DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Gwaithmir]

Interestingly, if you had bothered to read the articles to which I had referred you to, including the related links, with the idea of understanding them you would have learned that your pet hypothesis (not "theory") has been seriously been called into question, if not entirely refuted, by legitimate peer review. Clearly, you do not understand how the scientific method works.

This is not the first time you have rejected bona fide scientific evidence with a wave of the hand because it does not support your beliefs. Here is another example of your intellectual dishonesty. You are grasping at straws and committing the dishonest practice of cherry-picking the evidence to support your views. Nothing in the articles you have linked us to above prove your points. They simply confirm the need for more study.

Scientific hypotheses are not validated by being "partially" proven. They either pass peer review or they do not. Hameroff and Penrose's hypotheses have not. And until they do, and until you can rationally reconcile them with your claims, your beliefs have no standing or merit.

Wrong. They were only criticized prior to 2014 when they proved the most important part of their theory. And their critics were proven wrong. Perhaps read and learn something rather than just making stuff up based on old news.

---

Nope! To wit:

Hameroff speculated that visual photons in the retina are detected directly by the cones and rods instead of decohering and subsequently connect with the retinal glia cells via gap junctions,[41] but this too was falsified.[72]

Other biology-based criticisms have been offered.[73] Papers by Georgiev[20][63] point to problems with Hameroff's proposals, including a lack of explanation for the probabilistic release of neurotransmitter from presynaptic axon terminals[74][75][76] and an error in the calculated number of the tubulin dimers per cortical neuron.[64] Hameroff insisted in a 2013 interview that those falsifications were invalid, but did not provide any explanation where the falsifications fail.[77]

You're still grasping at straws.