Where did Owen say the designer was a human?
AFAICT Owen said that humans had not always been around, and that humans evolved from fish. If you can’t quote Owen saying that the designer was a human, you should stop saying that this is Owen’s theory.
1 Like
I just learnt that Richard Owen was ejected from the Royal Society for committing plagiarism.
3 Likes
There’s no ideology when it comes to random mutations in biology. We understand the mechanisms that cause mutations, and we observe that they are random with respect to fitness. Prior to experiments done in the 1940s and 50s, it was still an open question as to whether mutations were random. Just to refresh your memory, random mutations with respect to fitness means needing a specific mutation in a given environment does not increase the chances of that mutation happening.
2 Likes
11 posts were split to a new topic: Mike’s discussion of uncaused causes
Since our discussion seems to be going in circles, I believe it’s time to share the revisions I’ve made to our article and invite feedback on this updated format. I think this new format may clarify the overall argument and address your previous objections more effectively than our earlier approach. Below is the revised introduction or first part to our overall argument for your review, but keep in mind that this is a rough draft of it:
We observe randomness in mutations, with respect to fitness. This isn’t an ideology but an empirical, objective observation. It has basis in both rational and scientific analysis.
The two classic papers that contain both the observations and scientific analysis (including the original papers and few links to help with understanding):
Luria and Delbruck’s fluctuation assay:
Lederbergs’ plate replica experiment:
2 Likes
Now, here is the second part
Objections to quantum consciousness theories
While Penrose’s Orch-OR theory and Owen’s archetype share some conceptual similarities, they are fundamentally different in their scope and mechanisms. These differences allow Owen’s framework to avoid most of the criticisms directed at Orch-OR.
We acknowledge that some criticisms of Orch-OR, such as concerns about testability and empirical validation, may overlap with those of Owen’s theory. However, Owen’s framework is less vulnerable to these critiques because it draws on established biological and structural principles rather than speculative quantum phenomena.
Despite these objections, the parallels between quantum phenomena and Owen’s archetype remain compelling. The fine-tuning of the universe’s physical constants, the deterministic nature of the universal wave-function, and the role of consciousness all point to an underlying order that aligns with Owen’s concept of a universal archetype. These connections suggest that the principles underlying complexity and life are not entirely contingent on speculative quantum mechanics but are rooted in observable and consistent patterns across biological and physical systems.
Importantly, both frameworks challenge the sufficiency of random mutations as the sole driver of evolutionary processes. Owen’s theory is not intended to replace evolutionary mechanisms but rather to complement them by emphasizing the role of overarching design principles and structural constraints in shaping biological diversity. This intentional design perspective provides a cohesive framework for understanding how universal principles guide both biological diversity and cosmic order, paving the way for a deeper exploration of direct design as an explanatory model.
Nevertheless, quantum consciousness theories in general remain highly controversial and lack consensus within the scientific community [29,43]. Below, we outline several objections and criticisms raised against these theories, along with corresponding responses:
Biological Implausibility: One of the primary criticisms is that the proposed mechanism of quantum computation occurring in microtubules within neurons is biologically implausible. Critics argue that microtubules may not be capable of maintaining quantum coherence for a sufficiently long time due to factors such as decoherence and thermal noise [43].
Lack of Empirical Evidence: While there is some indirect evidence and theoretical support for the involvement of microtubules in quantum processing, such as the discovery of quantum effects in biological systems and the theoretical framework proposed by Orch-OR, critics argue that there is currently a lack of definitive experimental evidence directly demonstrating quantum coherence or quantum-level processing within microtubules that can unequivocally support quantum mind theories, such as Orch-OR [43].
Alternative Explanations: Many critics suggest that more conventional neurobiological and cognitive theories provide sufficient explanations for consciousness without invoking quantum mechanics. These alternative explanations often rely on principles of neuroscience, information theory, and emergent properties of complex systems [92].
Responses to objections
While some of these objections and criticisms may only apply to the Orch-OR theory, there are some that do carry over to Owen’s theory and, thus, should be addressed:
Biological Implausibility: This objection stems from a 2001 paper by Max Tegmark critiquing a specific version of the Orch-OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) model. It’s important to note that Tegmark’s critique targeted a particular iteration of a quantum mind model prevalent at the time, rather than the updated version of the Orch-OR theory proposed by its proponents [29,43]. As such, Tegmark’s arguments were specific to the assumptions and mechanisms of that model, and they do not necessarily refute the entirety of quantum mind theory, or the specific models proposed by Orch-OR proponents or others [29,43].
Furthermore, one aspect of Tegmark’s critique focused on the involvement of tryptophan molecules in quantum coherence within microtubules, particularly in hydrophobic areas that exclude water and could protect against interference. However, this objection was countered by evidence suggesting that coherence does play a role in biological organisms, despite their high-water content [29,43,103]. For instance, physicist Matthew Fisher proposed a theoretical model suggesting that quantum coherence in phosphorus atoms in the brain might contribute to human cognition and memory [24]. Fisher’s hypothesis suggests that the long coherence times observed in phosphorus atoms, on the order of minutes, could align with certain memory functions’ timescales. Specifically, he proposed that these coherence times could explain phenomena related to human short-term memory, given their similarity in timescale [24]. This perspective offers an intriguing avenue for understanding the potential role of quantum coherence in cognitive processes.
Lack of Empirical Evidence: Recent experiments have provided direct evidence of quantum coherence or quantum-level processing within microtubules, offering support for the central claims of the Orch-OR theory [35][103]. However, empirical evidence supporting these mechanisms’ manifestation in living systems or their direct link to consciousness remains inconclusive [35]. Nevertheless, emerging experimental findings continue to support the idea that the brain may operate as a quantum computer, utilizing quantum-mechanical processes [29,36,38,43,92]. This accumulating body of research provides general support for quantum consciousness theories [43,92].
Alternative Explanations: Quantum mind theories have gained momentum among researchers, challenging purely materialistic explanations for consciousness [43,92]. While they do not advocate discarding physicalist theories, they highlight phenomena that raise doubts about their explanatory power. They propose viewing materialism as a special case within a broader metaphysical framework that includes consciousness fundamentally, akin to classical physics being a limited case within modern physical theories [43,92].
This foundation sets the stage for the second part of the paper, which explores why a direct design framework provides a more robust explanation for these phenomena than guided evolutionary processes.
- I see no reference to nested hierarchies, or really any of the basic observations in biology, especially at the molecular level. Also, Owen focused almost entirely on vertebrates, so I am unaware of him ever proposing a universal common design or universal archetype. If I am wrong, a reference and quote from Owen would be called for.
- You never explain Owen’s framework with enough detail that any parallels with quantum mechanics can be seen.
- You can’t seem to decide if quantum processes give rise to consciousness or if a consciousness is guiding quantum processes.
- You seem to think that you only need to produce evidence for quantum processes as it relates to consciousness. This isn’t the case. If you are claiming effects in the genomes of species over time, then you need to supply evidence for these.
- You claim that evolutionary mechanisms are not sufficient to explain the data, but never explain why.
- We can track new mutations in real time. Why no mention of these, or how they fit into your model?
To use an analogy, your paper reads like someone attempting to write about the workings of a diesel engine, but all they write about is what pretty paint the trucks have. It’s all fluff and no substance.
2 Likes
Nailed it! The one doesn’t infer the other, not that there is evidence for either.
“caused” and “random” are not antonyms. Bulk behaviors can be strictly predictable (thus caused), but with member components predictable only in terms of probability.
Would you take the position that no mutations are random? Never in nature has so much as one mutation ever been random? Is cancer?
If some are random, what would distinguish random from non-random mutations? Is there a test?
But if quantum tunneling is statistically random, isn’t the consequential mutation random?
3 Likes
Is one of the revisions to change the author names to include yours?
1 Like
Here is the third part:
Direct Design Framework: A Stronger Foundation than Guided Evolutionary Processes
The direct design framework integrates quantum biology, process structuralism, and Richard Owen’s archetype theory into a powerful synthesis that emphasizes purposeful, intentional design over stochastic evolutionary processes. Quantum biology reveals non-random quantum phenomena in biological systems, such as electron tunneling and quantum coherence, while process structuralism highlights self-organizing principles guiding the development of complex structures. Owen’s universal archetype provides a scientific foundation for understanding the recurring patterns and nested hierarchies observed in biology. Together, these insights establish a unified explanation for the origin of life and biological complexity, offering a stronger foundation than guided evolutionary processes, such as theistic evolution.
1. Introduction: A Principle of Causation
The principle of causation, championed by Charles Lyell and adopted by Darwin, asserts that observed effects should be explained by causes known from uniform experience. Darwin applied this principle to argue for natural selection as sufficient to explain nested biological patterns. However, the direct design framework proposes an alternative explanation that more comprehensively accounts for these patterns.
For example, the artificial synthesis of viruses parallels natural processes in virus origins and design, suggesting a common design framework. Researchers have engineered bacteriophages like T7 and reconstructed infectious poliovirus particles from synthetic components, such as specialized proteins (enzymes), to construct an RNA virus capable of addressing the problem of unstable RNA [97]. The instability of RNA is a well-known challenge in the RNA world hypothesis, and similar solutions have been proposed, such as the Protein-first hypothesis [7]. These efforts reveal that genomes can be systematically redesigned to serve specific purposes, reflecting intentionality and optimization.
Similarly, the natural design of RNA viruses, which likely preceded the first cells, played a role in shaping genomes through horizontal gene transfer (HGT), a process that accelerates evolution by introducing genetic material between unrelated organisms.
Such phenomena align with Owen’s archetype, which posits an inherent structural blueprint underlying the diversity of life. Unlike Darwin’s gradual adaptation, Owen emphasized a polarizing and adaptive force driving life’s organization according to universal laws of form. This force operates both before and after life’s emergence, as exemplified by the law of entropy, which explains how energy dispersal fosters functional, self-organizing order and hierarchical complexity.
3. Limitations of Guided Evolutionary Processes
Guided evolutionary frameworks, such as theistic evolution, struggle to account for key phenomena in the origin and diversification of life. Prebiotic chemistry, for instance, lacks the self-replicating entities necessary for natural selection to operate, making the transition from non-life to life an unresolved problem. Without enzymes or other biological machinery, molecules in early environments would have needed to form highly specific structures—such as functional proteins or nucleotide sequences—through random chance, an explanation that stretches plausibility.
