The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

In a nested hierarchy there are billions of different gene and feature combinations that can not exist. For example, you can not have a species that has a mixture of mammal and bird features. You can't have a creature with jellyfish and mouse genes.A nested hierarchy severely limits what you can do which is why humans don't force their designs into a nested hierarchy, and that includes organisms that humans design. You don't need a nested hierarchy in order to get functional designs.

We would expect a non-nested hierarchy because that is what human designs fall into. There is absolutely no reason why separately created species/kinds should fall into a nested hierarchy. For example, a separately created kind could have feathers, tidal lungs, teats, and three middle ear bones. There is no reason why a separately created species would have feathers simply because it did not have three middle ear bones like mammals do. There is no reason why a species could not have flow through lungs and hair. There is no reason why a species could not have a forward facing retina and a spinal column.The only reason we would not expect to find these mixture of features is if species evolved from common ancestors with vertical inheritance.

But those sequences will have a very low phylogenetic signal. This isn't the case with the genomes of species. Instead, there is a very strong phylogenetic signal. In fact, the measure of tree-like structure in DNA sequences from species is compared to random sequences as a negative control.On top of that, there are two nested hierarchies: morphology and DNA sequence. There is absolutely no reason why these two nested hierarchies should match, but they do.

quote:

---

The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991).
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

---

There is only one ticket out of that million that evolution would produce, and that is a nested hierarchy. We can observe populations producing that same phylogenetic signal in real time, and it is due to common ancestry, evolution, and vertical inheritance.

quote:

---

Inbred mouse strains have been maintained for more than 100 years, and they are thought to be a mixture of four different mouse subspecies. Although genealogies have been established, female inbred mouse phylogenies remain unexplored. By a phylogenetic analysis of newly generated complete mitochondrial DNA sequence data in 16 strains, we show here that all common inbred strains descend from the same Mus musculus domesticus female wild ancestor, and suggest that they present a different mitochondrial evolutionary process than their wild relatives with a faster accumulation of replacement substitutions. Our data complement forthcoming results on resequencing of a group of priority strains, and they follow recent efforts of the Mouse Phenome Project to collect and make publicly available information on various strains.
mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains - PMC

---

So because their are no elephants with bird wings or anything like that, you find that to be strong evidence for evolution?You gonna need to do better than this. But evolution science seems to have degraded to this level.

Human design shows a lot of nesting. We see many variations of bicycles. But we don't see a bicycle with a built in coffee bean grinder. Does that surprise you? Do you think human designs are limiting because of this?

Do you understand that one ticket has the same probability as any other single ticket?

Because we don't find numerous and obvious violations of the pattern we would expect from evolution, we take that as strong evidence for evolution. When the observations match what the theory predicts that is evidence for the theory. That's how science works. Why?

Yes, I do understand that. Do you?There are 999,999 tickets that don't match evolution. There is only 1 ticket that does. What ticket do we see? The one that matches evolution.

I just noticed this conversation. Welcome to EvC, sensei. Enjoy your stay, but be advised that around here we all are cautious of having an argument framed, if you know what that means.Can you help me to understand what you mean by the "same evolutionist nonsense"? I was unaware that there was a handbook with such a name.I am a Bible Thumper and can thump with the best of them, but my opponents here
have their own handbook with which to challenge me. I am in the process of writing my own handbook with which to challenge them back, but it isn't an easy job! Do you know what I mean?

It seems like you've responded to the wrong message.
What are you talking about?The only people I bashed are those in cults who are trying to control other people.Don't you think such people should be bashed?
I'd do even more to them, if it were allowed. Such evil should never be tolerated.

Human designs show a LOT of violations of nesting. For example, this mouse has a copy of the green fluorescent protein from jellyfish:So how did this massive violation of a nested hierarchy happen? Humans designed the mouse that way.Human designs regularly violate a nested hierarchy.

sensei, the points you are trying to make are decades old creationist meanderings refuted a thousand times over. You bring nothing new, nothing we haven't seen and dismissed a hundred times.You are still trying to preserve your god by killing evolution. First step is to show your god. Absent that you have nothing to offer here.We are not going to prove you wrong because you haven't said anything intelligent.If you want to fight against a concept like the nested hierarchy then you should know what it is first. You don't.Again, if you want to kill evolution then show us your god. Having some trouble presenting any of that, I see.Where is your god, sensei? Show us. Then we can talk about nested hierarchies.

I don't think he will understand this. I don't think he knows what a nested hierarchy is. He doesn't seem to understand its relationship to ancestor.

Most creationists don't understand what a nested hierarchy is, nor why it is such a big deal. The nested hierarchy is perhaps the biggest piece of evidence that convinced the scientific community in the 1800's that the theory of evolution was right. The nested hierarchy is probably the set piece for the evidence that supports the theory, and wouldn't you know it, most creationists don't even understand the concept.