The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

How is it flawed?

No, you didn't. You just made something up that is not a prediction of common ancestry.

Alright, you tell me your complete line of reasoning, from start to end.Tell me you have more than, common ancestry predicts nested hierarchy, ergo evolution.

I did not make it up. Feel free to prove to me then that spiders branched into two or more orders. Or crocodiles. Or spiders.What exactly have I made up? Has the mammal not branched into more than twenty orders in less time, according to common ancestry?Tell me, which part have I made up? I speak facts. You are trying so hard to deny hard facts.

Common ancestry and vertical inheritance will necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy.There is no other observed process that would produce a nested hierarchy. Design does not produce a nested hierarchy, nor would there be any design reason why it should. Human designs do not produce a nested hierarchy. Cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Bicycles do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Planes do not fall into a nested hierarchy.A theory predicts that we should make specific observations. We make those observations. Theory supported. What more needs to be said?If you are ready to move on to other pieces of evidence we can do that. For example, you can check out my thread on mutations:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367There are many, many pieces of independent evidence that tie into the nested hierarchy. But if you can't get past the basic idea, then there is no reason to go further into the details.For example, we could talk about the divergence of orthologous exons and introns which is also spectacular piece of evidence in addition to the evidence from substitution mutations. However, you would first have to understand how species are related to one another, and that requires understanding the nested hierarchy.

Then show me the scientific paper where the author describes how morphological variation should increase the same in all lineages over the same period of time. Orders don't exist in nature. Orders didn't exist until the 1700's.

As expected, your line of reasoning is weak. Fully relying on a useless prediction that is not even a prediction. Ignoring predictions with actual likelihoods that can be estimated.And you dare to assume that I'm the one rejecting all of science.

You haven't shown that they are predictions made by the theory.If I say that the theory of relativity predicts everything should fall upwards, can I use the observation of things falling downward to falsify the theory? Why isn't a nested hierarchy a prediction of the theory?

Have I ever said that it should be completely even? Any other strawmen?It seems now that you are dishonest as well. No surprise there. Evolutionists tend to revert to fallacies when their arguments are completely destroyed.

If changes in morphology can differ between lineages with evolution then what evidence are you claiming is a problem for the theory?

That is like saying that when more than 20 succesive random lottery draws of a national lottery are won in one city is totally plausible, because of the argument that one city can have different number of winners than another.At what point do you accept that it is not what evolution predicts? It can not be much more extreme than this case. Yet you cling on your theory with terribly bad arguments.

This is so simple. A nested hierarchy is just a family tree, parents, kids, grandkids, great-grandkids... Sequential reproductive events, that's all evolution is, descent with modification and with every line of descent isolated from each other once separated, in other words, at its simplest, my kids will never be my sister's kids.

I agree that evolution does not predict that there should be the same amount of change in morphology across all lineages. So why do you think it does make this prediction?You also don't understand that taxonomic orders don't exist in nature, nor do phyla, classes, genera, and so forth. Linnaean taxonomy is no longer used in biology because the divisions between the different groups is arbitrary and subjective, and they also lack the correct branching structure. It has been replaced by cladistics which uses objective divisions between clades. A new clade is created every time a speciation event occurs.

So you think evolution predicts numerous grand branching events in one group and none in noumerous others in similar time frame?Honestly?

Can you give me a single reason why the rates of speciation should be the same in all lineages over a similar time frame?The theory makes no predictions about the rate of speciation in any lineage, and there is no reason it should. Speciation is extremely contingent on factors that differ both temporally and geographically. There are also fitness landscapes where species go up an fitness peak and can't descend back down which results in conservation of characteristics.Fitness landscape - Wikipedia