Sure, of course. I just wanted to make sure.
Nested hierachies through HGT:
Before the leftover meteorites were clumped together to form the primitive earth 3.8 billion years ago, virus-like RNA molecules were created within the deep-sea hypothermal vents of the earth. Then, some of these virus-like RNA molecules were naturally selected into different species of unicellular organisms and they underwent a heavy amount of HGT from the viruses that were created within the deep-sea oceans. 
Then, the designer re-used these microbes and chemical constituents to separately construct basic types of animals from different locations and times around the globe. These basic types would be able to adapt to changing environments and diversify into kinds over long epochs of time.
This would involve the designer employing many familiar mechanisms, such as HGT, to facilitate this process and address a common set of problems facing unrelated organisms that are undergoing natural selection. As a result, we would see biochemical and morphological similarities among all living things that naturally give the appearance of Universal common ancestry.
Nested hierarchy through the dependency graph model:
"Designing agencies can anticipate functional requirements. They also understand one does not have to re-invent the wheel every time a new car is being designed.
'Structural homology at a higher functional level, dictated by functional demands, may exist independently of its particular material substrate, because intelligent designers are not bound by the constraints of what might be called physical transmission or continuity. …
In precisely the same way, diverse vertebrates exhibiting the pentadactyl pattern in their forelimbs and hind limbs may possess that pattern not because they inherited it from a common ancestor- that is, not because of material continuity- but because there exists some functional requirement that the pattern satisfies.- J. Wells and P. Nelson, “Homology in Biology”, Design, Darwinism and Public Education , 319-20, 2003’
And although it is true that designing agencies can violate any hierarchal scheme that would not be the case in a common design scenario."
Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for the correction. They are incompatible because common descent claims that the discontinuities in the fossil record are artifacts of incompleteness, the Adam and Eve story is false, and there is a LUCA
On the other hand, common design claims that those discontinuities are real, Adam and Eve story is true, and there is no LUCA or there is only FUCA.
The First Universal Common Ancestor (FUCA) as the Earliest Ancestor of LUCA’s (Last UCA) Lineage | SpringerLink
These leads me to address your response to the last two…
NO, you are now equivocating between intelligent design and common design. They are not the same thing, as Fuz Rana explains why…
"In his day, the great debate among biologists related to whether “function” or “form” provided the theoretical framework to understand biological structures. At that time, while many scientists in Britain favored a teleological view (function), Owen preferred the transcendental view popular on the European continent. Owen’s goal was to come up with a theoretical framework that united both approaches, but he preferred “form” over “function.” In Owen’s mind, the archetype represented teleology of a higher order…
…Owen’s (and others’) conception of function and form were strongly theistic in orientation. According to Owen the archetype points to a “deep and pregnant principle…some archetypal exemplar on which it has pleased the Creator to frame certain of his living creatures.”
No, you are wrong again. I know OEC and ID literature pretty well to know this is definitely false. Here take a look at this interview by Michael Behe himself:
'ML: In The Edge, you make a defense for common descent (p.182) and later attribute it to a non-random process (p. 72). Considering the convergent evolution of the digestive enzyme of lemurs and cows, hemoglobin of human and mice, and in your own work resistance mutations that also arise independently (p77), why such a commitment to common descent? Isn’t genetic convergent evolution or even common design (considering your view of mutations) good alternative explanations to common descent?
MJB: I don’t think so. Although those other explanations may be true, I think that common descent, guided by an intelligent agent, is sufficient to explain the data. It has the great advantage of being easily compatible with apparent genetic “mistakes” shared by organisms, such as the pseudo-hemoglobin genes I wrote of in The Edge of Evolution.’
“resting” just means that God stopped doing creative acts. Stadler’s study provides some support for this. The study shows the decrease in the number of new species emerging in the recent past for this description of how species emerged. He concluded that the appearance of new mammal species peaked between 33 and 30 million years ago and declined significantly at 8.55 and 3.35 million years ago:
I don’t have time or the space to correct all your flawed Hermeneutics of Genesis ch. 1 on here. I will just refer you to a source that will help you understand the text better regarding those things you mentioned here:
Genesis 8:1 states that God removed the floodwaters by sending a wind. Given the gentle slope of the land, evaporation plays a more significant role than gravity in removing the water. Just how effective is evaporation for removing flood waters?
During a typical Southern California summer the swimming pools lose an average of one inch of water per day to evaporation. Lower humidity, higher heat, and a strong wind can triple or quadruple that rate.
Over the 335 days during which Noah’s Flood receded, that would add up to 84-112 feet of evaporation. If gravity had removed about half that much water, the total water depth removed would have been 126-168 feet. That is easily enough water to account for Noah’s seeing nothing but water for as far as his eyes could see. That is easily enough water to destroy all of Noah’s contemporaries and their animals outside the ark. And, that is easily enough water to carry the ark to the foothills of Ararat.
You actually never explained why a metaphorical analogy could not still suffice as an appearance of design.
More importantly, you did not explain why the archaeologists argument that there was intentional activity of a hominid was NOT wrong or metaphorical compared to my appearance of design premise.
This is why I was only agreeing for the sake of discussion that the study was referring to a metaphorical analogy. That being said, I will go a step further and accept the premise is false anyways since I agree with you that it is not a big deal for it to be true or not.
No, all this means is that we were not on the same page apparently or we misunderstood each other. That’s all.
Under replicater-first models, it has been repeatedly shown that life cannot and did not arise from classical space-time constituents because life is fundamentally digital, which is non-material. This can and has only been created and designed by conscious minds.
Under Metabolic-first models, it has not been experimentally demonstrated that life could have arisen from unguided material mechanisms or conditions either. That being said…
It is possible that future experiments may show how life could have arose from classical space-time constituents without intervention under metabolic-first scenarios. But, I acknowledged this already and explained how this actually makes my theory falsifiable. In fact, this aspect of my theory is what separates it from arguments that ID theorists propose since they mainly argue for a generic but contingent agent.
Well first off, I was referring to life as we know it NOT life of any kind.
Secondly, this is false either way you spin it because there is no such thing as a concrete physical reality made of space-time, matter and energy in the first place. Instead, the so-called physical realm actually exists in a super positional state of all quantum possibilities that are mathematical in nature as I mentioned before. The intangible phenomenon of conscious observership is the only means that is capable of producing a final collapse of any given combination of quantum wave-functions, which imparts a concrete and physical reality to them:
The Measurement Problem - YouTube
This means that abiogenesis would still require intervention regardless of the time and physical scale it is needed to establish it according to current data on quantum physics.
And your misunderstanding of, and general unfamiliarity with, quantum physics is not my problem either.