The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

We should absolutely disregard eyewitness accounts as scientific data. Forensic evidence is scientific data, and it often shows eye witness accounts to be wrong.

Well, you would be wrong. The most parsimonious explanation was heliocentrism because it didn't require crazy orbits for the other planets, like this one: The Heliocentric model only required elliptical orbits.Once again, if you are going to claim there are assumptions you need to list them.

I thought you were doing real science. Is that not the case?Are you saying that your data is not scientific?

For the last thousand years, yes. In what way?

Okay.

quote:

---

If different species share common ancestors, we would expect living things to be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record. When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc. This observation makes most sense if we understand that, over time, lineages have split and formed new species, which then split and formed even more species, and so on, passing down traits and generating the branching structure that is the Tree of Life. An example is illustrated below.

​

In this evolutionary tree, sunflowers and orchids nest together because they share many homologies, including flowers. Similarly, pine trees and cypress trees share many homologies, including cones. These two groups (flowering plants and cone-bearing plants) nest together because they all share homologies such as seeds. And then seed-bearing plants nest with ferns because they all share homologies like stomata (pores for gas exchange). And so on … across the whole Tree of Life.

​

It doesn’t have to be this way. It could be that each species has a random assortment of traits and that there is no obvious way to group them. But that’s not what we observe. In fact, it’s fairly easy to group most organisms into a nested hierarchy. This was recognized by scientists like Linnaeus long before Darwin came along and proposed an explanation for the pattern: that organisms on the Tree of Life are descended with modification from common ancestors. Common ancestry is conspicuous when we examine the distribution of traits in living things.
Nested hierarchies - Understanding Evolution

---

In other words, it is a tree-like structure of shared derived features. There are synapomorphies which are the features found in the common ancestor. There are apomorphies which are the unique features that evolve on each branch and are not shared with other branches. You can learn about synapomorphies and apomorphies here:Apomorphy and synapomorphy - Wikipedia That can be done quantiatively (i.e. scientific data).

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

---

You are a hominid along with the rest of the great apes.You are a primate, along with the other apes, monkeys, and lemurs.You are a mammal.You are an amniote.You are a tetrapod.You are a vertebrate.You are a eukaryote.Each of those groups is higher in the hierarchy. Primates is above hominids. Mammals is above primates. On and on.

Cladistically, all apes are equal since all are at the end of their branch. There are still some Victorian hold over terms that are used in biology, such as "great" apes and eutherian (eu = true, therian = mammal).

I was hoping that if we showed you the hierarchy you could understand what they are. Apparently not.Is this just going to devolve into you asking for definitions for everything?

It's been defined multiple times now. Are you going to address it or not?

The definition has already been given to you. A few examples:"When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc.""what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record. When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc."Also, don't you know how to use google? One of the more interesting things I have observed is that ID/creationists often don't know how to use google. Strange that.

And you got one.What is even more worrisome is that you claim the theory of evolution is false even though you don't understand one of the most basic facts of biology, the nested hierarchy. It's like someone claiming the theory of relativity is false, and then that same person has to ask someone to explain what spacetime is.

"what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record. When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc."

I think we can all see what obstinance is.

Other people did give you a definition.You are demonstrating to us that you can't deal with evidence. Instead, you are trying to distract everyone with arguments about semantics.Are you going to deal with the observation of the nested hierarchy or not?

Here ya go."what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record. When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc."Will you address the evidence now? No species are ranked above others. The groups are nested, so it is the nesting that is hierarchical.In classical Linnaean taxonomy the ranks look like this:Ranks are determined by the distribution of shared features. The more common the shared feature is the basal the rank. We observe living populations producing nested hierarchies through evolutionary mechanisms.mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains - PMCYou can also predict a nested hierarchy based on first principles which are the mechanisms of vertical inheritance, mutation, and isolation of subpopulations. Your uninformed denials do not cast doubt on the science. You don't even understand what a nested hierarchy is, for crying out loud.