Universal Common Designer theory [UPDATED and REVISED]

Have we any examples of @Meerkat_SK5 citing a source that he has read that does support his claim?

1 Like

Can’t think of any at the moment, other than a few secondary sources that are based on misinterpretation of their primary sources. Like the Bechly video, which he has probably watched. Bechly didn’t exactly match what he claimed, but the majority of the distortion of evidence is on Bechly. Short answer: no.

The problem here is that you are equivocating between incompleteness and adequacy of the fossil record. They are not the same thing. As the article suggested…

“In the end, we must ask how much data is missing. Is the record incomplete or is it woefully incomplete? Does the fossil record show us 50% or 90% or 99.99999% of extinct species? This can never be determined, of course. A more sensible question might be: how adequate is the fossil record? Is it good enough to show us the broad outlines of the evolution of life or are the fossils so sporadic that we can learn very little from it?”

The quote I mentioned before this was to prove the latter has happened already.

Cambrian fauna, Ordovician, Nekton animals, Odontodes vertebrates, Land vertebrates, Insects, Dinosaurs/birds, placental mammals, Genus Homo,

Sure, but since Fazale Rana pioneers and uses the model now, I am going to refer you to him:

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

Boom! Then we are done. Case closed, game over, as @Rumraket suggested. .

Again, the only thing that needs to be established is that the fossil record is adequate enough (NOT complete) to establish at least one of the many gaps between major groups is real rather than apparent. This was the whole point of those studies I gave you because they were evaluating adequacy NOT completeness within the fossil record. There is a difference, as I suggested above to @Rumraket

You just made my point again about how common design and common descent are mutually exclusive models on this basis alone. Under the common design model, the first common ancestors are viruses which are also the first life forms that evolved to become different species of prokaryotes.
This means that there is no LUCA since it is just an assumption from advocates of common descent to maintain an unguided view of evolution.

There also seems to be empirical support for why not including LUCA in the model is justified, but I will let you be the judge of that:

"The cells of the three kingdoms, in particular, have three distinct types of cell membrane, and this gives us a major evolutionary problem.

The cell membrane is the site where molecules are transported to and from the environment ( molecular transport ), and where energy is obtained from outside sources and converted into internal forms ( energy transduction ). These two processes – the exchange of matter and the access to energy – are so fundamental that we can hardly imagine a common ancestor without them, and yet the phylogenetic data tell us in no uncertain terms that ancestral membrane was not conserved and the descendants of the common ancestor evolved independently three different types of membranes.

In order to deal with this problem, let us underline that the cell membrane is also the site of signal transduction , the process that transforms the signals from the environment ( first messengers ) into internal signals ( second messengers ). First and second messengers belong to two independent worlds and laboratory experiments have shown that the same first messenger can activate different second messengers and that different first messengers can activate the same second messenger (Alberts et al., 2007) which means that there are no necessary connections between them."

What is code biology? - ScienceDirect

Sure and I have, but if your responses don’t show that you put much thought and effort in those responses where I can learn and make the proper changes, then I am going to naturally be skeptical about it.

Sure, I understand the limitations within our discussion regarding quantum physics. I will try to get citations that don’t require a physicist to evaluate it.

Yes, I agree. This was the wrong quotation to use for that particular claim. This should be a better source and quote:

“The idea that the rules of the ancient genetic code were repeatedly modified has received a strong support from a variety of computer studies which have shown that the modern genetic code performs better than most of its many potential alternatives (Haig and Hurst, 1991, Freeland and Hurst, 1998, Bollenbach et al., 2007). The very fact that the genetic code went through an optimization phase implies that its first rules did change and this means that the ancient genetic code was effectively replaced by the modern one.”

What is code biology? - ScienceDirect

See also this source:

200914771 9186…9191 (duke.edu)

Yes, I agree again. Metabolic-first models technically can theoretically explain it.

So let me rephrase the claim…

Failure to Produce Life through Unguided Natural Processes

I would not say its irrelevant but it is just unnecessary for my argument the more I think about it. Nevertheless, I think it was still a good idea to include it in order to further show that the methods I use to establish Jesus as the designer are valid.

Sure, but the point of the quote and citation was to show that intervention was required not necessarily significant. Read my “Would this origin of life model work” topic for examples of what I mean.