Additionally, phenomena like horizontal gene transfer (HGT) and polyphyletic viruses present challenges to evolutionary gradualism. Viruses, which lack a single evolutionary origin and cannot be integrated into the Tree of Life, blur the lines of descent by introducing foreign genes into host genomes. This non-vertical inheritance complicates phylogenetic relationships and suggests a mechanism beyond natural selection. In contrast, a direct design framework accommodates these anomalies by positing that such processes—HGT, polyphyletic origins, and viral gene integration—are intentional, adaptive strategies implemented by an overarching design.
4. Nested Patterns in a Design Framework
Nested patterns in biological systems emerge as a natural consequence of intentional design, offering a coherent alternative to evolutionary explanations. These hierarchies, such as the conservation of genetic material across diverse species, reflect principles of efficiency and scalability that parallel human-engineered systems. For example, convergent co-option and gene duplication can be likened to software engineering practices like code reuse and modularity. Genetic components, much like reusable code blocks, are conserved and adapted across different organisms to optimize functionality and adaptability.
Unlike evolutionary explanations, which often attribute nested patterns to the cumulative effects of natural selection, the design framework views these hierarchies as intrinsic to an intentional blueprint. This perspective aligns with Owen’s archetype, where a universal structural pattern underpins the diversity of life. It also explains why disruptions in one part of a biological system often affect the whole—indicating a unified design rather than piecemeal evolutionary assembly.
5. Viruses as Manifestations of Archetypal Design
Viruses, in this context, exemplify the polarizing and adaptive force described by Owen. They demonstrate structural archetypes through mechanisms like convergent co-option and HGT, which allow for the integration and repurposing of genetic material. This phenomenon mirrors modularity in software engineering, where components are reused to optimize functionality and adaptability. For example, endogenous viral elements (EVEs) in wasps reveal how viral sequences can integrate into host genomes to enhance survival and reproduction, much like gene therapy applications in human-engineered systems. These parallels between viruses and design principles suggest that the nested patterns observed in biological systems reflect intentionality rather than random evolutionary processes.
6. A Direct Design Framework vs. Theistic Evolution
Ultimately, Owen’s natural law theory surpasses theistic evolutionary frameworks by accounting for life’s complexity through a combination of universal archetypes and adaptive processes. The integration of viruses into this framework, as both disruptive agents and essential drivers of adaptability, further supports the argument for direct design. By incorporating nested patterns and modular principles observed in human-engineered systems, this approach provides a stronger foundation for understanding the origins and organization of life. The next section will explore the implications of these nested patterns for understanding the designer’s intent and the broader design principles at work in the biological world.
7. Reasons for Primarily Using Nested Patterns in Design
Nested patterns in biological systems, while theoretically explainable through evolutionary processes, find a more coherent and purposeful explanation within a design framework. Intentional design, akin to nested hierarchies observed in human-engineered systems, optimizes for survival, reproduction, and environmental integration. Biological systems, which rely on interdependent components, naturally lend themselves to nested hierarchical structures. Disruptions in one part often affect the entire system, reinforcing the idea of a unified design.
This perspective addresses a critical question: why would a universal common designer predominantly use nested patterns? The answer lies in the efficiency, scalability, and adaptability these patterns provide, enabling the integration of diverse biological components while optimizing survival mechanisms.
Addressing the Objection: Nested Hierarchies in Biology vs. Human-Engineered Systems
Critics may argue that while nested hierarchies are evident in human-engineered systems, such hierarchies typically manifest within a single system or program (e.g., a genome), not between separate programs or systems. For instance, nested hierarchies in biology—patterns of shared traits used to infer evolutionary relationships between species—extend beyond the scope of a single genome and suggest broader connections between species. This difference could challenge the analogy between nested hierarchies in human engineering and those observed in biological systems, potentially rendering the argument insufficient to explain the origin of species compared to a guided evolutionary framework.
How Owen’s Front-Loaded Design Model Addresses the Objection
Owen’s front-loaded design model, implied in his archetype theory, provides a solution by proposing that all necessary instructions or mechanisms for life’s development were embedded at the system’s inception, such as in the genome of the first life forms. Over time, this system unfolded and diversified according to pre-designed rules or constraints.
This model suggests that nested hierarchies could naturally emerge from initial conditions combined with pre-programmed evolutionary-like processes. For instance:
Variation and Adaptation: Built-in mechanisms could drive trait diversification in response to environmental pressures.
Recombination: Pre-loaded genetic instructions could recombine predictably, generating hierarchical patterns.
Such processes allow for predictable divergence patterns resembling a nested hierarchy, where traits are shared across species due to common initial programming rather than independent or separate programs. This addresses the objection by demonstrating how nested hierarchies between species could result from a single pre-designed system responding to environmental and internal pressures.
Conclusion: Nested Hierarchies as Evidence of Design
Owen’s front-loaded design model explains why nested hierarchies are not confined to a single genome but instead manifest between species. By integrating initial programming with mechanisms for diversification, the design framework accounts for the emergence of shared traits and hierarchical patterns. This perspective reinforces the argument that nested hierarchies in biology reflect intentional design rather than stochastic evolutionary processes.
