DNA sequence comparisons, a similar designer or heredity?

If we didn't have a record of the relative ages of fossil organisms, that would be a legitimate concern.The proof is not that we can arrange a cladistic diagram. The proof is that when we do, it's entirely consistent with the relative ages and time periods of these different organisms. And the further proof is that when we compare these two diagrams to the diagram derived by genetics, it agrees, too.When you measure something three different ways and you get the same result each time, the proper conclusion is that you're actually measuring what you claim to be measuring, not that you're experiencing a coincidence or a hoax.

Well, they don't, actually. Granted they reject the geologic scale of the timetable, but they certainly don't reject the idea that it is a timetable.If you're burying things by sedimentation, the stuff on the bottom has to be older than the stuff on the top. How do you sediment something below another layer? It's physically impossible.The reason that I said "relative age", and not "absolute age", is because creationists and evolutionists alike agree that the geologic column is a timetable of relative ages - this came before that, that came before the other, etc. Never mind the actual time involved. Absolutely irrelevant example. You proposed that cladistics measures something that doesn't exist. The conclusion, when you try to measure something in three different ways and succeed three times, is that you actually measured what you claim to have measured - not that you were hoodwinked three seperate times.You didn't propose cupcakes from one cosmic baker; you said that the cupcakes didn't exist. Or didn't have any sugar in them, let's say. If you measure these cupcakes with three different means, and you find the same amount of sugar now matter how you measure it, the proper conclusion is that you've accurately measured the sugar content of these cupcakes, not that the cupcakes are sugar-free.

No, it doesn't. I've given three examples that would detect for common ancestry; each of the three detectes common ancestry so common ancestry must be present.Now, for any one means of measurement, it's possible that common design could be obfuscated in such a way that we would detect it as common descent.But here's the thing. The way that that obfuscation would occur is different for each of those three measurements. So it's not possible that we're being fooled three different ways by the same single factor. The only explanation for the concurrence of these three different means is that they're validly measuring what they purport to measure - the evolutionary relationships between organisms.There's no other reasonable conclusion. But in genetic studies we don't measure functional sequences. We measure errors. Why would common design mean common errors? Especially when the design is by a perfect God?It's one thing for a cosmic engineer to borrow from his own past successful designs. That makes perfect sense. But to borrow his own errors? The burden of proof for convincing us to accept such a counterintuitive idea about design is encumbent on you. Of course it does. You stipulated that the ratio of ingredients was exactly the same. That could only be possible if these cupcakes were all from the same original batch of batter. No baker can exactly duplicate the proportions in a batch every single time, or even twice. Not even a factory situation can do that. This principle is so universal and established that crime labs can use it; by chemical analysis of a fiber or a crumb or whatever, they can determine exactly what batch and manufacturer that sample came from.If you have three identical cupcakes, in terms of the ratio of their ingredients, you know they're from the same batch. It's 100% conclusive. It's so conclusive that you could put a man in jail based on that evidence. It's been done.

If it wasn't clear in my previous post, let me state again - the genetic analysis, in particular, shows descent and not design because the technique compares duplication errors inside of non-functional sequences. We might expect a designer to plagarize his own "blueprints" but why would we expect him to plagarize his own mistakes?