The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

Human designs show a LOT of violations of nesting. For example, this mouse has a copy of the green fluorescent protein from jellyfish:So how did this massive violation of a nested hierarchy happen? Humans designed the mouse that way.Human designs regularly violate a nested hierarchy.

Most creationists don't understand what a nested hierarchy is, nor why it is such a big deal. The nested hierarchy is perhaps the biggest piece of evidence that convinced the scientific community in the 1800's that the theory of evolution was right. The nested hierarchy is probably the set piece for the evidence that supports the theory, and wouldn't you know it, most creationists don't even understand the concept.

Flying and swimming are not DNA sequences or physical characteristics. If you think there are beaks that violate the nested hierarchy then let's see them. Projection at its finest. They are evidence for evolution because they fall into a nested hierarchy. Ignoring this evidence does not make it go away.

The Cambrian explosion is one of the best pieces of evidence for evolution that there is. It demonstrates that the earliest branches of the tree of life for animals is found in the earliest sediments, exactly where they should be. We don't find whales, monkeys, or rhinos in Cambrian deposits. Instead, we find the most basic vertebrate possible, just as we would expect from evolution.

Prove it. Show us that there isn't a fossil anywhere in the ground that is transitional.

Yes, it does. It proves common ancestry and evolution. A nested hierarchy is exactly what we should see if common ancestry and evolution are true, and that is exactly what we see. What story?If you don't think common ancestry and evolution would produce a nested hierarchy then please tell us what pattern it would produce, and why.If you don't think complex life falls into a nested hierarchy then provide the evidence.

How does that disprove evolution? Those species fit into a nested hierarchy which is evidence against design choice.You also have not explained why differences in variation within groups is evidence of design choice. You have just asserted it with absolutely no evidence. You also can't explain why we see a nested hierarchy instead of some other pattern. Why not????

Why can't we have features found in other species? I think evolution must be true because the observations match the predictions made by the theory. One of those predictions is a nested hierarchy.You have yet to show that common ancestry and evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy. You have yet to give a reason why design would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. What arbitrary rules?If you want an example of an arbitrary rule, look no further than this:"Such variety in one group on the level of orders, but the absence of such in so many other common groups, is evidence of design choice."

What we have is a dead person laying on the ground covered in bloods with holes in their body that exactly match the shape of a knife. We also find metal shavings in the wounds that matches a knife at the defendant's house. We also find that the shape of the knife exactly matches the holes in the body. We also find the victim's blood on the knife.That's the level of evidence we have. 29+ evidences for macroevolution

How is it flawed?

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

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.

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?

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