Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

Also, air bags are not really part of car mechanics. They could be considered to be add-on accesories.Like a man wearing a hat. If goats wore the same hat, would that break the nested hierarchy of life?

Sure, I don't understand this and that. Are those your best arguments? Any proof to support your claim?

The man would need to share his genes with a distantly related species in order to break the nested hierarchy. Again, the nested hierarchy exists BETWEEN species, not within species. First, humans are monkeys just as we are mammals and vertebrates.However, if a human did have offspring with a baboon, then yes, that would produce violations of the nested hierarchy. Crossbreeding with closely related species does produce small violations among closely related species, but that is expected. What we don't see is numerous and major violations across very different species. There is no reason why we wouldn't see these types of violations if species or created kinds were separately created. Even humans are able to move genes around between very different species.

They are a functional feature of the car. It's the same as functional features in organisms. A hat is not part of the goat. An air bag is part of the car.A diesel engine is part of a vehicle. If cars formed a nested hierarchy then there would only be one branch of vehicles that have diesel engines which would be the descendants of the first vehicle with a diesel engine. That's not what we see. Diesel engines are distributed across many different branches of vehicles, all willy-nilly.

So now you allow for violations, while still calling it a nested hierarchy. At what point exactly do you stop calling it nested hierarchy? What is the maximum amount of violation?

A hat can just be as functional, protecting against sun and heat or against rain.

When there are violations that can't be explained by cross breeding between closely related species.

Why should it? Yup, that's us. One big ole family of human beings. Should it? You still don't understand the concept. Nested hierarchies don't work that way. All you can do is start new ones.

A hat is also designed. Once again pointing out how design produces violations of a nested hierarchy with ease.

Now he's into zen. This is good. Improvement may be imminent. He may yet find us his god.

If they can share same engine, they are closely related. Group then togheter and you have your nested hierarchy restored.

And suddenly, you stop allowing any violation? A few minutes ago, you considered the event of interbreeding a violation, but still a nested hierarchy. Two measures?

You have to separate them onto different branches. At the end, all of your species have to be on separate branches. Whenever you connect those branches you have to have a synapomorphy which are all of the features that are shared by all of the connected branches and not found anywhere else on the tree except on the branches that connect to that node. Each node can only have two branches.So let's see the tree with the synapomorphies at each node.

Yes, interbreeding between distantly related species, not closely related species. We see interbreeding between closely related species, so that has to be incorporated. We do not see interbreeding between distantly related species. We should only expect small violations of closely related branches, and that is exactly what we see. With design, there is no reason why we shouldn't see numerous and major violations between divergent species.

If nested hierarchy is violated, small or big, it is no longer a strictly nested hierarchy.So we find that even evolution has not produced a real nested hierarchy, if common ancestry were true.