Universal Common Designer theory [UPDATED and REVISED]

Right now, I want everyone to evaluate this for me. The line of reasoning archaeologists have used to establish the presence of Hominids in North America is basically no different than the line of reasoning I use to establish the presence of Jesus was during the origin of life era. There are four identical facets to this line of reasoning:

A 130,000-year-old archaeological site in southern California, USA | Nature

Confirmed the Time and Place of Origins


In the early 1990s, road construction crews working near San Diego, CA, uncovered the remains of a single mastodon. Though the site was excavated from 1992 to 1993, scientists were unable to date the remains. Both radiocarbon and luminescence dating techniques failed.

Recently, researchers turned failure into success, age-dating the site to be about 130,000 years old, using uranium-series disequilibrium methods.


Geologists were able to do the same after they found evidence of the first life from the oldest rocks on earth. They discovered viruses in the deep-sea oceanic vents. We also found that RNA viruses represent the most abundant form of organisms within the world’s oceans.

The Appearance of Design


“The archaeologists argued that: (1) the arrangement of the bones and the cobble and (2) the markings on the cobble and the fracture patterns on the bones appear to result from the intentional activity of a hominid. To put it another way, the archaeological site shows the appearance of design.”


I provided studies that show how life is fundamentally defined as digital information, which happens to transcend reality. From the conclusions of the “Is Life Unique” article:

'What is the ingredient missing from inanimate physicodynamics that makes life possible? The answer is formal control mechanisms. This “regulation,” as it most often appears in the literature, is instructed by Prescriptive Information (PI) and its algorithmic processing—both elements being uniquely produced by life. In addition, both elements seem to have been inherent in life at the subcellular level in its earliest and simplest forms…

…All of these phenomena are as nonphysical and formal as mathematics; and unique to life.’

Moreover, there is a resemblance between biochemical language and human language that suggests we are not only displays patterns of conscious agency but one that mimicks the behavior of modern humans:

“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

Failure to Explain the Evidence through Unguided Natural Processes


The archaeologists explored and rejected alternative explanations—such as scavenging by wild animals—for the arrangement, fracture patterns, and markings of the bones and stones.


Whenever unguided chemical processes under atmospheric conditions were left to themselves without any interference, they did not produce the desired results. Rather, the living state would always subside and turn into useless networks of RNA sequences:

“ 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."

Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications

Reproduction of the Design Patterns


The archaeologists confirmed—by striking elephant and cow bones with a rock—that the markings on the cobble and the fracture patterns on the bone were made by a hominid. That is, through experimental work in the laboratory, they demonstrated that the design features were, indeed, produced by intelligent agency.


In the topic “Would this origin of life model work”, I described how synthetic biology and prebiotic chemistry empirically demonstrate the necessary role intelligent agency plays in transforming chemicals into RNA viruses or DNA.

Now, I want everyone to explain to me why my conclusion is invalid even though I am using the same line of reasoning researchers used to establish Neanderthals

This definitely makes it into my collection of most remarkable comments by creationists.


You don’t get to decide which criticisms are adequate either. :wink:

That’s not entirely true, as peer review can have some give and take. Even an incorrect criticism generally means that some alternate interpretation need to be addressed, if only to keep other readers from making the same mistake. Telling another scientist they are “inadequate” in their area of knowledge is another thing entirely.

My point is that you have received a lot of very good critical analysis, and ignored most of it. I will repeat my best advice, one more time:

Simplify. Make each point so clear there can be no question about what it means. When that dust is settled, move on to the next.

I had to put my eyeballs back into their sockets after reading that.

This seems to be a near perfect illustration of Poe’s law.

I’m not an expert on archeology. But I would guess that they had a lot more than a mere vague appearance of design.

This is just fundamentally absurd.

If “life is fundamentally defined as digital information”, then you ought to be able to provide a specific citation as to where we can find that fundamental definition.

Striking elephant and cow bones with a rock could not show that patterns were made by a hominid. They perhaps show that the patterns are similar to what a hominid could produce. You seem to be overstating something there.


It’s fascinating, in a can’t-take-your-eyes-off-the-train-wreck kind of way, that even that article doesn’t say what you claim it does. It doesn’t say “Neanderthals”; it says “unidentified Homo species”. Tip of the iceberg.


The author of which evidently doesn’t understand even the simplest facets of biochemistry.

