A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Your "model" explains nothing and leads nowhere.Why is water H2O? God did it that way. There's no use in studying chemistry, there's nothing interesting there. It's all Goddidit and there's just no explanation for the patterns. Nothing to learn there.

This means your model can't predict these features.

There absolutely is an implication of changes. If you start with a similar design and end up with two different designs then it means there were changes to that similar design. That's how that works. Different models of Ford Ranger pickups have both differences and similarities, and this is due to changes in each model from a similar design. Once again, your model can't explain these observations.

They are differences. Then why are there more differences between the mouse and human cytochrome c genes than between the human and chimp cytochrome c gene? Why do the introns of the cytochrome c gene differ more between human, mouse, and chimp than the exons from that gene?

Goddidit answers all possible questions. In all of science. In all of life.There's no reason to ask questions. No way to progress in any field.Isn't that interesting. In this one petri dish the bacteria are dead in a circle around this strange mold. Praise God! Oh well, into the recycling pile with you.

You imputed that quote to me but I didn't write it, JonF did.

This is a big fat lye.You keep saying "God did it" but I haven't said it at all, and I see no reason why science can't work from creationism just fine. We'd want to understand how the world is put together same as evolutionists do, we'd have as much reason to learn the chemical composition of things, what physics tells us, and we certainly need medicine because of the Fall. And please stop implying that I believe what you make up about God and creationism, it's all a lye.PLEASE OFFICIALLY TAKE BACK THIS FALSEHOOD.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The "similar design" refers to TWO similar but different designs. It reads clearly to mean that to me, no idea why it doesn't to you. In the case of chimp and human they are completely separate designs. Cue Twilight Zone theme.

To a creationist it's a meaningless question. It has meaning in the context of evolution but not creation.

You seem to be confusing the basic difference between the creation of separate Kinds and the evolutionist common ancestor of all llfe with science in general. I've said nothing to justify your blanket accusation of "God did it" in any other context, it applies to the original creation, but ONLY to the original creation.There is no reason whatever that scientific questions would not be pursued in a creationist context, as I explained above in Message 382. In a fallen world we have every need for all the sciences -- the REAL sciences, that is, not the bogus "science" of evolutionism -- and for medicine in particular. "God did it" is your silly theme song, not mine.PLEASE TAKE BACK THIS FALSE IDEA.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's not false.You've said that God made all the different genomes different.The answer to all questions is "Goddidit, let's go to lunch'.You already understand how the world is put together. Goddidit.You've said there's no reason to investigate and explain patterns, like the periodic table.Why on Earth would a creationist think of putting something from that strange mold into a human? With different bacteria, created by God that way.What questions about biology does your model answer differently than "Goddidit"?

I agree. "Goddidit, let's go to lunch".

Why? Why not to chemistry?If "Goddidit" is an acceptable answer in any science, it's an acceptable answer in all science. If there's no reason to investigate the patterns we see between different genmes, why would anyone investigate any pattern?I realize you have not used the "word" "Goddidit". It's just a brief but accurate summary of your answers about genomes. Remember? No, they aren't artifacts. They are observed facts. And you say there's no reason to try to explain them.Goddidit.Let's go to lunch.

Then the creationist model can not explain the observed facts, as expected.

And yet you can't explain the pattern of those observed and factual differences. Evolution can. They share 98% of their design, so they aren't separate.