That’s not what I am reading from current literature. Take a look…

"We must face the ontological problem of the reality of the organic codes: are they real codes? Do they actually exist in living systems? It is a fact that the genetic code has been universally accepted into Modern Biology, but let us not be naive about this: what has been accepted is the name of the genetic code, not its ontological reality .

More precisely, the genetic code has been accepted under the assumption that its rules were determined by chemistry and do not have the arbitrariness that is essential in any real code. The theoretical premise of this assumption is the belief that there cannot be arbitrary rules in Nature, and this inevitably implies that the genetic code is a metaphorical entity, not a real code. This idea has a long history and let us not forget that for many decades it has been the dominant view in molecular biology.

…It has taken a long time and much experimental work to overturn this conclusion, but eventually it has been shown that there is no deterministic link between codons and amino acids because any codon can be associated with any amino acid (Schimmel, 1987, Hou and Schimmel, 1988, Budisa, 2004, Hartman et al., 2007, Ling et al., 2015, Acevedo-Rocha and Budisa, 2016). This means that the rules of the genetic code do not descend from chemical necessity and in this sense they are arbitrary.

Today, in other words, we have the experimental evidence that the genetic code is a real code, a code that is compatible with the laws of physics and chemistry but is not dictated by them. Our problem, therefore, is to take stock of this reality and to account for it. How do we explain the existence of arbitrary rules in Nature? How could arbitrary rules evolve on the primitive Earth?"

What is code biology? - ScienceDirect

YES! the bolded part is what I meant or was trying to convey with the quote. I explained already in more detail in the “Would this origin of life work” .topic.

That’s fine, it is not relevant or necessary to establish whether he meant this because I have made it very clear that I am going to establish this here.

What do you mean a weak claim ? What is considered a weak claim?

I think this may count:

This is of course a very weak claim, as an analogy proves virtually nothing.

I think at one stage they also made a claim that was a direct quote of Yockey.

We’ve been over that already. Why do you keep posting it? It’s as if you never read any of the corrections people make. Why are you even here?

I’m not going to argue with Rana. Make your own argument. You can appropriate Rana’s if you like, but you at least have to relate it to your notion of basic types. Are vertebrates a basic type? If not, that article has no relevance.

Not true unless you can show that the purpose for which the fossil record is adequate is in fact your purpose.

Go ahead. Which gap?

I made no such point.

That makes no sense. If the ancestors are viruses (if the ancestors were anything, really), that’s not separate creation; it’s common descent. Again, LUCA has nothing to do with the origin of life; you need FUCA, the first universal common ancestor. Anyway, LUCA could exist under an unguided or guided model of evolution.


NO, I was responding to this, remember…

“What researchers? Are you talking about Cuvier? He explained the geology near Paris by multiple catastrophes and recreation of the entire biota. That’s not your claim, though, is it?”

The researcher I was talking about was Richard Owen.

Cambrian fossils, especially when it comes to fossils of Clams:

"Provides a succinct description of the hypotheses on causes of the Cambrian Explosion and discusses their scientific validity. Based on the author’s epigenetic theory of evolution, a detailed explanation is presented on the mechanisms and driving forces of the sudden emergence and unprecedented rapid evolution of animal forms during the Cambrian, which is incompatible with the Darwinian model of gradual evolution.

  • Cambrian explosion is a fact not a peleontological artifact"

Epigenetic Mechanisms of the Cambrian Explosion - 1st Edition (elsevier.com)

Here is the secondary source from Gunter Buechely:

Darwin’s “Abominable Mystery” Is Not Alone: Gaps Everywhere! | Evolution News

Since Darwinian evolution has been greatly modified to include a population of ancestors and networking branches, it still could be common descent . But…If this is the case, then you need to justify the additional assumption of an origin of life. For instance…

"* 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 "

Pretending that Evolutionary Theory is Separable from Abiogenesis – Uncommon Descent

Otherwise, you cannot successively separate LUCA from the origin of life without either violating Occam’s razor or proving that Common descent and Common design are mutually exclusive.

If the advice from someone in the field is ‘don’t use that source, it isn’t credible’ or ‘that doesn’t mean Y like you think it does, it actually means X’, the proper change should be obvious.

Which is evidence AGAINST design, nice work.

