# Can a Common Design model be useful?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design, Theology\
**Created:** [June 5, 2021, 2:44am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818 "2021-06-05T02:44:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2021, 2:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/101 "2021-06-11T14:42:13Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Do these definitions work?

In science, evidence is the empirical, demonstrable, and verifiable facts that can be used to test a hypothesis.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2021, 2:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/102 "2021-06-11T14:45:14Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> This is similar to the observation in @Winston_Ewert work. Unique gene sets that show some deviation from the tree pattern…

Ewert has failed to properly measure a deviation from the expected tree because he is using incomplete and inconsistent gene annotations for a very limited number of species. He should be using sequence searches instead of annotations at a very minimum.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2021, 5:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/103 "2021-06-11T17:40:24Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> In science, evidence is the empirical, demonstrable, and verifiable facts that can be used to test a hypothesis.

Why do scientists cite other papers in addition to presenting their “empirical demonstrable and verifiable facts”?

Are these cited papers not scientific evidence?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2021, 5:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/104 "2021-06-11T17:44:50Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Why do scientists cite other papers in addition to presenting their “empirical demonstrable and verifiable facts”?

It could be for a lot of reasons: background information, acknowledging conflicting data, and methods, to name a few. You could read a peer reviewed paper and judge for yourself.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Are these cited papers not scientific evidence?

Peer reviewed papers contain evidence, most of which is found in the Results section. Papers also include methodologies, hypotheses, conclusions, and potential directions for further study.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2021, 5:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/105 "2021-06-11T17:46:47Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> That prediction has been tested literally thousands upon thousands of times.
> 
> Every time, they fit. The discontinuities simply aren’t there. Your hypothesis has been falsified.

Response, coming soon, condensed:

“I have now taken that into account, and so here is a lengthy restatement of the case I’m trying to make, with no substantive changes at all.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2021, 8:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/106 "2021-06-11T20:22:58Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Peer reviewed papers contain evidence, most of which is found in the Results section. Papers also include methodologies, hypotheses, conclusions, and potential directions for further study.

Would you call this “documented evidence”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [June 11, 2021, 8:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/107 "2021-06-11T20:27:44Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Would you call this “documented evidence”?

No. I would call it real evidence. The results reported in a scientific paper are equivalent to a forensic scientist reporting on DNA sequences or fingerprints. In principle, I should be able to read a paper and repeat all of their experiments, and get the same results. The evidence in a paper should be objective, empirical, and repeatable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2021, 12:48am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/108 "2021-06-12T00:48:41Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> > [@colewd](#):
> >
> > Are these cited papers not scientific evidence?
> 
> Peer reviewed papers contain evidence, most of which is found in the Results section

In addition, the evidence found in a Result sections might not be high quality. To judge the quality of evidence, you would have to examine other parts of a scientific paper, especially the Methods section.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2021, 12:48am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/109 "2021-06-12T00:48:56Z")

</div>

> [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
>
> You’ve not shown any interest in phylogenetic concepts, and certainly have shown a complete lack of knowledge of them. So while those observations are indeed out there, it’s hardly my particular job here to point them out to you.

Yes, your assessment is correct here. I never had any interests because Phylogenetic trees only show that there are biochemical similarities between all living things. THAT’S IT. The attempt to use this as evidence for common ancestry would turn it into a circular argument because you have to assume common ancestry in order to prove it. This is one of the reasons why it is the weakest form of evidence for Universal common Descent.

This leads me to explain the other reason why it is the weakest form of evidence, which is related to the first reason…

> [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
>
> Colin Tudge’s The Variety of Life, though a bit dated at this point, does a really nice job of explaining basic phylogenetic concepts and methods AND laying out the relationships between living groups.

NO, they are seeking a pattern and making the connection in your mind rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself. They are choosing to interpret it that way without actually proving the assumptions they depend on to support their conclusions. I can easily interpret it as evidence for common design:

[Expression of multiple horizontally acquired genes is a hallmark of both vertebrate and invertebrate genomes | Genome Biology | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)](https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0607-3)

[Biased gene transfer mimics patterns created through shared ancestry | Request PDF (researchgate.net)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44623231_Biased_gene_transfer_mimics_patterns_created_through_shared_ancestry)

If this all sounds like I am being dismissive of their work and your support of it, then you would be right. But, you are being just as dismissive of my common design model and won’t inform yourself on the matter…

> [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
>
> No, you’re wrong there. The only way “common design” can be made consistent with those shared features is by a limitless series of ad hoc “the Designer, Hallowed Be His Name, must have wanted it to look like there was common descent.”