8. Conclusion
The direct design framework unifies diverse fields—quantum biology, process structuralism, and Owen’s archetype theory—into a cohesive explanation for life’s complexity. By integrating insights from these disciplines, this framework accounts for the origin of nested patterns, the role of quantum phenomena, and the fine-tuning of universal constants. Unlike guided evolutionary processes, which struggle to explain prebiotic conditions and exceptions like horizontal gene transfer, the direct design framework provides a robust mechanism that operates both before and after life’s emergence.
Nested patterns in biology, from convergent co-option to modularity, mirror principles of intentional design observed in human-engineered systems. This synthesis of ancient natural law theories with modern science reveals a universe that is not only fine-tuned but purposefully structured, offering a holistic perspective on the origins and organization of life. In the next section, we will address critiques of the design framework, exploring both its strengths and the challenges it faces in contemporary scientific discourse.
Well, it is both. I will eventually explain why once I get to that part of the paper.
1 Like
Darwin proposed common ancestry as the cause of nested hierarchies. Natural selection was proposed as the mechanism of adaptation.
Humans were not around ~4 billion years ago when viruses are proposed to have emerged. You don’t have a cause.
You need evidence, not proposals. This applies across the whole paper.
Then ignore gradualism. The theory of evolution doesn’t need it.
Conclusion without evidence.
No, they don’t. Human designs and engineering don’t fall into a nested hierarchies. A comparison of cars is a good example. Also, when humans design genomes they regularly violate a nested hierarchy, such as inserting a copy of a jellyfish gene into the mouse genome which causes the mice to fluoresce. Mice with human genes are also quite common in a research setting.
It’s the cumulative effects of common ancestry which produces nested hierarchies. The fact that you don’t understand the difference between common ancestry and natural selection shows that you don’t understand the basics of evolution.
You are essentially arguing that if something has genes it must be designed. That’s nonsense.
There is absolutely no reason why Owen’s natura law theory would produce a nested hierarchy.
No, it doesn’t. Owen’s theory can’t explain why we see a nested hierarchy because there is no reason one should exist within his theory. For example, why don’t we see a species with fur and flow through lungs? Or a species with three middle ear bones and feathers? These are modules, but they are never reused together. Why?
But they don’t offer any of those things which is why human engineers don’t use nested hierarchies. How stupid would it be to only use a turbo charger in the descendants of a single vehicle? Instead, we see turbo chargers used in many different types of vehicles and engines with no regard for a nested hierarchy.
I don’t think you even understand what a nested hierarchy is, which makes sense due to your inability to understand the cause of nested hierarchies within the theory of evolution.
And yet you never show this solution.
What would prevent the appearance of a species with fur and flow through lungs in your model?
You don’t explain anything. You have just made stuff up.
2 Likes
I’ve decided to revise the first part of my article in response to your feedback, ensuring that the arguments presented later are clearer. Once you’ve reviewed this revised section, I’ll provide the updated second part so that we can stay aligned throughout the process. I’ve made a conscious effort to make these sections more accessible to non-specialists. BTW, if don’t want to read the whole thing again even if it is more accessible to lay people, I provided short version of it as well.
> SHORTER VERSION
Integrating Quantum Mind and Process Structuralism: A Common Archetype Perspective
This section shows how Richard Owen’s idea of a “universal common archetype” can be enhanced by modern concepts in quantum biology and process structuralism. This integration offers a new way to understand the universe’s order and the origins of biological complexity.
Owen’s archetype suggests that all life shares fundamental design patterns. This idea aligns with quantum mechanics, which reveals that particles exist as possibilities within a “wave-function” until observed, much like how Owen believed life’s diversity stems from a common underlying blueprint. In both biology and quantum mechanics, shared patterns form the basis for complexity, supporting the idea of a universal design.
The Universal Wave-Function and Owen’s Archetype
Owen’s archetype proposes that all life shares basic patterns or “types.” Quantum mechanics supports this by showing how fundamental patterns govern both physical laws and biological systems. The wave-function, which describes all possible states of a system before it is observed, mirrors Owen’s archetype as both serve as organizing principles for complexity in nature. Just as architectural blueprints guide the design of buildings, Owen’s archetype suggests that life’s diversity is rooted in a shared design.
Fine-Tuning of the Laws of Nature
The universe’s physical constants—like gravity and electromagnetism—are finely tuned to allow life to exist. Even slight changes in these constants would make life impossible, pointing to an underlying structure, much like Owen’s archetype. For example, the cosmological constant must be exactly right for stars and planets to form. This precision suggests that the universe was designed with life in mind, reinforcing Owen’s idea of a purposeful design guiding both the cosmos and biological forms.
Human Consciousness and Quantum Archetypes
Recent theories, such as Roger Penrose’s Orch-OR theory, suggest that human consciousness may be linked to quantum processes, where particles interact in unpredictable ways. This idea aligns with Owen’s concept of an organizing force in life. Quantum cognition studies suggest that our mental processes could operate on quantum principles, which further supports the idea that consciousness is an integral part of the universe’s design.