Only by vague and largely useless analogy.

Even your quote from your source contradicts your point.

No, you made a large number of assertions with citations that either contradicted you or were completely irrelevant to your point. Same as this thread.

Because one is direct evidence specifically for the thing in question, and the other requires about 20 unjustified leaps of faulty logic.


Let me clarify my previous post. When I laid out the four facets to my line of reasoning that mirror the researchers in the study, this was supposed to be a cumulatively argument for why the intelligent designer should be identified as Jesus. I did this exercise because the Orch-OR theory does not establish yet that there was a precursor or self-existent consciousness existing before humans inception . Plus, some of you guys suggested that my methods in establishing this were invalid. Now, let me address everyone’s objections…

Yeah but this time I provided quotes that attempted to show you how my claims were supported by those citations. You did NOT explain why those quotes don’t establish those claims.

Yes, it is your rules because you are being arbitrary with those rules. For instance, you specifically said…

When I provided the article that does this, you started to move the goalpost …

I rest my case

Well, I am not sure what other objections beside yours and @John_Harshman you are referring to exactly that directly apply to my theory. If this is truly the case, then it is probably because it is attacking aspects of my theory that are well established already and the users who are making those objections are not providing counter sources or articles that refute those aspects. Instead, they are making their own judgement from their own field of expertise, which is fine in some cases.

However, I can’t accept these type of objections from them if they don’t have an expertise in the relevant fields in question, such as your objection that Divine action cannot be tested.

BTW, you have not addressed my latest response to your fundamental objection of my theory. I wanted you to assess whether this article supports the claim that there is a resemblance between biochemical language and human language that appear to mimick the behavior of modern humans. Here is a snippet of what I mean:

“The repetitive non-coding RNA sequences resemble that of a natural everyday language, i.e., the essential tool to coordinate and organize common behavior.”

Well, I just recently attempted to do something like this but I am not sure if it worked.

Here it is again: Is Life Unique? (nih.gov)

Well, it is most likely them according to the article but they don’t know for sure. But, you are missing the point of the whole exercise .

Sure divine action can be tested, but it still requires material evidence. To date all such tests have failed to produce positive evidence.

I should clarify: all prospective tests have failed, and retrospective tests don’t show causality(1) and are difficult or impossible to repeat. Both require divine cooperation, and if the Divinity wishes to be revealed there are far easier ways to do it.

(1) not entirely true, but that’s another story.

I have not, and I do not intend to. You are conflating language and information and meaning, and we’ve already been over that a couple of times.

And yet somehow your computer, which exists in reality, works just fine.

And no, life isn’t “fundamentally defined” as digital information. In point of fact, there seems to be very little agreement on what exactly life fundamentall is(and for yet another non-digital perspective on life, see below). This itself should be a hint that perhaps life isn’t fundamentally different from non-life when it comes down to it, but is just another one among innumerable complex emergent physical phenomena.

In my experience, that’s a very bad omen for the beginning of a post from you. And I see that the omen was predictive.

How do you know that? Did you actually read the article?

My point isn’t relevant to your point. It’s just another example of your common tactic: misrepresenting (almost certainly by accident) what your sources actually say or what they mean.

Oh no, I am just going off what the study suggested. I am arguing that the study I provided has conflated those terms. What I wanted to know from you is whether the study actually establishes what I said before. Here is another snippet of it:

…empirical evidence proved the fact that natural languages and codes are determined by a third level of rules besides grammar and semantics, namely pragmatics. Pragmatics represents the level of rules that interconnects the real character users of a natural language or code with its real life situations; this means the context in which a natural language or code user is interwoven…

…RNAs remain the most ancient biological agents that connect information with meaning, in that they interact, based on their nucleic acid syntax that binds to complementary acids of the genetic alphabet. In this way, they create information bearing molecules. However, the meaning of these molecules does not depend on syntax but on pragmatics (context), i.e., its real life function…

I am saying based present experiments and observations. I totally grant that future experiments and observations could show something different, but it would have to be under metabolic-first scenarios for this to be theoretically possible from my understanding of the situation.

That does not say what you claim it says:

“Life pursues thousands of biofunctional goals, not the least of which is staying alive.”

“Life manifests autonomy, homeostasis far from equilibrium in the harshest of environments, positive and negative feedback mechanisms, prevention and correction of its own errors, and organization of its components into Sustained Functional Systems (SFS).”

