Before I address everybody’s objections, I want to go over a list of points to make sure we are all on the same page going forward…
-
My theory is mainly an integration of work done by other experts, such as the Orch-OR theory, common design model and the Dependency Graph. The origin of life model I presented is the only thing that could be considered my work.
-
The only aspect of my theory that is NOT scientifically valid yet is the one involving Baraminology (YEC version), which technically makes the theory incomplete, scientifically speaking.
-
I am mainly using the Dependency Graph model to explain the nested hierarchical patterns that cannot be explained by HGT. That’s it.
-
Even though the Universal common design and common descent model are the same “in principle”, there are still aspects that make them both mutually exclusive. Read post 201 for more: The Current Status of Ewert’s Dependency Graph of Life - Peaceful Science
-
Also, there are three practical differences between Universal common design and common descent that I mentioned already.
-
If I did not address or accept your previous objections, this may be because… PS users are making objections without providing counter sources or articles that refute well-established aspects of my theory. Or they are making personal objections that are not aligned with their level of expertise.
-
The only thing that needs to be established by me and approved by everyone here is that there was a self-existent consciousness that created the first life on earth.
-
If the only thing that you object to in my previous post was the wrong sources cited, then make sure you explain why the quotes I pulled from those sources are inadequate.
Alright, let’s move on to those objections…
Oh, that’s actually helpful, but are you sure everyone agrees that life as we know it in part depends on digital information? If so, we can go with that.
Now, is it fair to assume that everybody agrees with these claims and the sources supporting them as well since they seem to be more straightforward and uncontroversial:
The Appearance of Design
“The repetitive non-coding RNA sequences resemble that of a natural everyday language, i.e., the essential tool to coordinate and organize common behavior.”
Failure to Explain the Evidence through Unguided Natural Processes
“ Simply mixing chemicals and watching for a living system to appear from the broth seems unreasonable to me. This approach has never worked, and it is not expected to work, at least not if one is limited to the lifetime of a human, let alone the duration of a funding period or a Ph.D. thesis."
Confirmed the Time and Place of Origins
Geologists found evidence of the first life from the oldest rocks on earth. They discovered viruses in the deep-sea oceanic vents and found that RNA viruses represent the most abundant form of organisms within them.
Reproduction of the Design Patterns
“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.”
So it has to be verbatim text? This seems to be a game of semantics you’re playing now but it’s your rules.
The problem with this is that I don’t know what the article must specifically state (verbatim) that would support this demand. What does the article have to say and how in order to meet your criteria?
If you are referring to Penrose’s interpretation of a self-existent consciousness that created finite conscious minds, then Yes. This is correct. I admitted this at the top of this post. But, I showed you how everything else about the theory is legit when I presented my analysis.
Yes, this was also an example of you being arbitrary because none of the studies that I presented to you suggested that the analogy was weak or metaphorical. But because YOU feel differently, it is all of a sudden not a valid source.