Renewable Revolution

There's only one evolutionary model, and that's natural selection. Now you've made a few similar posts, trying to say there are gaps in the evidence for natural selection. Now even if there are gaps between the evidence, then it follows that there is evidence between the gaps. With the contradictory hypothesis of an intelligent designer, there is only a gap. From when it was first proposed until now, there is just a long gap with no evidence.

There are many evolutionary models, but you're right that they all RELY on RANDOM mutations and natural selection to work. I have not been talking about "gaps in the evidence", if by that you mean the fossil record. AG has that topic well covered and your only response was something like, "if we didn't have the fossil record, we could still use modern science to 'discover' Darwinian evolution".

That's why I have been talking about microbial genomics (a topic which you brought up as evidence supporting SET or GUT or whatever you want to call it), and the fact that modern science has NOT been able to explain the origin of eukaryotic cells with genomic studies. I also mentioned the statistical (IM)probability that random genetic mutations would lead to new speciation over time, something we have not observed, directly or indirectly, a single example of in higher order species.

So far you are not produced ANY scientific evidence which supports SET, only loose analogies and thought experiments. The genomic similarities between species is obviously, by itself, not any evidence of a common ancestor. Rather it is easily explained in terms of a designer who uses common templates in his creative process.