No. A scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. Scientific hypotheses start as explanations, but they still need to make empirical predictions–yours doesn’t.
A hypothesis only begins to be considered to be a theory after it has withstood many rigorous empirical tests. Like evolutionary theory.
Yes, that can be said for Richard Owen’s universal common design/archetype from a Divine mind.
For instance, Charles Darwin himself famously complained in a letter to Asa Gray, “I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [parasitic insects] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.”
The same goes with so-called design flaws in nature. However, over the course of 30 years, it has been repeatedly found that what initially seemed to be a design flaw or evil design caused by an unguided process turned out not to be the case afterall with increasing understanding of the design.
Richard Owen’s theory also has a history of accurate predictions regarding gaps in the fossil record. For instance, the fossil record has revealed that the observed pattern of no evolutionary change punctuated by rapid biological innovations matches the patterns predicted [47] if a common design/archetype accounts for life’s history and diversity.
Lastly, he claimed humans were unique and did not emerge from ape ancestors. There has been numerous observations that have confirmed human expectionalism where the cognitive abilities of the human brain have not been observed to be present in animal brains nor did they work properly in animal brains through experimentation.
This is why Richard Owen’s explanation can be considered a scientific theory. In contrast, my particular common design model is a hypothesize that flows out of that overarching theory of common design. This leads me to address this…
That is not what you suggested in a different thread…
Every item in that list is subjective except one. It’s a pseudoscientific farce.
The only one that is empirical is:
Prediction: we should determine that most pseudogenes and ERV’s are functional.
(A) We would expect analogous traits to evolve separately between families and orders in response to similar needs.
Not empirical and not different from evolutionary theory.
(B) We expect to find functional ERV’s and pseudogenes between families and orders.
[/quote]Not empirical and not different from evolutionary theory. Numbers and proportions might make it empirical.
Prediction: over 80% of families and orders evolved separately.
Almost, but only if you can define “species trees” empirically. Since it makes no sense, I doubt you can.
Prediction: The regulatory regions of core gene promoters between over 80% of families and orders are incongruent with species phylogenies (I.e., vertical inheritance).
Please explain how the parasitic Ichneumon wasps fit into that view. Then you can take on river blindness, malaria, and so on.
There is no such pattern. Nor does Owen’s theory predict such a pattern. Also, if you’re going to cite references, more than just a number would be necessary. But based on your history, I suspect that the reference doesn’t support the claim.
This is in conflict with both the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence. Why, apes even have a hippocampus major.
OK, that’s actually better than I expected. Maybe we are stuck with you? 
What then, do you do with a framework for research that no researchers think can lead to successful research? And even if they did, how would they get it past peer review when no one accepts the framework?
Did I tell you about my fancy sports car? It hasn’t got any wheels, or rims, axles, transmission, motor, gas tank, radiator, steering, seats, dashboard, windows, chassis, windshield wipers, or … anything, really. In my mind tho, it is bright red and drives really fast. I’ll sell it to you for the low low price of $500, 
I missed this before … don’t you know not to trust statistics?
This is false. Bill at least is firmly on the DI side of the fence. Also, you have misconstrued the difference between Joshua’s and the DI’s position – the DI is trying to come up with scientific-sounding excuses for conservative Christians to deny evolution, Joshua is trying to come up with scientifically-undisprovable reasons for conservative Christians to accept evolution.
And given that, even if every single conservative Christian denied evolution, it would not change evolution’s scientific status one iota, the only way to “end Origins debate” is with acceptance of evolution.
If you are claiming this as an example of a “more qualified researcher”, then what are their qualifications?
Also, as you are paying them to edit and review your work, they have a financial interest in keeping you happy by being as positive as possible about your work.
Finally, they would not appear to be in a position “to further develop this theory and model”.
God is omnibenevolent and designed animals for the purpose of surviving, reproducing, and/or adapting. For this reason, God will not design animals with pathogens or features that reduce the population or another animal’s ability to survive, reproduce, and fit an environmental niche.
