Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Nested hierarchies are common in set theory.Nested set - WikipediaIt is applied to many things, including things that are designed. Your argument that nested hierarchy cannot apply to design, is just anothere extremely poor evolutionist argument.Again, not surprising as common ancestry lacks good arguments and logical reasoning.

So your argument relies on your personal assumptions of what a designer would or would not do. That may work for you, but don't call that nonsense of yours, objective science. Because it's not.

Fingerprints are a lot more accurate and predictable, verified and factual than your assumptions on all what designer could do and what not.

I showed how the nested hierarchy argument is poor.

Your problem is, you only look for data that confirms your biased view and discard opposing view based on bad assumptions.Parsimony does not determine what is truth and what is not.

Your questions don't make much sense. According to common ancestry, all organisms are related.

Your question does not make any sense to me. Can you clarify?

You are quoting me where I did not speak about nested hierarchy.So I don't see how your claims about nested hierarchy are related to what I said in your quote of me.

Where have I said that your assumption was the nested hierarchy?

Wow, I have not claimed that a nested hierachy would not result from evolution. You evolutionists need to learn to read, for goodness sakes.

Where did you get from my posts that I claimed that a nested hierachy would not result from evolution?I know that evolution from a single celled common ancestor would not come any where close to producing this level of perfection and complexity in such a variety.Only those with poor understanding of biology, including your pseudo biologist experts, can accept such absurd theory.

The diamant expert can tell fakes from real diamants by a mere glance. He has all the evidence he needs, while untrained eyes are busy spending time and effort and then fooling themselves into thinking that they know better.The complexity of information in DNA translating to instructions for building all parts of the living cells with each their specific functions in the body, is evident. Yet you cling on to the idea that it self assembled through progressive steps over time and produced all varieties of DNA by random mutations.

Evolution from single celled ancestor never happened. Who wants to be an expert on something non-existent?

How about you backup your claim before firing dozens of more questions. I have no interest in answering every foolish question, if you fail to prove that you are able to read properly even.Where did you get that I claimed that a nested hierachy would not be a result of evolution?

Yes, you did.You claimed that I claimed that a nested hierachy would not be a result of evolution. Now back up your claim or zip it!