Darwinists perform many studies on haplodiploid insects which they claim support common descent, but do they really? For those unfamiliar with haplodiploidy, male offspring are haploid, meaning they are born with only one half of the genome that is normally carried by chromosome pairs (humans, for instance, have 23 paired chromosomes for 46 total). These haploid offspring arise from unfertilized eggs; they have no fathers. Many species show this feature, especially social insects like Hymenopterans (wasps, bees, and ants) and Coleopterans (beetles, weevils, and fireflies).
Darwinists tell us that this trait evolved multiple times. This, however, argues against homology as evidence for common descent, and if we look deeper into this phenomenon it seems even harder to believe that Darwinist mechanisms are behind it. For random mutation to account for this, a standard diploid ancestor must, in the next generation, be able to lay unfertilized eggs that would become fertile males! This is simply too good to be true. As a comparison, imagine a man (Jesus for instance ;)) being haploid (having 23 chromosomes instead of 46) while remaining fertile, and all the result of a random mutation! If it isn’t a simple mutation, how could it have arisen through intermediate steps what could those steps possibly be?
It is quite apparent that common descent and Darwinism are unequal to the task. This is readily explained by common design, however, in that it would be quite easy for a designer to allow for these types of errors and correct them, much like the self-correction mechanisms of DNA.