nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution

I think if they really made an effort in this direction it might achieve something. A proper peer reviewed journal of ID would at least give people a clear idea of what constitutes the scientific research relating to ID. I think that the problem is that there just isn't enough ID research to support a journal.ISCID's half hearted attempt Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) didn't last more than three years and is overwhelmingly full of review articles and opinion pieces with only a handful that might be considered novel research. This still held even after they relaxed their peer review process.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : Changed title for relevancy

Unfortunately that doesn't make it a good argument.It relies on a wholly unrealistic understanding of what evolution is. Evolution doesn't require an entire species to change into another species.Think of it like this.If you had a brother and your brother looks almost exactly like your father, much more like him than you. If your father then died, would you be surprised that your brother was still around?Maybe sometimes you might get a shock seeing him come into the room, because he looks so much like your father; that would be you making the same sort of mistake thinking that the superficial resemblance means that they are the same thing.The modern fish and chimps that we see are not the same species as the ancestral populations from which both we and they derived anymore than we are, although they may resemble them more closely physically.The idea that they have stopped evolving is one with no basis in fact, they have not stopped evolving. If you expect to see fish giving birth to frogs then you have a very faulty understanding of what evolution is.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.