Which shows clearly how extremely different regulation is from a designed system, contrary to your point.

Rephrase it again, because the same objection still applies. The expectation of abiogenesis is that it shouldn’t happen under timescales and conditions practical for current experimental methods.

‘Life starting’ is necessary for every explanation of how life starts. If all you’re going to say about it is ‘life started’, that’s not enough to distinguish your ideas from any others. Thus, irrelevant.

Nothing about evidence of life starting 4Ga says, or could say, anything about Jesus.

You misunderstand my use of ‘significant’. Most of the interventions were to collect time points, they were not required for the process to proceed, only for the process to be analyzed.


I don’t actually know Owen’s view of catastrophism. Do you? And if it wasn’t Cuvier you were thinking of, why did you answer “Sure”?

Based on the description, this sounds like a crackpot theory involving epigenetic inheritance. This is not a good source for the Cambrian explosion. Let me recommend instead:

His name, incidentally, is “Bechly”. Please, no more secondary sources. What claim are you making about basic types, if any?

That was more gibberish. You seem incapable of connecting any series of claims through any sort of logical argument. It’s impossible to argue with you when you present no actual argument.

Why are you here?

1 Like

This may be your intention, but you have presented nothing to give me (or it would seem anybody else on this thread) any reason to believe that you can deliver on that intention.

To date, you have in fact only established the following:

  1. That there is some reason to believe that natural languages (i.e. languages that were not designed) are analogous (i.e. have “resemblance … with regard to some circumstances or effects”) with DNA.

  2. That 21 years ago a single, now deceased, scientist expressed the opinion that “There is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that resembles reactions being determined by the genetic code”.

This leaves you so far short of “a self-existent consciousness that created finite conscious minds”, that it is hard to see that you have made any appreciable progress.

By “a weak claim” I meant one that does not claim all that much.

‘John is a fast runner’ is a weaker claim than ‘John is the fastest runner in his school’ is a weaker claim than ‘John is the fastest runner in the country’.

Rana presents no model. He simply heaps praise on the “model” of a man who, whilst prominant in his day, has since proven to be a blind alley to scientific progress.

Given that Rana has no expertise whatsoever in the field of History of Science, I see no reason whatsoever to take his praise seriously.

Given that Rana likewise has no expertise whatsoever in Biology or Comparative Anatomy, I rather doubt if he is in a position to bring Owen’s century-dead stump of a model back to life.

1 Like

A good question, and one to which he either doesn’t know the answer or is unlikely to say. I think he is laboring under the false impression that somehow this stuff is going to eventually take a form where nobody thinks there’s anything wrong with it. Considering that he has failed to resolve even a single objection to his views, over the course of a couple of months of this, that objective does seem implausibly distant. I’d compare it to Sisyphus, but the thing is that there are actually points in the process where Sisyphus IS moving the boulder in the desired direction. That makes it a poor comparison.


This presupposes that everyone here is morally infallible and don’t have any personal bias that could potentially compromise their assessment of my argument. Since I am dealing with primarily non-theists and atheist here, I am certainly not going to give you the benefit of doubt if your response looks like what I suggested before I am afraid.

Remember, I was illustrating the appearance of design from those examples NOT actual. So I don’t get your point here. You might argue then that this is irrelevant to my central argument, as you suggested before. But remember, I am trying to provide a cumulative case that mirrors the case that was made by anthropologists in regards to hominids. I think this is a good thing because I want to make sure my case is clear and concise for everyone to understand first and for most. Moreover, this should rule out objections that suggests this is not a testable theory.

If there are material mechanisms that purely caused the inception of the first life, we should be able to find those mechanisms in nature and then test it in the lab within a reasonable time-frame. For instance, we have found many mechanisms already showing how the mineral surfaces of the earth would have contributed centrally to the linked pre-biotic problems of containment and organization [just ask for reference]. This did not take million of years let alone months to reveal in experiments.

Oh yes it can. Jesus Christ is considered both Divine and human. The information in life both transcends physical laws and mimicks the patterns of human behavior as I have shown you already from sources:

"Today, in other words, we have the experimental evidence that the genetic code is a real code, a code that is compatible with the laws of physics and chemistry but is not dictated by them. "

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

Yes, of course. In Miller-Urey type experiments, that is the case, but when they aim to replicate the patterns of complexity that looks like life, then It is shown that the experimenter is required every time. I gave examples before when researchers created viruses and DNA artificially from scratch. Do you have a study you can show me that suggests otherwise?

