nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution

Nested heirachies are often cited as evidence for the Theory of Evolution aka Darwinism or NeoDarwinism. (I will use the term Darwinism to mean the mainstream neodarwinian evo model here.) However, even assuming certain things like evo dating techniques, etc,....for sake of argument, the evidence itself does not, imo, support Darwinian models of evolution.Specifically:1. Essentially except one possibility around 470 million years ago, all animal phyla had appeared or evolved around the time of the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago. Since that time, no new animal phyla have appeared or evolved IN 500 MILLION YEARS. Apparently whatever processes or creative events that evolved, created or animated the appearance of the animal phyla has not been in process for the past 500 million years. If it had, we would see new phyla emerging and we do not. Certainly, there have been quite a few extinctions during that time to open ecological niches up.2. I don't have the chart handy so maybe someone that recalls it here on the forum can help me with this. But there was an interesting post of a chart from a textbook showing nested heirachies and almost everyone had the point of a "common ancestor" distinctly colored in as undiscovered yet. The pattern was quite stunning as we never seem to have the fossils of the common ancestor that evolved various other genera and species. If Darwinian evolution were true, it would be likely that at least sometimes if not often, we would see more of the mythical common ancestor, but he's generally nowhere to be found.3. Let's assume for a minute universal common ancestry and get in your mind's eye the visual picture of what we see in the fossil record, assuming and giving evos a pass for a minute on the lack of transitionals and so forth......Does the evidence really support the idea of a continual, Darwinian, gradual over geologic time, evolutionary process?I don't think it does, and neither have some somewhat distinquished scientists. When you take a step back, if you believe in universal common descent, what you see is an incredible process that peaked hundreds of millions of years ago and has been winding down ever since.4. Lastly, I think comparing heirarchies between Marsupials and Placentals and in other areas shows a predisposition towards specific designs not environmentally driven, but apparently internally driven or driven by design. It's interesting that evos often cite design imperfection as a reason to reject a Designer without realizing this point actually disagrees with their models. Over such long geologic time periods, one would expect more perfect designs to have evolved if Darwinian processes were as capable of evolution as evos posit. Moreover, you would not expect imperfect designs such as the mammalian ear to evolve independently. On the other hand, the idea a Designer would create perfect designs in a pragmatic sense is a theological argument, not a scientific one, because it presupposes the intent of the Designer. As an artist, I can see where imperfection may be more suited to communicate a whole host of more perfect concepts such as love, endurance, tragedy and comedy, etc, etc,..even beauty, that may be more valued than mere physical perfection of design.The appearance of similar designs arising independently also discredits the idea of nested heirarchies as evidence for Darwinian evolution.Note: This may be a little too long and broad for an OP. Let me know what you guys think?Edited by randman, : No reason given.

What I am trying to discuss is the pattern, which I don't think, nor did Grasse think, reflects Darwinian evolution. Take my example of no new phyla appearing. Why would a process that hasn't changed in hundreds of millions of years produce new phyla and then quit doing so. By evo accounts, all evolution since then has been within the phyla. Looking at the general pattern, it just doesn't reflect Darwinian processes.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Interesting hypothesis...do you have some studies or ideas on how to verify that? Specifically, the phyla are arranged based on physical properties, right? Your suggestion discounts that physical variation, imo.Why, for instance, would new phyla not in the line of the older phyla not appear? Think about this because it's a serious question not to be lightly dismissed. Whatever parent groups or similar parent groups evolved into all the phyla, assuming Darwinian evolution was at work, would they not continue to evolve new phyla?Or is it that their potential to evolve was somehow spent or something?Keep in mind we are talking 500 million years according to evos. Surely, new phyla would continually emerge from (for lack of a better term) more primitive forms. It just doesn't add up.

Why? Think about this. We still have non-vertibrates around, for example, and they have been around for 500 million plus years according to evos. Vertibrates evolved presumably from non-vertibrates, correct? So why wouldn't they continue to evolve new vertibrate phyla with some regularity over geologic time? Can you cite some studies explaining your reason why or is this just something handwaived away?The argument there is no room ignores the levels of extinctions that have taken place. Surely, some new vertibrate phyla would have evolved in the past 500 million years assuming the same process is in existence that evolved them in the first place over a much briefer period.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I didn't miss it. There is a reason the phyla are classified differently, right? Evos are arguing every living thing ultimately has the same ancestral pool, right? So that's really a dead issue. But evos still distinquish, say, between non-vertibrates and vertibrates despite sharing the same ancestral pool. Non-vertibrates evolved vertibrates, right?So what did that stop?Think about it.On the competition point, nice idea. How would you verify that scientifically? Are there any peer-reviewed studies that do that?Frankly, I don't see why if new vertibrates and other new forms would not continually evolve. The competition argument doesn't carry too much weight considering the violatility and extinctions and the fact evos argue, even here on this thread, that evolution continued to occur.So was there so much competition that no more evolution could occur and populations stabilized or was there plenty of room for further evolution? If there was plenty of room, your argument on competition really doesn't hold much water.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

My spelling has worsened immensely in the past few years for some reason.....but you got the idea anyway. I am questioning the idea that competition would limit new phyla from emerging. I agree they are not the only option. Moveover, it seems to me there should be tons of major new body types and plans we haven't seen. I just used vertEbrates as an example. Also, it's been in the back of my mind to start a thread on why invertebrates could have developed vertibrate and human genes for complex nerve functions without any natural selection involved, but that's a different thread....(mods, please don't get too mad as it's a point that could be valid later on this thread if we get into the issue of the evolution of genes and expressed morphological range.) So why not new major bauplans? They didn't evolve in the past 500 million years roughly. The fact some extinctions occured suggests there is room for new phyla, just no mechanism to produce them. I think more like 20 million years is closer to the mark, and then 500 million years with no phyla evolving. So that argument doesn't work. If a new phyla emerged tomorrow, we'd still have 500 million years with no new animal phyla emerging.

Very good question. Reminds of me of something I often ask: why assume one common ancestor. If abiogenesis is possible, wouldn't it happen all the time? Moreover, assuming it is constrained by the properties of chemistry, it would be likely to be similar but not identical....(the 3 kingdoms?).Of course, we really have no evidence for abiogenesis, at least not as natural process.I think these questions raise some interesting doubts about the claims of evos. So often some piece of evidence is given for something, but it's not exclusively supportive of that. Take the idea here: just because we see similar designs in nested hierarchies, does that really mean they descend from a common ancestor?Certainly, we see common traits that evos admit could not emerge from a common ancestor. Evos call this parallel evolution, but perhaps another way to think of it as falsification of the idea that similarities can be used as evidence of common ancestry.

Parallel evolution actually is part of the topic, imo, because we are talking about nested hierarchies and the evo assumption is that common traits indicate a common ancestor. See point 4 of my OP.But let's not divert too far, I agree, and get into abiogenesis.Edit: changed "designer" to "ancestor" since that's what I meant to post and it caused confusion.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : fixed mistake

My understanding is the term "evo" as an abbreviation for evolutionist was fairly normal here, or used to be, and was used by evos and non-evos alike.On the point of common traits indicating common ancestry, yes, that's pretty standard and is the means by which nested hierarchies were created. If your school didn't teach it, I am not sure why.

Common designer is not what evos teach. I am not sure what part of my prior posts you are referring to.On the evo thing, it's just an abbreviation.

creo just doesn't work as good, but you can use IDer for ID proponents. Young Earth Creationists can be abbreviated YECers.I made a mistake in message 18. I meant common ancestor, not common designer, and didn't realize I made the mistake.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

The thread is about animal phyla but there hasn't been any new plant phyla in what, 150 million years or something?The point is not when the phyla first started appearing but why they have stopped.Also, you know as well as I do that there really hasn't been any new animal phyla since then. There is one, which I alluded to earlier, thought to have arisen around 470 million years ago, but it could well be earlier and we haven't found the fossils for it.If you know of new animal phyla arising, please feel free to post them. I am not going to list all the phyla for you though, if that is what you are requesting.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I was in process of editting so not sure what you read. This is my comment in the OP. If you have a factual objection to this, feel free to show your evidence.

The thread topic is not to debate to what degree phyla were appearing prior to the Cambrian explosion, which is a subject of some debate, nor to be exact over that time period, which is why I rounded to 500 million years instead of 520 million years. The point is that in hundreds of millions of years, roughly 500 million years, no new animal phyla have evolved.Apparently whatever process or mechanism was involved in originating the animal phyla stopped roughly 500 million years ago, most earler and maybe one 470 million years, but why quibble here......500 million is a good approximation based on evo dating.Why have no new animal phyla evolved since then?

Arbitrary? I hope not. My understanding is that the groupings were based on factual analysis. Is that incorrect in your opinion?As to the rest of your post, I already answered you earlier and you have not responded. There are still, for example, non-vertebrates around. There is no valid reason why new strains of vertebrates would not evolve as well as all sorts of new phyla.Edited by randman, : No reason given.