I spent an enormous amount of time crafting a Universal common designer theory in the last topic I created that preceded this topic and model. You made no effort to make the same contribution on it. For this reason, I have no desire to read your sources that supposedly support your claims since you displayed the same disinterest in engaging the previous topic. I made it very clear that this topic will be an add on to what I argued before. So there is nothing about my model that is ad hoc.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> For example:
> 
> [faculty.chas.uni.edu](https://faculty.chas.uni.edu/~spradlin/evolution/Readings.blocked/mammaltrees.pdf)
> 
> ### [mammaltrees.pdf](https://faculty.chas.uni.edu/~spradlin/evolution/Readings.blocked/mammaltrees.pdf)
> 
> 432.99 KB
> 
> I could have shown you many others. The molecular data for mammalian relationships are copious and conclusive.

I would have been less dismissive of that form of evidence if it was just used to support limited common ancestry, such as ancestry between apes and humans. But, when you suggests that this common ancestry applies to all livings, then it requires extraordinary evidence. As I told @Puck_Mendelssohn, using phylogenetics arguments to support common ancestry leads you to a circular argument and/or is susceptible to alternative explanations, such as common design.

Now, you could support Universal ancestry through the fossil record, and experiments showing how random mutations can produce potent changes, and abiogenesis. This is because the evidence is proportional to the claim and actually shows how _universal_ common ancestry was achieved or could be achieved. I noticed you guys never attempted to present these types of evidence. Obviously, it must be because you know it hurts your case more than it helps to bring it up.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> You realize that this completely contradicts your previous claims that kinds fall within species, that carnivorous mammals are all a single species, and so on. Is it asking too much for you to be both clear and consistent?

Yes, it is actually asking a lot because I made it very clear that observations and experiments are the only way we can make better conclusions about which species is separate species versus a separate kind.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Definitions precede observation. Once you have a criterion to identify species, then you can make observations to determine what the species are. But in fact nothing you are arguing for is relevant to species, only to “kinds”, the supposed separately created groups.

Well, I gave you the definition of species and kinds… From there, we can apply those definitions to the fossil record, which happens to support common design NOT common descent.😁

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Do tell. How was that proven? What aspects of natural history has the bible proven to be a useful method for?

I already showed you involving the Rose study, which vindicates the unique claims in Genesis.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2021, 5:17am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/110 "2021-06-12T05:17:54Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Yes, your assessment is correct here.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> because you have to assume common ancestry in order to prove it

It is dishonest to make statements about how something works immediately after saying you don’t know anything about it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chad\_the\_Layman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Chad\_the\_Layman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Chad_the_Layman)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2021, 5:18am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/111 "2021-06-12T05:18:55Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> **I spent an enormous amount of time crafting a Universal common designer theory** in the last topic I created that preceded this topic and model.

You’ve spent a couple (few?) weeks writing down and discussing your ideas with some scientist, scholars, and a few of us they let hang out here and listen in. And kudos to you for seeking out input! But…

I don’t know the average amount of work (education, research, observation, experimentation, writing, presenting, revising, etc.) that it takes to offer up something that moves a particular field of science forward by even a small baby step. My guess, though, is that it’s measured in years (decades?) at least.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2021, 12:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/112 "2021-06-12T12:32:03Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Yes, your assessment is correct here. I never had any interests because Phylogenetic trees only show that there are biochemical similarities between all living things. THAT’S IT.

Your ignorance is showing. The point is not similarity but nested hierarchy. No, you don’t have to assume common ancestry. Nested hierarchy is an objectively observable pattern in the data that you need to explain somehow. It’s an obvious consequence of common descent, but there is no reason to expect it from separate creation. “Common design” is just a buzzphrase devoid of expectation.

Linking to more papers you haven’t read shouldn’t count as evidence for your vague claims.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> If this all sounds like I am being dismissive of their work and your support of it, then you would be right.

Can you see how annoying this would be to anyone who actually knows something about the topic?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I spent an enormous amount of time crafting a Universal common designer theory in the last topic I created that preceded this topic and model.

It was wasted effort, since the theory is incoherent. It explains no data. Many people have patiently explained its flaws to you, but you ignored everything, as you are ignoring everything in the current topic.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I would have been less dismissive of that form of evidence if it was just used to support limited common ancestry, such as ancestry between apes and humans. But, when you suggests that this common ancestry applies to all livings, then it requires extraordinary evidence.

I have never mentioned “all livings”; this is about mammals. Don’t change the subject. Do you agree that all mammals are one kind?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I made it very clear that observations and experiments are the only way we can make better conclusions about which species is separate species versus a separate kind.

You have never made anything clear in your life. What observations and experiments can determine whether two populations belong to the same kind? You previously suggested that there should be a nested hierarchy within kinds but not between them. You now appear to have abandoned that criterion. What other criterion would you like?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Well, I gave you the definition of species and kinds

You have given several of each, mutually contradictory.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> we can apply those definitions to the fossil record

How? There’s really no way to tell whether a fossil could have produced fertile offspring with another fossil. Nor have you mentioned any sort of criterion to identify “kinds” other than some untestable biblical categories. How do you propose to decide whether a fossil could have been tamed? And how can you reject all other evidence so easily?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I already showed you involving the Rose study, which vindicates the unique claims in Genesis.

I already showed you how the Persian Gulf Oasis doesn’t fit the requirements of Eden or of the flood. You ignored all that, as is your habit. No such claims are vindicated.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2021, 3:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/113 "2021-06-12T15:08:54Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Nested hierarchy is an objectively observable pattern in the data that you need to explain somehow.

This nested hierarchy is what got me thinking hard about common descent back then. Attempts to relate all mammals or primates would end up with a tree that consistently placed chimps closest to humans. When I saw figures like the one below, which showed alignments of chimp and human DNA (below is an alignment of Chromosome 3 in both animals):

 ![H.s.-chimp rep align](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/a/a5280b99c46c4c9829cf35bc51f172bc54bc9bcd.jpeg)

> **[The Art of the Soluble](http://artofthesoluble.blogspot.com/?m=0)**
>
> Musings about things that interest me, largely about science. The title is borrowed from Peter Medawar, the Nobel winning immunologist, who wrote a book by that title.

they beautifully explained why primate phylogenies based on molecules consistently placed chimps (and bonobos) closest to humans. Common descent of all primates was the best explanation of the data.

Yes its hard to wrap your head around it sometimes, but its what the data says and data doesn’t give a hoot about how you feel.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2021, 4:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/114 "2021-06-12T16:26:00Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> > [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
> >
> > You’ve not shown any interest in phylogenetic concepts, and certainly have shown a complete lack of knowledge of them. So while those observations are indeed out there, it’s hardly my particular job here to point them out to you.
> 
> Yes, your assessment is correct here. I never had any interests because Phylogenetic trees only show that there are biochemical similarities between all living things. THAT’S IT.

That’s not it.

Phylogenetic trees don’t show there are similarities between all living things. They use the _already known_ similarities to determine relationships between species. The evidence for common ancestry is not the similarities, but the pattern they fall into.

> [@](#):
>
> The attempt to use this as evidence for common ancestry would turn it into a circular argument because you have to assume common ancestry in order to prove it. This is one of the reasons why it is the weakest form of evidence for Universal common Descent.

It’s not circular, because that assumption is not made, and if you think it’s a weak form of evidence, that’s largely because **you obviously don’t know what the evidence is and can’t be bothered to find out**.

> [@](#):
>
> I spent an enormous amount of time crafting a Universal common designer theory in the last topic I created that preceded this topic and model.

“_An enormous amount of time_”? 😆😆😆

> [@](#):
>
> I already showed you involving the Rose study, which vindicates the unique claims in Genesis.

The one you haven’t read?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Meerkat\_SK5](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/meerkat_sk5/32/11938_2.png) [@Meerkat\_SK5](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Meerkat_SK5)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2021, 7:41pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/115 "2021-06-12T19:41:10Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Your ignorance is showing. The point is not similarity but nested hierarchy. No, you don’t have to assume common ancestry. Nested hierarchy is an objectively observable pattern in the data that you need to explain somehow. It’s an obvious consequence of common descent, but there is no reason to expect it from separate creation. “Common design” is just a buzzphrase devoid of expectation.

My mistake, I got mixed up as to what you were objecting to. I thought we were still on the issue of species and whether common descent applies to ALL life.

So just to be clear, we are talking about “kinds” and limited common ancestry from here on out potentially. As I told you before, we would expect nested hierarchies under a common design model as well.

However, a common design model would also predict _independent_ hierarchies (unrelated organisms) where each one stems from a organism created by fiat and filled out through secondary cause-and-effect reproduction.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> It was wasted effort, since the theory is incoherent. It explains no data. Many people have patiently explained its flaws to you, but you ignored everything, as you are ignoring everything in the current topic.

I addressed all those objections in my last revised and updated version of my theory. I did not see you respond to my latest changes. So I assumed you ,along with everyone else, had no more objections to give.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> How? There’s really no way to tell whether a fossil could have produced fertile offspring with another fossil. Nor have you mentioned any sort of criterion to identify “kinds” other than some untestable biblical categories. How do you propose to decide whether a fossil could have been tamed? And how can you reject all other evidence so easily?

