Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

First, there are no orders in nature. Orders are inventions by humans that we use to help us categorize species. The only division that exists in nature is species. Phyla, orders, classes, genera . . . none of those exist in nature. They only exist in the minds of humans. What does exist are clades, but I suspect that cladistics is probably way above your head if you can't even understand what a nested hierarchy is.And yes, evolution does result in conservation of characteristics more in some lineages than in others. Why is that a problem? Evolution does not predict that all lineages will vary by the same amount over a set period of time. There is no reason why evolution would proceed in this manner. Can you explain why all lineages would have the same amount of variation over time if evolution is true? If not, then why did you act as if this is a prediction of the theory?

Geologic processes could have produced the Grand Canyon in New York, but it didn't. Does this mean geologic processes didn't produce the Grand Canyon where it sits now? We are talking about the species that do exist. Why do the species that do exist fall into a nested hierarchy? Evolution can explain this, but design can not. There is absolutely no reason why design would produce a nested hierarchy, but every reason why evolution would.Again, this is about the species THAT DO AND HAVE EXISTED. They fit into a nested hierarchy.

Do you reject every scientific theory based on this logic?How do you think theories in science are tested? So you reject the scientific method?What critical thinking are you using? What reality do you think we are ignoring?

Common ancestry predicts a nested hierarchy.Design does not.We observe a nested hierarchy.How does the Bayesian approach work with these conditions?

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

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

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.

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

That's your logic, not mine.

Yet another creationist runs away from the evidence.

I have offered more evidence in another thread on multiple occasions. Here it is again:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367The basic observation of the nested hierarchy is just the tip of the iceberg, but you can't seem to get past even the tip of the iceberg.

What assumptions are bad and why? What facts am I ignorant of?

You will only look at one prediction. There are many, many, many more.Here it another one, for the like the 10th time:
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367 Much better than yours, apparently.

We are asking why design would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. You have yet to come up with a reason. A bat with feathers is an example of the type of species that would violate a nested hierarchy to give you an idea of what we are talking about.We are trying to stress to you that we aren't citing just similarities as evidence for common ancestry. We are citing a nested hierarchy which is a pattern of similarities. It is this pattern that the theory of evolution predicts, and I have yet to see anyone show why this pattern is a prediction of design.The gross pattern of a nested hierarchy is just the beginning of the evidence. There is a lot more. What I am showing you is that design fails right out of the gate. It can't explain the pattern of similarities we are seeing, even from a birds eye view. It gets even worse when we focus on the details. It is irrelevant to the question at hand. How would the existence of a 12 legged spider solve the question at hand? Let's say that a lineage of spiders did evolve 4 more legs. What impact would that have on the discussion at hand?A bat with feathers WOULD impact the discussion because that would be a violation of a nested hierarchy. That's the difference.

Call them whatever you want. A species with a combination of derived features from bats and birds would be a violation of a nested hierarchy. How would the evolution of 4 extra legs in a lineage of spiders impact the question of the nested hierarchy?It doesn't matter what name we give them. What matters is the physical characteristics they have. Given our interactions here, I guarantee that I do. Do you even know why Linnaean taxonomy was replaced by cladistics? Do you even know what cladistics is? Do you know why taxonomic orders don't even exist in nature? Do you know the difference between a transition and transversion mutation? Do you know the difference between an exon and an intron, and why their attributes can be used to test the theory of evolution? Then please tell us why evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy. If the argument is so bad, this should be easy.