Although the authors of that book referral are prominent tycoons in the field, it is not as updated compared to mine I’m afraid. Also, there is no evidence of the author being a creationist or ID theorist, I might add.

Well, he is an expert in the field who has read the book for himself by showing this quote that counters all your points about those gaps being merely apparent. More importantly, it is the one example I was referring to that requires us to view common design and common descent as mutually exclusive. This was my point:

“Nevertheless, now, 150 years after The Origin, when an incomparably larger stock of animal fossils has been collected, Darwin’s gap remains, the abrupt appearance of Cambrian fossils is a reality, and we are still wondering about the forces and mechanisms that drove it. Despite the fact that, from time to time, a small number of students have questioned the reality of the Cambrian explosion on the same ground as Darwin, today’s consensus is that Cambrian explosion is a scientific fact (Linnemann et al., 2019) … The Cambrian explosion is real and its consequences set in motion a sea-change in evolutionary history (Conway Morris, 2000; Nichols et al., 2006). … Despite the accumulation of an immense fossil record, the development of a relevant theoretical groundwork, and the numerous attempts to deal with the causal basis of the Cambrian explosion, just like in Darwin’s time, it continues to be one of the greatest enigmas of modern biology.”

No John, I made the argument already on how the quantum tunneling process and our current understandings on LUCA show that it was the first life on earth under the common design model. Now, it is your turn to explain why we should believe that there was an additional life form that existed prior to LUCA (i.e. direct panspermia) based on CURRENT evidence.

You haven’t even looked at either book, have you? And there are all sorts of flavors of crackpot besides creationists.

So you claim. But I can’t argue with Bechly. He isn’t here. Your quote says nothing like what you think it says.

Please stop with the unattributed quotes. Whoever said that is just wrong. We could discuss it if you were capable of doing so. Unfortunately, you are not.

You think it was an argument, but the dots don’t connect. Nor does anyone claim that LUCA was the first life on earth. I also don’t think “panspermia” means what you think.

Why are you here?

1 Like

Assuming that people are being honest and reasonable is necessary if you are going to ask them for help. If you aren’t assuming that people are being honest and reasonable, you aren’t being honest or reasonable.

You’ve effectively just said that the experts can’t be trusted, so you don’t need to worry about what they say. Congratulations, we’ve found your problem! I mean, everyone else already knew that was the problem, but hopefully you see it now, too.

The paper has evidence that biology DOES NOT look like a designed system, so you shouldn’t use it as evidence of the appearance of design. It is literally showing the opposite of what you are wanting to show.

No, this is contradictory to your argument. I’ve said other things are irrelevant, but not this.

Here is the thing about that:
We know that humans make hammerstones, and that when humans make hammerstones they have certain characteristic features on the stones and on associated materials.

We know that humans use hammerstones for animal processing, and that when humans use hammerstones for animal processing it leaves certain characteristic features on the remains and the stones.

So when we find evidence of hammerstone production matching the known patterns of human hammerstone production associated with evidence of animal processing with said hammerstones (also with all appropriate patterns), it is a strong inference that humans did it.

In order to make the same form of inference, you would need a known source of the patterns observed. Which you don’t have.

I know that the ID crowd says here is that they have examples of ‘intelligence’, but that doesn’t work because the only intelligence we know of is based on electricity doing weird things in meat, and that’s a biological phenomenon. And you can’t use a biological phenomenon to explain all biology. Humans are a viable explanation for the hammerstones, because we know that humans exist and that they make hammerstones.

Until you can point to something that we know exists and know does the things you need it to do, it is not possible for you to make a case that mirrors the one you’ve referenced.

Then let me repeat again my advice that you pick a single disputed premise and validate it! Because you’ll never be clear or concise trying to talk about 80 things at once!

Since you don’t have an entity with known patterns of behavior that is known to have existed when the things you want to explain happened, your suggestions are necessarily untestable.

We can test it in a reasonable time-frame, but you haven’t been asking for tests, but reproductions. And if the mechanism takes 300 million years to work, then we can’t reproduce it in a reasonable time-frame, now can we? We’ve been running tests for several decades now, it has been an extremely fruitful field with substantial progress all the time.

