

Sorry but there are lots of concrete ideas of what LUCA is, but more importantly, even to the extend there are still serious doubts about many of LUCA’s attributes, we have incontrovertible evidence that LUCA lies at a significant distance from the origin of the evolutionary process, since it contains demonstrably paralogous gene families with much deeper histories of evolutionary divergence. In particular the two classes of aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases (Class I, and Class II) which each today consist of 10 paralogous enzymes, and implement the genetic code, have diverged from one common ancestral gene sequence. That means there must have been an even older and distant ancestor that had only one such gene, instead of the 20 which all derive from it. This is virtually proof of a deeper evolutionary ancestry going back before LUCA to the very origin of the genetic code and translation system.

Yes and one problem here is in part your entirely idiosyncratic use of the term “common design”, which you keep being unclear about what exactly means. In some posts you indicate it means merely guided evolution, in others you suggest it means independent creation of “basic types” which you have no idea how to define or distinguish.

I think John has been doing just fine explaining what is wrong with your position.


This shifts your argument from deductive to inductive. And the inference you are left with is quite weak.

Producing ‘self’ replicating RNA without intervention is unnecessary when you can make auto replicating RNAs by non-enzymatic template-directed polymerization without intervention.

Which ‘study’ are you referring to? The opinion piece that doesn’t actually support your position, or the commentary that doesn’t actual support your position?

It explains the chemistry, just not the necessity. There may not be a necessity, that’s not a problem.

[Guenther Witzany citation]

That citation is mostly to entirely nonsense, edited and reviewed by people either unqualified to do so or with explicit conflicts in its publication, and containing nothing of any actual merit or worth.

No, you need studies to support your claims! Studies! Not comments, not opinions, not conjecture! Studies! With methods sections and everything!

The Copenhagen interpretation, like all interpretations of QM, is an interpretation. It isn’t ‘true’, it is a way of thinking about the math. Nothing about Copenhagen, or any QM interpretation supports your claims. At most, you could say that your understanding of Copenhagen suggests something, or that your understanding of something said by someone that holds to Copenhagen suggests something. But either way you are relying on your understanding of QM, and all evidence suggests this is quite poor.

I doubt anyone has said that quantum effects are irrelevant to biology. Only that they don’t require a mind.

A quick google search finds no evidence of this person existing. Odd. If I gave you my name and scientific affiliation, I’d be the first hit. As I suspect would every other active scientist on this forum. And probably most of the non-scientists, too.

Unless they are university level lectures, YouTube videos will be completely uncompelling.

If I recommended you watch a video by Andrew Wakefield if you couldn’t understand immunology, it would demonstrate that I didn’t understand immunology well enough to know who the quacks were. Likewise with your recommendations.

Your citations are also listed. Your citations also do not support your claims. I’m detecting a pattern.

1 Like

Of course common design isn’t a model at all, as it can accommodate common descent. It’s just a term that, if it means anything, means that a single person (usually God) has planned the biota. He could have accomplished that through hands-on evolution, hands-off evolution (the cosmic billiard shot) or special creation. The only thing relevant to the term is whether he was responsible. @Meerkat_SK5’s version appears to be separate creation, though of what is unclear, though it appears to also have something unclear to do with viruses, and he has appropriated the term “common design” as applying only to his ideas and to no others.

In that case, can you please justify the additional assumption of a LUCA by answering these questions for me…

" * If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that life only arose once, or in one pool of organisms?

If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a multicellular organisms must have had a single-celled organism as an ancestor?

If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a fossil sequence of high disparity is not the result of multiple abiogenesis events separated in time, rather than representing an ancestral lineage?

Even assuming a fully [unguided] abiogenesis, the above questions cannot be adequately answered unless a specific conception of abiogenesis is used as the basis "

How so? Explain and elaborate in a way that I can respond back properly and not have to shoot bullets in the dark.

Exactly what? explain which events that I did not support in my “Would this origin of life model work” topic.

Why? How so? I am not following you here.

Again, HGT and the dependency graph are just aspects of that overall model to make it robust and better than common descent because HGT does not go far enough to explain the phylogenetic patterns. For instance, HGT would explain the appearance of nested hierarchies while Winston’s model would explain it in a another way. There is a difference. This is why his model would not be ad-hoc since it is merely an attachment of the overall model. We can use both models.

Yes, we can. Finding Functional/sequence convergence and Functional pseudogenes and ERV’s helps us distinguish them.

Your link does not give me the article. Can you please give me a different link to it?

Sorry, I forgot to give you the source:

The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution (nih.gov)

Common design is similar to what we see done by a Clay potter. When a clay potter crafts designs separately using clay, would you call this guided evolution or common design?

I am still waiting for you to provide the source that supports this claim.

Failure to Explain the Evidence through Unguided Natural Processes

Replicator-first models:

Interdependence, Reflexivity, Fidelity, Impedance Matching, and the Evolution of Genetic Coding | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Insuperable problems of the genetic code initially emerging in an RNA world - ScienceDirect

Metabolism-first models:

Origin and evolution of metabolic pathways - PubMed (nih.gov)

The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth (plos.org)

Origin of life on earth and Shannon’s theory of communication - ScienceDirect

Failure to Produce Evidence through Unguided Natural Processes

Isolation of New Ribozymes from a Large Pool of Random Sequences (science.org)

Catalysis: Design Versus Selection (science.org)

Reproduction of the Design Patterns

Poliovirus Baked From Scratch | Science | AAAS

Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome | Nature

I agree, that’s why I am primarily relying on the evidence portion of it in conjunction with the Orch-OR theory to support my conclusion NOT the philosophical interpretation. This leads me to address this…

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” demonstrates.

