Nested heirachies are often cited as evidence for the Theory of Evolution aka Darwinism or NeoDarwinism. (I will use the term Darwinism to mean the mainstream neodarwinian evo model here.) However, even assuming certain things like evo dating techniques, etc,....for sake of argument, the evidence itself does not, imo, support Darwinian models of evolution.
Specifically:
1. Essentially except one possibility around 470 million years ago, all animal phyla had appeared or evolved around the time of the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago. Since that time, no new animal phyla have appeared or evolved IN 500 MILLION YEARS. Apparently whatever processes or creative events that evolved, created or animated the appearance of the animal phyla has not been in process for the past 500 million years. If it had, we would see new phyla emerging and we do not. Certainly, there have been quite a few extinctions during that time to open ecological niches up.
2. I don't have the chart handy so maybe someone that recalls it here on the forum can help me with this. But there was an interesting post of a chart from a textbook showing nested heirachies and almost everyone had the point of a "common ancestor" distinctly colored in as undiscovered yet. The pattern was quite stunning as we never seem to have the fossils of the common ancestor that evolved various other genera and species. If Darwinian evolution were true, it would be likely that at least sometimes if not often, we would see more of the mythical common ancestor, but he's generally nowhere to be found.
3. Let's assume for a minute universal common ancestry and get in your mind's eye the visual picture of what we see in the fossil record, assuming and giving evos a pass for a minute on the lack of transitionals and so forth......Does the evidence really support the idea of a continual, Darwinian, gradual over geologic time, evolutionary process?
I don't think it does, and neither have some somewhat distinquished scientists.
“Facts are facts; no new broad organizational plan has appeared for several hundred millionyears, and for an equally long period of time numerous species, animal as well as plant, haveceased evolving . At best, present evolutionary phenomena are simply slight changes ofgenotypes within populations, or substitution of an allele with a new one.” (Grasse, The Evo-lution of Living Organisms,1977 page 84.) and: “The period of great fecundity is over; present evolution appears as a weakened process, de-clining or near its end. Aren’t we witnessing the remains of an immense phenomenon closeto extinction? Aren’t the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement? Aren’t our plants, our animals, lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?”(Ibid, page 71).
When you take a step back, if you believe in universal common descent, what you see is an incredible process that peaked hundreds of millions of years ago and has been winding down ever since.
4. Lastly, I think comparing heirarchies between Marsupials and Placentals and in other areas shows a predisposition towards specific designs not environmentally driven, but apparently internally driven or driven by design. It's interesting that evos often cite design imperfection as a reason to reject a Designer without realizing this point actually disagrees with their models. Over such long geologic time periods, one would expect more perfect designs to have evolved if Darwinian processes were as capable of evolution as evos posit. Moreover, you would not expect imperfect designs such as the mammalian ear to evolve independently. On the other hand, the idea a Designer would create perfect designs in a pragmatic sense is a theological argument, not a scientific one, because it presupposes the intent of the Designer. As an artist, I can see where imperfection may be more suited to communicate a whole host of more perfect concepts such as love, endurance, tragedy and comedy, etc, etc,..even beauty, that may be more valued than mere physical perfection of design.
The appearance of similar designs arising independently also discredits the idea of nested heirarchies as evidence for Darwinian evolution.
Note: This may be a little too long and broad for an OP. Let me know what you guys think?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2