How do you define the word Evolution?

My way is MORE than what you say your Designer would do. How is that "reducing" God?

Sarfati is the man who will swear to anything. If you've got another source, let me know.

Those criteria were immediately thrown out when it was said that there could be a lack of interfertility between species within a kind.

The more sensible approach for a designer with limited means is to copycat. But for a GOD, why would He limit Himself? Why not use His imagination? Maybe you can answer my question about the biological zeppelins. What idea did we borrow from nature there?

For a being who is all knowing, all powerful, and who lives outside of time and space, the most sensible approach is to start from scratch each time. The only reason why reusing systems makes sense is to save time and resources, both of which this supposed designer had an infinite supply of.Also, why limit yourself to a nested hierarchy? If you can make species that are half reptile and half mammal, why not half mammal and half bird, or half ape and half dog? Why is it that the only mixture of characteristics we see are those that evolution would produce, and not the millions of different combinations a designer could make.Human designers aren't limited to a nested hierarchy. Things like cars, buildings, paintings, and pottery don't fall into a nested hierarchy. I am not aware of any single designer who was limited to a nested hierarchy, so why do we see a nested hierarchy if design is true? It makes no sense why we would only see the pattern of shared features that evolution would create if design were true. Airplanes don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Birds do.

Not at all. Within the cats not every species can successfully breed with all the other species, but the chain of hybrids indicates that all are part of the one kind. Hybridisation is not the only criteria for identifying the bounds of the Kinds. I can give you some links to the subject if you're willing to read them.

If there is no connection between 1 and 2, then in effect, you are saying evolution is not evidence of evolution. Now that really does sound like both bad science and bad logic.

Flight - the idea for which came from birds.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Asking why the Creator created according to nested hierarchies is as pointless as asking why the Creator made the sky blue and grass green ... or why he created apes that share 98% of their DNA with humans.But if you really need to know, ask him when you met him face to face.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Of course there's a connection between the two, but you're going out of your way to misunderstand what it is.How old is the earth? Why are you ignoring this question?

You've gone from calling it "bad science and bad logic" to now admitting there is a connection. Interesting. I believe I've already answered this question, but to reiterate:Somewhere betweem 5778 years and a very long time indeed.

If you remove your default defensive 'nothing shall pass' position and re-read what I said, you might understand the point. At the moment you've got all power committed to your biblical shields. Well that explains a lot, you're actually a closet YEC. That's the equivalent of a flat earther.

If links in that chain go extinct, would it produce cat species that can no longer interbreed with other cat species? I would prefer that you discuss them in your own words. I would be most interested in the genetics of determining "created kinds".Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

That leaves evolution as the only explanation for why we see a nested hierarchy.

Observing species evolving now is not direct evidence that species evolved in the past. That should be obvious. What you need is evidence of natural selection that occurred in the past, and that evidence exists in the field of comparative genomics. When you compare genomes between species you can test for the signal of natural selection in their genomes in the form of Ka/Ks ratios, conservation of sequence, and phylogenetic signals. You know, stuff you have admitted you don't understand.