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. Furthermore, I am also NOT suggesting that these type of experiments by themselves demonstrate how the mind has the ability to collapse the wave form as well…

Instead, since the mind is supposed to be non-local under Orch-OR theory, 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 inside his head. This is exactly what the Orch-OR’s theory of consciousness entails.

Wigner’s Friend’s Quantum Mind - YouTube

What do you mean? That’s exactly what he was highlighting in his video and provided sources to those lectures, interviews, and quotes by those same experts.

How do you know this if you are not an expert in quantum physics or don’t want to read up on it to familiarize yourself on the subject?

LUCA is not an assumption, and the justification for the inference of it’s existence is that we find the evidence expected on common descent: Consilience of independent phylogenies. And yes I can answer your questions.

I make no claims about how many times life might have arisen.

However many times life did arise, the life we currently know about on Earth appears to have derived from a universal common ancestor regardless.

Even if we stipulate hypothetically that life arose multiple times relatively simultaneously, and that there was some degree of HGT going on between these multiple different life forms, current life still appears to have gone through a bottleneck of just one common ancestral species of single-celled life.

From the evidence of common descent which shows that single-celled life massively predates multi-cellular life.

I have no idea what a “fossil sequence of high disparity” is supposed to be, but if this has something to do with “gaps” in the fossil record that really doesn’t undermine the inference of common descent on the basis of consilience of independent phylogenies. The data we have, all the data both molecular and anatomical/paleontological, is best explained by all extant life having evolved from a single universal common ancestor species that was a single-celled lifeform which lived at least 3.5 billion years ago.

The fact that every single evolutionary transition does not contain an unbroken chain of ancestors from each and every single generation that ever lived is just not relevant. The fossil record can be very incomplete, yet still be complete enough to support the inference of common descent. Combined with molecular and other types of data the inference just becomes better supported.

I don’t need to have the graves and remains of each of my direct ancestors five thousand generations back to the common ancestor I share with some other extant human being, to still have evidence that is good enough for me to be able to say with high confidence that we share common ancestry. In fact I don’t need to hav the graves and remains of ANY of my ancestors at all to make this inference.

The fossil record, though incomplete, still supports the inference of common descent, until at least we get to single-celled lifeforms, in which case genetics takes over and becomes the main line of evidence.

Clearly that statement is false, as I was able to adequately answer every single one without making ANY assumptions about life’s origins.


We sped past really silly some time ago, leaving it far behind. I don’t think this is even on the map.


We don’t. We only know that all extant life (that we know of) and all fossils (that we know of) are related through common ancestors. Life could have arisen many times without leaving descendants.

Phylogenetic analysis showing, for example, that animals are nested within a series of unicellular groups, the closest being choanoflagellates.

Fossil sequences do not represent ancestral lineages. There is in fact no way to tell if a given fossil species is ancestral to any other or to any living species. But we know they aren’t multiple abiogenesis events because phylogenetic analysis shows the cladistic relationships among taxa.

Sorry, no, that doesn’t follow. This was apparently a quote from something. What?

One major point of that paper: HGT is biased toward transfer among closely related species such that the transfer reinforces the actual phylogeny rather than contradicting it. Read the paper.

“Most often, biased gene transfer will reinforce similarity because of recent shared ancestry. Thus, instead of eroding the phylogenetic signal retained in a genome, HGT may act to reinforce groups created through vertical descent.”

I’m saying that your argument is a series of unconnected claims. It’s incoherent. There’s no other way to critique it.

That’s a fine example of the complete incoherence of your claims. I have no real idea what you were trying to say. Neither HGT nor the dependency model explain nested hierarchy. Nor does being an attachment of the overall model (which doesn’t exist) prevent anything from being ad hoc. You are not using any models, just throwing them out as excuses and waving your hands in their direction.


You have to be exceedingly incompetent not to be able to fine the GAE model on a web site devoted to it. Or you could try looking at the book. I refuse to spoon-feed you.

You did. You also forgot to answer my question: are you asserting that supergroups or phyla are basic types? What is your point in citing that article? What do you think it says that supports this point, whatever it may be?

I have no idea what you mean by this analogy.

1 Like

It should surprise nobody that:

  1. the video linked above is by Johanan Raatz NOT “Johanna Ratz”, and

  2. there is absolutely no evidence (either on his Youtube channel, or anywhere else I could find) that this Johanan Raatz is a “quantum physicist”: no university affiliation, no peer-reviewed publications. In fact, according to his Patreon page, he would appear to an Apologist doing a Masters in Philosophy (and no mention of any formal training in Quantum Physics). He’s currently listed as a postgrad student at Biola. Further evidence that @Meerkat_SK5 is incapable of identifying real expertise.


@Meerkat_SK5, please try to process this important point. Abiogenesis could have occurred a thousand times before the LUCA. Abiogenesis could occur a thousand times in an hour today. Neither would have the slightest effect on the massive evidence pointing to a universal common ancestor of all life we observe today.

This keeps going right by you. Why?


What I have learned from these threads is that there is Dada, and there is a kind of Dada squared which takes Dada and filters it through more Dada.