Synthesis and Implications
The precision of the universe’s constants, combined with quantum mechanics and human consciousness, highlights a deep connection to Owen’s archetype. This synthesis suggests that a universal guiding principle, or designer, orchestrates the workings of the universe. It provides a unified framework for understanding both the origins of life and the fine-tuning of physical laws. Moving forward, these theories can be tested empirically, grounding the idea of quantum principles guiding biological complexity in measurable predictions.
> LONGER VERSION
Integrating Quantum Mind and Process Structuralism: A Common Archetype Perspective
The aim of this section is to demonstrate how Richard Owen’s concept of a universal common archetype aligns with and is enriched by modern insights from quantum biology and process structuralism. This synthesis bridges classical natural philosophy with cutting-edge scientific theories, offering a new lens for understanding the universe’s inherent order and the origins of biological complexity.
By exploring parallels between Owen’s archetype and modern concepts such as the universal wave-function, the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, and human consciousness, this section seeks to highlight the enduring relevance of Owen’s framework. Owen’s archetype represents not only a unifying blueprint for biological forms but also a precursor to contemporary scientific models that describe universal order and intentionality. Ultimately, this integration challenges purely materialistic interpretations of life and the cosmos while providing a foundation for addressing objections to quantum consciousness theories like Owen’s.
1. The Universal Wave-Function and Owen’s Archetype
Richard Owen’s concept of a “universal common archetype” proposes that all life shares underlying blueprints or patterns. Modern science, particularly quantum mechanics, supports this idea by showing how fundamental patterns govern both biological systems and physical laws. In quantum physics, particles exist as possibilities within a “wave-function” until observed, collapsing into a definite state. This wave-function, a probabilistic blueprint for all of existence, mirrors Owen’s archetype—both serve as organizing principles for the complexity we see in nature.
Just as quantum mechanics applies universally across particles and systems, Owen’s archetype suggests that all living organisms share core design patterns. The quantum wave-function, though abstract, highlights how these fundamental patterns can exist across different scales and forms, supporting the notion that life’s diversity stems from a common underlying structure, much like Owen’s idea of shared biological forms.
Even though the specific proteins in each species may look different, many of the underlying biochemical processes—like how energy is transferred in cells—work in similar ways across all life forms. These shared patterns in nature reinforce the idea of a universal, guiding blueprint—just as the same principles of architecture can be found in buildings around the world, even if the buildings themselves look different.
Owen’s Archetype: A Blueprint for Biological Diversity
Owen’s universal common archetype posits that fundamental forms in the natural world—referred to as “Types”—are governed by specific biological laws, often termed the “laws of form” [21]. These recurring patterns and forms, considered authentic universals, serve as the blueprint for biological diversity. Owen likened the archetype to a comprehensive framework of possibilities, suggesting that the actualized examples of these archetypes on Earth represent only a fraction of the potential forms dictated by the archetype [21].
Owen extended this speculation to encompass the anatomy of life on other worlds, proposing that as long as the vertebral archetype retained its universal status, it could provide insights into the anatomical forms of extraterrestrial life [21]. This idea parallels the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which posits that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are deterministically realized in distinct “worlds.” Both frameworks transcend immediate observational domains: Owen’s archetype speculates on hypothetical extraterrestrial life, while the Many-Worlds Interpretation extends to parallel universes containing human observers.
The Quantum Equivalent of Owen’s Archetype
The universal wave-function can thus be seen as the quantum equivalent of Owen’s archetype—a deterministic framework that underpins the observable complexity of the natural world. Both serve as overarching principles, unifying disparate phenomena under a singular, comprehensive model. The universal wave-function provides a mathematical foundation for the deterministic emergence of complexity, just as Owen’s archetype offers a metaphysical basis for recurring biological patterns and forms. Together, these frameworks highlight the deep parallels between quantum mechanics and biological diversity, reinforcing the case for a purposeful, structured approach to understanding life and its origins.
2. Fine-Tuning of the Laws of Nature and Structuralism
The precise fine-tuning of the universe’s physical constants directly supports the argument for an intelligent designer, as it suggests a purposeful structure behind the universe. For life to exist as we know it, certain physical constants—such as the strength of gravity and the force of electromagnetism—must fall within extremely narrow ranges. Even a slight variation would prevent the emergence of life. This precise balance is reminiscent of Owen’s concept of a universal “archetype,” where a guiding principle shapes biological forms.
One of the most striking examples is the cosmological constant, which must be set to an exact value for the formation of stars and planets that can support life. If this constant were even slightly different, life would be impossible. Scientists have measured this constant to an extraordinary level of precision, indicating that the universe was “fine-tuned” for life from its very beginning. This level of precision points to a purposeful design rather than random chance.
Another example is the fine-structure constant, which governs how charged particles interact. It shapes the fundamental interactions between atoms and molecules, effectively serving as a blueprint for the universe’s physical structure. This aligns with Owen’s idea of a “polarizing force” that organizes biological order. Modern science, particularly quantum mechanics, proposes that this force may extend beyond physical structures to include consciousness, which could actively shape the quantum states influencing biological systems. This concept mirrors Owen’s archetype, suggesting that life’s complexity is not the result of random processes, but of an underlying, intentional design guiding both the cosmos and biological forms.
For example, enzymes—molecules that speed up chemical reactions—may vary between species, but they all rely on quantum processes like electron tunneling to function. Despite differences across species, this consistency shows a strong connection between the universe’s fine-tuned constants and the way life adapts over time.
