Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

I'm certainly not. I am saying that a nested hierarchy is not a necessary outcome of design. It seems you attack the person when you can't address the evidence.

What logical flaws? If life was designed why would you expect to see a nested hierarchy?If life evolved, then we would absolutely expect to see a nested hierarchy.Therefore, evolution is by far the best explanation. Design can't explain why we see a nested hierarchy instead of billions of other possible patterns.This is just the tip of the iceberg, as I have told you more than once. There is a ton of other pieces of evidence, one of which is the thread I have linked multiple times now:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367I'm not relying on this single piece of evidence. There is much, much, much more.

I do fail to see the nesting there. You can have two Ford sedans of the same make have two different tires, and a Chevy sedan and Ford sedan with the same tires. You can have two Toyota sedans with different engines, and yet have a Toyota truck and a Toyota sedan with the same engine. The distribution of manual and automatic transmissions is all over the place. The distribution of gas and diesel engines is all over the place. If cars were truly nested then there would be just one model of car and its descendants that has air bags. That's not what we see.There is absolutely no nesting in cars. The fact that you can't see this only confirms that you don't know what a nested hierarchy is. That's not a nested hierarchy. Just sharing characteristics is NOT a nested hierarchy. It is the PATTERN of sharing that matters. No, it's not. Your notion of a nested hierarchy is false.

No, they can't. First, they don't interbreed which is how species are defined. Second, if you group them by the engine they have you will have completely different species if you group them by a different feature, like their transmission or radio.Cars don't form a nested hierarchy. They never have. If you think I am wrong then show us the tree for cars and the synapomorphies you used to construct the tree. Prove us wrong. That's gobblygook. You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to a nested hierarchy. How? That's laughable. If you claim that cars form a nested hierarchy then you don't know what a nested hierarchy is.

Please show how they fit into a nested hierarchy. The existence of species does not make a nested hierarchy. That does not make a nested hierarchy. If the changes are shared by different designs then a nested hierarchy is violated. When air bags were invented they were added to all cars. That violated a nested hierarchy. When Ford adjusts the design of a transmission that same transimission is put in different models, but not all models. Even cars of the same model will have different transmissions while cars of different models will have the same transmission. Even cars from different manufacturers will have the same adjusted transmission. That is a violation of a nested hierarchy. That would be breeding within a species which does not violate a nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy exists between species, not within species.

Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Period. The fact you fail to understand this means you either know nothing about cars or know nothing about nested hierarchies. Or perhaps both.

The man would need to share his genes with a distantly related species in order to break the nested hierarchy. Again, the nested hierarchy exists BETWEEN species, not within species. First, humans are monkeys just as we are mammals and vertebrates.However, if a human did have offspring with a baboon, then yes, that would produce violations of the nested hierarchy. Crossbreeding with closely related species does produce small violations among closely related species, but that is expected. What we don't see is numerous and major violations across very different species. There is no reason why we wouldn't see these types of violations if species or created kinds were separately created. Even humans are able to move genes around between very different species.

They are a functional feature of the car. It's the same as functional features in organisms. A hat is not part of the goat. An air bag is part of the car.A diesel engine is part of a vehicle. If cars formed a nested hierarchy then there would only be one branch of vehicles that have diesel engines which would be the descendants of the first vehicle with a diesel engine. That's not what we see. Diesel engines are distributed across many different branches of vehicles, all willy-nilly.

When there are violations that can't be explained by cross breeding between closely related species.

A hat is also designed. Once again pointing out how design produces violations of a nested hierarchy with ease.

You have to separate them onto different branches. At the end, all of your species have to be on separate branches. Whenever you connect those branches you have to have a synapomorphy which are all of the features that are shared by all of the connected branches and not found anywhere else on the tree except on the branches that connect to that node. Each node can only have two branches.So let's see the tree with the synapomorphies at each node.

Yes, interbreeding between distantly related species, not closely related species. We see interbreeding between closely related species, so that has to be incorporated. We do not see interbreeding between distantly related species. We should only expect small violations of closely related branches, and that is exactly what we see. With design, there is no reason why we shouldn't see numerous and major violations between divergent species.

Strictly no. However, we do see nested hierarchy we would expect to see if there is only interbreeding between closely related species, just as we see in nature. We do see the patterns of shared and derived features we would expect from common ancestry and interbreeding between closely related species.

Dunning-Kruger in full effect.I think I have a decent basic understanding of physics, but I wouldn't barrel forward and declare quantum physics to be bogus based on what knowledge I do have. And yet, creationists with almost no knowledge of biology feel that they have everything they need to disprove a theory with 170 years of evidence and science behind it. It's amazing to watch in the "slowly drive by a car wreck" sort of way.

False. I deny other designs fitting into a nested hierarchy because of widespread violations that span huge parts of the tree. Designs don't have a few violations within closely related branches. The violations amongst designed things is pervasive across the entire group. It's all about statistical significance. The number and degree is going to depend on the size of the tree.Read more here:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Statistics of Incongruent Phylogenetic TreesFor example:

Figure 1.2.1. A plot of the CI values of cladograms versus the number of taxa in the cladograms. CI values are on the y-axis; taxa number are on the x-axis. The 95% confidence limits are shown in light turquoise. All points above and to the right of the turquoise region are statistically significant high CI values. Similarly, all points below and to the left of the turquoise region are statistically significant low values of CI. (reproduced from Klassen et al. 1991, Figure 6).
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1