Again, my mistake. I got mixed up. The fossil record would be the criterion for deciphering which species has no common ancestry and are completely separate from one another since common design rejects _universal_ common ancestry or descent. But, this criterion would not apply to kinds within a species or nested hierarchies.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> I have never mentioned “all livings”; this is about mammals. Don’t change the subject. Do you agree that all mammals are one kind?

NO, but this leads me to explain further here…

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> What observations and experiments can determine whether two populations belong to the same kind? You previously suggested that there should be a nested hierarchy within kinds but not between them. You now appear to have abandoned that criterion. What other criterion would you like?

Finding functional convergence between them would be the criterion for deciphering them, such as this…

[Convergent evolution of major histocompatibility complex molecules in humans and New World monkeys | Request PDF (researchgate.net)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12563013_Convergent_evolution_of_major_histocompatibility_complex_molecules_in_humans_and_New_World_monkeys)

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> I already showed you how the Persian Gulf Oasis doesn’t fit the requirements of Eden or of the flood. You ignored all that, as is your habit. No such claims are vindicated.

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Sorry, but the rivers don’t flow into Eden; they flow _out_ of Eden. And the Gihon is usually identified with the Nile, as Kush is usually identified with Egypt. I’m not seeing what any of this has to do with a common design model.

Right, this is what skeptics have said. But, as Rose pointed out, the Gulf Oasis was also watered by springs upwelling from subterranean aquifers. Genesis 2:6 also states that “streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” Genesis 7:11 identifies “springs of the great deep” as part of the source of the flood waters that wreaked havoc upon the ungodly of Noah’s generation.

My point is that the reason why the rivers flow out of the Persian Gulf today is because Noah’s flood radically changed the geography. Obviously, I would have to prove that Noah’s flood happened with more evidence but the study nonetheless vindicates the Genesis claims.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2021, 11:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/116 "2021-06-12T23:51:22Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> However, a common design model would also predict _independent_ hierarchies (unrelated organisms) where each one stems from a organism created by fiat and filled out through secondary cause-and-effect reproduction.

This prediction has failed unless you want to declare that eukaryotes are a single kind. And yet you are unwilling to admit even that mammals are a kind. You are increasingly self-contradictory.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> I addressed all those objections in my last revised and updated version of my theory.

You think you did, but you are wrong. You addressed none of the objections, and everyone who raised any would agree.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> The fossil record would be the criterion for deciphering which species has no common ancestry and are completely separate from one another

How? Be specific for once.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> But, this criterion would not apply to kinds within a species or nested hierarchies.

What do you mean by “kinds within a species”?

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Finding functional convergence between them would be the criterion for deciphering them, such as this…

What do you mean by that? How does it tell you whether species belong to the same or different kinds? Interesting paper, but you clearly haven’t read it and it clearly doesn’t say what you think it does.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Genesis 2:6 also states that “streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.”

No it doesn’t. It refers, in most translations to a mist, not streams.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> My point is that the reason why the rivers flow out of the Persian Gulf today

No rivers flow out of the Persian Gulf. Not today, not ever. And you have rivers flowing into Eden when according to Genesis they should flow out of it.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Noah’s flood radically changed the geography.

There is no evidence for any such flood and the paper you cited has none.

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> Obviously, I would have to prove that Noah’s flood happened with more evidence but the study nonetheless vindicates the Genesis claims.

No, it vindicates no Genesis claims.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [June 12, 2021, 11:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/117 "2021-06-12T23:51:23Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> My point is that the reason why the rivers flow out of the Persian Gulf today is because Noah’s flood radically changed the geography.

Those rivers _don’t_ flow out of the Persian Gulf today.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [June 13, 2021, 2:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/118 "2021-06-13T02:10:42Z")

</div>

> [@Meerkat\_SK5](#):
>
> However, a common design model would also predict _independent_ hierarchies (unrelated organisms) where each one stems from a organism created by fiat and filled out through secondary cause-and-effect.

It does indeed predict that and there is nothing of the sort in the evidence you ignore. None of those discontinuities. Your hypothesis is false.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michael\_Okoko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michael_okoko/32/13148_2.png) [@Michael\_Okoko](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michael_Okoko)\
**Post date:** [June 13, 2021, 2:58am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/119 "2021-06-13T02:58:02Z")

</div>

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> None of those discontinuities. Your hypothesis is false.

No its not. His hypothesis is unfalsifiable. If we see a nested hierarchical pattern in the data, God did it. If we see patterns associated with multiple, independent creation events, God did it. Nothing could ever rule out God’s hand.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [June 13, 2021, 3:09am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818/120 "2021-06-13T03:09:14Z")

</div>

Of course not. I’m just going with the prediction Meerkat so clearly stated.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818.md?page=5)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/can-a-common-design-model-be-useful/13818.md?page=7)