The stability of the fine-structure constant over billions of years further suggests a guiding principle behind the universe, ensuring the stability of life. Even though species have different structures and functions, the basic quantum processes that make life possible remain the same. This deep connection between the universe’s design and life’s complexity reflects Owen’s idea of a grand underlying plan, where the universe’s physical constants shape and support the development of life.
These observations suggest that the fine-tuning of the universe is not by chance, but rather an intentional feature, much like the patterns that Owen believed shape life. This idea that life’s intricate structure is guided by universal principles aligns closely with the concept of an intelligently designed cosmos.
3. Human Consciousness and Quantum Archetypes
Human consciousness has long been a mysterious aspect of science, but recent ideas have connected it to fundamental principles of the universe. One such idea is Roger Penrose’s Orch-OR theory, which suggests that consciousness is linked to a process happening at the quantum level, where the fundamental particles of the universe behave in ways that aren’t always predictable. This process, called wave-function collapse, happens in microtubules—tiny structures inside our brain cells. In simple terms, the Orch-OR theory proposes that our conscious experiences might arise from the way these tiny particles interact and “choose” their state, much like a wave collapsing into a specific outcome.
This idea ties into a concept proposed by Richard Owen, who believed there was an underlying force shaping the diversity of life. While Owen didn’t directly link this force to consciousness, the idea that something intentional guides life’s design fits well with modern theories, like Orch-OR, which suggest consciousness is an essential part of how the universe is structured.
Recent studies in quantum cognition (the study of how quantum physics may influence thinking and decision-making) suggest that our mental processes, such as perception and decision-making, might operate in ways similar to quantum systems. This means that our minds may not be just a result of physical processes but could involve deeper, more fundamental principles of the universe.
For example, research by Patel has shown that the way DNA stores information is surprisingly similar to quantum algorithms, the types of mathematical processes used in quantum computing. DNA uses four “letters” (nucleotide bases) to form a code that directs how proteins are made. This is more than just a random arrangement—it’s an optimized design, almost as if the system is correcting errors as it works. Patel’s research suggests that this “error correction” is like how quantum systems ensure accuracy in their operations, hinting that DNA replication and protein creation might rely on quantum coherence—a state where quantum particles work together in a precise way to enhance efficiency.
These findings support the idea that life and consciousness are not just byproducts of complex physical systems, but could be deeply rooted in the intentional design of the universe. This connects Owen’s idea of an organizing force with modern discoveries in quantum biology and cognition, offering a unified view of life’s development and our consciousness as part of a broader, intentional pattern in the universe.
4. Differences Between Orch-OR and the Common Archetype Model
While Penrose’s Orch-OR theory and Owen’s archetype share conceptual parallels, they differ in key respects. Penrose views wave-function collapse as an objective, gravity-driven process with no direct involvement of consciousness, whereas Owen’s archetype suggests a more intentional framework. This paper argues that consciousness plays a causal role, actively maintaining fine-tuned constants and influencing the wave-function collapse toward life-supporting configurations. By integrating quantum mechanics with Owen’s archetype, this perspective bridges 19th-century natural philosophy and 21st-century science, offering a unified framework that explains both the universality of biological patterns and the fine-tuning of the cosmos.
5. Synthesis and Implications
The cosmological constant’s remarkable precision, challenging any notion of accidental occurrence in the vast expanse of cosmological history, stands as a testament to its extraordinary nature [5,54]. Similarly, the constancy of the fine-structure constant throughout the annals of the universe, as evidenced by meticulous measurements [52,107], and the absence of variation in the fine-tuning constants further reinforces the notion of a finely crafted cosmos, where even the minutest details are meticulously calibrated [30,107]. Furthermore, the empirical reality of the universal wave-function, which underpins the fine-tuning constants and the entirety of existence [88,99], highlights the deterministic nature of the universe, akin to a blueprint for reality. The striking parallels and functional similarities observed between quantum systems and human cognitive processes [38] hint at a profound connection between the fabric of reality and the intricacies of the human mind [43].
Taken together, the universal wave-function, the fine-tuning of physical constants, and human consciousness reveal profound parallels with Owen’s common archetype. These connections suggest the existence of a universal self-collapsing wave-function, conceptualized as a universal common designer orchestrating the intricate workings of the universe. This perspective aligns with Owen’s belief in an inherent structural order underlying life, extending his theory to encompass quantum biology and process structuralism. By integrating Owen’s archetype with modern science, this synthesis provides a unified framework for understanding the cosmos as an intentionally designed system, where universal principles guide both the emergence of life and the fine-tuning of physical laws.
In light of these profound implications—ranging from the finely tuned constants of the universe to the deterministic nature of the universal wave-function—the next logical step is to explore how these theories can be tested empirically. By grounding our models in measurable predictions, we can begin to validate the role of quantum principles in guiding biological complexity.
This foundation sets the stage for the second part of the paper, which explores why a direct design framework provides a more robust explanation for these phenomena than guided evolutionary processes.
This is quite a claim! I find there are three possible statements that explain reality or the world: it’s from nothing, an infinite regress, or from an uncaused cause.
