Yes they could but this does not isolate guided common descent from the other possible Divine origin strategies.
The only way to make common descent the tested hypothesis is to find a mechanism that overcomes the sequence and waiting time problems. @art has shown some limited evidence for recombination as a mechanism at least in plants.
Yep. But it does deal with all the evidence for common descent, which separate creation does not and you consistently ignore. So if we compare separate creation to guided evolution by comparison with the data, separate creation consistently loses.
No, because as you have just admitted, these problems have nothing to do with common descent, only with particular processes as the sources of variation. You always change the subject without seeming to notice.
The “problem” seems to be that the number of possible sequences is really, really large.
The way ID works is if you write out a really, really large number and publish it somewhere (ideally in a journal article, but a book or website will do), you automatically prove that there is a god.
Those are the rules. Don’t blame Bill. He’s just following them.
¹⁰⁰100. What do I win?
100^101. So there!
I recall that when Axe’s nonsense was the swingin’ trend among cdesign proponentsists, I used to have the strangest conversations. I would explain to people why the math given wasn’t actually applicable to the problem it was meant to apply to, and they’d indignantly insist, “so, you’re denying math!” I would patiently explain that, no, I wasn’t denying the math, but that the math did need to accurately model real phenomena to be of any use to anyone. And if you know cdesign proponentsists, you know what they said next: “so, you’re denying math!”
That would be the famous ID math that precludes the possibility of shuffling cards. If you do shuffle cards the order of the cards in the deck has a 1 in 8x10^67 chance of occurring which is impossible, especially on the first try. Therefore, it is impossible to shuffle cards.
You’ve misread my number. Your response is an unbelievable number of orders of magnitude smaller than my number. At least 100¹⁰⁰ orders of magnitude smaller.
¹⁰⁰100 >>> 100¹⁰⁰
Oh no, foiled again!
I’m unfamiliar with that notation. What does it mean?
It’s tetration, repeated exponentiation. So ⁵2 is 2^2^2^2^2. You can imagine that ¹⁰⁰100 is a VERY large number.
I definitely don’t have enough fingers for that. Even if I take my socks off.