Would this Origin of life model work?

That is one of the objections, yes. That was not the only fatal flaw. The solution you offer amounts to painting racing stripes on a car and expecting it to go faster - it makes no difference.

I think you might want to read this article more carefully. It could help you, but it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. If you want to see what a testable ID hypothesis looks like, see Ewert (2016) or Theobald (2010).

1 Like

Humans store information in rocks.


Therefore, all rocks contain information.


I am arguing for a common designer representing God and man but my argument does not require them to be the same. So this part of your objection is irrelevant. The fact is there is a strong analogy between both languages and that’s what matters.

For instance, “an analogy, in it’s broadest definition is in fact an umbrella term for a cognitive process where we transfer meaning or information from a particular subject to another subject. It is a similarity between the features of two things where a comparison can be made.”

“A classic example of an analogy is the describe the human mind like a computer. They are not identical, but considering the mind to be like a computer can create greater understanding of the human mind.”

This is why they are not using the term “same” because there are important differences.

Now, you are conflating the terms “analogous” and “metaphorical”.

“A metaphor is a type of analogy, but where analogy is identifying two things as similar, a metaphor claims a comparison where there may not be one. It is then up to the listener to create meaning out of this comparison.”

‘For example “ that sound goes through me like nails down a blackboard”. The sound may be very different to the nails on the blackboard, but create a similar sensation or emotion.’

Metaphor, Analogy and Simile: The Difference and Why it is Important — NHS Networks

Therefore, since the mathematical structure of human languages and biochemical languages is almost identical, we have a basis to infer that there is a commonality between us and the cause for the first life. When you include the experiments showing how life must be created by an intelligent designer, we can go a step further and infer a common designer.

No, a rock is not the best example. Instead, here is an article where they likened the transcriptional regulatory network to a computer OS and again they never suggested this was merely a metaphor:

“A computer OS is described by a regulatory control network termed the call graph, which is analogous to the transcriptional regulatory network in a cell .”

“…we present a comparison between the transcriptional regulatory network of a well-studied bacterium (Escherichia coli) and the call graph of a canonical OS (Linux) in terms of topology and evolution. We show that both networks have a fundamentally hierarchical layout, but there is a key difference:”

So my question continues to go unanswered…

That’s fine but it’s not an excuse to ignore the evidence supporting a consciously guided natural process in the form of a divine common designer or quantum mind.

Do you have any studies showing that unguided abiogenesis is mathematically possible?

Right!. But ,as I suggested above, when you include the experiments showing how life must be created by an intelligent designer, we can go a step further from this and infer that they both show signs of COMMON DESIGN.

This was my point.

Right. Then, let me address the other major objection that I fully acknowledged beforehand. You said…

“If it’s not falsifiable in the present, why should we expect that to be any different in the past?”

Before I address this, let me make it very clear again that this objection only applies to an aspect of the hypothesis that suggests God continues to guide life after the creation of humans. In other words, the only issue is that we cannot falsify this particular prediction using the same methods. We also cannot falsify whether a particular design in nature is a bad design I might add.

However, this does NOT mean the hypothesis yields no falsifiable predictions NOR does it suggests the hypothesis itself is unfalsifiable.

Now, let me address the objection. I have mentioned in the past that there are other ways we can verify this aspect of my hypothesis. Are you suggesting that this still does not matter? If so, is it because there are still other major flaws left that would need to be addressed first or is there some other reason involved?

I don’t think these are great examples because they are more like models within a theory rather than theories themselves. In addition, one of these examples can be incorporated within my theory to make it more testable.

Here is a better example of a testable ID hypothesis that is a better example of why my ID hypothesis is actually testable instead:

Penrose interpretation - Wikipedia

No @Meerkat_SK5, I was merely relating how the authors describe the relationship.

I also covered the fact that an analogy is a form of simile in my previous comment.

Wrong – you have established nothing of the sort! That two things are merely analogous in no way makes them “almost identical” in mathematical structure.

