BTW evolution posits birds, bats, insects, and pterosaurs all shared a common ancestor albeit around 800 MYA. How did they all end up with different wings from the same template?
How did the chimp end up without the ability to speak yet we speak? Your question is senseless.
Your is the ad-hoc. Completely fabricated to try and replace creation by God.
I never said each species had its own template.
It doesn’t. It can’t. He’s literally just coming up with the same mechanism as common descent, just calling it something else. Instead of some population splitting in two which independently evolve, he has God creating a template, then copying it, then independently “mutating” the two templates. He might aswell say that common descent happened, but God made the mutations or something along those lines.
That’s the third time you dodged the question. It’s like you can’t even think of a plausible story.
Then which species shared templates and how do you know? Do all mammals share the same template? All members of the carnivora?
If your “common genetic template” hypothesis is true we should see it when we examine the details, right?
Let’s see the “common genetic template” hypothesis" make a testable prediction, then let’s test it. OK?
Clearly not. You’re the one coming here literally seeking to replace the word common ancestor with “common genetic creation template”(it’s not the other way around), an idea you’ve only come up with after talk about common ancestors became a thing.
Until scientists started talking about common ancestors and common descent, no creationist and no religious scripture has ever mentioned the idea of “common genetic creation templates”.
So no, it really is yours that is the ad-hoc one.
Inb4 he says “Let’s see the “common ancestor” hypothesis” make a testable prediction , then let’s test it. OK?
And then he’ll say that his “common genetic template” hypothesis predicts the exact same thing. For inscrutable reasons God wanted to do it that way: Create species by progressively deriving them from some universally shared genetic template.
And God said, “Let …birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”
I was hoping you could answer your own question and see the obvious. Yes, fowl would constitute a common creation template or several. 800 MYA would make sense.
Easy. Those are variations on the template, either created by God at their inception or variations developed over time. “Changes”, not “evolution”.
You are very close. Not an all-inclusive universally shared genetic template. But enough [different templates] to build/create different animal kinds on those templates. (And apparently enough for those who forget God to infer common ancestry, but hey, that was part of the risk involved for God.)
Bats, insects, and pterosaurs aren’t fowl. And none of them existed 800 MYA, only their common ancestor.
So now you’re changing your story again and saying each species DID have a unique template with special “changes”. Want to get back to us when you finally settle on one version? Or are you still making this up as you go along?
Still waiting for a “common genetic template” prediction too but I’m not holding my breath.
LOL! Now each “kind” had its own template which had special changes making it look like evolution through common descent had occurred. Pretty amazing coincience there, eh? 
You are making this up as you go along, right?
OMG. You still don’t understand do you. It is a TEMPLATE whereupon God creates winged creatures that either fly or do not fly. I couldn’t care less what you today designated them as or not designate them as.
It is a template…
You are typing before you think. I will sign off now and let you find your mistake in your statement. Again, each species does not have a unique creation template. Good night for now.
It’s not a common template if every last species has special changes which make it unique.
Do you think you can go at least two posts without contradicting yourself?
And it’s separate creation with what looks like inheritance, i.e. modified templates in a nested hierarchical pattern, so “common design” or “a common genetic creation template” doesn’t explain any of that. You need a new sort of explanation for all those modified, hierarchical templates.
I don’t know what you mean by “return identically”. But I don’t think you understand my objection. You can’t make that substitution because it makes no sense. If there are two species you might explain their similarities by a “common genetic template”. But if you add a third species that has some but not all the similarities of the other two, you can’t explain the similarities of the three species by that same genetic template. If you consider a nested hierarchy, a tree of several branches connecting a set of species, at most one of those branches can be explained by a single genetic template. Worse, you have apparently no way to choose which of those branches you explain by this template, and no way at all to explain the other branches.
On the other hand, common descent explains all the branches by a single cause. That makes it a much better hypothesis to explain all the data.
Do you get it now?
What you have done is simply substituted the word “design” wherever you have seen the word “ancestor” or “ancestry.”
This is of course nonsensical.
Take the following text that includes the word “ancestry”:
My maternal cousins and I all got our DNA tested, and sure enough, the similarity of our DNA shows that we have a common ancestry!"
Now substitute “design”:
My maternal cousins and I all got our DNA tested, and sure enough, the similarity of our DNA shows that we have a common design template!"
By performing search and replace, have you demonstrated that common ancestry does not exist?
NO.
By performing search and replace, have you shown that a change of a priori beliefs leads to a different conclusion?
NO
Is the second sentence clearer than the first?
NO. “Common design template” is undefined and could mean pretty much anything the writer wants it to.
You have chosen to follow this rhetorical strategy, but the strategy has accomplished absolutely nothing.
I hope you find this feedback helpful.
Best,
Chris Falter
@noUCA, this just is not true. If you disagree, and you do, please demonstrate it. Can you? Mathematically?
DNA analysis in forensic science and human genealogy applies to close relatives, including siblings, parents and grandparents. We know these relationships are the result of common ancestry and not common design because the ancestry was directly observed and there was no design stage involved.
Unless you think babies are designed elsewhere and delivered by stork.