The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

You should stop making assumptions about creation. They make you look silly.

There are countless of gaps in many other areas, like complex protein evolution, complex organs evolution, etc.

You made assumptions / claims about gaps if species were created seperately.

Saying that natural selection did it over time, is not filling any gaps.

How do a bunch of skulls fill the gaps of complex proteins?

Whatever creationists can or cannot explain or have not explained, does not excuse you from making correct assumptions instead of bad and false ones.

Assumptions about how life should look like if species were created seperately. All those are speculation and have zero objective value.

Whether or not you think a different model if falsifiable, is no excuse for making speculative claims and call it science.

If that is all you see, then your knowledge is very limited.

There is evolution from common ancestor by natural processes alone, there is theistic evolution (the idea that evolution was helped along or guided by a deity) and there is seperate creation, where species have not crossed boundaries. And there is Dawkins outer space theory.If we would find and record species in a lab or on another planet, crossing boundaries that were forbidden by seperate creation, from single cell all the way to variety of complex life forms, then that would be falsification, for example.But I think it's pointless and a waste of energy to be speculating on data that does not exist. Better look at available data and see what scenario is most likely. Wouldn't you agree?

In sexual reproduction, any couple can start and produce a family tree. Whether all life evolved from a single cell ancestor or not.If you consider this nested hierarchy as sufficient evidence for common ancestry of all life, that is fine by me. Just don't push it down everyones throat as being an indisputable fact. You need more evidence for that.You seem to focus so much on this nested pattern. That is what I call, tunnel vision.

Have I asked you to prove a pattern or to prove common ancestry?

What does it matter where I stand? Science is based on data.I don't think alien origin is likely. And all of life's complexity by evolution is not likely either. That is all that matters. Personal stance is irrelevant.You seem to make the same mistake as all evolutionists, thinking that making one or a few good predictions, means that the theory is correct. A theory needs to fit all data.Example: if a suspect is innocent, we can predict that he will say that he is innocent. We observe as predicted. Is that sufficient evidence for you that the suspect is innocent? No, of course not. A guilty suspect will often claim to be innocent as well.Next example: you stand 100 meter far away and measure sound level. Then you move one more cm away and measure again. You predict that sound level will keep dropping by same amount, every time you move another cm. And it does so as predicted. Is your linear model correct? No, it only works for small distances!If common ancestry only works to predict some nesting pattern, that may hold great value to you simpletons, but I'm not that easily impressed.

I like talking to myself

Wow, such simple question and you still got it wrong.You had to pick one or the other.