A test for claimed knowledge of how macroevolution occurs

And casinos lose big bucks all the time. Oh, wait...Random events create recognizable patterns all the time. Common descent must produce a nested hierarchy no matter what causes the changes.

Far too much agreeing data and agreeing methods for it to be an illusion. 2.3 million species fitting the hierarchy. Two separate methods for constructing the hierarchy that agree just short of perfectly.You'll never look at the data, and if you did your unshakable anti-reality filter would prevent understanding.

What's been posted so far is explanations of what a nested hierarchy is, and I'm far from convinced you understand that.THe data and how it's processed is far more that is realistic to explain in this medium and is widely scattered. Since you won't read black-on-white web pages, I don't know how to present it. Maybe others can think of a way.

She's saying that the nested hierarchy can't be created by mutations. So stupifyingly wrong that it's difficult to address.

"It's obvious" is not used in science. Too often it means (as it does here) the speaker has no evidence.

Yeah, Faith, mutations can't go outside the genome. Why do you think they would have to to change a human genome into a chimp genome or vice versa?You don't even know what 'the genome" is.

List six examples.

She doesn't understand that "outside the genome" is as meaningless as "red" being outside of "all colors".

"Outside the genome" is a meaningless phrase.Your hallucination of something undetected that prevents the changes we see is ludicrous.

I.e. the retreating fludde waters didn't carve the canyon, the left a flat surface on which the Colorado carved the canyon that it didn't carve.Wow.

When you contradict yourself within a short time you're going to get called on it.The point of producing evidence would be to support your hallucination. Without evidence you have nothing.Of course you have no evidence or understanding of the forces involved.

Yeah, you're perfect and inerrant.But you still have no evidence, just opium dreams.

You have no understanding of geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, hydrology... at all.

We've pointed out your ignorance with examples many times. My favorite is the idea that entire inconceivably heavy and extremely brittle rock formations could be picked up and carried and deposited whole.Lifting would require an upward force exerted from below (or else the bottom would crack off) and almost perfectly even and simultaneous force (else the bending moment between unequal forces would crack the formation in two or more).A crude analogy: bake a huge and unusually thin sheet cake. Invert the pan so the cake is on the counter. Leave it there until it's totally stale.Now, with your hands only, lift it off the counter in one piece.

The meanders extend from top to bottpm. Therefore whatever created the meanders also created the canyon. According to you, that's the river. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.