Would this Origin of life model work?

??? what on Earth do you mean by that? If it’s not falsifiable in the present, why should we expect that to be any different in the past?

Probably off-topic, but I’ve heard it claimed that consciousness it not necessary for intelligence. Not worth pursuing, I think, but you may need to give some thought to defining the thing you hope to prove.

1 Like

No, we are to conclude that a divine consciousness created life under that particular simulated condition of the past. That’s it!.

As I told @Jordan

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).

With this in mind, it appears reasonable to propose that acceptable interference by the investigator would comprise constructing reasonable design features of the experiment, regulating the initial reaction mixture, starting the input of free energy to drive the reaction at the outset, and performing whatever minimal disturbance to the system is necessary to withdraw portions of the reaction products at various stages for analysis (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).

Because there were not only no humans in the past, there could not be any humans before simple life emerged first. Here, let me frame it the same way I did with Jordan…

  1. run an origin-of-life experiment in which we are able to find a way to make a reaction generate cellular [multistep syntheses mimicking biochemical pathways or genetic replication]

  2. then run an analogous experiment, but without any intervention of any kind to “make it work”

  3. Combining 1 and 2, we would then demonstrate that human intelligence is required.

  4. Since [finite conscious beings could not be ] around before abiogenesis, a [ self-existing ] intelligent being in some way must have been involved [ instead ]

I have done this already… The scientific definition of consciousness is a self-collapsing wave-function.

Alright guys, I am about to create another topic that revises and updates everything I have presented ever since I first entered into this forum. It will probably be the last topic I create on this forum. Here is a preview of what’s to come…

Universal Common designer theory:







Universal Common design model:

What are basic types?

How many groups of basic types are there?

Why do shared similar ERV’s between species exhibit a nested hierarchy?

Why do shared pseudogenes between species exhibit a nested hierarchy?

What key predictions are different from Universal common descent?

If there are questions that you feel need to be added, please provide them now. This will allow me to create a topic that is clear and concise enough to limit the amount of responses on the subject beforehand.

BTW, I will not create this new topic until I get confirmation from either @Jordan @swamidass or @Dan_Eastwood to proceed further in order to make sure no one complains about whether I have adequately addressed past and current objections.

Thank you…

You know you could contribute to reducing the carbon footprint of PS by not opening a new thread, which will most likely have the same quotes and citations from previous threads and entirely nothing new. Your time would be better spent learning some basic science.


Is it the job of the moderators to rule upon whether your nonresponsive rants have been responsive? I don’t know that it is. But I don’t think I’d solicit their views on that, if I were in your shoes.


This raises an important question: what do you mean by “groups of basic types”? Shouldn’t there in fact be no such groups?

1 Like

Well, the main part that would be new and novel is a clearer more concise understanding of my overall case after it has gone through an enormous amount of changes from your guys criticisms. You can contribute to this by adding questions you want answered in order to make sure it’s novel.

I have actually been doing this already in order to make sure I get it right or close to being right.

What would you suggest I do instead to make sure people stop complaining about not addressing past or current criticisms?

If basic types are to capture the million or so species on earth, there must be thousands of basic types. Since each basic type is created, there are thousands of creation events. More importantly, it would be highly implausible to suggests there was only one basic type of a reproductive couple that
contains all the information necessary to create all the descendent species. It would imply, for example, that the information of 65,000 weevil species was already present in the weevil basic type.

Thus, there would need to be more than one set of weevil basic types that branched out into kinds. This is essentially what I mean here.

Here is clear and concise framework for how my model is testable:

Negative results in (unguided) pre-biotic experiment


Positive results in (guided) pre-biotic experiment


Both of them simulating a past natural condition


Evidence for my hypothesis

But… Positive results within an (unguided) pre-biotic experiment regardless of the time period would falsify my hypothesis.

That’s plainly untrue. You are still spouting the same non sequiturs and horrid reasoning you started with, modified only by extremely minimal rephrasing. There is no sign that you will change your stripes.

If I thought your notions had the slightest chance of in any way becoming worthwhile, I would suggest that you start by addressing the criticisms.

However, it’s clear that you do not have the slightest interest in doing so, and it’s equally clear that your ideas are utterly irredeemable. What would be the point? So I’d suggest instead that you stop wasting your time and start learning some actual biology, if you really have an interest in evolutionary theory. If you don’t have any interest in evolutionary theory – and it really appears that you do not – then you should probably just find some other subject entirely to think about.

1 Like

Congratulations. You have managed to make yourself even less clear than you were before you “explained” yourself. So is there one weevil basic type or many? If there are many, what then does “basic type” mean and what unites the many weevil basic types? Why is there such a thing as a weevil, or a beetle, or various more inclusive clades of insects?

1 Like

Now hold on. He’s proposed to be answering some questions that he has never answered so far.

I was going to answer all this in my revised version but I guess it’s best to clear this part up now to make sure things go smoothly in the next topic.

What are basic types?

“basic types” are families where we have the families Anatidae (ducks), Canidae (dogs), Felidae (cats), and Equidae (horses).

“Each of these basic types contains different genera (for example dog, fox, wolf) and each genus contains one or more species. Thus families are created, not genera, and not species.”

You’re making less and less sense with every new sentence. But perhaps we can hold it until your new magnum opus. Just know that right now you are only compounding the nonsense. You need to get a clear notion of what you’re talking about, and you currently lack that.

1 Like

Then, just read this source if you want an idea of what I am trying to convey with my model. It is the Dynamic creation model that Paul Nelson pioneers.

Common Descent: It’s All or Nothing (updated chapter) (wasdarwinwrong.com)

So you’re just stealing your creation model, in fact word for word, from Gert Korthof’s article without crediting him. That’s not really very ethical. And you’re ignoring his critiques of that model. Not really ethical either. I am not impressed with your morals.


As Michael noted, It’s not the role of the mods to judge the quality or adequacy of what members post. You have been polite and play well with others. :slight_smile:

I can give you my opinion, and I will, but not when I;m so sleepy.

How’s that working out for you so far?




What do you mean I just mentioned that it came from Paul Nelson’s article and gave you the source. Gert Korhof’s is just a secondary source.

Anyhow, do you have any additional questions that you feel I should include before I start to create the new topic?