DAVID: (to Tony): You don't seem to believe in common descent, but based on your discussion of rearranging parts, doesn't that imply each stage came from the past stage?

dhw: Precisely. David and I agree for once!

DAVID: I don't agree with what you believe. What is rearranged is DNA, not a primary change in parts. That is always secondary.

dhw: You were arguing that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent. I also think that each stage came from a past stage, and that = common descent.

DAVID: God running the process of evolution is a form of common descent.

Tony: ONLY IF speciation, as a process, occurs, which we have not observed. The alternative is that he designed prototypes, with built in variability parameters, and that life has stayed within those types and those variability parameters.

David: What you are proposing sounds like pure dhw. Original forms had built-in ways to reform themselves into something more complex. No dabbling required.

Tony: It is a difference in degrees. Did the designer not dabble at all(preprogrammed everything), dabble a little(prototypes with limited variation), or dabble constantly (special creation for every variety?

My view is that he dabbled a little, when appropriate and necessary, leaving the code for limited variation to handle the rest.

David: Again this means your view is that an enormous library of information was put into the beginning of life. We cannot separate creation of life from what happened afterward.

Tony: The only difference I see is the idea that a single organism Contained all the info for everything. That doesn't make sense from a design standpoint

Fair enough.