The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

No. The data is well documented, the models are well tested and the nested hierarchy is a reality. The only ones who question this are the nut cases seeking to advance their gods. In other words, stupid ID/Creationists. No, fool! That is exactly what you DO NOT do. You let the data show what is there. In the case of evolution what we found in the structure of the data is what we have called a nested hierarchy.You, on the other hand, want to pre-judge the results so you can further your false religious fantasy.

This new idea of common descent and nested hierarchies.1837 Anytime you want to start showing us where this is wrong, we're all ears. Just at the moment you're being very boring.

A prediction is done before observation, dumb ape!

That hand writing is hard to read.

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.

Once we have a model, yes. The part you forget is you let the data build the model, then you test the model by making predictions.Predictions of new data come after the model. Initial data, observation, comes before the model.So you didn't know this either. You really do know nothing. This dumb ape is smarter than you. No surprise.

Emphasis added by me: What are you talking about? Are you saying the same thing as your fellow creationist here, candle2? -- from his Message 189: Also in his Message 43: Over the decades, I've seen many other creationists repeat that interpretation, usually claiming that evolution would depend on a dog giving birth to kittens or a chimp giving birth to a human.Since you're a creationist, is that your position too? Why?If that is not your position, then why not?Your description is telling us that you do indeed think that evolution would require such "crossed boundaries".That tells us that you do not know what evolution is nor how it works. So what the hell are you talking about?

It is if that "group of species" is all life. Can you tell us where it breaks down then? Which group of species is such a poor fit for a nested hierarchy? Is there any example which would falsify the notion?Mutate and Survive
​

Dumb ape thinks he's smart.You evolutionist claim that nested hierarchy is predicted by evolution. Worthless claim if you cannot define hierarchy even, before making the prediction.Still a dumb ape you are.

We have. You are just too stupid to comprehend.

Says the troll

Yes, I did say that. And I'll say it again next time you say something stupid.But, I like the new topic proposal. You draw pretty pictures and all but I'm more interested in what interpretations and conclusions you draw from each chart and from the aggregate.I look forward to your broadside shot at evolution through manipulation of genetic probability numbers. Of course it's all been tried before and failed but your tack seems interesting.I await its promotion.

You're getting a bit ahead of yourself, old chap .... "evolutionary mechanisms" is the best scientific explanation, but you can't prove that that explanation is correct. Claiming, as you do, that your explanation is a proven fact is typical of the lies that Darwinoids tell. The array of skulls depicted in the image you supplied is meant to portray the
"transitional steps in the fossil record" , but all you've done is provide yet another shameful example of Darwinoid dishonesty.What Darwinoids don't tell readers about that image is that:1. Not all the skulls are not found in the fossil record in the same (alleged) evolutionary sequence depicted in the image. The (alleged) evolutionary sequence is therefore patently fraudulent.2. Some of the skulls are tiny relative to the size of some of the other skulls. It's like comparing the skull of a marmoset to the skull of a gorilla.3. There is nothing remotely "evolutionary" about the skeletons belonging to any of the non-human skulls in that image ... skeletons that are no closer to human than any of the non-human primates we see today.

I accept the scientific evidence that suggests life on earth has gone thru dramatic changes ... that it has "evolved".