Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Other things falsify evolution. But you keep holding on to your false theory by ignoring reality. You reject sound logic and keep repeating your flawed arguments over and over again.

For the same reason that geologic processes haven't produced the Grand Canyon in Nebraska. If there isn't a Grand Canyon in every US state does this mean geologic processes did not form the Grand Canyon?Different lineages take different routes. Evolution proceeds differently in different lineages. Different species go extinct at different times due to changing environments and evolutionary paths. This is Biology 101. What bad logic? Which flawed arguments?

What reality am I ignoring? What sound logic?

Wow, such poor knowledge you have of science. False claims can produce more likely predictions than true claims, if you look at certain data. Either because you are too selective or there is no other data available.When we toss a coin 5 times and we get 5 heads, an unfair coin would predict this perfectly.Often enough, one may experience something, and realize that nobody would believe it, if told as it really happened.Predictions can be useful for sure. But I'm not gonna blindly follow one single method, without any critical thinking and ignoring reality.

The reality that so many ancient groups of species, each belonging to their specific order as been for hundreds of millions of years. Seems to be hard to branch into another order of species. Yet, one group apparently won the lottery 25 times as it did not only succeed in creating one new order, but 25 new orders. That is according to your common ancestry theory. Tell me, is this what evolution predicts?

Evolution could have produced spiders with more legs. Many insects have a lot more legs. Why not spiders?I can keep asking why not this and why noy that, same as you are doing. Apparently, this is your level. As expected from an evolutionist. Keep throwing the same nonsense over and over again.Why a designer did not do it like this or that?I'm really curious. How is it to live with such primitive minds?

That is exactly what you did when you joined the cult. You abandoned reality for your religious fantasy without evidence.

Ignoring the troll

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.

Please do. And while you're at it see if you can find your missing god.

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?

I use Bayesian approach rather than classical. Science is not restricted to classical hypothesis testing, which is in many ways inferior.

Why would I reject every scientific theory? You think I reject germ theory and chaos theory? You think I don't believe bacteria exist? For real?Seriously, your assumptions are so dumb, I can see why you ended up supporting false theories.Because I acknowleged that the theory with the more likely prediction on a specific dataset, does not necessarily is the correct theory, I suddenly reject all of science???You evolutionists are a real bunch. Keep surprising me with stupidity beyond wildest imagination.

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