The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

How do you define troll?

How is evolutionist more made up than creationist, hypocrite!

You still have not defined hierarchy.And what you wrote or quoted, is also not a definition even.

A troll is an internet denizen named sensei who has no knowledge of science yet insists he can defeat evolution. Though this sensei troll is more the fool with major misunderstandings on evidence, logic and argument, he emotionally baits and insults opponents when he has no evidence for his illogical and insane religious fantasy. Unfortunately, that means always.

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

You are so easily content with vague definitions.How do you measure rank in biology?Taq described nested hierarchy without defining it, and without defining hierarchy in particular even.If you can't define it, then just say so.

He uses the term. He wants evolutionist defined. Then he should define creationist as well. Whatever it is.

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.There's more explanation hereNested hierarchies - Understanding EvolutionThat site - which is run by the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) - also provides other lines of evidence for the ToE. It's a 101 so it shouldn't trouble you too much.

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

I was hoping that if we showed you the hierarchy you could understand what they are. Apparently not.Is this just going to devolve into you asking for definitions for everything?

If some one claims that nested hierarchy is observed and insists that we discuss this further, then yes, hierarchy needs to be defined. You lots failed to do so. No surprise there.

It's been defined multiple times now. Are you going to address it or not?

A rant and a few examples is not a definition. What is a hierarchy? What are the ranks? How do we determine of two arbitrary species how they are ranked, relative to each other or relative to a general ranking scale?