A note to Zachriel
You can make all the accusations against me that you want. However until you substantiate any of them they will not see the light of day on my blog.
You accuse me of not understanding nested hierarchy. However if that is true neither does Agassiz, Darwin, Denton, Linnaeus, Mayr nor Simpson. Not to mention Patterson and Thompson.
Your dumba$$ tree analogy fails for reasons presented- that being the same DNA will be found throughout the tree, regardless of what branch or twig. And even though some SNPs may exist, that would be true regardless of the twig or branch. That I can take 20 twigs from any given tree and you could not put them back in their original positions is another example that refutes your analogy.
As for your continued misrepresentation of the debate by referring to "snap shots" of arbitrarily chosen family segments, is an indication you don't know what you are talking about. That you don't understand the concept that Darwin discusses even further exposes your nonsense.
And BTW, just because we can arrange nested hierarchies as a branching diagram in no way should be mistaken to mean that trees can form nested hierarchies just because they too have branches and birds can use the twigs to make a nest in those branches.
To anyone else reading this- I refer you to chapter 6 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" for a thorough scientific refutation of nested hierarchies as evidence for Common Descent. IOW you don't have to listen to me. However it should be obvious by now that there is no way anyone should listen to Zachriel.