However, as you pointed out, there are currently examples in nature that seem to conflict with the theory, such as
(i) Toxoplasma gondii and its toxoplasmosis
(ii) Excretory or digestive systems of parasitic insects
(iii) Tongue-eating louse (a parasitic isopod)
(iv) Carnivorous behavioral genes of parasitic vertebrates
(v) The enzyme B-1 4 glucanase
In the future, we expect to find a sensible purpose for alleged “evil” designs that show they do not reduce (but increase) the population or another animal’s ability to survive, reproduce, and fit an environmental niche.
The famous parasitic wasps I just mentioned are just one of many examples of this:
That is what his theory predicts John:
Owen was a pivotal figure in the emergence of the evolutionary view of life forms as indicated by fossils. He was a strong advocate of the notion that the paleontological record is progressive, arguing in an anonymous Quarterly Review(1851) critique of Charles Lyell’s steady-state view of the geological past that the succession of fossils through time shows a distinct development from lower to higher. For Owen, this progressive change was a process guided by divine purpose. He believed in an orthogenetic-saltational process of organic unfolding, driven by an inherent tendency to change, not by contingent, gradualist, and external forces such as natural selection.
Again, the fossil record has revealed that the observed pattern of no evolutionary change punctuated by rapid biological innovations matches the patterns predicted if a common design/archetype accounts for life’s history and diversity (i.e. saltations).
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1014503108
For instance, God fine-tuned life in just-right forms, at just-right times, and at just-right abundance and diversity levels and replaced those life-forms via mass extinction events followed quickly by mass speciation events. The new life-forms removed the just-right amounts of carbon dioxide and methane from the atmosphere to perfectly compensate for the brightening Sun.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07622-y
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08955
Without a conscious mind there would be no possibility of perfectly compensating for the increasing brightness of the Sun so that life can be continuously sustained on Earth throughout the past 3.8 billion years.
No, it’s in conflict with your pet theory. Common design can explain the same fossil and genetic evidence. However, there are other ways we can determine that humans did not emerge from apes. For instance, we can expect humans to possess cognitive qualities that are exceptions to what would otherwise be predicted if we were evolutionary descendants, such as:
KIF18a [also known as (a.k.a.) Kinesin 8]
KNL1 (a.k.a. CASC5)
SPAG5 (a.k.a. astrin)
Endorestiform Nucleus
These examples involve the cognitive abilities of the human brain that either have not been observed to be present in animal brains or do not work properly in animal brains through experimentation.
You mean no atheistic researchers would think it has any worth. But, what makes you think Christian researchers would feel the same way.
I would only agree with this if by evolution, you are referring to Richard Owen’s theory of evolution NOT Darwin’s.
Scientific Review Report
TARGET TOP RATED JOURNALS WITH THE RIGHT EXPERTISE
A Scientific Review Report is created by peer reviewers for top journals like Nature, premium editors with 20+ years of experience, and our managing editors. This team of 3 experts shares critical feedback on improvements to your paper based on the scope of your target journal. Their feedback shortens the time a journal takes to evaluate your paper and increases your chances of acceptance in the high-impact journals.
Scientific Editing Services: Top Journal Editing by Scientific Publication Experts | Editage
I mean neither. I mean the modern Theory of Evolution. And what you “agree with” matters no more to its scientific status than what conservative Christians agree to or deny.
Meaningless boilerplate. Who wrote that review of your paper? And what was that person’s qualifications?
And, of course, since @Meerkat_SK5 falls into that 97%, I’m not sure what that would mean anyway.
YGTBKM. Because science is the same for everyone. If it were different, then it should be a simple matter to find evidence of that difference. That never happens.
{Cue Bill Paxton: “Game over, man. GAME OVER!”}
So you have no explanation, just a blind hope that in the future there will be. At present, though, it’s evidence against your notions. You are not doing anything resembling science here.
Nothing to do with what you’re talking about except that it mentions wasps.
And once more you quote something that says nothing like what you claimed.
Not what you’re talking about. These are not separately created kinds. Saltations are big changes in existing groups. Further, the phenomenon of stasis and punctuation involves individual species, not the families and higher taxa you claim to be kinds.
The papers you cite do not support your claims.
Those are not “cognitive qualities”, and what makes you think that they would not be predicted under common descent? Doesn’t evolution result in new forms? Are these genes, or there orthologs, not also found in other species?
I’m a Christian researcher, and I feel the same way.
Why wouldn’t we expect that from evolution and common descent?