All of which you dismiss because chemists insist on testing the chemistry of their chemistry experiments, à la

I’m going to stop you right there. Unsound premise, invalid argument, do not pass go, do not collect your Nobel Prize. But it doesn’t matter, because humans are a product of the evolution of our species, so any entity that predates life on earth can’t be human by definition! So if you want Jesus as divine and human, he can’t be your creator. If you want him to just be divine, he can’t be tested. This would be a good choice of alternate premise to start with, as it is both necessary to your case, entirely unsupported, and superficially impossible.

No, you haven’t shown those in sources!

You’ve claimed to have sources, but they either don’t say what you need them to say, or aren’t credible in the first place.

Taking the first: It is correct to say that the genetic code is not ‘dictated’ by physics, as it is an quasi-arbitrary contingency of physics. Many states are allowed by physics, without strong preference, and one occurred. So not ‘dictated’, as it may well have been another way. But does this ‘transcend’ physics? Absolutely not! To transcend physics would require that the outcome be wholly independent of physics, but this is certainly not true.

To the second: natural languages are the product of slow evolution of ideas conveyed by vibrating meat and then squiggly lines. Biochemistry works by slapping noodles against one another until they stick together in a weird way, usually making one of them bend a bit, sometimes breaking something. These are not particularly similar.

Firstly, I’m talking about non-enzymatic template directed polymerization of RNA. Second, thank you for demonstrating that you will dismiss all tests of abiotic pathways if the experiments actually look at it.

Did you botch the grammar of this? Showing that researchers can do something one way can never be evidence that the thing can’t be done some other way, so showing a study where scientists ‘did’ make a virus from scratch says nothing (and could NEVER say anything) about whether or not scientists are required to do it. This is basic logic you are stumbling over, here.

Please, for everyone’s sake: Pick a single premise and support it. Then we can move to the next and the next.


No. The presupposition YOU should be working from is that almost everyone here knows much, much more about biology than you do.

We are talking about simple facts that you can’t integrate. Bias doesn’t enter into it at all.


Well, clearly it does. Just not from the actual scientists. But there is definitely ‘someone’ active in this thread with substantial bias preventing them from understanding simple information…


I’d like to address this comment from a number of angles:

  1. If our opinions are so unreliable, why are you seeking them?

  2. What evidence do you have that “non-theists and atheist” are less reliable that Christians? Or is your viewpoint simply bigoted tribalism?

  3. This is also more than a little insulting to those whose help you are seeking.

  4. When we have already demonstrated repeatedly and in excruciating detail that your claims are not supported by your citations, in order to get through to you, I think we have already established our credibility on this issue. Giving still further excruciatingly detailed demonstrations is simply a waste of time. Also a waste of time is simply replacing one set of unsupported claims with another set – it does nothing to “improve” your “theory”.

  5. I find your position even more absurd, given your over-reliance on apologists, who have a blindingly obvious “personal bias” and no expertise. This is particularly true of RTB’s Hugh Ross (no expertise in biology whatsoever) and Fazale Rana (no expertise beyond “chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry” and cell membrane biophysics), who you seem particularly addicted to.

Given that you seem both unwilling to accept our criticism (without arguing each and every point to death) and unable to show any observable improvement in your model (simply replacing one set of unsupported claims with another set), I have to repeat @John_Harshman’s question:

You would seem to be simply wasting your time and ours.


Keep in mind, everybody has biases whether it is based on personal reasons or worldviews. This is not only not a choice but it is something that can happen without personally being aware of it. So when I said what I said, I did not mean that it would be intentional or premeditated. We all make mistakes in judgement.

More importantly, I speficially mentioned that I am certainly not going to give you the benefit of doubt if your response looks like what I suggested before. This means that I am assuming that your objections are coming from a place of genuine professionalism unless I find instances where you are not displaying professionalism. Then, I will be calling you out on it because I am being professional here and take this seriously. I expect no less from everyone here.

Anyhow, I am going to address your objections once I am finish with John so I can provide a quality response.

