Need reviewers for Common Design theory to be submitted to Science journal

[RTBsupporter]

@rsewell

Nope, that train does not run either direction.

You just reminded me that quantum cognition theory is not the foundation for why we can explore how human engineers use nested patterns to build models, as we discussed in our article. Rather, it is based on observations showing how the natural origin and design of viruses seem to mirror the artificial synthesis and design of viruses, which we illustrated in the section “Common Design from a Common Designer.”

Now, if you still believe your objection holds, could you please explain the examples from our article where viruses are producing and mimicking nested patterns, as well as being used to design organisms? For instance, you mentioned, “Offspring look a lot like their parents, and that is due to the constraints of reproduction,” but I don’t see how this applies to viruses, which don’t reproduce sexually. Nor does it seem likely that they can be fully reconciled with the natural origin and evolution of viruses through common descent.

@Roy

• You are the main author of this ‘paper’.
• You are not Faz Rana or Hugh Ross.
• Your name is not on this paper.
• Their names are on this paper.
• This paper was submitted this paper to RSOS and PNAS Nexus under their names, from one of their e-mail addresses.
• They are aware of, approve of, and have assisted with your work being submitted under their names.

Is all that correct?

The first premise is incorrect. Fuz Rana is the main author because he is the CEO and managed the project administration.

Furthermore, I do not meet all the requirements to be listed as an author, as the majority of the information and ideas came from Fuz and Hugh Ross. I didn’t include my name in the acknowledgments section because other scholars had contributed similar ideas to their creation model through earlier publications on their website. Thus, t made more sense to use a group name that encompasses everyone. I also prefer not tio have my name associated for privacy reasons. In hindsight, it’s probably more accurate to say that we drafted the paper instead of wrote it, given how collaborative this project was. I will make that adjustment soon.

@Roy

• The ENCODE consortium announced that 80% of DNA was functional.
• You believed them.
• You then claimed that your model predicted something you already thought was true.
• Your model doesn’t predict that…

Is that all correct?

I only accept the first premise. We accept, rather than believe, the results from ENCODE because they are consistent with and confirm Owen’s theory. While we didn’t predict the specific number (80%), their results still support our theory, as it exceeds the 51% threshold, which Owen’s theory posits for the majority of “junk” DNA being functional. ENCODE’s findings simply make our theory’s predictions appear more impressive.

@glipsnort

Two problems here. One is that many evolutionary biologists also long expected that the bulk of the genome was functional. They only changed their minds because the evidence pointed (and still points) strongly to the conclusion that many genomes have large amounts of nonfunctional DNA.

The other is that the ENCODE conclusion that 80% of the genome is functional doesn’t actually support ID arguments that most of the genome should have a function: ‘biochemically active’ does not imply ‘does something useful’.

Under what definition of function and what model of species are you referring to? Our model has different conditions and implications, which we explained in the subsection “Universal Common Designer.” I don’t see how what you’re saying is relevant to our approach.

@glipsnort

I didn’t say it made that claim. I said that the self-collapsing wave function can do anything you want it to, including inducing mutations (which can in some instances include quantum effects), horizontal gene transfer, and convergent evolution (both of which are macroscopic processes that don’t depend on quantum effects). There is no mechanism suggested, no limitation on what this process can do, no theoretical machinery describing the probability of different outcomes – this isn’t physics, or indeed science of any kind.

It seems you may not have fully read the sections “New Support for Owen’s Theory” and “Common Archetype Theory (Extended)” where we discuss mechanisms for both micro and macro processes, such as dark energy and microtubules, that are supported by evidence. We even highlighted experiments confirming predictions that indicate the existence of new physics, and outlined future experiments that could potentially confirm Owen’s theory in the last sections.

@glipsnort

As far as I know, there is no expectation in evolutionary biology about the amount of phenotypic convergent evolution (and parallel evolution, which isn’t the same thing) that we should see.

Yes, that’s the fundamental issue with common descent theory—it doesn’t appear to be as testable, or as rigorously testable, as common design.

@glipsnort

You say it’s ubiquitous, in that there are hundred of known cases. But that’s out of millions of species. What’s the basis for concluding that this is more than predicted by common descent and natural selection? Convergent molecular evolution, on the other hand, is expected to be very rare for anything more complex than the simplest molecular patterns, simply because there are typically vast numbers of different nucleotide and AA sequences that can perform the same function. And that’s what we see: lots of phenotypic convergence and an almost total absence of complex molecular convergence. In contrast, when a programmer reuses code, they reuse the specific implementation of the code, not just the concept.

The brief section of the paper on convergence doesn’t delve into the relevant issues at all, nor offer any basis for making predictions about the amount or kind of convergence expected under different models of origins. It comes across as a talking point, not a scientific inquiry.

Although the section on convergence is brief, we address the specific points you raise in the “Steps and Methods for Testing Model” section. We provide the necessary details there.

@glipsnort

I was referring to the same stages. A paper has to get through the queue of submissions, have someone look at it, decide which editor to assign it to, pass it on to them; then the editor has to get to the paper in their queue, read the whole thing, maybe talk to someone else about it, and reach a decision.

That’s true, but this journal operates differently than most others. It doesn’t have the usual scope restrictions, as it considers those too subjective. Instead, it evaluates articles based on objective peer review, emphasizing methodological rigor, statistical analysis, and the validity of conclusions. The importance and impact of an article are left to individual readers, the scientific community, and, ultimately, posterity.

Moreover, although the peer review process involves external experts, the editorial board takes a much more hands-on approach to managing reviews and ensuring the quality and relevance of published content.

If the editors lack familiarity with the subject matter, they might feel they cannot properly oversee the review process or assess feedback themselves. This is what the journal’s website suggests. Another unconventional journal has agreed and reached similar conclusions:

Dear Fazale,

thank you for submitting your manuscript to Qeios! We have reviewed both the document and the notes you shared with us.

Unfortunately, we must echo some of the concerns raised by the editors of Royal Society Open Science, whose feedback you passed on. While Qeios is a multidisciplinary platform, the specific nature of your manuscript presents challenges in finding reviewers with the right expertise to provide a thorough and detailed evaluation.

If we were to post your manuscript on our platform, there is a high risk that it could attract highly negative public reviews—not because of the intrinsic quality of the work, but due to the nature of the content, which might not resonate with our broader audience.

Rather than advising you to submit to field-specific preprint servers or journals, as the previous editors did, we recommend that you consider uploading your work on non-peer-reviewed platforms instead, like Academia, ResearchGate, or Medium. This would allow you to share your research without the immediate pressure of peer review. We also suggest manually reaching out to specific individuals in your network who are knowledgeable enough to comment on your work and provide valuable feedback. They might even help identify journals where your manuscript could be a good fit.

Finally, if your primary goal is to expand the global reach of your research, achieving this does not necessarily require publication in a journal or a peer-reviewed platform. You can achieve great visibility by choosing the right venue with a large, interested readership

@glipsnort

How many papers have you submitted or reviewed previously?

Quite a few, actually. With some exceptions, they did not take over two weeks to reach a decision on the scope and fit of the journal.