Why couldn’t evolution and common descent produce novel adaptations?
Our cognitive abilities come from our embryonic development and subsequent development after birth. That development is produced by our DNA. Can you show us any differences between our genomes and the genomes of other species that you claim couldn’t be produced by known evolutionary mechanisms and common descent?
The mixture of features produces a nested hierarchy, a pattern that is only predicted by common descent.
Also, Darwin himself predicted the punctuated nature of the fossil record:
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.
So why do me and my siblings have common designs? Isn’t it due to common descent?
Also, a nested hierarchy does not point to common design. it points to common descent. Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Common descent is the only process that we know of that necessarily produces a nested hierarchy.
ERV’s protect against subsequent infection because they were once viruses. Transcripts from ERV’s bind to transcripts from the infecting retrovirus because of complementary sequence, and that complementary sequence is a result of previous insertion of a retrovirus into the host genome.
On top of that, only 10% of ERV’s have the necessary open reading frames to participate in this sort of viral protection, and of those only a tiny fraction have the necessary open reading frames for a given retrovirus. About 90% of ERV’s are just solo LTRs that lack the gag, env, and pol genes necessary. So it is very misleading to pretend as if all ERV’s serve this function. Nor is it required for different species to have the same ERV at the same orthologous base in each of their genomes in order to have this function. Only common descent can explain why we see a pattern of orthologous ERV’s.
That’s how common descent works. More importantly, common descent necessarily produces a nested hierarchy when there is vertical inheritance. Common design is not required to follow a nested hierarchy. What do we see? A nested hierarchy.
No, it doesn’t. For example, cars don’t fall into a nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no design reason why life should fall into a nested hierarchy other than common descent.
It only needs to be rare in order to get novel adaptations.
Again, nothing to do with the parasitism of ichneumon wasps on caterpillars.
You have done nothing to show this, and in the process you have presented incoherent claims, not tests.
That’s not Owen’s archetype theory, which has no necessary connection to saltationism; it’s just that Owen was also a saltationist. Note again that saltational transitions do not deny common descent. This is all your distortion. Also note that the fossil record shows missing transitions at the level of species, not higher taxa. And yet you claim that species within a kind share common descent while higher taxa do not, the opposite of what the fossils, naively interpreted, show.
And that’s a prediction falsified by the very fossil record you appeal to.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with your claims except that it includes a few of the same words. You really unerstand almost nothing of what you read, and that’s a problem.
It doesn’t, you know. It has nothing to do with those results.
That’s a non sequitur followed by more non sequiturs that claim to support it. This is hopeless.
This is evident. There have been many efforts to explain this to you, and you do not grasp the significance. Rather than repeat all that, I’ll take the Socratic approach:
HOW IT SCIENCE THE SAME FOR EVERYONE?
For instance(s), I have moved between fields several times in my career, covering developmental biology, physiology, neuroscience, mouse genetics, cell biology, biochemistry, and cardiology. This idea that competent scientists are constrained is nonsense.
Let me first define it for you…
Common design: To create and develop animals through the common process of HGT for the common purpose of surviving, reproducing, and pioneering different environments.
Universal common designer: universal self-collapsing genetic code shown by the shared DNA among all living organisms (i.e., objective reduction).
Both common design and common descent are two different explanations that explain the same data, such as why you and your siblings have the same genes. However, they make different predictions and models.
I have already showed you all the studies showing how HGT explains the same patterns
I am not pretending but predicting based on the model that 80% of ERV’s are functional.
Not true, God needs to use this common mechanism to carry out the same purposes.
For instance, a different study I gave you 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.”
Let me explain it this way then….
Every living creature on Earth uses the same code, in which DNA stores information using four nucleotide bases. The sequences of nucleotides encode information for constructing proteins from an alphabet of 20 amino acids. Why were these numbers chosen rather than some other numbers?
Patel showed how quantum search algorithms explain why these numbers were chosen. [22] To summarize, if the search processes involved in assembling DNA and proteins are to be as efficient as possible, the number of bases should be four, and the number of amino acids should be 20.