No need. This article clearly outlines why current evidence clearly shows how the Cambrian explosion was a real events rather than an artifact:

Current understanding on the Cambrian Explosion: questions and answers | SpringerLink

Alright, here is my origin of life model again to help you understand the correlation between my model and LUCA under common descent:

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, such as bacteria and archea and they underwent a heavy amount of HGT from the viruses that were created within the deep-sea oceans.

Now, this will be the current understanding of the Common descent model. I bolded the parts that specifically show a correlation with what I have argued in my “Would this origin of life model work” topic:

… modified bases are part of the universal genetic code (Fig 4), which was present in LUCA. Many RNA-modifying enzymes trace to LUCA, particularly the enzymes that modify tRNA. Several of those enzymes are methyltransferases (many SAM dependent), and they remind us that, before the genetic code arose, the four main RNA bases could hardly have been in great supply in pure form because there were no genes or enzymes, only chemical reactions [123]. Spontaneous synthesis of bases in a real early Earth environment like a hydrothermal vent, an environment that lacks the control of a modern laboratory [124], is not likely to generate the four main bases in pure form…There are 28 modified bases, mainly occurring in tRNA, that are shared by bacteria and archaea [127].

New laboratory syntheses of RNA molecules in the origin of life context now also include investigations of modified bases [131], as it is becoming increasingly clear that these are crucial components at the very earliest phases of molecular and biological evolution."

“… Did the origin of genetics hinge upon hydrothermal chemical conditions that gave rise to the first biochemical pathways that in turn gave rise to the first cells? Genes that trace to LUCA [78], ancient biochemical pathways [103], and aqueous reactions of CO2 with iron and water [98,110] all seem to converge on similar sets of simple, exergonic chemical reactions as those that occur spontaneously at hydrothermal vents [148]. From the standpoint of genes, physiology, laboratory chemistry, and geochemistry, it is beginning to look like LUCA was rooted in rocks.

The last universal common ancestor between ancient Earth chemistry and the onset of genetics (nih.gov)
Read also: Root of the Tree: The Significance, Evolution, and Origins of the Ribosome | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)


Now, I am going to justify the link ,based on evidence that demands it, between current understanding of LUCA and how the first life forms were created in my origin of life model. Just the bolded quotes of these articles:

"The cells of the three kingdoms, in particular, have three distinct types of cell membrane, and this gives us a major evolutionary problem.

The cell membrane is the site where molecules are transported to and from the environment ( molecular transport ), and where energy is obtained from outside sources and converted into internal forms ( energy transduction ). These two processes – the exchange of matter and the access to energy – are so fundamental that we can hardly imagine a common ancestor without them, and yet the phylogenetic data tell us in no uncertain terms that ancestral membrane was not conserved and the descendants of the common ancestor evolved independently three different types of membranes."

What is code biology? - ScienceDirect

"The transition probability of the tunnelling concept from the field of organic chemistry [123] to biochemistry [124] has significantly increased within the past years while, at the same time, the conceptual barrier between chemistry and biology has become smaller and has begun to disappear [125] (see also Pross, 2013, in this issue).

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

Again, “Jesus taught that God created one man and one woman (Mark 10:6) and mentions Abel, a son of Adam and Eve in Luke 11:51. Was Jesus wrong in His beliefs? Or did Jesus know there were no literal Adam and Eve and He was simply accommodating His teaching to the beliefs of the people (i.e., lying)? If Jesus is wrong in His beliefs, He is not God. If Jesus is intentionally deceiving people, He is sinning and therefore cannot be the Savior (1 Peter 1:19).”

Is the Adam and Eve story to be understood literally? | GotQuestions.org

Thus, If Jesus is the designer that created and designed life and created us in his image, then we can test this claim up against the claim that the Adam and Eve story was false.

BTW, I am still waiting for you to explain why my model is inconsistent with the Genesis account.

Well, you really have your work cut out for you here in justifying why we should not view common design and common descent as mutually exclusive models based on the lack of an origin of life model for common descent, the reality of the Cambrian explosion, and what Jesus said in Scripture about human exceptionalism

I can’t imagine you providing an argument that justifies this in the face of overwhelming evidence. But, I definitely expect something other than assertions, unwarranted complaints and unsupported claims. If I don’t see a well thought out effort to address my arguments and the data I presented, then I will be asking the same question…

Why are you here?