This pretense that ‘not explicitly called a metaphor’ = literal is getting really really silly!

The authors of this paper explicitly state that the relationship between the two is merely “analogous” – a word that you quote and bold.

They do not state that the two are “identical”, “almost identical”, or “highly similar”.

There is no such evidence, just a very large pile of bad argumentation, and in the case of your “quantum mind” nonsense, unscientific mysticism.

This question both misunderstands my point and misunderstands the form of abiogenesis research. As I have already stated, I am not an expert in that field. Find an expert in that field, read their work, and address your misguided questions at them.

These experiments show no such thing! They don’t even come close. At best, they demonstrate some degree of analogous structure between DNA and Natural Language – a slight similarity that can easily be attributed to the fact that they both evolved from a common ancestor. The same can be said, to a lesser extent of the analogous relationship between e. coli and Linux – which the authors likewise attribute to evolutionary pressures:

From a topological standpoint, it is intriguing that two distinct evolutionary processes
both lead to the emergence of hierarchy in the control and regulation layouts, probably because hierarchy is a most effective way to transfer information and coordinate processes.

But the authors are careful to note, in the immediate following sentence:

Nevertheless, we have observed several intrinsic differences between the two hierarchical networks.

And their summary comparison table notes more differences than similarities:

A “point” that is wholly unsubstantiated.

I will close by noting that you carefully avoided my “summation” above, which demonstrated that DNA and human language are neither “identical” nor “highly similar”. Until you address it, I will give short shrift to any further assertions of similarity.

I will also be increasingly intolerant of your seemingly-random habit of bringing up metaphors when neither I nor the paper under discussion have mentioned them.


Analogy versus Similarity

There has been a considerable amount of argumentation on this thread conflating analogy with (a high degree of) similarity.

I therefore decided to make a post addressing solely this issue.

A tiger and a great white shark can be considered to be analogous, in that each is an apex predator. This analogy does not however mean that they are particularly similar overall – they have profound differences in morphology, physiology, hunting strategy, etc, etc, etc.

In fact analogies tend to be noteworthy because of overall dissimilarity. One is unlikely to see an analogy made between Emperor Penguins and King Penguins. If two things are too similar overall it tends to obscure the single point of analogy that is being attempted to be made.

Therefore it is unreasonable to take papers pointing to an analogy between two things as meaning that they are highly similar. It is highly likely that they mean the exact opposite, that it is the overall differences between them that make the single point of analogous similarity worthy of mention.

1 Like

The obvious dissimilarity between human languages and genome sequences is that the former is entirely made up, while the latter is actual stuff. We are left to wonder how something abstract is identical in whatever degree to a concrete object.

1 Like

Yes, that’s one way of looking at it, but even from a purely informational point of view …

… is easily distinguishable from (and thus highly dissimilar to) …

Weary with toil, I haste me to my bed, The dear repose for limbs with travel tired; But then begins a journey in my head,

… even to somebody who does not speak English and has no knowledge of Genetics.

1 Like

More to the point . . .

. . . looks a lot different than . . .



You mean a simile is a form of an analogy since analogy is an umbrella term.

The authors said that natural languages all have a universal grammer structure underlying it.

Then, they said that protein languages have a quasi- universal grammer. Here is the definition of quasi …



  1. almost, nearly, quasi

quasi - Wiktionary

This means that saying analoguos and almost identical are essentially the same thing. Here is an example I gave before from the source…

A classic example of an analogy is the describe the human mind like a computer. They are not identical, but considering the mind to be like a computer can create greater understanding of the human mind.

Prove it then and stop making assertions.

In isolation, that is correct. But I was saying that when you combine these experiments with the observations of quasi-identical properties between languages, we can infer a common designer. This is what I was getting at.

Finally, as I told you before, my argument does NOT require them to be the same or identical. This part of your objection is irrelevant. The fact is there is a strong analogy between both languages and you acknowledged this already. So case closed!

No, it does not. Analogies are explanatory devices that in biology, ALWAYS break down, even when they are useful. Analogies are not, and never will be, arguments.

Have you ever considered examining and citing the actual data, instead of relentlessly misinterpreting the words written about the data?

That would be a welcome change.


Analogies are literary and rhetorical devices that are used to explain concepts. Analogies are never the thing itself. In fact, it is a logical fallacy to base an argument on an analogy:


No. I meant what I said. That is why I said it.

You have not established that “analogy is an umbrella term”, you have merely asserted it.

But regardless, neither analogy nor simile establishes that the two things under comparison are “identical”, “almost identical”, or “highly similar”.

Utter and complete balderdash!

Nothing that you have stated has come close to “saying analoguos and almost identical are essentially the same thing”. The words have very different meanings. And you do not establish the meanings of words by (i) quoting scientific papers and (ii) providing a definition for a word that is only mentioned by the scientific paper.

That natural languages share a "universal grammar between themselves and that “a 'quasi-universal grammar” underlies the evolution of domain architectures in all divisions of cellular life” Again between themselves), does not mean that these two grammars are the same. There is nothing in the text to suggest that they are talking about the same grammar, just one grammar that is universal to natural languages and another one that is quasi-universal to cellular life.

I, and practically everybody else on this thread, have demonstrated repeatedly why the papers you cite do not provide evidence supporting the claims.

In fact it is not clear that you have convinced anybody of even one of your claims, or even roused a suspicion that you might be right.

We have likewise questioned whether you even understand these papers you cite.

We’ve done our due diligence. There is no indication that you have done yours.

Again, this is evidence that @Meerkat_SK5 is wholly incapable of learning from criticism.


The existence of a common grammar only leads to the possibility that it has some common source, not the certainty of it. And there is no evidence that this common source is a common designer. It is far more likely as the paper suggests that the reason for this commonality is that they evolved from a common ancestral language.

  1. Where did you tell me before? Citation to exact post please. Your argumentation has been so verbose and mendacious, that it is quite impossible to keep track of all the strange and unlikely claims you’ve made.

  2. If your “argument does NOT require them to be the same or identical”, then you need to make clear what it does require.

  3. If this was not the point of your argument then it is not clear why you bring up this issue over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Your “case” would likely fail to avoid even a motion for summary judgement against it, so would likely not even come to trial. :smirk:

1 Like

Yeah, geez. How often does one have to explain this? Analogy isn’t an argument, and analogy isn’t identity. It’s a helpful (when it isn’t a hindrance!) mental stunt.


If you can explain this in such a way that gets through, I (and I suspect nearly everybody on this thread) will happily crown you King of the Thread, and most eloquent and convincing person ever. :weary:


Heck, if anyone can explain anything to him in a way that actually gets through, I think that’s going to be worthy of that crown. I’m still watching to see if it ever happens. Not yet.


At the top of post 151, I said…

“I am arguing for a common designer representing God and man but my argument does not require them to be the same. So this part of your objection is irrelevant. The fact is there is a strong analogy between both languages and that’s what matters.

Again, I agree. This is why I slightly changed the way I constructed my argument because I went about it the wrong way. The experiments I provided are what proves that it was a common designer

No no no , this is not an argument at all, but its an empirical claim derived from the studies I provided.

My argument is that if we combine these observations with the experiments that show how an intelligent designer is required to create life, then we can go a step further and say that a common designer is required to create life.

Yes, I have read that study and I asked @Tim to show me where they suggested that the analogy between the similar mathematical structures underlying both languages was meant to be metaphorical.

“Empirical claim” makes no sense to me as a scientist, and you’re ignoring the empirical aspects of every study you’re citing. That was the reason I asked you:

Why did you start your reply with “yes” when your answer is very clearly “no”?

We don’t have any experiments that show that.

You’re not looking at a single datum from any experiment. You’re just looking at the words written about the experiments.

Please reread and reconsider your answer to my question.