If you throw out all theories that are only partial explanations for what goes on in nature then you would have to throw out all scientific theories.
Just as the theory of relativity implies mass alone bends spacetime.
Common ancestry also has a tested model. Therefore, you have just agreed that God is eliminated by the observation of a nested hierarchy.
It was just before God guided weather and God guided planetary orbits.
No, and why would it be? Have you ever heard of freedom of religion? God-guided common ancestry is a religious view, not a scientific view, since there is no way to quantify God’s activity in the natural world. For this reason it would be wrong for this hypothesis to be taught in science classes, as the U.S. courts have also decided on several different occasions.
But your claim was that the public does not know that common ancestry is compatible with God’s guidance. This is evidently false, as according to a statistic that YOU yourself brought up, nearly 50% of the US population believes in God-guided common ancestry. So scientists are not being duplicitous.
And since this is all entirely unrelated to the verity of common ancestry itself as a scientific theory, I will not respond to this line of questioning any more, at least on this thread. You can create a new thread for this topic if you wish.
I predict that you won’t, because there’s nothing there that’s relevant to your claim.
The method doesn’t exist, Bill. That’s an empirical, not a philosophical, fact.
You’re faking it, badly.
You do know that a gene can be present in the genome without being expressed, right? All somatic cells within the same organism have the same genome (except for some immune cells that have undergone very limited V(D)J recombination). A liver cell has the same genome as a muscle cell even though they express different genes in different amounts.
Ok this is what I thought. As usual you are hiding behind a demarkation (science) and ignoring how omission can be deception.
I will assume they did not show a tested model of how reproduction starting from an initial population could generate all the observed diversity. Did they explain that this is an untested hypothesis?
This is not the claim I made. I specifically claimed the opposite. The evidence shows the real education about the limits of evolutionary theory is coming for the church as the believers in unguided evolution are highest among the unchurched.
It’s very related as you have no argument due to the lack of a mechanistic explanation. The basis of your argument allows you to remain vague and make a “no evidence position” against the counter claim. No evidence against a partial mechanism 
In order to make a counter argument you need to describe how it happened. Either unguided common descent or guided common descent. Please choose form the two possible arguments,
Why would omitting religion from science class be deceptive?
It’s the same type of evidence we would offer for unguided weather.
More word salad. It’s not the common ancestry that’s supposed to be God-guided, it’s the mutations and other changes that happened along the way. That isn’t what common ancestry means, and there is no reason to bring up God in a discussion of common ancestry.
That’s not what common descent means. Once again you show your inability to untangle separate hypotheses, unlike your hero Michael Behe.
This is exactly the problem. Common ancestry implies reproduction explains the connection. @misterme987 Were you educated at university on the description of common ancestry that John is describing?
I know this is your description. I am interested in the gap between your description and what the schools are teaching.
Reproduction does explain the connection. It just doesn’t explain the mutations. Those are two very different things. How is this not clear?
How do you know there’s a gap? Your nonsensical question show you don’t have any idea what any of it means.
There is a mutation rate during reproduction. This could and has been implied to explain the mutations.
@misterme987 can let us know if he the school lecture and textbooks describe common ancestry accurately as a pattern vs a mechanistic explaination.
Note how the evidence for common descent has nothing to do with the mutation rate during reproduction.
Unanswerable question, since it’s word salad. The pattern is nested hierarchy; the explanation is common descent. Is common descent mechanistic? No idea what that would mean.
You are repeatedly making the mistake of thinking that common ancestry has any bearing on whether evolution is guided or not. These are two unrelated issues. This is basic logic, not even a scientific point, and if you fail to understand this you must lack the basic reasoning skills needed to carry on a legitimate scientific discussion – or at least, you are choosing not to use those skills right now. I have suspected this for a while, but this makes it clear. I say this not with malice but as a mere observation.
This being the case, I don’t think any further debate with you will be productive for either of us.
But for the sake of understanding how you think: let’s say that I do believe that God guided evolution. I already believe something similar to this, although much different than the ID position. If evolution was guided by God, do you have any scientific arguments against common ancestry?
Thanks for this as this gives a solid foundation for a discussion. The arguments are based on the most parsimonious way to bring about life’s diversity. While common descent certainly has a role, was it the only vehicle God used to generate diversity?
The evidence against universal common ancestry guided by God is when the transitions are so dramatic that a new origin event makes more sense. A good example is the origin of the eukaryotic cell and the origin of the multicellular version. There are other major innovations that I have previously stated but lets narrow the scope for now.
Well, that’s sort of been the question since the beginning of this thread, but okay.
No! Common ancestry has nothing to do with the generation of diversity. That is a separate issue, which is what we have been trying to explain to you.
This is still an argument against unguided evolution.
Why are you assuming parsimony on the part of the creator? And how do you determine what’s more parsimonious? This is all theology, not science.
I’m not sure how I would answer that myself. But one thing I know: It would not be a process in which over 90% of species go extinct.
You have make a claim of universal common ancestry. This is a claim that it was involved in all transitions. In your current model God made changes but in each case reproduction was involved. What am I missing?
No its an argument against God guided common descent as the only method of species origins.
It’s based on a common sense human design model. Based on your logic then how do you determine a God driven common descent model?
Every organ in the study you cited most recently has exactly the same number of genes.