Summations Only

That is completely false. Common descent is a TESTABLE hypothesis.For example, we can predict that we should find the same retroviral insertions at the same positions in both the human and chimp genomes. This is a test for common ancestry. So what do we find? When they sequenced the human genome they found about 200,000 retroviral insertions (Human Genome paper). They then sequenced the chimp genome, found the ERV's, and compared them to the human genome (chimp genome paper). What did they find? Out of 200,000 retroviral insertions in the human genome less than 100 are not found in the chimp genome. For the chimp genome, only around 300 are not found in the human genome. There are literally hundreds of thousands of shared ERV's, each one ironclad evidence of common ancestry, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Absolutely. If we found that vast majority of shared retroviral insertions did not produce the PATTERN of homology that the theory of evolution predicts then that would contradict common ancestry. For example, if we found that only half of the orthologous retroviral insertions shared by humans and orangutans were shared by chimps then this would falsify common ancestry. On the flip side, common design makes absolutely no predictions on the expected PATTERN of shared features. This is why common ancestry is preferred over common design, because it is testable and it passes those tests. Wrong on both accounts. HGT is an observed mechanism, not a work around. Also, you can detect HGT separtely from DNA that has been inherited vertically. Secondly, HGT events are random mutations. They are a change in the DNA sequence that is random with respect to fitness. DNA that is transferred horizontally passes through the same filter of natural selection that all changes in DNA go through.What we have NEVER observed is a supernatural deity changing DNA.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

All that requires is novel DNA sequences which are produced by mutation. Macro-evolution does not require an increase in information as it is defined by ID/creationists. It never has. Evolution is not a random process, so why would it need to build things randomly? Why would evolution need to build the flagellum in this fashion? Modification of already existing and functional systems is how evolution would have done it, not in the fashion you are describing.

RAZD said it best in a previous post:"The evidence of nested clade hierarchies is evidence against common design.The evidence of homology distribution between species with convergent evolution (like the bird and bat wing) are evidence against common design."The evidence for macroevolution is all about the nested hierarchies. Always has been, always will be. Until ID supporters address this topic there really is nothing more to say.Could an intelligent designer produce a nested hierarchy? Yes. Could an intelligent designer produce an unnested hierarchy? Yes. Could an intelligent designer produce any and all conceivable combinations of features? Yes. Common design is a worthless and unfalsifiable mechanism. It explains nothing. It really is no different than saying that Leprechauns can plant fingerprints at crime scenes, so we should throw out all forensic evidence.The theory of evolution predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy in species that do not activel participitate in horizontal genetic transfer. What do we observe in metazoans? A nested hierarchy. This is the evidence for macroevoluiton, evidence that ID supporters refuse to deal with.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.