Nested Hierarchies: Failed Prediction of ToE

Posted in Creation/Evolution on November 14th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo

The Nested Hierarchy that we actually see in nature is not the one predicted by the ToE, but rather the one predicted by the Theory of Special Creation (it’s actually a ‘retrodiction‘). Darwin wrote …


LONG before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:–Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?(The Origin of Species. Contributors: Charles Darwin – author, Gillian Beer – editor. Publisher: Oxford University Press. Place of Publication: Oxford. Publication Year: 1996. Page Number: 140.)

So Darwin clearly thought that, according to his theory, all of nature should NOT be well-defined. Rather, we should see “innumerable transitional forms.”

Now if this is not clear evidence from a source that evolutionists consider to be scientific (if evolutionists don’t think Darwin is scientific, then who DO they think is scientific?), that Nested Hierarchies ARE NOT a prediction of ToE, then I give up. Now Douglas Theobald points out Darwin’s discussion of Nested Hierarchies HERE, but the important point to note is that Darwin’s diagram implies one huge Nested Hierarchy with a single celled ancestor at the top, which of course, would be true if Macroevolution had actually happened. But there’s no way to show that it actually did happen, and the fact is that the Linnaean Nested Hierarchy (not Darwin’s Hierarchy) is what we actually find in nature. Read more »