Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

What logical flaws? If life was designed why would you expect to see a nested hierarchy?If life evolved, then we would absolutely expect to see a nested hierarchy.Therefore, evolution is by far the best explanation. Design can't explain why we see a nested hierarchy instead of billions of other possible patterns.This is just the tip of the iceberg, as I have told you more than once. There is a ton of other pieces of evidence, one of which is the thread I have linked multiple times now:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367I'm not relying on this single piece of evidence. There is much, much, much more.

Look at vehicles designed by humans. If you fail to see nesting there, with air planes showing gradual progressive change and improvements over time, branching into variations from the first plane, same for the cars, all vehicles together form a hierarchy through time. Also with characteristics that are shared among most or all vehicles. Wheels, steering, etc.Your notion that design does not produce nested hierarhy is false. So try again!

I do fail to see the nesting there. You can have two Ford sedans of the same make have two different tires, and a Chevy sedan and Ford sedan with the same tires. You can have two Toyota sedans with different engines, and yet have a Toyota truck and a Toyota sedan with the same engine. The distribution of manual and automatic transmissions is all over the place. The distribution of gas and diesel engines is all over the place. If cars were truly nested then there would be just one model of car and its descendants that has air bags. That's not what we see.There is absolutely no nesting in cars. The fact that you can't see this only confirms that you don't know what a nested hierarchy is. That's not a nested hierarchy. Just sharing characteristics is NOT a nested hierarchy. It is the PATTERN of sharing that matters. No, it's not. Your notion of a nested hierarchy is false.

Sure, it they are similar cars, they can exchange engines, they can be considered same species, if you will.Hierarchy is still nested. Not all nested hierarchies share the exact same properties. If you insist on a strict tree shaped nesting of all life, then every incest event breaks your nesting in biology. It is you who poorly understands what nested hierarchy entails.

No, they can't. First, they don't interbreed which is how species are defined. Second, if you group them by the engine they have you will have completely different species if you group them by a different feature, like their transmission or radio.Cars don't form a nested hierarchy. They never have. If you think I am wrong then show us the tree for cars and the synapomorphies you used to construct the tree. Prove us wrong. That's gobblygook. You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to a nested hierarchy. How? That's laughable. If you claim that cars form a nested hierarchy then you don't know what a nested hierarchy is.

So you think engines are interchangeable between cars? Based upon what similarity?

If you are a mechanic, you can replace an engine, even design a complete new one to fit into a car.

Deliberate willful ignorance or actual stupidity. Is he deliberately misunderstanding or is he really that dense?

There are also cloud species, chemical species, mineral species.Do clouds interbreed? Oops, there goes your definition.When ever a design is adjusted in seperate ways, there is branching. The two or more new designs are descendents of the one they were changed from.Cross-over by marriage of companies or combining designs can happen.Same happens in biology when individuals of two distinct families reproduce together. Suddenly, characteristics found in one family branch, show up in the other now.The branch, previously with only red hair, now has different color descendents as well, and vice versa. It's no longer a strict tree, where each subtree is nested in another. As we have now individuals belonging to both two seperate branches at the same time.

But that is much different than what you claimed. As a matter of fact this destroys your whole cars represent a nested hierarchy claim. But you won't understand why, because you don't understand anything being discussed.

Are you truly this clueless?
Yup. Guess so.
You think you are going to overturn 200 years of science, by coming to an obscure website and exposing your ignorance? Wow! The hubris is amazing.

Please show how they fit into a nested hierarchy. The existence of species does not make a nested hierarchy. That does not make a nested hierarchy. If the changes are shared by different designs then a nested hierarchy is violated. When air bags were invented they were added to all cars. That violated a nested hierarchy. When Ford adjusts the design of a transmission that same transimission is put in different models, but not all models. Even cars of the same model will have different transmissions while cars of different models will have the same transmission. Even cars from different manufacturers will have the same adjusted transmission. That is a violation of a nested hierarchy. That would be breeding within a species which does not violate a nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy exists between species, not within species.

You were applying a biologica definition to non-biological things.Fail again!

Cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Period. The fact you fail to understand this means you either know nothing about cars or know nothing about nested hierarchies. Or perhaps both.

If a man would share his genes with all women alive, would that break the nested hierachy?Every child is the same species as the parents. If all came from one parent, it can be considered one big family.But let me ask you this. If a human managed to reproduce with a monkey, would that break the nested hierarchy?