Universal Common Designer theory [UPDATED and REVISED]

[Meerkat_SK5]

@John_Harshman

Then what did it say that makes any sort of point for you?

I have already provided the quote from the article that illustrates my point.

@John_Harshman

@Meerkat_SK5

Are you just going to assert this or are you actually going to explain and support these claims?

You first. Support a claim.

I did this already on this topic in post 80 and now I am awaiting approval of my latest changes from you guys.

@John_Harshman

First, you will have to show that the studies you have cited say anything relevant to your claims.

“However, if scaled to the stratigraphic level of the stage and the taxonomic level of the family, the past 540 million years of the fossil record provide uniformly good documentation of the life of the past.”

Quality of the fossil record through time | Nature

@John_Harshman

. We can explore the current world a lot better than we can explore the past. Here’s a factoid for you: 50% of all dinosaur genera (not species, note) are known from a single specimen only. Think about what that implies for the number of genera for which we haven’t yet found that specimen. The fossils we have access to are a tiny proportion of the fossils that were preserved. Consider all the cubic miles of fossiliferous strata that have eroded away and have been lost. Consider all the cubic miles of fossiliferous strata that are not exposed on the surface and are therefore unavailable to be examined. And consider that depositional environments are only a small proportion of the earth’s surface at any time, and anything that dies elsewhere will be lost. Finally, consider that many species have low intrinsic preservation potential; in fact there are entire phyla with no fossil record at all.

Yes, I do acknowledge that all those points prove how the fossil record must be incomplete. However, the problem with all those points is that it does not go far enough to explain the sudden appearances between major groups of animals that Gunter Beuchely laid out in his video. There are simply too many of those type of gaps, especially if 99.9 of species are already extinct… In fact, these gaps existed and were already explained by common design from researchers before Darwin created and mentioned those gaps as being problematic in his book.
.

Furthermore, “the astonishing agreement between evolutionary trees based on molecular (DNA) data and the fossil record, and the fact that the detailed pattern of the evolution of life has not changed much over 200 years of study, suggests that the fossil record is adequate for the purpose we have put it to. It provides incontrovertible evidence of Darwinian evolution.”

The completeness of the fossil record - Benton - 2009 - Significance - Wiley Online Library

Thus, since I have provided multiple studies that show how the fossil record is adequate enough to establish at least one of the many gaps between major groups is complete. This means that we have to view common design and common descent as mutually exclusive models on this basis alone.

But, there is more on…Another reason why they are mutually exclusive involves how the first life forms came about.

For example, RNA viruses cannot propagate without a host or intelligence. For this reason, it would require the designer to continuously create viruses to have them evolve into bacteria from within deep-sea vents AND force those bacteria to evolve further from other created viruses. As a result, this would require multiple origins for single cell organisms, which happens to be consistent with current observations. On the other hand, common descent assumes that every living thing came from one single-cell organism (LUCA).

@nwrickert

I don’t know what you mean by “scientifically valid”. I most certainly would not consider Orch-OR to be scientifically valid. It is, at best, a tentative speculative hypothesis.

This is what I mean by scientifically valid:

• It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
• It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation.
• It is consistent with preexisting experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any preexisting theories.

With that said, the Orch-OR theory has not established that a “self-existent” consciousness exists yet. This is the aspect of their theory that I admit is speculative, but this is what I am trying to do now.

@CrisprCAS9

One way you could improve your ‘theory’ is to base it on claims that are actually valid. Give that a try.

That’s what I am trying to do now.

@CrisprCAS9

@Tim has done this extensively. I’ve done it for Abel’s work.

I think you guys misunderstood what I was trying to do before. I was trying to meet the first condition Tim laid out and then he changed the rules. So I am switching to meet the second condition. Now, I am waiting for people to address what I said in my last comment to @Rumraket.

@Tim

… is only stating that “Orch OR has some points in common” with this view, not that Orch OR entails a creator/“self-existent consciousness”.

Therefore, your claim of:

@Meerkat_SK5

… Penrose’s interpretation of a self-existent consciousness that created finite conscious minds …

Lacks any foundation.

’ In his “orchestrated objective reduction” theory (a.k.a. Orch-OR), Penrose posits that consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules throughout neurons in the brain. In this view, individual consciousness is connected to a universal proto-consciousness. This theory may resonate with the classical Buddhist view, that consciousness is the “ground” or primordial nature of the universe.’

The Beginner’s Mind of Scientist Sir Roger Penrose - Lion’s Roar (lionsroar.com)