If you are restricted to methodological naturalism this is true.
If not then it explains the similarities and differences as being part of an original creation.
.
Common descent does not explain how reproduction generated the genetic differences that are needed to establish it as a viable model that can predict functional genetic changes.
Shill Cole picks one sentence out of Johnâs reply and reponds to it, but incoherently.
Hahhahahaha
Thatâs not an explanation. You seem to have no comprehension of how science works, or how reason works for that matter.
Weâve been over this so many times: common descent is not an explanation for the generation of genetic differences; itâs an explanation for the distribution of those differences among taxa. Nor does common descent predict functional genetic changes, just the distribution of those changes among taxa. Then again, separate (original??) creation explains nothing at all; as I have mentioned, in order to explain data there must be expectations or predictions entailed by a hypothesis. Separate creation has no such.
This is a statement from the Botanical society of America originally drafted in 2003:
While creationism explains everything, it offers no understanding beyond, âthatâs the way it was created.â No testable predictions can be derived from the creationist explanation. Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life.
In the last 20+ years, creationism / ID still hasnât moved past this.
Thatâs only because creationists avoid making predictions that they already know will be falsified. I would, for example, suggest that creationism predicts that different kinds will show no systematic relationships to other kinds, and that kinds will therefore be easy to detect. Note that Bill has consistently avoided this prediction.
Science works by methodological naturalism and most the time it works well except in the cases where it forces a faulty model.
I agree and yes you have explained its limitations. I am trying to point out that its limitations make it lead us to the wrong model of a single tree with reproductively connected organisms.
The inference of separate creation can help us understand where we should start doing science. By default it appears it is the model that most practicing biology is following.
In decades of reading contemporary scientific papers, texts, etc., I have never seen an example of a biological model of origins based on separate creation nor an example of how such a model is being utilized in modern biology.
Do you have a concrete example of this or is this just wishful thinking?
Again, you have no idea how science works. And you keep snipping away most of what I say as if it didnât exist. Thatâs quote mining.
More quote mining.
Itâs not an inference until you can say what itâs inferred from and why. And just what can it help us understand?
What is practiced is population genetics that starts from an existing population.
Ok
Whatâs inferred is that like the origin of matter and origin of life living populations are separately created and are generally not the product of other populations.
It can help us understand where to science can start to build models and understand changes in the case of biology.
Studying existing populations has nothing to do with modelling independent origins of said populations.
Iâll chalk this one up to wishful thinking.
I think that grants it a coherence it doesnât have. Chalk it up to DADA, and youâre closer to the mark.
This what you cannot do with the common descent inference as it does not explain the origin of the genetic differences.
⌠?
The above sentence is incoherent. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I think youâre right about that. 
Look at Johns explanation here.
To explain the origin of a population you need to explain the origin of the differences in genes and chromosomes etc. While common descent is a possible explanation for the similarities it does not explain the differences.
We need to back up a few steps here.
You originally stated this:
I replied (to the bolded part) asking whether you had any concrete examples of this re: modern biology.
In other words, are there any contemporary biologists actively utilizing a model (or models) of independently created origins of populations in the practice of the biological sciences.
To which you replied: âWhat is practiced[sic] is population genetics that starts from an existing population.â
Which again, has absolutely nothing to do with modelling independent origins of those populations.
Unless you can point to examples of biologists constructing and applying models of independent (created) origins and applying in biology, then your claim about âthe model that most practicing biology is followingâ is blatantly false.
What you think we need such a model for is completely irrelevant here.
If you look at the Lenski long term evolutionary experiment he was not trying to explain the origin of e coli bacteria. He was just showing how the population changed over time. This is how biology is operating which is understanding changes to existing populations.
By default like most biologists he was using a population of e coli bacteria as his starting point and studying changes to an existing population.
Just like Darwins study of changes to finches.
I agree there is no model here. The starting assumption is an existing population. If they are starting with existing populations the universal common descent model is not being applied.
Are you under the impression that if someone is someone is studying a contemporary population that they think that population manifested out of thin air?
So a colony of bacteria diversifying into several variants from a single ancestral type is âjust likeâ several different species of Galapagos finches that diversified out of a single â or at any rate far fewer â ancestral group that settled or was blown onto the archipelago.
Sorry, what do you object to again?
If you acknowledge that populations can and do change, not only before isolation into several populations (if thatâs not an origin of populations, what is?), but even so far as to split into multiple distinct species (if thatâs not an origin of species, what is?), what of darwinian evolution remains there for you to âchallengeâ?