Nested Biological Hierarchies

That won't do as an answer because it would only explains why there is a hierarchical pattern, but gives no reasonable explanation to why that same pattern can be obtained by differet methods, such as taxonomy, and genetic analysis (or did god expect Adam to do some genetic analysis before naming the animals?).For instance: why would god choose to have man and chimp share a similar set of broken genes? That one is really hard to explain away with some just-so explanation.

This attitude is just laughable. I bet if there were 117 evidences you would have said "But alas, that isn't the case. If it was, TalkOrigins would have more than '117 evidences' ".29 different lines of evidence for a theory is much better the most theories will ever have. For many theories a single solid line of evidence is all they are aiming at. Off course that begs the question: How many lines of evidence would convince you? I think it's very clear to any unbiased reader how prejudicious you are towards that theory. I wonder why would that be?

What about saying that a creator made both humans and chimps with a broken gene for vitamine-C production with which not to produce vitamine-C? Now, that's an asinine statement if I ever saw one. Explain that away if you can. How come both these animals have the same broken gene? Not only that, how come all primates have that broken gene? How come this line of evidence supports the same nested biological hierarchie obtained by taxonomy? There is a very simple explanation: These organism have a commom ancestor. How come you are so prejudiced agaist this simple explanation? There is a very simple explanation for that too: blind religious belief.

Jazzns has kindly provided a good example of a broken gene in post 53. It is really difficult to fit the broken genes inside the ID picture. The fact that these genes creates a nested hierarchy that agrees well with the hierarchies obtained by other methods is a very strong indeed evidence for evolution that cannot be handwaved away.

the other eye may make up for the lost information in animals that have both eyes pointing toward the same direction (like us). But that is not the case for animals that have the eyes pointing in oposite directions (like most preys). By your logic then those animal should not have the inside out retina. But they do.

Most of your post is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. you assume to much. In order for you to acuse me of incredulity, you have to first give me some sort of explanation.(Then if I say "I don't believe it" you could say I'm being incredulous). In your post you gave me nothing , just handwaving. That's not surprising since the standard ID argument that A common creator explains common genetic material is completely inadecuate (Almost crazy really) when you are dealing with broken genetic materia. Just to make it clear: You got to be kidding!!! When I'm grading my students homework and there is a shared piece of information between two papers, If the Info is correct, I usually assume they both hapened to know it and give them credit for it. But if the information is incorrect, I take it as safe to assume that they have been copying from each other. Should I stop doing that now that you straightened me towards the truth that common broken information means nothing? I don't think so. You will have to do way much better than that if you expect anybody to even consider your point of view as vaguely viable. Connecting now with the point of the thread: The real punchline here is the fact that the animals that share this broken gene are exactly the ones that belong to one of the hierarchical groups previously stablished by other means. That way it not only confirms that group, but also is confirmed by it. The conclusion is: Unless ID proponents can come up with somethig much better then the handwaving non-argument that you atempted, ID is prety much a dead in the water still born theory.