The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

It has already been defined for you, multiple times. Here it is again;

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

---

That is the definition of nested hierarchy we are using. It's the definition used by biologists. No other definition is relevant.Everyone can see what you're doing. No-one is impressed by your immature antics or your lame excuses. Everyone can see you twisting in the wind, unable to address the issue in any way, but too arrogant to admit it. You are simply too scared to really address the evidence, because deep down, you sense that you are out of your depth and that you have no argument.You want definitions, buy a dictionary.Mutate and Survive

I am perfectly content with the quick definition given by AZPaul3 in Message 978And Taq gave you a more detailed explanation of what we mean by nested hierarchy as well, which I made clear I agreed with.Now you can take issue with these definitions if you wish, but pretending they were never given is simply a lie and rather a pointless one as well, since it's all there in black and white. Well, white and blue. You know what I mean.Let's try another tack; how do you define "nested hierarchy".(AbE) Or alternatively, how do you define "definition"? Serious question, not a joke, how do you define "definition"? Because you keep being given them and you keep complaining, so obviously your idea of a definition is different to ours, so let's have it; what are you asking for exactly?Mutate and Survive

What do you care if he attacks creationism? You're not a creationist are you? You are a neutral minded observer, not dragged down by biases like everyone else. Right? That's what you were trying to imply here; And here; What do attacks on creationism matter to an impartial observer such as yourself?Mutate and Survive

For the purpose of testing the hypothesis of common ancestry, we would look at the proposed evolutionary relationships between organisms and compare that to a ranking based on observations such as morphology or genetic similarities. If those measures produce groups within groups within groups within groups, that would constitute a nested hierarchy, in accordance with the predictions of the ToE, and that would provide evidence for an evolutionary relationship. If we instead saw specific traits distributed across groups, with no nested hierarchies, that would falsify common ancestry. We don't see that though.There are thousands of biologists doing exactly this every day, using derived traits and genetic comparisons to create phylogenetic trees and so far, not a single one of them has shown any violation of nested hierarchy that would be sufficient to falsify the common ancestry of all life or the ToE in general. Tangle has just given you this definition;

quote:

---

Nested hierarchies
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.

---

For the record, I agree with this one too.Mutate and Survive

You're talking to yourself again sensei. More so than usual I mean.Mutate and Survive

It is if that "group of species" is all life. Can you tell us where it breaks down then? Which group of species is such a poor fit for a nested hierarchy? Is there any example which would falsify the notion?Mutate and Survive
​

Sure. Invoking Satan is the way to be taken seriously in science.Mutate and Survive

So science can't detect supernatural entities, got it.So much for the power of intelligent design then.Mutate and Survive

You're the one who reckons that science can't detect Satan. ID claims to be science. So according to you, ID cannot detect Satan, being "too puny". So it would seem to follow that if they can't detect Satan, they are not going to be able to detect God either, which rather defeats the point of ID.According to your logic, if the ID crowd think they've detected design, it can't be God.Mutate and Survive