Why, thanks. That’s quite a nice article. Doesn’t mean what you think, though. The Cambrian explosion as described in that article is a gradual and protracted series of appearances starting in the Late Proterozoic and finishing, mostly, around Cambrian Stage 3, roughly 30 million years. What is recorded is, mostly, the evolution of mineralized skeletons, which happens to coincide roughly with the timings of some very interesting Lagerstätten of softbodied faunas. Nothing in that article is what you think: a sudden appearance of an entire fauna in a geological instant.

And you have yet to decide what any single basic type is. Not even one.

I’m sorry, but putting stuff in bold doesn’t translate to a coherent argument. And there is no coherent argument if you assemble all those bits together. This just isn’t one of your skills.

Or perhaps Jesus was just using the common cultural background of his audience to make a point. There really were Samaritans, but the particular story of the good Samaritan didn’t actually happen. Same thing. And it isn’t deception.

The Genesis account says that creation took 6 days, around 6000 years ago. Then a thousand years later there was a worldwide flood that killed all life not on the ark. Viruses aren’t even mentioned.

Sure do. For one thing, you never answer questions. Why are you here?

No, what I am doing now is a lot faster. Besides, I have already supported each premise and now I am addressing your objections as follow.

They don’t have to be the “same” in order for the claim to be supported because if it did, it would not be the appearance of design but actual design. This means that they just have to show strong similarities in a non-metaphorical way or be analogous for it to work. Thus, I still fail to see your point here.

You are just special pleading now. You need to provide a justification for making this exception going forward. Until then, I am just going to respond with this…

Since we have tested pre-biotics experiments under a wide range of conditions and found many mechanisms in a reasonable amount of time as a result , there is no reason why this line of reasoning would not apply here.as well.

Let me fix your metaphysical presuppostion first before I respond…

What is Objective Reality?

Realism (or philosophical naturalism) is the view point that external things are real and exist independently of mind in the form of either materialism or idealism. [Methodological] Naturalism is the viewpoint that only natural laws and forces govern the structure and behavior of the natural world, and that the changing universe is at every stage a product of these laws in the form of either materialism or idealism.

Materialism is the viewpoint that material things shape our ideas and ideologies. In contrast, idealism states that ideas come first and then changes in material things are consciously pursued in accordance with those ideas.

Substance dualism is the view that material things and ideas are both fundamental substances of existence (I.e. supernatural vs natural). Furthermore, this viewpoint states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot. Where the immortal souls occupy an independent realm of existence distinct from that of the physical world.

However, Substance dualism is unparsimonius and untestable while materialism has been disconfirmed so many times by experiments that a consensus on the matter has developed [just ask for reference]. This leaves us with a form of idealism that places digital information and human consciousness as representing objective reality where space-time is influenced and emerges from.

Therefore, your objections are essentially suggesting that since we don’t know of any minds that can exist outside of reality or a physical brain, which is a product of evolution, the burden of proof is on anyone who implies otherwise. However, it is actually the other way around; we don’t know of any objectively real spacetime containing an objectively real brain that can be rendered into physical existence without a mind.

For instance, It is not that the brain requires a mechanism to interact with mind, but that brains and bodies are representative of the constraints mind is subject to when operating within space-time. The brain is the image of a process, not the cause of a process. Thus, the natural vs. supernatural dichotomy is a hallmark of substance dualism, but I adhere to idealism where classical space time emerges from Digital information and only exists as a mental construct. In other words, the brain is the mind rather than the mind is the brain.

Sure, I can grant that the articles I provided in our discussion only show how the genetic code transcends classical space-time physics but not all physics. However, I explained and provided sources in my discussions with @Tim and others that show how the genetic code transcends quantum physics as well where it ultimately exists as a state of a wave-function. This wave-function is digital information that exists not only as a useful tool but as an objective part of reality. Read this source for more:

Wave function gets real in quantum experiment | New Scientist

Again, you are presupposing that digital information and consciousness emerged from the laws of quantum physics. According to Orch-OR theory, the brain is actually a quantum mechanical wave-function and consciousness does not emerge from brain chemistry or matter. Instead, consciousness is created directly by a universal consciousness, which would represent a new kind of physics:

….According to Orch OR, the (objective) reduction is not the entirely random process of standard theory, but acts according to some non-computational new physics (see Penrose 1989, 1994). The idea is that consciousness is associated with this (gravitational) OR process, but occurs significantly only when the alternatives are part of some highly organized structure, so that such occurrences of OR occur in an extremely orchestrated form. Only then does a recognizably conscious event take place. On the other hand, we may consider that any individual occurrence of OR would be an element of proto-consciousness…

….Our criterion for proto-consciousness is OR . It would be unreasonable to refer to OR as the criterion for actual consciousness, because, according to the DP scheme, OR processes would be taking place all the time, and would be providing the effective randomness that is characteristic of quantum measurement. Quantum superpositions will continually be reaching the DP threshold for OR in non-biological settings as well as in biological ones, and usually take place in the purely random environment of a quantum system under measurement.”

Microsoft Word - penrose consciousness.docx (neurohumanitiestudies.eu)

If you cannot understand the source well enough to accept my claims, then watch this video that is made for laypeople:

Quantum Biology: Irreducible Mind (Part 4) - YouTube

I don’t get your point here then, because those experiments still involve steps where the experimenter takes the role of the artificial selector . That is why it is called directed polymerization of RNA.

Great point!

Because all experiments are performed by an experimenter, they must involve investigator intervention. However, there are experiments that must be viewed as an ineligible prebiotic simulation when certain aspects of observer interference are crucial to their success.

In constructing a prebiotic simulation experiment, the investigator creates the setting; supplies the aqueous medium, the energy and, the chemicals; and establishes the boundary conditions (Thaxton 1984 p.99-110; Jekel 1985). This activity produces the overall background conditions for the experiment, and although it is vital to the success of the experiment, it is relatively legitimate because it simulates conceivable natural conditions.

However, the intrusion of the researcher becomes critical in an illegitimate sense whenever laboratory conditions are not defensible by association to consistently credible features of natural processes and conditions . Thus, the illegitimate intervention of the investigator is directly comparable to the geochemical implausibility of the condition arising from the researcher’s experimental design and/or procedure, and the level of such intrusion would be the greatest when such plausibility is missing altogether (Thaxton 1984 p.99-110; Jekel 1985).

Thaxton et al. (1984) established these criteria for the amount of observer interference acceptable for attempts to prove that unguided material processes produced life:

Degree of investigator interference

  1. Selected chemicals, isolated from other soup ingredients
  2. Selected wavelengths of UV, heat, isolated from other energy sources
  3. Spark, shock waves, isolated from other energy sources
  4. Concentrated solutions where reactions depend on concentrated conditions (e.g., HCN polymerization)
  5. Traps
  6. Photosensitization

Threshold of illegitimate interference

  1. Concentrated solutions where law of mass action is validly extrapolated +
  2. “Synthesis in the Whole”: dilute solutions mixed together

As shown in the outline, the demarcation line between legitimate and illegitimate interference is between 2) and 3). Any situation higher than 3) (i.e. 2) and 1)) would be illegitimate because the experimenter is deviating from plausible prebiotic conditions, and there is no analogy between the techniques and reliably plausible prebiotic conditions (Thaxton 1984 p.99-110; Jekel 1985).

I was merely providing examples of what they said in this article…

“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.”

No you haven’t. Your citations do not support your premises.

No you haven’t. Your "provided sources “show” nothing of the sort.

What you have ‘shown’ over and over and over and over and over again is that @Meerkat_SK5 is incapable of telling whether a source supports their claim or not.

This being so, providing still further “detailed proper assessment” on exactly why each new batch is unsupportive is unproductive (as well as being mind-numbingly boring to replicate over and over again). It will simply result in one batch of unsupported claims being replaced by another batch of unsupported claims – no improvement whatsoever.

This also means that @Meerkat_SK5 lacks basic reading comprehension skills. As such language skills would appear to be necessary for any degree of success in Apologetics, it is really hard to see where this project is going.

Case in point:

  1. The cited source says nothing about this! Like all @Meerkat_SK5’s previous sources, it fails to equate a quantum wave function with digital information.

  2. It is not even the primary source, it is written as a piece of science journalism by an author who covers everything from koalas to carbon capture.

It would also probably take an actual quantum physicist (rather than a mere science journalist) to determine whether wave functions are “real” in a way that supports @Meerkat_SK5’s argument, or in some more esoteric way. This equivalence cannot simply be assumed.