No, you misunderstand. It’s not “evolution” of any kind at all, “directed” or not. There is no increase of genetic information, which is characteristic of evolution (despite what some say, that evolution is merely genetic “drift”). There is no “common ancestor.” And so on.
The “orchard model” speaks of drift, of a loss of genetic information over time, all the while the various “kinds” of creatures staying within their “kind.”
Maybe take another look at it.
Maybe take another look at it.
Why? Its nonsense. Its science twisted to fit a particular narrow religious view (created kinds).
The standard scientific model works just fine at explaining all of the data. "Created kinds," with everything staying within fixed boundaries, does not.
But if you think it does, then you need to answer just one question. What is the mechanism that prevents macroevolution? What mechanism prevents all of the small examples of microevolution from adding up to macroevolution over time? I have never had a creationist provide a satisfactory answer to this question.
No, you are wrong here. The theory of evolution clearly depends upon genetic drift and does NOT require "increased genetic information".
There is no “common ancestor.” And so on.
Funny, all the diagrams show a common ancestor, and then diversity below it. Speciation, inherited characteristics.
To me, it looks like it's directed evolution where God intervened to create new "common ancestors" to start new branches.