The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

I agree that evolution does not predict that there should be the same amount of change in morphology across all lineages. So why do you think it does make this prediction?You also don't understand that taxonomic orders don't exist in nature, nor do phyla, classes, genera, and so forth. Linnaean taxonomy is no longer used in biology because the divisions between the different groups is arbitrary and subjective, and they also lack the correct branching structure. It has been replaced by cladistics which uses objective divisions between clades. A new clade is created every time a speciation event occurs.

Can you give me a single reason why the rates of speciation should be the same in all lineages over a similar time frame?The theory makes no predictions about the rate of speciation in any lineage, and there is no reason it should. Speciation is extremely contingent on factors that differ both temporally and geographically. There are also fitness landscapes where species go up an fitness peak and can't descend back down which results in conservation of characteristics.Fitness landscape - Wikipedia

Then explain your position if you think I am misrepresenting it. What lie?"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. It does not at all fit the evolution narrative of random mutation upon mutation upon mutation happening in each and every group."That's what you said, isn't it?

Why is that extreme skew a problem for the theory? You have never explained that.

How so? Spell it out.

God could not create species so they don't fit into a nested hierarchy?

Lack of fossil evidence does not make the nested hierarchy go away. We can add you to the list of people who don't understand what a nested hierarchy is.Can you tell us how the distribution of characteristics in pre-Cambrian life violates a nested hierarchy?

HOW??? How did you determine that they are separate trees?

This is what you said before:"Look at the many species of crocodiles, mosquitos, spiders, ants, worms, snakes, butterflies. Such huge varieties in sizes, colors, shapes, but each fit perfectly inside their niche group for period of tens or hundreds of millions of years. Yet one single mammal ancestor species supposedly branched by progressive evolution into over 20 different orders of species. 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."How are mammals any different than these other groups. With mammals we have everything from monotremes to bats to whales to squirrels to bison to kangaroos . . . that's a lot of different species. What are you on about? What exactly are you comparing?And how in the world do you determine that a "branching event" is complete? We do see a huge variety of life. Look around. Vertebrates have been around for less than a billion years, and look at all the variety. Arthropods have been around for less than a billion years, and look at all their variety. You have everything from insects to clams to sea cucumbers to lobsters. What planet do you live on?

You are projecting.Please show us the genetic differences between humans and other apes that you think could not be produced by mutations and natural selection. Which ones do you think require supernatural magic?

Where's the evidence?

First, show that a cell thinks, and that this conscious process is what results in differentiation into different cell types.And what in the world do you mean by "only half of the genetic materials"? You do realize that the whole genome is duplicated for each cell division, right? All cells have the same amount of DNA. What in the world are you talking about?Did you know that all of the somatic cells in your body, from immune cells to muscle cells to intestinal cells, all have the same genome? The same amount of DNA?The only exceptions are strange cells like human red blood cells that lose their entire genome, or germ cells that have have half of the genome which is needed for sexual reproduction (do you know what diploid and haploid are?). Otherwise, I have no idea what you are trying to describe here.

I think it is much deeper than that. I highly doubt sensei knows what meiosis is, or what diploid and haploid are. It looks like he thinks that after 3 cell divisions from a single cell that the resulting 8 cells will each have 1/8th of the original genome. If he doesn't understand mitosis, I doubt he understands meiosis.I also suspect that he thinks there are a set of . . . say, kidney cell genes. It reads like sensei thinks the kidney cell throws out everything that isn't a kidney cell gene and then makes a kidney cell.

That would require us to have live cells from billions of years ago which we don't have. How multicellularity first evolved will always be a mystery because we simply don't have the DNA needed.However, we do have examples of very simple multicellular organisms now, as well as organisms that are intermediate. All of the intermediate stages can be found in extant life.For example, the volvox which has just 2 or 3 cell types and is very simple: I have no idea what you are talking about. What are these half cells you are talking about?

No, why would they????You are made up of trillions of cells, and you started out as one cell. Do you think each of your cells today has one trillionth of the DNA that the first cell had?They would have all had the same amount of DNA. What they would do is turn on and turn off different genes in that genome which would allow each cell to do a different job, just like your cells in your body. Probably the same way it works now. There are single cell yeast species that reproduce both asexually (i.e. cell division) and sexually. If single cell species can do it, it can't be that hard for multicellular species to do it. The single celled yeast species that sexually reproduce don't have sperm or eggs. They just have single cells that are the same size with the same motility. They merge and form a diploid genome just like sperm and egg.