Don’t you mean that (A) is not that much different from common descent. Because ,as you suggested, common descent predicts nested and related taxa while common design predicts nested but unrelated taxa.
This observation is what I meant:
"analysis of the genomes of 46 sequenced isolates of Escherichia coli provides a statistically supported comparison of the topologies of the phylogenetic trees for regulatory regions, their regulated genes, and the species tree. The results of this comparison strikingly show that evolution of the regulatory regions of over half of the core genes (i.e., genes shared by all isolates) was incongruent with that of the species tree."[emphasis added]
Horizontal transfer beyond genes | PNAS
Common design better explains this data than common descent. Since this only applied to bacteria, I made a prediction that applied to the animal kingdom as well.
I agree that this is one of the two main differences, but it is not up to me to quantify the percentage of convergent sequences we need to find to prove common design. Instead, It is up to advocates of common descent to quantify the percentage needed to rule out their model in favor of common design.
In contrast, what I have to provide is a list of taxonomic groups that are supposed to be unrelated according to the common design model. This is another way to differentiate the two models. For instance, horses, Tapirs, and Rhino are considered to be all related, but my model predicts that they are not related. I provided a test for this prediction that ended up being confirmed. The prediction I am referring to is (A).
The same goes for prediction (B) and (D). If common descent predicts that non-functional ERV’s and psuedogenes from those groups, then my model would predict the opposite.
My overall point is that it mainly comes down to which taxonomical groups are convergent and not necessarily how many groups are convergent. The common design model predicts that almost all animal groups from the order and family levels are convergent because animals are much more complex and natural selection cannot explain sexual reproduction, cell differentiation, and consciousness.
Sure, let me give you a brief overview of how I arrived at my hypothesis.
According to Roger Penrose, the action of consciousness proceeds in a way that cannot be described by algorithmic processes. Consciousness can contemplate orders of magnitude of ideas and freely make intellectual and moral judgements. This involves distinguishing between true and false statements or what is morally right versus wrong.
The only thing in nature that does this is wave function collapse where you have a superposition of possibilities that collapses to one or the other. For example, the conscious observer must first specify or think of which wave-function he or she intends to measure and then, put in place a measuring device that will probe that aspect. Results from experiments like “quantum erasure with casually disconnected choice” seem to suggest this.
Diederik Aierts demonstrated a strong correlation between these two phenomenas. More importantly, we have empirical support showing that the brain uses quantum mechanical processes, such as quantum tunneling and superposition.
So if nature is fundamentally conscious, then we would expect it to operate in a non-random manner.
Confirmation of this prediction has come from observations of the cosmological constant, functional junk DNA and non-random mutations in the coding regions.
Eternal inflationary theory would show that this universal protoconsciousness possesses all the omni attributes as well.
So, I am incorporating the following from Penrose’s Objective-reduction (OR) theory in my model:
“In the Copenhagen interpretation, postcollapse states selected by conscious observation are chosen randomly, probabilistically (the Born rule, after physicist Max Born). However, in Penrose OR, the choices (and quality of subjective experience) are influenced by resonate with what Penrose called noncomputable Platonic values embedded in the fine scale structure of spacetime geometry”
In other words, whether a quantum system is displaying particle- or wave-like behavior depends on a non-computable conscious choice.
Now, here is MY HYPOTHESIS regarding their theory…
Universal common designer hypothesis
A recent prebiotic experiment demonstrated how self-replicating RNA molecules could “evolve into complex living systems by expanding their information and functions open-endedly.” More importantly, the similarity between computer logic gates and DNA structure and metabolism suggests that the characteristics of objects produced by human designers and biochemical systems are almost identical.
Given this additional data, this universal protoconsciousness that is described in the Orch-OR theory probably operated like humans when designing life on earth.
This means that we need not consider using an unfalsifiable theory that involves an omnipotent human because a non-computable being cannot violate his own nature.
In other words, the non-computable trait this designer possesses offsets the omnipotent trait the designer would also have to possess. Therefore, we would expect God to be consistent with his human nature without the flaws that humans naturally commit because of their inherent physical limitations.
This is what enables us to treat an omnipotent God the same way we would with other intelligent agents (Neanderthals, modern humans, aliens, etc.) when considering a valid cause to explain a biological phenomenon over a mindless force.
Thus, all candidates are considered natural but immaterial causes that we can test because consciousness is fundamental but not classical physics.
If this theory is true, we would expect all currently living organisms to have a common design that can be traced back to this universal common designer.
As I told @WalterKloover, the main differentiating factor between the two models comes down to which taxonomical groups are convergent rather than how many. The common design model predicts that almost all animal groups from the order and family levels are convergent because animals are much more complex and natural selection cannot explain sexual reproduction, cell differentiation, and consciousness.
Or maybe I don’t understand what you consider to be falsification of something. I was following after Karl Popper’s example of " all swans are white". Finding one black swan would falsify that claim. Finding one design flaw, sinister design, or a non-human animal displaying digital information would falsify my hypothesis. Do you differ in some way?
I gave a condensed version of my hypothesis to @WalterKloover to be clearer and more concise.
