Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

The evidence is clear that you are full of bad assumptions and ignorant of facts.

So you think every prediction is equally useful by some undiscovered law of Taq, such that questioning the usefulness of one automatically means the rejection of all others?How does your brain work, seriously?Go talk to others that are more on your level.

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.

Nope, I directly refuted statements YOU made that are FALSE. And asked why you don't know these basic facts of biology. Just which point did I miss, other than you demonstrating that you don't know shit about what you are talking about?

So when your side asks why bats were not designed with
having bird feathers, that is a valid question?But when I ask why evolution has not produced spiders with 12 legs, that is invalid and I don't know what I'm talking about?Great, another evolutionist fool who thinks he's smart, but really is not!

Then they wouldn't be spiders, would they?

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.

And bats with bird feathers would not be bats. How is it that you can see a bird feathered bat to be more a bat than a twelve legged spider being less of a spider?And you are the one that is suppose to know biology better than me? You evolutionists are a bunch. Keep coming with more bad arguments, even worse than the previous ones.

Who says anything is necessary with design? Keep up with the arbitrary claims out of nowhere. Keep up piling up more and more stupidity. How are you not full of shame yet?

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.

I'm certainly not. I am saying that a nested hierarchy is not a necessary outcome of design. It seems you attack the person when you can't address the evidence.

We're not asking that. We are saying that there is a reason bats do not have feathers, and that reason is because feathers did not evolve in the avian dinosaurs (birds) until after their split from a common vertebrate ancestor with Synapsida reptiles (mammal ancestors). Good Grief! Arthropods with 8 legs are called spiders or scorpions and arthropods with 12 legs are called centipedes. Now, does your question demonstrate that you know what you are talking about?

If you keep repeating the same logical flaws, you expect to receive a medal of praise for that?Only if nested hierarchy is impossible by design then you have evidence against design in nested hierarchy.So prove to me that nested hierarchy is impossible with design. I wait.