Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Because you don't accept theories if they make accurate predictions. You reject theories even when they make accurate predictions.

Baysian approach incorporates multiple predictions from all available data. Including the data you keep wanting to ignore and claim that it is made up.

By being a buzz word.

You made up the prediction that evolution should produce the same amount of morphological variation in all lineages over the same time period. That's what you made up. If you think I am wrong, then show me the scientific peer reviewed papers that back up the claim that this is a prediction of the theory of evolution.If you want to look at other predictions, then we will. The next piece of evidence is here:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367

Yep, and it did, they are called scorpions, centipedes and millipedes, to name three. Insects have 6 legs and 0, 2, or 4 wings. Any Arthropod with more than 6 legs IS NOT AN INSECTHere you are imagining scenarios of evolution doing something that you seem to think is impossible, but you don't seem to know anything about biology, or paleontology, or genetics, or how the scientific method and supporting evidence works.Why don't you know these most basic facts about biology; we call all arthropods with 8 legs and 2 main body sections Spiders, Insects have 6 legs and many adults also have wings, there are arthropods with many more legs than insects or spiders, but we don't call them insects or spiders because we can recognize that they also form their own clades, like insects and spiders do.Didn't you go to high school, why don't you know these basic facts about biology, especially if you are going to come here and argue about evolution (biology)?

Accurate prediction does not mean that it is a useful prediction.If a small child eats vegetables, I predict that the child will grow. That is very accurate. Nobody can deny the growth of this child. Problem is, the child would have grown just about the same from eating any other nutritious food. Very accurate prediction but extremely low score on usefulness to determine the childs diet.And a hierarchy is hardly a prediction at all, even. More of an observation.

So you decided to miss the point and hide behind labels. Got it!

Based on that logic you should reject all scientific theories. Then do the same for the nested hierarchy. Show how another process would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy.Also, show us why this same process would produce the same pattern of transition, transversion, and CpG mutations as discussed in this thread:
EvC Forum: Mutations Confirm Common DescentAfter that we can move to numerous pieces of evidence, such as the divergence of exons and introns.

I'm saying that evolution would predict a more even distribution than 25 order branches in one group and none in numerous others. But you seem to think such extreme uneven distribution is expected or likely?That is your problem. You hold on to a theory and don't bother to test it with real and relevant data. Instead, you rather ask countless of questions of why a designer has not done it some other way. Such weak logic!

WHY???? That's exactly what I do in this thread:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367

Wow, so because some predictions are not useful, all science should be rejected???I'm done with you. You keep drawing the most ridiculous conclusions.

Good luck with your testing. Not that I would attach any value to your findings, as you have proven time and time again that you are incapable.

That's your logic, not mine.

Yet another creationist runs away from the evidence.

I look at the whole "tree" of life. Not just one property of nesting, that you seem to be stuck on forever.