The thing is, even if you are able to cross off the first and second statements by way of the ontological and cosmological arguments, the cause of the world may be aware, unaware, or not yet aware of its action.
1 Like
Tremper Longman brings up a very good point about how the sea represents chaos and how it precedes the fall and yet will not be a part of the new creation as described in the book of Revelation.
I quickly related that to the chaos or indeterminacy of the quantum sea.
1 Like
It doesn’t look like much has changed, and all of my previous criticisms still apply. Don’t know what else to say.
4 Likes
No, it just shows that scientists can copy biological processes. Your argument here is like saying that the fact that anime artists can produce real-looking suggests that all cats were the product of anime artists.
I’m not sure that even makes sense.
You have yet to provide any argument for this. If there are nested hierarchies in “intentional design”, they would only be there if the designer limited itself to doing things that way – a very artificial limitation.
Why would a designer impose such an arbitrary limitation?
This is sloppy hand-waving. It uses the errors noted above plus vague uses of impressive-sounding terms to make assertions that are effectively meaningless.
I don’t see that it addresses anything because there is neither logic not data to back it up. Using a nested hierarchy for design is inherently inefficient because it bars the use of effective ‘modules’ outside the hierarchy where they were introduced.
This is just warmed-over Platonism. “Front-loaded design” is meaningless without a repository of information that guides new design, and it is evident that there is no such information repository in biological systems.
I don’t see anything new in any of this, just re-hashed hand-waving common in papers by university sophomores trying to claim more knowledge than they actually have.
I have to agree. I’ve been assuming that he knew but was making claims that can’t hold up, but if he doesn’t even grasp the concept of a nested hierarchy that makes better sense of all the hand-wavy assertions.
This is illogical garbage. The “common underlying blueprint” of quantum mechanics suggests that there is no design of any higher systems since the “collapse” of a wave-function is non-deterministic.
How do unpredictable processes result in any kind of organization at all? The proposed alignment can only happen if there is a guiding force behind the behavior of particles, which would mean that their interactions are not in fact unpredictable.
I still don’t see anything more than the sophomoric “this sounds nice, I’ll go with it” that uses lots of words to cover up a lack of substance.
1 Like
This is a revised version of the second part again. Once you are done reading this one, I will show you the third part.
Direct Design Framework: A Stronger Foundation than Guided Evolutionary Processes
The direct design framework better integrates quantum biology, process structuralism, and Richard Owen’s archetype theory into a powerful synthesis that emphasizes purposeful, intentional design over guided evolutionary processes. Quantum biology reveals non-random quantum phenomena in biological systems, such as electron tunneling and quantum coherence, while process structuralism highlights self-organizing principles guiding the development of complex structures. Owen’s universal archetype provides a metaphysical foundation for understanding the recurring patterns and nested hierarchies observed in biology. Together, these insights establish a unified explanation for the origin of life and biological complexity, offering a stronger foundation than guided evolutionary processes, such as theistic evolution.
1. Introduction: A Principle of Causation
The principle of causation from past events, as popularized by Charles Lyell, asserts that explanations for past phenomena should rely on causes known from uniform experience to produce observed effects [94]. Darwin adopted this principle in his attempt to demonstrate that natural selection was causally sufficient to explain patterns in biological evolution [94]. However, the direct design framework offers an alternative explanation, one that more comprehensively accounts for these patterns by emphasizing intentionality and optimization.
For example, the artificial synthesis of viruses parallels natural processes in virus origins and design, suggesting a common design framework. Researchers have engineered bacteriophages like T7 and reconstructed infectious poliovirus particles from synthetic components, such as specialized proteins (enzymes), to construct an RNA virus capable of addressing the problem of unstable RNA [97]. The instability of RNA is a well-known challenge in the RNA world hypothesis, and similar solutions have been proposed, such as the Protein-first hypothesis [7]. These efforts reveal that genomes can be systematically redesigned to serve specific purposes, reflecting intentionality and optimization.
Similarly, the natural design of RNA viruses, which likely preceded the first cells, played a role in shaping genomes through horizontal gene transfer (HGT), wherein genetic material is transferred between organisms not in a parent-offspring relationship. HGT can confer significant advantages to organisms, enabling them to overcome challenges that would otherwise require gradual evolution through mutation and selection. This means that evolution can be accelerated as a parallel process, wherein innovations originating in different lineages converge in a single cell through HGT.
Such phenomena align with Owen’s archetype, which posits an inherent structural blueprint underlying the diversity of life. Unlike Darwin’s gradual adaptation, Owen emphasized a polarizing and adaptive force driving life’s organization according to universal laws of form. This force operates both before and after life’s emergence, as exemplified by the law of entropy, which explains how energy dispersal fosters functional, self-organizing order and hierarchical complexity.
2. Limitations of Guided Evolutionary Processes
Guided evolutionary frameworks, such as theistic evolution, struggle to account for key phenomena in the origin and diversification of life. Prebiotic chemistry, for instance, lacks the self-replicating entities necessary for natural selection to operate, making the transition from non-life to life an unresolved problem. Without enzymes or other biological machinery, molecules in early environments would have needed to form highly specific structures—such as functional proteins or nucleotide sequences—through random chance, an explanation that stretches plausibility.
Additionally, phenomena like horizontal gene transfer (HGT) and polyphyletic viruses present challenges to evolutionary gradualism. Viruses, which lack a single evolutionary origin and cannot be integrated into the Tree of Life, blur the lines of descent by introducing foreign genes into host genomes. This non-vertical inheritance complicates phylogenetic relationships and suggests a mechanism beyond natural selection. In contrast, a direct design framework accommodates these anomalies by positing that such processes—HGT, polyphyletic origins, and viral gene integration—are intentional, adaptive strategies implemented by an overarching design.
3. Nested Patterns in a Design Framework
Nested patterns in biological systems, while theoretically explainable through evolutionary processes, find a more coherent and purposeful explanation within a design framework. Intentional design, akin to nested hierarchies observed in human-engineered systems, optimizes for survival, reproduction, and environmental integration.
This perspective addresses a critical question: why would a universal common designer predominantly use nested patterns? The answer lies in the efficiency, scalability, and adaptability these patterns provide, enabling the integration of diverse biological components while optimizing survival mechanisms. For example, convergent co-option and gene duplication can be likened to software engineering practices like code reuse and modularity. Genetic components, much like reusable code blocks, are conserved and adapted across different organisms to optimize functionality and adaptability.
Unlike evolutionary explanations, which often attribute nested patterns to the cumulative effects of chance mutations and natural selection from a last common ancestor, the design framework views these hierarchies as intrinsic to an intentional blueprint. This perspective aligns with Owen’s archetype, where a universal structural pattern underpins the diversity of life. It also explains why disruptions in one part of a biological system often affect the whole—indicating a unified design rather than piecemeal evolutionary assembly.
4. Viruses as Manifestations of Archetypal Design
Viruses, in this context, exemplify the polarizing and adaptive force described by Owen. They demonstrate structural archetypes through mechanisms like convergent co-option and HGT, which allow for the integration and repurposing of genetic material. This phenomenon mirrors modularity in software engineering, where components are reused to optimize functionality and adaptability. For example, endogenous viral elements (EVEs) in wasps reveal how viral sequences can integrate into host genomes to enhance survival and reproduction, much like gene therapy applications in human-engineered systems. These parallels between viruses and design principles suggest that the nested patterns observed in biological systems reflect intentionality rather than random evolutionary processes.
5. Addressing the Objection: Nested Hierarchies in Biology vs. Human-Engineered Systems
Critics may argue that while nested hierarchies are evident in human-engineered systems, such hierarchies typically manifest within a single system or program (e.g., a genome), not between separate programs or systems. For instance, nested hierarchies in biology—patterns of shared traits used to infer evolutionary relationships between species—extend beyond the scope of a single genome and suggest broader connections between species. This difference could challenge the analogy between nested hierarchies in human engineering and those observed in biological systems, potentially rendering the argument insufficient to explain the origin of species compared to a guided evolutionary framework.
Owen’s Front-Loaded Design Model as a Solution
Owen’s front-loaded design model, implied in his archetype theory, provides a solution by proposing that all necessary instructions or mechanisms for life’s development were embedded at the system’s inception, such as in the genome of the first life forms. Over time, this system unfolded and diversified according to pre-designed rules or constraints.
This model suggests that nested hierarchies could naturally emerge from initial conditions combined with pre-programmed evolutionary-like processes. For instance:
Variation and Adaptation: Built-in mechanisms could drive trait diversification in response to environmental pressures.
Recombination: Pre-loaded genetic instructions could recombine predictably, generating hierarchical patterns.
Such processes allow for predictable divergence patterns resembling a nested hierarchy, where traits are shared across species due to common initial programming rather than independent or separate programs. This addresses the objection by demonstrating how nested hierarchies between species could result from a single pre-designed system responding to environmental and internal pressures.
Moreover, it explains why nested hierarchies are not confined to a single genome but instead manifest between species. By integrating initial programming with mechanisms for diversification, the design framework accounts for the emergence of shared traits and hierarchical patterns. This not only reinforces the validity of the design analogy but also highlights the consistency of Owen’s front-loaded model in explaining the emergence of complex biological systems.
6. A Direct Design Framework vs. Theistic Evolution
The direct design framework surpasses theistic evolutionary frameworks by accounting for life’s complexity through universal archetypes and adaptive processes. The integration of viruses as both disruptive agents and drivers of adaptability further strengthens the case for intentional design. Nested patterns, modularity, and design principles observed in human-engineered systems provide a coherent foundation for understanding life’s origins.
By unifying insights from quantum biology, process structuralism, and Owen’s archetype theory, this framework better explains the emergence of nested patterns, the role of quantum phenomena, and the fine-tuning of universal constants. Unlike guided evolutionary processes, which struggle to address prebiotic conditions and exceptions like HGT, the direct design framework offers a robust mechanism operating both before and after life’s emergence.
In the following section, we will explore a comprehensive version of Richard Owen’s theory, integrating his archetype framework with contemporary insights to further substantiate the case for a direct design framework.
Someone was asking if @RTBsupporter
knew what “nested hierarchies” in biology meant:
He hasn’t got a clue.
I’m beginning to feel sorry for ChatGPT, as it is repeatedly asked to justify claims that don’t make sense by some-one using words they don’t understand.
2 Likes