Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Your question does not make any sense to me. Can you clarify?

You are quoting me where I did not speak about nested hierarchy.So I don't see how your claims about nested hierarchy are related to what I said in your quote of me.

You were responding to a post about the nested hierarchy. The question still stands.We aren't assuming a nested hierarchy. We observe a nested hierarchy. This observation is the same for everyone regardless of their position.
​
Do you agree with this or not?

You try to deny common ancestry. You claim a nested hierarchy would not result from evolution. You claim that the observation of a nested hierarchy is erroneous.If you are right and the nested hierarchy is not what we see, then what pattern should we find.If your intelligent design fiat creation is right then what pattern of relatedness should we see in the fossil record?

Where have I said that your assumption was the nested hierarchy?

Wow, I have not claimed that a nested hierachy would not result from evolution. You evolutionists need to learn to read, for goodness sakes.

That's what I get from your posts. It is my perception and obviously differs from what's in you mind.Please correct me.Do you deny common ancestry?Do you deny the strong observations of a nested hierarchy in the fossil record? Do you deny this is strong evidence of evolution?If you deny the observation in the fossil record of a nested hierarchy then what pattern of relatedness do you see?If your intelligent design fiat creation is right then what pattern of relatedness should we see in the fossil record?

Where did you get from my posts that I claimed that a nested hierachy would not result from evolution?I know that evolution from a single celled common ancestor would not come any where close to producing this level of perfection and complexity in such a variety.Only those with poor understanding of biology, including your pseudo biologist experts, can accept such absurd theory.

You know this? How? By what evidence?

The diamant expert can tell fakes from real diamants by a mere glance. He has all the evidence he needs, while untrained eyes are busy spending time and effort and then fooling themselves into thinking that they know better.The complexity of information in DNA translating to instructions for building all parts of the living cells with each their specific functions in the body, is evident. Yet you cling on to the idea that it self assembled through progressive steps over time and produced all varieties of DNA by random mutations.

You are not the trained experienced acknowledged expert on the subject of evolution. By your own logic you are busy spending time and effort fooling yourself into thinking that you know better. I agree. Yes it is. It is evident that chemistry and evolution can produce the most complex, exceptionally less than perfect, organic structures. We can talk about some abiogenic hypothesis in some depth if you want. The science is fascinating, but, yes the hypothesis involve precisely that.You have shown nothing to counter this view but your own personal religiously-tainted incredulity. Is there something more than your emotions to justify your view?

Not only our observations, but also experiments with evolutionary processes demonstrate repeatedly and consistently that complexity, even "irreducible" complexity, are characteristic of the products of evolution. So when we find complexity in nature, we know that it had to have evolved.We see this all the time in our own work as intelligent designers (I'm a retired intelligent designer). When we forsake the rigors and best practices of deliberate design and instead resort to methods based on evolutionary processes (ie, copy and modify) then our products quickly approach becoming Rube Goldberg machines which are too complex to maintain or modify easily.Life violates almost all the rules and practices of intelligent design. It obviously evolved.

What about answers to my other questions in Message 487?

Evolution from single celled ancestor never happened. Who wants to be an expert on something non-existent?

How about you backup your claim before firing dozens of more questions. I have no interest in answering every foolish question, if you fail to prove that you are able to read properly even.Where did you get that I claimed that a nested hierachy would not be a result of evolution?