Which approach is best suited to end Origins debate?

Again, the experts were not performing peer-review, and had biased motivation given you were paying them. Nothing they say is meaningful to your case.

Meaning you admit, whether you realize it or not, that you’ve not had peer-review, and that peer-review is impossible at this stage.

Where is your updated draft?

No, it is not.

The two things you listed aren’t contradictory. At all. So… yes, I can have it both ways. Because there is no contradiction.


That I can answer - he thrives on negative attention.


According to their website, a vast majority of researchers would disagree:

“Over 97% of researchers believe that pre-submission peer review service improved the quality of their last published paper by identifying scientific errors and missing and inaccurate references.”

Again, they never said this service constituted actual scientific peer-review, but it is a close simulation of it:

Pre-Submission Peer Review Services: Eliminate major reasons for manuscript rejection | Editage

You’ve gotta be kidding me. This whole time you were claiming my paper was fatally flawed and was pure conjecture and yet you did not even read it!!! :rofl: :joy: :joy:

Is There Evidence for a Universal Common Designer? - Peaceful Science

Well, you did not even read the updated draft of my paper. So how the hell do you know.

Merely asserting it to be so, does not make it true . You need to explain how they are not contradictory. Again, Is my ID model based on bad science because it got passed bad reviewers over 50 plus times or is it quality science because it got passed good reviewers 50 plus times?

Damn! You finally figured me out. :grin:

However, I would prefer to call it negative feedback on my arguments.

1 Like

Yes, but unlike you, they fixed the errors and inaccuracies.


I have to question the credentials of these supposed “reviewers” in the relevant fields, which would appear to be physics, neuroscience, origins of life, systematics, paleontology, and evolutionary biology. I only count myself expert or informed in three of those, but those parts of the revised manuscript are indeed incoherent. I have no reason to suppose that the rest of it is any different.

No, it is not nearly ready for publication. It will never be nearly ready for publication.

As an example, I offer this word salad:

Didn’t your reviewers even suggest that you use complete sentences?


So… not peer review. So you can stop saying you’ve had peer review now, right?

I’d read the prior version, you said you had updated it. I checked that link and saw it was still worthless, so I assumed you had posted it somewhere else. Apparently I had seen the best you had when I commented, and the best you had was crap.

You have no results, your ‘paper’ is worthless.

I had read the updated draft, I had just hoped it wasn’t the updated draft. Because of how immensely embarrassing that would be for you.

Because I’m familiar with the state of the field and I’ve read the underlying references.

Correct, your merely asserting the two things to be in contradiction doesn’t make it true.

You have that backwards. I’m not shocked you don’t understand basic logic, given what I’ve seen from you so far.


The Discovery Institute has as much of a chance to “end the debate” as Flat Earthers have a chance to end the debate on the shape of the Earth. The Discovery Institute and ID on a larger level has no real interest in explaining the data in biology. Their primary cause is to protect a belief from that data.


Yes, I agree. That is why I am going out of my way to provide a viable template for researchers who truly want to do scientific research to find out whether there is validity in ID.

BTW, long time no see. A lot has happened since you have been gone.

So how do you hope to explain the nested hierarchy, or the patterns of genetic diversity? Only common descent predicts a nested hierarchy. For example, if common design is the rule then bats should have feathers and wings like birds. That’s even before we get to the section on ERV’s which gets a lot wrong.

Your efforts have the same problem as that found at the DI. You start with a conclusion and then distort the evidence to fit that conclusion.


@Meerkat_SK5, if you do try to explain the nested hierarchy with your model, please keep in mind everything that we discussed in this thread: Common Ancestry and Nested Hierarchy

1 Like

Yes, I took a look and saw that you said this:

(Whether or not ‘common design’ happened can’t be determined by phylogenetics because common ancestry is compatible with both design and unguided evolution.)

Not true, we can determine this and the results show that common design is a better explanation:

A phylogenetic tree built from BovB sequences from species in all of these groups does not conform to expected evolutionary relationships of the species, and our analysis indicates that at least nine HT events are required to explain the observed topology. Our results provide compelling evidence for HT of genetic material that has transformed vertebrate genomes.


" we statistically tested for incongruence between the topology of the promoter sequences against the species tree. The null hypothesis of this test is vertical inheritance (as defined by the species tree); therefore, rejection of the null hypothesis is a strong indication of HRT. We found that 51% of all core gene promoters are incongruent with the species phylogeny, indicating that regulatory regions, similar to coding genes, are frequently transferred. " Transfer of noncoding DNA drives regulatory rewiring in bacteria | PNAS

“Because of the critical tasks of translation elongation factors, it is widely believed that EF-1α/EF-Tu genes have been vertically inherited from the last universal common ancestor (35), and the gene products are ubiquitous in all extant cells. However, large-scale sequence data from phylogenetically diverged organisms started unveiling cases that clearly violate the above preconception about EF-1α/EF-Tu evolution.”
Direct phylogenetic evidence for lateral transfer of elongation factor-like gene - PMC (nih.gov)

Then why do you link to studies that have horizontal transfer as the better explanation? Naturally occurring horizontal genetic transfer is capable of producing the observations, so why would a supernatural process be the better explanation? When has a supernatural explanation ever been the better explanation when there is a known natural process capable of producing the observations?


I am just going to reiterate what I just told everyone else on this forum because your objection here is primarily attacking a strawman version of my particular ID model.

For instance, DI’s intelligent design model is dualistic/supernatural in nature and thus inherently unscientific.

In contrast, Quantum mind or universal proto-consciousness theory does not advocate for dualism or for an additional supernatural force/substance, which would operate outside the rules of science. Instead, it advocates for consciousness being an essential ingredient of physical laws that is not yet fully understood by science.

Sadly, you guys refuse to read those sources and accept the science on these quantum theories that I use as a basis for my ID model.

Then why are you arguing that humans and other apes do not share a common ancestor?

Or, you don’t describe how these quantum theories specifically impact observations in biology.


Your ID model is based on a strawman misunderstanding of biology.

That is not what makes it unscientific.

Yes, your ideas are based on advocacy rather than on scientific methods. That’s what makes them unscientific.


And you have?

1 Like

Because I am also incorporating Richard Owen’s theory of evolution, which involves separate creation of animals including humans.

No, I did actually in the thread called Is there evidence for a universal common designer. Just read these following sections:

Quantum mind theory

Universal proto-consciousness field

Empirical support for model

Is There Evidence for a Universal Common Designer? - Peaceful Science

What are you talking about?

Well, it is actually both. Read the method section and the future research section of the article I posted to find out about the scientific methods.

As I have already pointed out, there is no “universal proto-consciousness theory”!

Your ill-informed repetition of this phrase you found on a Buddhist webpage, even after this has been pointed out to you clearly demonstrates:

  1. your lack of understanding of science; and

  2. your inability to learn from criticism.


Let me clarify what I meant…

I am relying on the quantum mind theory, which is very well tested and used by other scientists for their work. Then, I combine the quantum mind theory’s findings with the findings coming from the fine-tuning constants to show that this universal protoconsciousness exist, which allows us to use it to predict biological phenomena NOT cosmological phenomena.

Show us one empirical paper in which that has been used–one that you have fully read yourself.

Theories do not have findings. That’s word salad.