Those are not descriptions of “information”.

In any case, the cited article gives the author’s view of what constitutes life. That does not amount to a fundamental definition.

Note also: “Every speaker, of which I was one, was required to address the question. No two definitions of life were the same.”

We do not have a fundamental definition of life. There is disagreement about how to best define life.

Ok. It’s complete bollocks. We haven’t found any PreCambrian fossils that show traces of carpentry tools.

Let’s see how it fares at FSTDT.

@Meerkat_SK5, you are quoting me out of context again!

I made those statements in conclusion after I provided a long list of your claims that I (and others) had demonstrated were not supported by your citations, in support of the contention that this was a “a pervasive pattern of behavior”. A list and a contention that you failed to address, so you are not addressing my objections.

But your quotes make no mention of crucial parts of your claims. As such, they offer no support whatsoever of your claims.

I have, it is covered by: “You claim X, your cited sources do not mention X.”

Your quote is part of your cited source, your quote does not mention X, therefore it does not support your claim of X.


Yes, I did say:

And if I had perfect foreknowledge such that I would know that you would attempt to use unsubstantiated, in-passing, speculation as a link, I would have said:

find a legitimate, peer-reviewed article that explicitly establishes a link between Quantum Consciousness to evolution

Given that it has not even been established that Quantum Consciousness itself even exists – it is after all only a controversial hypothesis, this is clearly not met.

I apologise that I was not sufficiently prescient as to guess that you would attempt to find this illegitimate loophole in my precise wording, and had not worded myself carefully enough to close that loophole in advance.

This does not mean that I am arbitrary in rejecting any and all claims of form ‘X, where your cited source does not mention X’.

That point is necessary but not sufficient. This should not be surprising, as it is a very very low hurdle.

It is insufficient where the ‘link’ that is made is purely speculative (as I just said), or mere analogy (as I have pointed out in the past). (This list is not exhaustive, and I reserve the right to bring up, with justifications stated, other reasons for insufficiency.)

You have no case. You are, as you have been at every point in this thread, precisely nowhere.

Abel’s article does not contain the phrase “digital information”. And while Abel[1] does refer to “digital programming”, “digital instructions” and similar, he says “Life is largely directed by linear digital programming…” - life is not the information, it is controlled by the information.

As usual, the first question that needs answering, but is never answered, is “Did you read that before citing it?”

[1] For anyone who doesn’t know, David Abel is an ID charlatan whose supposed affiliation, “Department of ProtoBioCybernetics and ProtoBioSemiotics, Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc” is his garage.


And there is still no universally agreed definition of life. Even though everyone agrees life as we know it in part depends on digital information, that alone does not entail life fundamentally is digital information. That’s an extrapolation you are making.

Of course, definitionism will get you nowhere. Declaring a definition does not dictate to reality. All that says is where you, or those who agree on the definition, have decided to draw the line between life and non-life. Where you elect to put that line of separation does not tell us how that life came to exist.
And if during some pre-life process of chemical evolution, you would not agree that any of these ancestral states/ancestral systems evolving towards life, fully qualify for the definition of life, then that seems to be a matter with no value or consequence for whether such a process in fact could(or did) lead to life or not.


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…

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. I am mainly using the Dependency Graph model to explain the nested hierarchical patterns that cannot be explained by HGT. That’s it.

  4. 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

  5. Also, there are three practical differences between Universal common design and common descent that I mentioned already.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

1 Like

It is an integration of your understanding of writings from people you consider as experts. As repeatedly explained in this thread, your understanding is often flawed, and many of the people you cite are not experts in the subject matter in question.

You can claim that, but no one here is convinced.

If your source is bad, and I point out that your source is bad, I generally don’t need to cite anything at all beyond your source itself. As an example, your continued use of Abel’s shoddy work.
Likewise if you misrepresent a source, I don’t need a different source to support my objection. Your source will do just fine. @Tim has been doing this throughout the thread.

And jumping ahead a bit:

So you are allowed to read between the lines in scientific papers in fields you have no qualifications in, but others are not?

While this is technically true, if you attempt to do it by invoking other claims, you then need to support those claims too.

It does if you’re not qualified in the field and are trying to extrapolate as a layman.

If you don’t know what an article would need to say to support your claim, then you don’t know what you’re claiming in the first place.