A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

Similar design. AS I SAID.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Then what does the creation model predict for the patterns in those diffeences, or does it make any prediction at all? For example:1. What should the pattern of differences be for transitions, transversions, and CpG's?2. What should the pattern of differences be for a comparison of introns and exons?3. What should the pattern of differences be between different groups of species?Can the creation model make any predictions with respect to those differences? Then it should be able to answer those 3 questions above.

Creationism doesn't require genetics at all. For that matter, it doesn't even require biology.I read a story once about a man who found a snake in his bathtub. Every time he got into the tub, the snake would be there but when he let the water out, it was gone. Finally, after many tries, he managed to catch it and kill it. When he took it to a lab to have it dissected, it had no internal organs, no internal structure at all.It turned out that it was created by his imagination; since he didn't know anything about the internals of a snake, he couldn't imagine them or create them.That's creationism all over - no need for internal organs at all. God did it.

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

Unique designs can be similar. Why not?

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?

There is no reason that I know of why the creation model should try to explain any of that. It's all an artifact of the ToE.

God didn't change ANYTHING, he designed a genome for each Kind. But the varieties contained in the genome for apes depends on whether all the different kinds of apes come from one common ancestor, or common ancestor pair, and I've wondered about that. Whatever the original genome for a Kind, all the variations were built into it so that they would descend from that one common ancestor, all the apes from the one ape Kind.Same with cats, dogs, bears, mice, and any others that constitute a Kind.But human beings aren't an ape and aren't related to apes. There was one common ancestor for human beings too, actually a common ancestor pair, the pair Adam and Eve, and all the races of human beings descended from them, the original genome they both possessed containing all the varieties possible. I saw a Mendelian square for how all the different skin colors were in the original human genome, Adam and Eve having a medium skin color but their genome containing every possible combination of skin colors, from darkest to lightest and different color tones as well. It should be the same for all the varieties of human characteristics. Must be because the body design is more similar to the human body design.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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?

The pattern God chose. The pattern God chose. The pattern God chose.It's Goddidit all the way down.

They're all mutations, right? So the creation model explains them as mistakes in replication that may or may not harm the genome.

The only similar design I recall mentioning was chimp and human. And there is no implication of anything changing. God made one design for the chimp and another for the human. Why not?

But there are obvious patterns of them between species. You were asked for an explanation of those patterns, knowing you don't have a meaningful one. Common descent explains them.All you got is "God chose to do that". No predictive power whatsoever.

Genomes are probably susceptible to certain kinds of mutations.