Twin-Nested Heirarchy

Is it? Hierarchy from either point of view is strong evidence as evolution would require it, but there's absolutely no reason why the designers* should design within the parameters of evolutionary possibility. They don't need to tweak things slowly over very long periods of time. The best additional evidence from genetics comes from the odd inclusion of similar damage (ERVs) in the genomes of similar creatures, and perhaps from the amount of apparently neutral change in the non-coding area if Goddy is pushing a young earth view.Is Goddy's word "heir-archy" a creationist standard, perhaps indicating that some animals are designed to appear as the heirs to others? Evolutionists seem to prefer "hierarchy".*(The plural "designers" should always be used, as the probability of there being only one being or entity involved are statistically remote, so use of the singular is just a highly subjective mistake perpetrated by people who happen to be from monotheistic cultures).

"Gene" is a twentieth century word. Darwin must've had a good crystal ball to know what the genomes would look like. He must have seen the ERVs coming, as well as all the transitional fossils.Perhaps he was a real prophet of a real goddy, called nature.(Aren't you confusing your two personas a bit in that extract above, Doddy? The first sentence is true. Shouldn't the last word of the last sentence be evolved?)