I am not sure what you mean by that. For instance, Paleontologists would obviously not think this framework could lead to successful research for their work because it is not in their field of expertise.
So how could it be the same for everyone?
Several studies show how animal death and carnivorous activity play a necessary role in preventing an overpopulation of herbivores (and carnivores) that would potentially go extinct from starvation by eating all their food sources and the fixation of harmful mutations or pathogens within populations that would potentially cause the population to become extinct as well.
A400_5f 563…566 (elkhornsloughctp.org)
Adaptive rewiring aggravates the effects of species loss in ecosystems | Nature Communications
I originally pointed out that a scientific theory is a large overarching explanation that is well-tested and unites lots of fields and explains lots of different kinds of observations. What springs forth from there are hypothesizes that are narrow and we can test it, such as my biochemical model of common design. This means that the same theory can be used by different scientists to make different predictions that are later confirmed through future experiments and observations.
What I was just trying to do before is show how Richard Owen’s universal common archetype from a Divine mind is a well-tested overarching theory. One of the reasons why it is well-tested and supported is because it predicted a saltational process for the origin of species and stasis followed by sudden appearances:
"Advocates of these views often do not completely deny gradual changes (typically during adaptation or microevolution), but consider them unable to explain the origin of phenotypic novelties, or species and higher order taxa. For the advocates of mutationism and saltationism, sudden and discontinuous changes appear to be required to explain the origin of profound phenotypic novelties or species "
Theissen2009.pdf (evolocus.com)
In contrast, my particular common design model is a hypothesize that makes new predictions, but still flows out of that overarching theory. The separate creation of orders and families is one of those new predictions.
From one of the studies I referenced already:
“The fossil record and molecular phylogenies of living species can provide independent estimates of speciation and extinction rates, but often produce strikingly divergent results.”
As I mentioned, Richard Owen’s theory involving a saltational process explains these “strikingly divergent results.”
Moreover, the new life-forms removed the just-right amounts of carbon dioxide and methane from the atmosphere to perfectly compensate for the brightening Sun:
“Our model calculations suggest that the lower albedo of the early Earth provided environmental conditions above the freezing point of water, thus alleviating the need for extreme greenhouse-gas concentrations to satisfy the faint early Sun paradox.”
This common designer implies having a common design rather than a common descent because only humans produce top-down causation in the form of algorithmic information or RNA viruses. More importantly, observations have suggested that viruses were not only the probable precursors of the first cells but also helped shape and build the genomes of all species, including humans. [36]
For instance, scientists synthesized the RNA molecules of a virus and reconstructed a virus particle from scratch. [37] They accomplished this by creating another virus and using its parts, such as specialized proteins (enzymes), to construct an RNA virus to solve the problem of an unstable RNA. Other experiments have shown that RNA viruses can be engineered to interact with the host miRNA pathways, and miRNAs can be used to control viral tropism. [38]
For example, endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) protect the host cell’s genome from retroviral infections by disrupting the endogenization process of invading retroviruses. ERVs must resemble retroviruses to act as a defense mechanism against incoming harmful viruses. [39]
A different study from Kazuaki Monde et al. also revealed that “the strict dependence of HERV-K on SOX-2 has allowed HERV-K to protect early embryos during evolution while limiting the potentially harmful effects of HERV-K retrotransposition on host genome integrity in these early embryos.” [40]
This is how human designers operate. They use preexisting mechanisms, material parts, and digital information to assemble designs to achieve a purpose.
The other reason a common designer implies having a common design rather than a common descent is because natural selection lacks the capacity to elucidate the physical mechanisms underlying the transition from non-life to life or to distinguish non-living from living. [41]
Furthermore, RNA viruses cannot be included in the tree of life because they do not share characteristics with cells, and no single gene is shared by all viruses or viral lineages. While cellular life has a single, common origin, viruses are polyphyletic—they have many evolutionary origins. [42]
Overall, this is why we can infer that all living animals share a common design that can be traced back to a universal common designer. If this theory is true, then we can expect humans to possess cognitive qualities that are exceptions to what would otherwise be predicted if we were evolutionary descendants.
[36] Are viruses our oldest ancestors? | EMBO reports (embopress.org)
[37] Cello, J., Paul, A.V. and Wimmer, E., 2002. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science, 297(5583), pp. 1016-1018.
https://www.science.org/content/article/poliovirus-baked-scratch
[38] Tenoever, B.R., 2013. RNA viruses and the host microRNA machinery. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 11(3), pp. 169-180.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro2971
[42] Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life | Nature Reviews Microbiology
Viruses and the tree of life (virology.ws)
Not true, common design or HRT can and does produce the same patterns:
A phylogenetic tree built from BovB sequences from species in all of these groups does not conform to expected evolutionary relationships of the species, and our analysis indicates that at least nine HT events are required to explain the observed topology. Our results provide compelling evidence for HT of genetic material that has transformed vertebrate genomes.
" we statistically tested for incongruence between the topology of the promoter sequences against the species tree. The null hypothesis of this test is vertical inheritance (as defined by the species tree); therefore, rejection of the null hypothesis is a strong indication of HRT. We found that 51% of all core gene promoters are incongruent with the species phylogeny, indicating that regulatory regions, similar to coding genes, are frequently transferred. " Transfer of noncoding DNA drives regulatory rewiring in bacteria | PNAS
“Because of the critical tasks of translation elongation factors, it is widely believed that EF-1α/EF-Tu genes have been vertically inherited from the last universal common ancestor (3–5), and the gene products are ubiquitous in all extant cells. However, large-scale sequence data from phylogenetically diverged organisms started unveiling cases that clearly violate the above preconception about EF-1α/EF-Tu evolution.”
Direct phylogenetic evidence for lateral transfer of elongation factor-like gene - PMC (nih.gov)
A study by biologists demonstrated, at the molecular level, that evolution is both unpredictable and irreversible. [56] The study focused exclusively on the type of evolution known as purifying selection, which favors mutations with no or only a small effect in a fixed environment. This is in contrast to adaptation, in which mutations are selected if they increase an organism’s fitness in a new environment. Purifying selection is by far the more common type of selection.
[56] Shah, P., McCandlish, D.M. and Plotkin, J.B., 2015. Contingency and entrenchment in protein evolution under purifying selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(25), pp. E3226-E3235.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1412933112
Consequently, we would expect novelty or speciation to be extremely rare under common descent models. Second, occurrences of convergence where the environmental, predatory, and competitive selection effects would not at all be similar.