I am also hoping you ask questions that you feel need to be asked in order to understand my model for common design better.
No, I am posting research here. It is just not my research as I keep telling you. Mike gene, Fuz Rana, Stuart Hammeroff and Todd Elder have already done their due diligence on this subject for me. I am just organizing it and then presenting it to you and others.
I have already explained why that standard of proof is not reliable in this situation. It also does not have to be accepted by scientific consensus to be taught in schools.
Again, it is not my theory or models.
Well, of course, it is true. I think what you really mean to say is “Do you now agree that universal common ancestry is the best explanation ?”
No, I don’t because I think that the gaps in the fossil record are real rather than apparent.
No, intelligent design theory and common design are two different theories. Intelligent design theory involves providing something was designed. In contrast, common design involves proving how something was designed.
You have already acknowledged that intelligent design theory was falsifiable and testable when you critiqued the Orch-OR theory. 
As @colewd alluded to , common design predicts a functional utility between nested unrelated basic types and a purpose for why they are nested together despite being unrelated.
What are you talking about? Von Neuman’s machine forms the basis of cellular automata:
“The UC forms the foundation of von Neumann’s theory on self-replicating automata. However, an UC is a mindless robot, and must be told very specifically exactly what to do in order build the correct object(s). It must therefore be programmed to construct specific things, and if it is to replicate then it must also be provided with a blueprint of itself.”
And you never done anything to demonstrate this and I suspect you never will. So I don’t expect to be distracted by this in the future
It is the mechanism that explains how basic types developed cell differentition, consciousness, and sexual reproduction because natural selection does not explain it at all.
I am talking about what this study suggests:
"The cellular slime mold Dictyostelium has cell-cell connections similar in structure, function, and underlying molecular mechanisms to animal epithelial cells. These similarities form the basis for the proposal that multicellularity is ancestral to the clade containing animals, fungi, and Amoebozoa (including Dictyostelium): Amorphea (formerly “unikonts”). "
I mean what this article suggests:
"Geologist Martin Kennedy and his colleagues from the University of California, Riverside realized that clay minerals in marine sediments are responsible for trapping the organic carbon that would otherwise bond with highly reactive oxygen.
Today such clay minerals form in soil when organisms such as microbes or fungi interact with tiny bits of weathered rock. The resultant clay then washes down to the sea and settles on the bottom, where the clay’s chemical properties actively attract organic carbon and then absorb it, much like kitty litter.
The scientists reasoned that this so-called clay mineral factory might have produced the sharp rise in oxygen availability that preceded the flowering of complex life forms."
Secondary source: Study Suggests Clay Paved the Way for Evolution of Complex Animals - Scientific American
Primary source: Science Express Logo Report
Based on the clay study, a single generation
No, it is not based on just gaps in fossil lineage’s but also morphological and molecular dissimilarities:
"Baraminologists must also be able show how one proposed created kind is distinct from other created kinds. To do this, they look at dissimilarities, or subtractive criteria. These are used to subtract species from a larger group of organisms. This makes the group smaller and hopefully closer to the true created kind.
Consider, as an example, the fossa. If you came across this mammal in the wild or at the zoo, you might easily mistake it for a cousin of your feline friend. Like your house cat, the fossa even has partially retractable claws to help it climb trees. Despite this, there are many features that show dissimilarity with true cats. Statistical tests can be done that show it likely does not belong to the cat created kind."
What Is Baraminology? • New Creation Blog
Yes, that is correct. I actually forgot to include the ecology method which allows us to demonstrate that the gaps of dissimilarity and/or lineages between major groups of organisms are real, and not apparent. This is what common design predicts.
The common mechanisms and blueprints involved in the process results in nested hierarchy because the designer has common purposes for each basic type. God’s purposes are to have basic types survive, reproduce, and fill environments of the earth.
This means that the differences between a particular set of basic types similar in morphology and/or moleculars are due to the different design requirements each will need for their environment.
As RTB’s Mark Perez explains it:
“The biblical account of Adam and Eve makes clear that humanity did not evolve from other primates. God establishes human exceptionalism by creating us in his image and giving us dominion over all other life on Earth (Genesis 1:26–28). If the biblical claims are true, then we can expect humans to possess qualities that are exceptions to what would otherwise be predicted if we were evolutionary descendants.”
You specifically said in post 291:
“Different predictions would result from these premises. Evolution would predict that the convergent features would commonly differ in detail and would in fact show relationships to features in related taxa; creation would predict that “convergent” features would be absolutely identical and would appear in the species as if from nowhere, with no relationships to features in related taxa. Of course we see the former, not the latter, in almost every case.” [emphasis added]