A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

No, you said they were unique. Now you are saying they are similar designs. Which is it?

So did God start with a common design for all apes, and then change it a little bit for chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and humans? Why do chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas?

But you said they are a similar design, so wouldn't that mean the similar design was changed for each species? Very little of a genome affects body design, so why are the parts not involved in body design also similar?

The patterns of differences are observable facts. Are you saying that the creation model can't explain these facts?

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?

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.

The reason that reality is not relevant to the creation model is because the creation model is not a part of reality.You have confirmed that your creation model is false since it can't explain what we see in reality.

That doesn't explain it.Your model would require the chimp and human genome to be identical at the beginning of creation. We know that this can't be the case, otherwise there wouldn't be a separate ape and human kind as you claim there had to be.Therefore, the genomes had to start out differently within the creation model. It can't be due to mutations. Therefore, you need to explain why we see specific patterns in those differences.

So are mutations responsible for the differences, or not? You seem to be bouncing between the two.

Your posts support this idea. You said that the differences between the chimp and human genomes was due to mutations:"I would probably explain it as mutations that are mistakes that don't change anything."If mutations are not responsible for the differences between the human and chimp genomes, then you need to name this mechanism and explain how that mechanism predicts the patterns we see.

Mutations don't stop happening after selection. They keep ticking away in each and every generation. That's entirely made up. Reality doesn't conform to what you think.We can sequence the genomes of parents and their children. In doing so, we can measure the rate of ongoing mutation which is about 100 mutations per person per generation. Would you agree that this happens? Would you like me to go through the scientific studies?

Indeed. If Faith understood biology she would know that you can't have nested hierarchies without random mutations, along with vertical inheritance. If mutations were non-random then you would have the same mutations in different branches which don't follow a nested pattern. Random mutations create lineage specific change which is the basis for the nested hierarchies.