In other words, to address a common set of problems faced by organisms possessing different characteristics and living in different habitats, a single optimal solution must be employed. This means that if we replay the evolutionary history of life, it would lead to identical or nearly identical outcomes. An experiment has revealed that this quantum search algorithm is itself a fundamental property of nature. [23]
So there is a reason why life needed to be this way. If things were any different, we would not even be able to ask the question in the first place because we wouldn’t exist.
[22] [quant-ph/0002037] Quantum Algorithms and the Genetic Code
[23] [1908.11213] The Grover search as a naturally occurring phenomenon
What do you mean. It has everything to do with them because wasps on caterpillars are displaying animal death and carnivorous activity.
Yes, it is part of his theory John and saltations does involve sudden and discontinuous changes as the article suggested above:
Owen was a pivotal figure in the emergence of the evolutionary view of life forms as indicated by fossils. He was a strong advocate of the notion that the paleontological record is progressive, arguing in an anonymous Quarterly Review (1851) critique of Charles Lyell’s steady-state view of the geological past that the succession of fossils through time shows a distinct development from lower to higher. For Owen, this progressive change was a process guided by divine purpose. He believed in an orthogenetic-saltational process of organic unfolding, driven by an inherent tendency to change, not by contingent, gradualist, and external forces such as natural selection.
The phenomenon of metagenesis provided Owen with a visualizing aid for his notion of evolution. In the booklet On Parthenogenesis, or the Successive Production of Procreating Individuals from a Single Ovum (1849), he described the phenomenon of alternating generations in the reproductive cycles of, for example, aphids, jellyfish, or flukeworms. Characteristic of such metagenetic cycles is that the individual generations can differ in form from each other as much as different species or even genera, families, and orders do.
No, my model claims species within a kind share common descent genetically or biochemically and It does not make specific predictions about the fossil record.
We actually don’t know whether this is true yet according to the common design model. For further research, evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, ecologists, and molecular biologist will need to look for morpho-molecular dissimilarities and/or lack of fossil intermediates among order and family level taxa. Then, they need to use the two-step ecology criteria I described to confidently conclude common design, which would suggest they evolved separately .
I am going to have to rely on Hugh Ross to explain it to you better then:
A fundamental tenet of all naturalistic models for the history of Earth’s life is that natural changes in the genomes of life will be responsible for the observed changes in the physical body structures (morphology) of life. Consequently, evolutionary trees developed from the observed patterns in present-day genomes and the presumed natural rates of change of those genomes (molecular clocks). Assuming that strictly materialistic processes are responsible for the changes occurring throughout the history of life, the phylogenetic trees should match the morphological changes and the timing of those changes observed in the fossil record .
The same kind of match between the paleontology and phylogenetics can be realized if God intervened throughout life’s history. However, apparently only supernatural interventions can explain significant mismatches between phylogenetic and paleontological trees.
No evolutionary change punctuated by rapid biological innovations matches the patterns predicted if a common design/archetype accounts for life’s history and diversity.
This is because instances of high gene-tree conflict (discordance in phylogenetic signals across genes) in mammals, birds, and several major plant clades correspond to increased rates of morphological innovation.
You are conflating deductive reasoning with inductive ; yet scientific investigations rely on induction, not deduction. There is nothing wrong with concluding, when using inductive reasoning, that the designer is probably human because I am making use of induction (as do all scientists), not deduction.
Then, all I can say is that you are wrong. There are researchers on this forum that do think the framework can lead to successful research:
No no no, I did not mean it like that. I mean it is not going to appeal to Christian researchers for emotionally reasons NOT intellectual ones. They would be constrained by how much passion they may have for a particular subject within that field of expertise over another. This is why science cannot be the same for everyone. We all have particular biases that drive us to a particular subject within a field. But, intellectual reasons would play a part in it as well.
No, they do not. The same designer uses different components. Designers are not constrained.
No, they do not show that.
What mechanism in your model predicts 80%?
Who are you to decide what God does or does not need?
Objectively false. There are differences in the genetic code, if that is what you are referring to.
In other words, both of your premises are false, so your conclusion is not supported.
Who are you to speak for Christian researchers like me? Given your lack of understanding of basic biology, your claim to know what appeals to real scientists is absurd.
The point, which like most sailed far over your head, is that we are not constrained by particular subjects.
Real scientists are easily diverted by interesting questions, regardless of subjects and fields.
Please stop. You simply don’t know what you are talking about.