Summations Only

The real problem is that ID/creationism can not explain the evidence we do have. It can't explain why morphology and DNA sequence fall into a nested hierarchy, and the same nested hierarchy at that. It can't explain why we see fossils with a mixture of reptile and mammal features, but no fossils with a mixture of mammal and bird features. It can't explain the pattern of divergence for DNA sequences. It can't explain the facts.All ID/Creationism does is make the unsupported claim that what we see in biology was created by a supernatural deity. That's it. Nothing more. It can't make predictions about what we should or shouldn't see in DNA. It can't predict which types of species we should see and shouldn't see. Nothing.

In the fossil record, we can see the step by step evolution of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1So how in the world would IC be evidence for design when we can see IC evolving in the fossil record? The matching phylogenies of morphology and DNA sequences does prove evolution, beyond any reasonable doubt.

And as we have seen, you refuse to present any evidence. Until you define what direct and indirect evidence are, this is a useless statement. What evidence have you presented that the intricate design in the eye was produced by a designer?

What evidence do you have that the intricacies of the eye are the result of design?

What are those rules, and how do we not follow them?

All we need to do is demonstrate that the evidence is consistent with evolution. We don't have to rule out some supernatural cause that produces evidence which exactly mimics natural processes. That's just ludicrous, and it goes against all common sense and reason.

Based on what evidence? Stories in books are not known causes. They are stories in books. Do you have breaking news of how life came about by supernatural means? Why do you never demand the same evidence for your beliefs that you require for others?

No, that's the claim. You can't claim that rainbows are made by invisible unicorns, and then cite the existence of rainbows as your evidence. That's not how evidence works. Yes, I do. I have the matching nested hierarchies of morphology and DNA sequences which no creationist seems to be able to address.

I do have direct evidence. It is the matching phylogenies of morphology and DNA sequences. I keep saying this, and no creationist will address it. How can you honestly say that I don't have evidence when I have presented it several times in this thread? With human designs, you don't get a nested hierarchy. You get mixing and matching of parts in no discernible hierarchial pattern. That is the hallmark of design, a LACK of a nested hierarchy. With evolution, the only pattern it can produce is a nested hierarchy.With life, we see a nested hierarchy, the pattern of shared and derived features that evolution produces but not design.It seems that you have failed to properly extrapolate the evidence.

We can directly observe evolutionary mechanisms producing nested hierarchies. Like I said before, all you do is try to ignore the evidence just as you are doing here. We know that humans make ice. Does that mean all ice is intelligently designed? For the cytochrome c gene, the human and mouse gene differs by 10%. The human and chicken gene differs by 20%. What should the difference between the chicken and mouse gene be according to ID/creationism, and why?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Due to vertical inheritance and the production of genetic barriers between species, the only pattern of shared and derived features that evolutionary mechanisms can produce is a nested hierarchy. That's it.A designer, on the other hand, can mix and match features as it sees fit. A designer could just as easily make a species with a mixture of mammal and bird features as it could a mixture of mammal and reptile. Evolution can only produce fossils with a mixture of mammal and reptiles since none of the proposed ancestors of mammals were birds.Therefore, if we observe a nested hierarchy we know that it is due to evolution since there is no reason that design would produce such a pattern of shared and derived features.Moreover, we can directly observe evolutionary mechanisms producing nested hierarchies in living populations.When the evidence is consistent with natural processes, you conclude that they are from natural processes.

No. We are observing macroevolutionary mechanisms which include genetic barriers. These result in the accumulation of population specific mutations which gives rise to the branching structure of groups that arise through evolution. For example:"Inbred mouse strains have been maintained for more than 100 years, and they are thought to be a mixture of four different mouse subspecies. Although genealogies have been established, female inbred mouse phylogenies remain unexplored. By a phylogenetic analysis of newly generated complete mitochondrial DNA sequence data in 16 strains, we show here that all common inbred strains descend from the same Mus musculus domesticus female wild ancestor, and suggest that they present a different mitochondrial evolutionary process than their wild relatives with a faster accumulation of replacement substitutions."
mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains - PMCThey were kept in separate labs, and the result over many generations was macroevolution, the divergence of each populations genome. That pattern of divergence formed a nested hierarchy. Evolution in action.

Of course you don't. That's because you don't understand evolution.More to the point, you have demonstrated that ID/creationism has no answer to this question. That's why ID/creationism is not accepted as science--it can't explain reality.As to evolution, the answer is easy to come up with. Here is the phylogenetic tree that we will be using: The proposed evolutionary relationships have chickens at A, mice at B, and humans at C. As you can see, mice and humans are more closely related than chickens. Also, and most importantly, if you trace the mouse and human lines back to where they meet with the chicken line, THEY MEET AT THE SAME PLACE. Since mice and humans share the same common ancestor with chickens, it means that humans and mice should be genetically equidistant from chickens.Going back to the cytochrome c comparisons, the human and mouse gene differs by about 10%. The human and chicken gene differs by about 20%. Since humans and mice are equidistant from chickens, the theory of evolution predicts that the difference between the mouse and chicken gene should be 20%, and it is.Evolution is able to predict these patterns when we compare DNA. ID/creationism can not. That is why evolution is used in science.

If you put two shards of pottery together, do they produce little pot shard children? If not, they are not comparable.

No, it is macroevolution. When you have two populations that diverge from one another, that is macroevolution.