nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution

So by your reasoning there should be unlimited phyla and the earth can support an infinite number of species?

Just trying to make sense of your posts. It's like you think there are missing phyla.

The coelacanth found today is not the same species as the ancient coelacanth.The big flaw in you argument is that you think being human is an endpoint in evolution. If you think all apes should evolve into humans then you must think that evolution favors humans and that humanity is a goal. On the same way of thinking all fish should evolve into a superfish and all reptiles should end up as supercrocodiles.If this was to happen, there would be huge gaps in the food chain and the environment would have countless dead zones. In fact, these dead zones would be prime candidates for exploitation. We would expect species to adapt to the available habitats and thus, evolution goes on its nonpersonal way.

My bad. I should have replied to your previous post, where you pasted the original post, about apes. Coelacanth is a genus. In your logic, a brown trout is a rainbow trout. Exactly how are you defining human success?

I'll grant you the fact that we are above the other species intellectually, but that does not make intellect the goal of evolution. It certainly doesn't make us the most successful species either.Dominion is a double edged sword. We have been unable to eradicate malaria spreading mosquitos. Cities are full of rats and cockroaches against our wishes. I'm happy being human but I have no idea what goes through the mind of a fish or bird.

But you are still confusing intellect and success. It is doubtful we will have superior numbers than ants, yet our intellect far exceeds theirs. Yes, but most humans don't have those luxuries. Western life has clouded your perception of our species as a whole.Anyway, the whole point is that intellect is not the goal of evolution. We are not the end point because evolution is not self aware.