Common Design Theory, Revisited

Yes, thanks for the correction. Of course, general relativity is involved, but how it is involved ,particularly when it comes to non-biological phenomna, is completely unknown and beyond the scope of this theory.

We can test whether they evolved separately by applying analogous phenotypic traits between families and orders to different environmental niches based on similar needs.

There is a four-question survey where each practical criterion is designated by a letter (A–D) and a title in the form of a question (relating to food, predators, reproduction, and habitat).

For example, if the answer to the question “Is the common feature of this group being used differently in their habitats?” is “No,” “To be determined (TBD),” or “Not applicable (N/A),” a follow-up question is asked: “Do they respond differently in different habitats?” This may require artificially planting them in different habitats for an answer. If the answer to either question is “Yes,” we can start testing whether there are adaptive and structural convergent genes pertaining to the application of this analogous trait. If the test reveals at least one adaptive and/or structural gene, we can confidently conclude common design.

This method was inspired by a study on red and giant pandas, which concluded that their false thumbs evolved separately in response to similar needs, and a study that showed why and how they evolved separately.

Evidence of a false thumb in a fossil carnivore clarifies the evolution of pandas | PNAS

Comparative genomics reveals convergent evolution between the bamboo-eating giant and red pandas | PNAS

Indeed, Morpho-molecular dissimilarities along with lack of fossil intermediates are good indicators of separate kinds.

For instance, the results of a recent study [22] confirmed the results of earlier studies, which showed that all horses are of a single created kind. Most importantly, preliminary results showed evidence that horses were, for the most part, sufficiently different from tapirs and rhinos, which share the trait of odd numbers of toes. [23]
NextGen Stats Confirm that All Fossil Horses Belong to the Same Created Kind (

New Baraminological Methods Confirm Monobaraminic Status of the Horses (Perissodactyla: Equidae) and Preliminary Analyses of New Datasets Suggest the Possibility of Discontinuity between Horses and Various Outgroup Taxa (

However, these two methods would mainly give us good reason to “suspect” all three groups are created kinds rather than only one group. Only the two-step ecology criteria I showcased above allows us to confidently conclude that they are created kinds.

I suspect that in this case it might mean something. Despite the fees, I would not be surprised if they were trying to get rid of him.


It’s worse, input the word count of the text (Is There Evidence for a Universal Common Designer?) and the price increases:


In the news today:


At the least, whoever reviewed those papers should be taken off the list of potential referees.

Two points:

First, Republicans In Name Only (Archaegrandpartius solonominus), though that taxon is hotly disputed, are in most cases normal 46-chromosome, not 82-chromosome, individuals.

Second, you’ve been asked to defend your math on these claims that various sorts of divergence can’t happen. How about you get back to that thread you ran out on as you were failing, and show us how you do it?


Then let me revise my assessment from ‘Oof’ to ‘Oof and also yikes’

I suggest you post your answer here:

Bill’s math class - Peaceful Science


Pretty funny. :slight_smile:

I have not generated any population genetics mathematics and I have not seen anyone here generate any. I am simply applying reasonable assumptions to two models that were developed close to 20 years ago.

If there was a case on the evolutionary side pushing vertebrate common descent I would assume a counter argument would have been made.

@Meerkat_SK5 is working on a multiple origin model where population genetic models like the ones Behe and Lynch generated should be useful in shaking out his thesis.

Yeah, well, if your assumptions are so reasonable you will have no difficulty showing your work in that thread.


The assumptions are dependent on the gene/proteins that are observed. If the protein is not preserved across species then Lynch’s model is the most useful. If they are preserved then Behe’s model is the most useful.

For beta lactamase in bacteria I would use Lynch’s model for beta catenin or WNT 11 in vertebrates I would use Behe’s model.

You should present and defend your assumptions in the appropriate thread, not here.


This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.