This is too funny, an evolutionist choking on the concept of common descent. See it for yourselfs-
A family tree is not common descent, that is, unless you have a habit of marrying your cousins. In most cases, mating is between families, not within families.
So only people who marry their cousins can have descendants? Really?
Earlier Zachriel posted:
If we group each organism with all of its descendants (forming clades), then yes, we would have a set pattern such that each subset is contained within its superset. That's due to the tree-like structure. The obvious deduction is that the traits of the leaves, given descent with modification, would naturally group together such that each subset is contained within a superset. The set patterns would closely match.
So I said that a family tree is a clade (by Zach's definition) yet it doesn't form a nested hierarchy. That is when Zachriel sed that shit about a family tree not being common descent.
Common Descent in a nutshell:
Parents have offspring that are slightly modified versions of themselves. These offspring then have offspring that are slightly modified versions of them. And so on until the offspring no longer resemble the original parents, and it keeps going and possibly diverging and converging.
That is how the tree pattern is formed.
But how stupid does an evolutionist have to be to not understand that? Or is it that Zachriel sees that it has stepped on its own little brain and will say anything to distract from that fact?
Can't lose the nested hierarchy debate to us so Zachriel goes into full denial mode.