But the truth is there are so many differences that there can't possibly be what you call a nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchy focuses on similarities which would be found in an intelligently designed planet of creatures. It does not focus on the glaring dissimilarities.
Not every piece of research that overturns another piece of research is a lie. You saying that just demonstrates how much of a religion evolution is and how much opposition there is to new research.
You people say the scientists goes where the evidence leads and that there is no opposition to new research that could overturn evolution. That there are no attacks on these other scientists and that they are free to post peer reviewed articles. You, yourselves have demonstrated in the last few posts quite the opposite. (Calling other research "lies", other scientists a "pack of propaganda scumbags", etc.) It just proves everything I have been saying all along.
Because the simple fact of the matter is you are not asking them to change an existing theory or consider a new scientific theory, but to change their religion of evolution. You are challenging their belief system, and they will resist to the very end despite the scientific facts that prove evolution is nothing but flights of fancy.
One would expect similarities between kinds, given that 1) the same Creator made them all, and 2) they were all created from the dust of the Earth. If there were no similarities at all, then one could discount creation. One also expects dissimilarities even amongst kinds, given that we know kinds adapt to their surroundings, yet always remain the same kind.
You can be sure they have confused fossils with different species when in reality most are more likely the same kind, just different appearances. Just as we observe today. They talk as if they have genetically sampled these million year old fossils. They want things to occur in the past that we have never observed once, convienently beyond our ability to test, yet claim it is a science. They pick and choose what data to accept, and what to ignore. If the data contradicts their belief system it is the data that is in error, not their beliefs.
It is a sad, sad, state that mainstream has let science fall into where only data that conforms to ones belief system is deemed valid. Science is observation and testing, and then fitting a theory to what is observed, not discarding data so that what is left fits the theory.
How many years have they experimented with bacteria and virus's, yet they have never once evolved into more complex life, just stayed what they originally were. From the Petri dish to the whale, kind after kind; always has been always will be.
When they start the ad homenim remarks, you know they are on the run, flopping like a fish out of the water with not one shred of evidence to back them up. When they attack the author, while ignoring the argument, it is from lack of any evidence to present in return.
Don't let them fool you with their false religious beliefs. Science does not support them, but does support Creation.
