rationalskepticism.org

You continue to ignore the challenge I put to you on Rational Skepticism. The diagram you created above, with the A’s B’s and C’s, is actually an accurate depiction of how evolved traits distribute themselves along phylogenetic lines. The test for evolution is whether the actually observed distribution of traits fall into such an arrangement. So you’ve presented a hypothesis but failed to test it. To do the latter, you need to substitue the “ABC’s” with actual traits (or “biosystems” if you prefer) and use an actual phylogenetic tree, as determined by evolutionary biologists, to see if your problem actually arises when applied to real life. You have the choice of any “biosystems” and species you want, so this should be easy. Let us know what you find.

To give just one example of what I’m talking about: Bilateral symmetry is one trait that arose quite early in evolution, above the phylum level. This is defined as organisms having a defined front and back, as well as a top and bottom. This includes most animals, including all vertebrates, molluscs, arthropods, etc. However, it does not include jellyfish, sponges, anemones, corals, etc. So evolutionary theory will predict that there should not be a single creature in the latter group that demonstrates bilateral symmetry, whereas all in the former group will, as the trait is determined by common ancestry. And of course, that’s what we observe. According to intellgent design, there is no reason why not a single sponge, say, should have been “designed” with bilateral symmetry, or a single vertebrate without it, but that is not observed.

So, sorry, you can’t use that one. It won’t work. But that still leaves you milions of other species and traits to try and find an exception.