The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

Can you provide examples of something that does not fit in the hierarchy?Do you understand that scientists have to report what they actually observe, even if it modifies what we thought from prior observations? That is the nature of science. And interestingly, we do not have a single mammal with bird feathers, or a single mammal with fish gills, and I have no idea what mammal you think has a bird beak. If you think that Platypuses have bird beaks, then you need to do a bit more study of Platypus physiology and behavior.Powered flight has only evolved 3 times in vertebrates, Pterosaurs, Bats and Birds all adapted forelimbs into wings, by modifying them differently to function as wings. Powered flight only evolved once in all the invertebrates, in the Insects, and they were masters of the air many millions of years before any of the flying vertebrates. The only designed things we know about are created by humans, in what ways does the countless variety in species resemble anything created by humans? I don't know whether you are talking about the countless variety within a species or when comparing variety between species, but so far, you haven't demonstrated how variety is evidence for design.

Yes, it does. It proves common ancestry and evolution. A nested hierarchy is exactly what we should see if common ancestry and evolution are true, and that is exactly what we see. What story?If you don't think common ancestry and evolution would produce a nested hierarchy then please tell us what pattern it would produce, and why.If you don't think complex life falls into a nested hierarchy then provide the evidence.

The life tree is not one of evolution. 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. It does not at all fit the evolution narrative of random mutation upon mutation upon mutation happening in each and every group.Evolutionists are living in denial of obvious truth. Obvious for wiser men who know how to comprehend and appreciate the intelligence hidden in plain sight.

And we don't have a single organism with a jet engine. You want to bore me with lists of what we don't have? To prove what exactly?So you think evolution must be true, because no mammal has feathers? Making up arbitrary rules, to defend your precious theory is just pathetic!

How does that disprove evolution? Those species fit into a nested hierarchy which is evidence against design choice.You also have not explained why differences in variation within groups is evidence of design choice. You have just asserted it with absolutely no evidence. You also can't explain why we see a nested hierarchy instead of some other pattern. Why not????

When we find a person on the ground that is covered in blood, that is what we can expect if he was stabbed with a knife. According to your logic, all people that bleed, must have been stabbed by a knife. And you think to prove you wrong, one needs to prove that knife does not cause bleeding.Learn basic logic before doing science, for goodness sakes. It does not matter what evolution theory would produce, according to your primitive mind. Universal common ancestry is not real.

Why can't we have features found in other species? I think evolution must be true because the observations match the predictions made by the theory. One of those predictions is a nested hierarchy.You have yet to show that common ancestry and evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy. You have yet to give a reason why design would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. What arbitrary rules?If you want an example of an arbitrary rule, look no further than this:"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."

What we have is a dead person laying on the ground covered in bloods with holes in their body that exactly match the shape of a knife. We also find metal shavings in the wounds that matches a knife at the defendant's house. We also find that the shape of the knife exactly matches the holes in the body. We also find the victim's blood on the knife.That's the level of evidence we have. 29+ evidences for macroevolution

What rules? These are observations of the patterns of descent that are documented for everyone to see. No, I think the evidence supports the observation that birds have not inherited any mammal features from their ancestors, and that mammals have not inherited any bird features from their ancestors since their last common ancestor. And you would be incorrect. Dragonfly nymphs are well known to be able to expel water from their abdomens with such force as to be jet propelled, so that would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 species that have jet engines. You asked questions and we're answering with the actual answers but you're too bored notice. Why are you here if you don't want a discussion? If you want to prove something, go for it, but we are not trying to prove anything, we are just providing supporting evidence, which is what science does.

Yet they use jet propulsion. Weird!
Time for you to go home I think.

Brainless troll!

I presented a failed prediction of common ancestry. But you labeled it as arbitrary rule. You lost your touch with reality.

Conclusion is, your reasoning is flawed. Thanks for proving that yourself.

And your point is what?

Godless moron.