The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

I asked to define hierarchy. Next step would be to define nesting.

Same reply to you. Define hierarchy.

Hierarchy: Any system of things ranked one above another.In evolution a nested hierarchy is shown by population groups that emerge as offspring from earlier population groups.You are not going to hurt nested hierarchies. They are here in reality and have been shown with no doubt. The reality is well known to evolutionary science. Evolution happens as our models predict nested hierarchies and all.

You are a hominid along with the rest of the great apes.You are a primate, along with the other apes, monkeys, and lemurs.You are a mammal.You are an amniote.You are a tetrapod.You are a vertebrate.You are a eukaryote.Each of those groups is higher in the hierarchy. Primates is above hominids. Mammals is above primates. On and on.

Hmmmm. Does all of that progression make me now a Greatest Ape?

Cladistically, all apes are equal since all are at the end of their branch. There are still some Victorian hold over terms that are used in biology, such as "great" apes and eutherian (eu = true, therian = mammal).

You are no further evolved than any other ape. None of us are.

Define "define".Define "childishness", you know, other than by example.Or alternatively, you could discuss the evidence you claimed you wanted to discuss.Mutate and Survive

And how do you define rank in context of evolution?

This is not a definition.

You keep talking about nested hierarchy. Then define it, before discussing. Otherwise, your claim of observing a nested hierarchy is useless.

How do you define context?

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

You keep talking about "evolutionists", a completely made-up word, but you never define it. Instead, you adamantly refuse to ever define it, let alone answer any of our questions about your assertions about those mythical "evolutionists."And yet you repeatedly demand that we define terms that we have already defined and described and discussed for you. Why the fuck would you expect us to do what you refuse to do?You hypocritical dishonest creationist. Which is admittedly entirely redundant since creationists are by their very nature dishonest, hypocritical, and damned liars.

duplicate post