The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

That's all you have? Just accuse people of making assumptions without demonstrating that they are assumptions? Really?We conclude that evolution and common ancestry are true because we observe a nested hierarchy. There's also tons of other evidence. It is a conclusion based on mountains of evidence, not an assumption.

That falls flat when you ignore the gaps that are filled.

These do.Also, we have mountains of evidence demonstrating that natural selection is responsible for shaping the genomes of species. We aren't just saying it. We can point to the evidence.If an observable and testable natural process does not fill gaps in explanations, then what in the world are you asking for?

Your inability to tell us why we would expect gaps between two specific species groups but not two others is the evidence. Creationists have never been able to explain what pattern of derived features we should see in living and fossil species if species were created separately. The only explanation that predicts a specific pattern is evolution, and only with a predicted pattern can we identify gaps.

Are you of the school of thought that we have to know everything before we know anything?

I am making no such assumptions. In fact, that's the whole point. We have nothing to make assumptions as to what life would look like if life were separately created. Therefore, there is no expectation that life would fall into a nested hierarchy. There is only one process where we would expect a nested hierarchy, and that is evolution and common ancestry.

We can determine that evolution and common ancestry will produce a nested hierarchy from first principles. Also, we can observe living populations that are producing nested hierarchies through these mechanisms.https://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/3/293.full.pdfThis isn't speculation.It also isn't speculation that we observe a nested hierarchy.The only speculation we are seeing is that life was created by a deity.

That doesn't mean anything. What are the boundaries? What would be forbidden? That's what the nested hierarchy is. It is data that tells us what scenario is most likely. The nested hierarchy is points to common ancestry as being the most likely because this is the pattern we would expect if common ancestry is true.This is just one data point. There are many, many more. However, if you can't admit that the nested hierarchy is evidence for common ancestry then there is no reason to move on to the other data points.

We do have more evidence.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentBut if you can't accept the nested hierarchy as evidence, why move on to more evidence? You will do the same thing no matter how much evidence we present. You will call it an "assumption" or handwave it away like you are doing here.

What lack of logic?

The debate is about whether a nested hierarchy is a piece of evidence for common ancestry. Do you accept that a nested hierarchy is one piece of evidence for common ancestry?

That's a bad example. In both the Geocentric and Heliocentric model we would see the sun rising and setting, so that evidence can't differentiate between those models. It isn't evidence for either.A nested hierarchy is different. There is only one process we know of that would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy, and that is common ancestry. There is absolutely no reason why we would expect separately created species to produce this pattern. Therefore, a nested hierarchy differentiates between the models unlike your example.And a nested hierarchy is but one piece of evidence out of many.

The nested hierarchy is data. Here are 29+ predictions and the data that matches those predictions.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentWhat data does the theory of evolution not fit? Now you don't even understand what data is. Someone making a claim about their innocence is not empirical data. It is a claim. If you can't understand the difference between a claim and evidence then you will need to learn how science works.To use your analogy, the nested hierarchy is like finding the suspect's fingerprints at the murder scene. By itself it could be argued that this isn't quite enough evidence, but that's fine. We also have the suspect's DNA, shoe prints, tire prints, and fibers at the crime scene. We also have emails where the suspect writes that they are going to kill the victim. The suspect lacks and alibi, and his cell phone pinged a cell tower not far from the crime. There are stacks and stacks of evidence. But you claim that there isn't evidence for guilt because fingerprints alone can be misleading. That's where we are right now.

I have never seen anyone come up with a valid reason why separate creation would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. The Heliocentric model would have been the most parsimonious explanation because it didn't require other planets to move in circuitous orbits or epicycles. For example, the Heliocentric model was able to explain the retrograde movement of Mars with a simple elliptical orbit.Of course, once we understood more about gravity the solution became really obvious given the relative masses of the planets and the Sun. Another piece of evidence is stellar parallax, the movement of foreground stars in relation to background stars as Earth moved about its orbit around the Sun.The type of argument you are trying to make is equivalent to saying that orbits are caused by invisible pink fairies that just so happen to move planets in orbits consistent with the theory of gravity. You are using the logic of superstition. You don't even understand what the rules are. You seem to think it is logical to propose a supernatural process that just so happens to exactly mimic a natural process, and use your belief in this whimsical supernatural belief as a reason for rejecting the natural explanation. That's the logic of superstition.

People reporting empirical measurements from repeatable methodologies is data. I do, you don't. They are all convincing. I already presented one in this thread:EvC Forum: Mutations Confirm Common DescentWe could also cover sequence conservation in exons and introns if you want. This piece of evidence is one cited by Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, as one of the more convincing pieces of evidence. You can read more here:https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf