The Origin of Novelty

How does a nested hierarchy point to creationism when this is the pattern of shared features we would expect from evolution?You are, once again, making empty assertions with zero evidence or explanation.

Cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Humans and other apes do. Orthologous ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy. LTR divergence within ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy. Overall ERV sequence divergence falls into a nested hierarchy. Again, designed things do not fall into a nested hierarchy. So why is the observed fact of a nested hierarchy evidence of creationism when creationism does not predict a nested hierarchy, and even furthermore when evolution does predict a nested hierarchy? Why should evidence for creationism look identical to evidence for evolution, and unlike evidence that is consistent with design?Even more, we observe the mechanisms of evolution producing nested hierarchies. We use these observations to infer when mutations occurred in a lineage and the selective pressures that specific sequences are under. Ask a designer why he does not force his designs into a nested hierarchy. So if humans fall into a nested hierarchy with other apes then we belong to the same baramin? What about all mammals, or all vertebrates? We find nested hierarchies there as well. Yes, 100 mutations in a population that produces millions of mutations per generation. Do the math. Let's go 50 mutations per individual per generation in a very small population of just 100,000. That's 5 million mutations in a single generation meaning that only 0.002% of the mutations need to be kept according to your math. How? Where has anyone observed this supposed designer producing a single mutation? How does ID explain the nested hierarchy between what you call baramins? How does ID explain Ka/Ks ratios in genes when comparing genomes between baramins?You don't have an explanation. You have an empty assertion.

They are laid out in CHRONOLOGICAL order.

Then why aren't the sequences for cytochrome c identical in both humans and yeast when they are performing the same function? Why isn't the design repeated when you claim it should be? Why do the differences between cytochrome c sequences in different species fall into the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution? What evidence, if observed, would not favor creationism/ID?

Then surprise me. No, it isn't. The emergence of modern features over time is exactly what we should see if evolution is true, and that is exactly what we observe. How does ID explain this? How does ID explain hominid transitionals?

You could also think up thousands of reasons why a creator could just as easily produce species with a mixture of bird and mammal features. A bird with mammary glands or a bat with flow through lungs are well within the reach of an all knowing and all powerful designer, wouldn't you say?There is simply no reason why we should see a nested hierarchy if creationism is true. None. Human designers are not limited to nested hierarchies, nor do we find any benefit in limiting ourselves to a nested hierarchy. So why would this supposed designer be more limited than we are? Why do you believe that God created life so that it looks like evolution occurred when it didn't? Why would God be limited to a nested hierarchy?

ID does not have a good fitting explanation for a nested hierarchy. It never has. No human designer forces their designs to fall into a nested hierarchy. When humans design new species they regularly violate the nested hierarchy because there is no reason to follow one from a design standpoint. None. We have shown it. It is the nested hierarchy, the very pattern of shared features that we would expect to see if evolution is true, and the very pattern that is inexplicable in an ID model. Let me put it this way. How would the genomes of humans and other apes be different if they really did all evolve from a common ancestor? Can you describe what these differences would be?

How does a nested hierarchy fit an ID model? You still have not explained this. Why would ID expect separate designs to fall into a nested hierarchy? You still have not explained this.

Why would the best combinations fall into a nested hierarchy?Why wouldn't mammary glands combine well with feathers? Why wouldn't three middle ear bones combine with flow through lungs? Why wouldn't an all powerful creator be able to create a functional species with cusped cheek teeth and calcified eggs?You are making assertions with ZERO facts to back them. Humans are able to combine them, and they work just fine. Humans are able to create a fish species with exact copies of jellyfish genes, as one example. Are you saying God is less capable than humans? I can do you one better. I cand SHOW you what intelligent designers do. They do NOT force their designs to fall into a nested hierarchy. This is an OBSERVATION of how designers operate.

So why would a designer be limited to the pattern of shared and derived features that evolution would produce? Why does ID look exactly like evolution when it doesn't have to?

How are they being misinterpreted? If they do not fall into nested hierarchies, then show us some obvious, large scale violations of the nested hierarchy.Why don't we see intermediates between mammals and birds, and why do we see intermediates between mammals and reptiles?Cars also have similar design features. They do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Humans move DNA from one species to another to design new species, and they clearly violate a nested hierarchy. Nothing about intelligent design requires a nested hierarchy of shared features, and you have not shown us why a nested hierarchy is required.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So why can't the designer create a species that has feathers and mammary glands? Since when? They live in the same exact climates and environments that birds do.

They are groups WITHIN GROUPS of similarities. We do observe this with life. We do NOT observe this with cars. Cars do NOT fall into a nested hierarchy.Nested hierarchies are much more than just sharing similarities. It is the PATTERN of shared similarities that matters. The nested hierarchies are a fact of nature, not a product of human invention. Linnaeus was the first to notice this pattern, and he lived well before Darwin was ever born. The nested hierarchies are a fact that evolution explains, while ID can not explain why these nested hierarchies exist. No, the nested hierarchies are an observed fact. They are not an assumption. That is 50 mutations PER INDIVIDUAL per generation. If there are 100,000 individuals in a population that is 5 million mutations within the population produced in a single generation. If only 100 become fixed that is a tiny, tiny percentage of the mutations that existed. We have never observed a designer copying a genome and changing the sequence. Not once. You could start with the wiki page:Ka/Ks ratio - WikipediaKa is the number of non-synonymous mutations which are the changes in DNA sequence that change the amino acid sequence of the translated protein. Ks is the number of synonymous mutations. If you think about the word "synonym" it will make a bit more sense. Some amino acids are coded by more than one codon which differ at the third base (i.e. third base wobble). Therefore, some of the mutations that occur at the third base do not change the amino acid sequence because some codons are "synonyms".So what does this have to do with comparing genomes? Well, you can see how genes differ with respect to non-synonymous (Ka) and synonymous (Ks) sites. Mutations that change amino acid sequences are often deleterious, so they will be selected against. Compare this to synonymous mutations which are most often neutral and will not be selected against. Therefore, if mutations are random and evolution is true you should see a difference in the accumulation of synonymous and non-synonymous mutations as determined by a comparison of genomes. Guess what? That's exactly what we see.So why would a designer insert neutral mutations (i.e. synonymous mutations) just to make the genomes look evolved? How does that work?

You say many things. The problem is that you can't back up what you say with evidence or reasoning. Why do you deny that observed designs do not fall into nested hierarchies? Why do you also deny that there is no reason why a designer would be forced to fit designs into a nested hierarchy?Nested hierarchies are not predicted by ID. They are predicted by evolution. That makes evolution the stronger theory. We also see crossovers that violate a nested hierarchy within the car group. This is what we expect from designed objects, a lack of a nested hierarchy.For example, a crossover between mammals and birds would violate the nested hierarchy and would falsify evolution. We don't observe mammal to bird intermediates, just as the theory of evolution predicts. So how can we use ID to predict that we should not find any species with a mixture of bird and mammal features? Just look a the differences between humans and chimps. Those differences include mutations that are beneficial to chimps and humans.

Birds also nurture their young, such as in the case of penguins. Penguins would benefit greatly from mammary glands given that a parent has to stay with the young for months at a time while the other parent goes out for food.You still have not explained why nested hierarchies make sense as part of ID. Not at all. How does fur, cusped cheek teeth, and three middle ear bones aid in nurturing young? What is it about feathers, lack of teeth, and a single middle ear bone that prevents a species from nurturing young? Why do penguins, who also nurture their young, not have mammary glands or a placenta? Why does the platypus, a mammal, lay reptillian like eggs? I am sure that bats would be stunned to hear this.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.