Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Who are you calling lame?

Thank you for at least admitting that you have no clue what you are talking about.Not that we didn't know that already. You are no different than any of the other clueless creationist trolls we have encountered over the decades. None of them could ever say what an "evolutionist" is (only that they're "atheists" and include most practicing and believing Christians -- so then you're saying that most Christians are atheists?). Nor could any of them ever say what they think evolution is nor how it works nor why they oppose it (except that it somehow conflicts with God, but they could never explain just how or why that was supposed to be the case).IOW, while you creationists keep trying to play "gotcha" with your "questions" that are supposed to stump us because they are designed to be impossible to answer, we constantly stump you with the same very simple question that you should be able to answer very easily and that you really should be able to answer: What are you talking about?I've been studying "creation science" since 1981 and discussing it with creationists since 1986. No creationist has ever been able -- nor even willing to try -- to explain what he's talking about. One even closed his email account and gone dark for two years in order to escape that question (refer to BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God?).So please cut the stupid crap and just answer the questions.And if you yourself don't know what an "evolutionist" is, then try to find out. Though no doubt your fellow creationists will be just as clueless as you are.

Wow, another evolutionist with the argument "you have no clue".You think you are smart, don't you? You are amuzing at best.

Now, sensei, don't be offended. That amusement is part of the charm of this place.By the way, I am deficient in my manners. I forgot to welcome you to EvC.Welcome to Evc. We are glad to see you.OK. Now you're a freakin creationist religionist yahoo.Back to the discussion.

You are the one who is dodging very simple direct easy-to-answer questions because you are unable to answer them. You are the one demonstrating that you "have no clue". Over and over again.Why don't you instead prove us wrong in our low estimate of you. Show us that you do have a clue by answering our very simple direct easy-to-answer questions!It's as simple as that. And you will remove all doubt.But you won't ever do it, because you are nothing but yet another stupid creationist troll (and, yes, I am being redundant there). And you do not aspire to be anything more than that, because your creationist theology demands that you serve your god through lies, deception, and being a troll.

I don't answer dumb questions from dumb evolutionists.

You may have set a record for a creo fundie devolving into schoolboy taunts.
Congratulations.

All you are doing is trolling and asking the dumbest questions

Interesting that you are unwilling or unable to define the terms you are using. Without agreement on what terms me an honest fair debate cannot happen.

I don't need to show you anything or answer any of your questions. Especially since you are a nobody, an internet troll, with low intelligence and big mouth.

Read the first line in my signature.
BTW I have been around here since 2005, dwise1 hads been around since 2006.
So who is the troll?

False. I deny other designs fitting into a nested hierarchy because of widespread violations that span huge parts of the tree. Designs don't have a few violations within closely related branches. The violations amongst designed things is pervasive across the entire group. It's all about statistical significance. The number and degree is going to depend on the size of the tree.Read more here:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Statistics of Incongruent Phylogenetic TreesFor example:

Figure 1.2.1. A plot of the CI values of cladograms versus the number of taxa in the cladograms. CI values are on the y-axis; taxa number are on the x-axis. The 95% confidence limits are shown in light turquoise. All points above and to the right of the turquoise region are statistically significant high CI values. Similarly, all points below and to the left of the turquoise region are statistically significant low values of CI. (reproduced from Klassen et al. 1991, Figure 6).
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

You've been a troll for that long. Get a life!

Nested hierarchies are common in set theory.Nested set - WikipediaIt is applied to many things, including things that are designed. Your argument that nested hierarchy cannot apply to design, is just anothere extremely poor evolutionist argument.Again, not surprising as common ancestry lacks good arguments and logical reasoning.

But it doesn't have to be applied to designed things. A designer can just as easily choose not to force designs into a nested hierarchy. There is no necessity for a nested hierarchy in the design of life as shown by how organisms designed by humans easily violate a nested hierarchy. I am saying that a nested hierarchy is just one of billions of possible patterns that a designer can use. There is only one pattern that common ancestry and evolution can produce, and that is a nested hierarchy. Apparently, you didn't read my previous posts. Nowhere did I say that a designer could not use a nested hierarchy. What I have been saying from the start is that there is no reason a designer would choose a nested hierarchy out of the billions of possible patterns.Perhaps you should actually learn what arguments and logic I am using before criticizing them.