The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

You can predict a nested hierarchy from first principles, just as Darwin did. It is no different than Einstein's thought experiments that were used to create predictions of what we should see if relativity is true.If you think we are wrong, then show us why vertical inheritance, common ancestry, speciation, and mutation should not produce a nested hierarchy. We do observe a nested hierarchy higher up. It is found in all complex life.

Postdictions are just as valid in science. For example, one of the strongest initial pieces of evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity is that it accurately predicted the the already known precession in Mercury's orbit. Newton's laws were not able to explain the precession in the orbit, but Einstein's equations were able to explain it. It didn't matter that the precession was already known.

All claimed contrary evidence is never presented by ID/creationists.

And yet you can never tell us what these flaws are. We do know what happened. We have the evidence.

I can prove it, beyond any reasonable doubt. 1. Those skulls are arranged by their age, as determined by radiometric dating. That you see a transitional series when they are arranged by their age says a lot.2. A marmoset skull is not a marmoset skull because of its size. If you think all that matters is size then you don't know squat about paleontology or biology.3. If those skulls are not transitional, then please tell us what features these skulls are missing that a real transitional skull would have.

You have just proven that you don't know what a nested hierarchy is. You have to have at least three organisms to have a nested hierarchy.Just like the vast majority of ID/creationists, you have no idea what the evidence is or how biology works. You also can't seem to understand that it was a creationist who discovered the nested heirarchy.

Dawkins is also saying that the gaps are not real. He plainly states that the gaps are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Thank you for agreeing with us.

Depends on the organism. For humans and most mammals, somewhere around 90-95% of the genome is junk. That number varies quite a bit amongst vertebrates and eukaryotes in general. For example, there are fish genomes that are about the fifth the size of the human genome but has about the same amount of functional DNA. A recently sequenced crustacean genome is about 15 times larger than the human genome is mostly junk. The bladderwort genome is about 1/40th the size of the human genome and only ~5% of that genome is junk. Bacterial genomes have very little junk, and viral genomes have almost no junk DNA at all.If we are talking about the human genome, scientists use sequence conservation to measure the amount of junk DNA. If DNA is functional then deleterious mutations will occur in that DNA which will be selected against. As it stands, more than 90% of the human genome is not being conserved.

We know because we have the evidence.

There are GC biases in mutations, but you are essentially right. If there is enough time since common ancestry then the accumulated mutations in each lineage will reduce any similarity to random noise in junk DNA. You are forgetting about sequence conservation due to natural selection.

Your inability to address the evidence is noted.

It doesn't. It conserves sequence in functional DNA. When genomes of very distantly related species are compared the only bits that have recognizable similarity is functional DNA, not junk DNA.

Are you referring to the urban legend that humans and bananas share 50% of their DNA? I hope you realize that humans and bananas don't share 50% of their DNA. At best, humans and bananas share 50% of their genes, although that is even questionable. Of the genes that are shared, there are going to be bases that are different.Added in edit:An article worth reading:

quote:

---

The second thing to keep in mind is that genes, which are the regions of the DNA that code for these proteins, only make up 2 percent of your DNA.

​

For this particular experiment, scientists first looked at the sequences of genes in a typical banana genome. "We then used these DNA sequences to predict the amino acid sequence of all the proteins that would be made from those genes," Brody says, noting that the protein sequences were placed in a file. "We then did the same process for all human genes."

​

Next, the scientists compared the protein sequence from each banana gene to every human gene. "The program compares how similar the sequence of the banana genes are to each human gene," he says, noting that the degree of similarity could range 0 to 100 percent. "The program kept any matches that were more similar than one would expect by chance." The program continued doing this, gene by gene.

​

All told, more than 4 million comparisons were done, resulting in about 7,000 best "hits" between the two genomes. Then, the percent similarity score for each of those hits was averaged. "This gave us the result of about 40 percent," he says. "This is the average similarity between proteins (gene products), not genes." Gene products or proteins are the biochemical material resulting from a gene becoming functional. "Of course, there are many, many genes in our genome that do not have a recognizable counterpart in the banana genome and vice versa."
Do People and Bananas Really Share 50 Percent of the Same DNA? | HowStuffWorks

---

We scientists have evidence that 90-95% of the genome is junk.
a) 90-95% of the genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift.
b) The theory of evolution takes no position on how much junk DNA there should be in any given genome. The bladderwort genome has less than 5% junk DNA, and it fits in just fine with the theory.

Yes, we can. It is proven that the skulls have a mixture of features common to both humans and other apes. That makes them transitional by definition. They are arranged by their age. Thank you for confirming that they look transitional. They do have a mixture of ape and human features. They are transitional by definition. You already said they look transitional."They're chosen and displayed in a manner that may look transitional to some."So what makes them look transitional? Please explain. What features are these skeletons missing that a real transitional would have?Also, the pelvises are quite obviously more human-like.Are you telling me that the two pelvises in the middle do not look more like the pelvis on the left than the pelvis on the right? Seriously?