I have a prediction from separate creation of species (or separate creation with common design): Chromosome numbers should not vary. Since the packaging of genes is not functionally important for the most part, they should all be packaged the same way. Now of course that depends on the assumption that the designer would re-use parts for convenience.
There’s another possible assumption, that the designer would create each species anew, with no reference to other work. In that case we would predict that nothing would be in common between species except those bits for which only one functional solution exists. In that case we might find that all species had cells, DNA, perhaps even nuclei. But there’s no reason to expect a common genetic code, much less a second common mitochondrial code that differed slightly from the nuclear code. There may be a reason to expect the same amino acids, to allow for predation. But there’s no reason to expect similarity of any genes, or of synteny, or of the ways in which the species are adapted to their environments, either on the phenotypic or molecular level.
I suppose other predictions would be possible based on different assumptions about the designer. But at least those two predictions are well falsified. We can conclude that a designer, if one exists, was not of the sort entailed by those assumptions. Bill has made the first assumption but hasn’t followed it through in examining the data. To my knowledge he’s never considered the second.
