Design and Nested Hierarchies

if eye is good for vision why not using it in other species too?

not wheels but some vehicles do. to show it again?

I can find the same structures in all tetrapods. “Wing” is not a morphological feature.

Yes, and we are in the same group as those lobe finned fish, as are other tetrapods.

There is no mammal with a duck beak. Look at the skeletal structure of the platypus and duck, and you will see that they don’t share those features. Also, the common ancestor of mammals and birds laid eggs. Did you forget about reptiles?

Your inability to understand how nested hierarchies work and how homology works is not my failure. It is yours.


This is a question for scd:

In your view, what is the relationship between Ichtyosaurs and dolphins?

Actually, the nested hierarchy does work in biology when you look at the details carefully. Your portrayal of the data is highly inaccurate. You say, for example:

However, looking in finer detail than you have done in your sentence, biologists see that the structure of bat wings falls more closely into the nested hierarchy with rodents than it does with birds.

When you say “bones and muscles in the wing,” that’s extremely vague. It hides a ton of important details.

And of course there are more features than wings that biologists are looking at. This would include DNA sequences, which are the subject of this thread.

It seems to me that you felt like you couldn’t come up with an answer to the DNA sequence nested hierarchy, so you switched over to an area where you thought you had a “design” explanation. But a careful examination of the details shows that your “design” explanation is unsatisfactory with respect to wings also.

My $.02,

1 Like

You made the claim that the IOS feature being the same and different made the Mac a different hierarchal structure than animals. This is not right.

It is the distribution of iOS versions among laptops and desktops that violates the tree you put forward. You had two groups that are connected by a node. If a laptop and a desktop share a feature, then that feature is found at the node where those two groups meet. Therefore, if a laptop and a desktop share a feature then other laptops should have that same feature. That’s not what we see. iOS versions don’t follow the pattern of the groups you put forward.

Look at this tree. Notice how all the branches up the tree share the features listed where the branches meet.


That’s a nested hierarchy. If, as you claim, Mac’s form a nested hierarchy then you need to organize them into a tree and list the shared derived characteristics of those branches like you see in the tree above.

1 Like

At they end of the day this argument does not support unguided common descent. There are too many contradictions in the tree. Common descent is, however, a partial explanation for the structure.

So are you saying that design does not predict a nested hierarchy? You are also mistaken in what you claim are contradictions.

Start with Lisa as the common ancestor to the next computer and the original Mac. Next computer and the Mac gave rise to iOS Desk Mac and the iOS laptop Macs and all the versions at different price points. This may not be exactly like a living hierarchy but it shows that design creates a hierarchal structure. There is no common descent here and that plus not being built with a cellular structure can easily account for the difference in the hierarchal structure. Is it nested? That depends on definition.

First of all, I am not arguing for unguided common descent. When you use a word like “unguided” you are crossing over into the terrain of philosophy and metaphysics. In that arena I believe in God’s providence and sovereignty.

Second of all, the opening post showed that the common descent hypothesis prevails over the null hypothesis to an absurdly high degree of statistical significance.



That’s not how it works. The node that connects species is a list of shared derived characteristics. The node is not a species itself. Look at the tree I gave you. All of the species are at the tips of the tree, not at the nodes.


You don’t list any shared derived characteristics.


This we agree on. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Shared are memory processor and software. Whats interesting as cells look the same so do software bits and transistors pc boards etc.

That’s shared by all of them. You still don’t have a single branching point. You need branches, each with their own shared derived characteristics.

I have spent many hours of my life looking through a microscope at cells. I can’t find a single fact in that sentence.

1 Like

I don’t think this is necessary. I have shown that design creates a hierarchal structure naturally. You cannot use the tree to eliminate it as a hypothesis.

This I agree with :slight_smile:

Seeing how birds and mammals share common ancestors from long ago, the fact that one can find bones and muscles on both does not help your argument like you think it does. It simply reinforces the nested hierarchies of common descent.

Also, I’ve noticed that you mistake aspects of human language for taxonomic boundaries. Yes, in English we use the same word, wing, for both the bat structure and the bird structure but that does NOT at all mean that they are the same structures. You’ve already been shown through diagrams that they differ enormously. Yes, they share some characteristics in terms of shape and movement—but only because they exist in the same universe where the earth’s atmosphere requires that flying creatures take advantage of the laws of physics in ways which work.

I appreciate your efforts to describe your position but does it not at all strike you as an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect when you insist that all of the world’s university biology departments have botched the nested hierarchy argument but you’ve somehow got it right? I am not a biologist but it is clear to me from reading this thread that nested hierarchies are not what you think they are. Shared features is NOT what constitutes a nested hierarchy. It is the patterns which matter. (The fact that you think automobiles exhibit the similar nested hierarchies to living things is very frustrating to most readers of this thread.)

Have you considered the idea that a Common Designer chose to design nested hierarchies by employing what has become known as Common Descent?


It is. You don’t have a nested hierarchy without branches and shared derived characteristics at the nodes.

False, as is shown by your inability to put human designs into a branching tree with shared derived characteristics at the nodes of those branches.

Also, if you are claiming that design should fall into a nested hierarchy, then your claim that there are contradictions to this nested hierarchy falsifies design.

That’s because design is not falsifiable and not scientific. For example, you are making two contradictory arguments, that design will and will not produce a nested hierarchy.


Not all authority is right. I agree with most scientific hypothesis but they are generally modeled and tested while this one is not. I agree with Chris that common descent is more likely than the null but that is not a good negative control where design is. As you can see how hard it exercises the advocates.

If UCD was testable you would be able to falsify it.

Here are 29+ potential falsifications of macroevolution: