The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

Apparently, you don't even know what a definition is.

I asked for a definition. Not an explanation. How noobish are you?

You don't know what a definition is.

Learn what a definition is.

I asked for a definition of hierarchy. You come up with something people refer to as nested hierarchy. Telling me what people refer to, is not a definition. And it is not even a definition of what I asked for. So you failed double. I need to spell everything out for you, just shows that you are not at a level to do science at all, without drawing wrong conclusions.

Still insisting on your precious nested hierarchy, but too dumb to give a definition.You claim to observe a nested hierarchy, that it is predicted. Then you need to specify before looking at data, what is a hierarchy, in the first place.One of you mentioned ranking. So you need to specify how you determine ranks. From what data, genetic sequences or fossils or both? When is one species ranked above another?If it is by descent, then no, we have not observed descent from a common ancestor between most pairs of two seperate species.So the claim of observing nested hierarchy is doubtful at best.You may have arrived at nested hierarchy by logical deduction from a model. And your logical steps could be questionable.As I have said before, feel free to present your observations, that you see as best evidence you got.

Observing patterns in one group of species is hardly sufficient evidence for the nested tree that you draw from your universal common ancestry hypothesis. So no, we have not observed nested hierarchy anywhere higher up, anywhere at significant high enough levels where it really counts.So sorry to break it to you, but your evidence is insufficient and weak.

A prediction is done before observation, dumb ape!

That hand writing is hard to read.

Dumb ape thinks he's smart.You evolutionist claim that nested hierarchy is predicted by evolution. Worthless claim if you cannot define hierarchy even, before making the prediction.Still a dumb ape you are.

Says the troll

My new topic proposal is a model for point mutations in neutral DNA, where mutations do not give benefit or disadvantage to the individual.Next relevant question would be, to estimate what portion of DNA this would apply to. How big of a part of DNA can be considered as "junk" and non-functional, where mutations have no effect to the organism?

That is false, but you don't seem to care about truth anyway.

You don't know. You guess. And you've guessed wrong.

If we apply the model of point mutations for neutral DNA with four different bases A, C, G and T, the similarity in junk DNA should drop to 25%.If we were sharing a common ancestor with plants and insects, given the estimate that over hundreds of millions of generations have passed (or even more for many species with shorter life cycles), every base should have gone through several mutations already in the vast majority of individuals today.
It seems that we share too much DNA with such supposedly distant relatives, it does not really add up.