Science refutes the premise that nested hierarchy is a prediction of the ToE
Scientists suggest cell origins involved a forward-and-backward process
Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.
Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.
“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.” (bold added)
That last sentence applies to ALL populations and individuals. Traits can be gained and lost, then regained and lost. Lines can be crossed, double-crossed and merge.
And again I am not saying that the ToE can't explain nested hierarchy. I am saying, and science confirms, that NH is not a prediction of the ToE. It can live with it and it can just as easily live without it.
ADDED VIA EDIT:
The point about traits being gained and lost is key because it is via traits that we classify organisms.
Again from Denton:
"Biological classification is basically the identification of groups of organisms which share certain characteristics in common and its beginnings are therefore as old as man himself. It was Aristotle who first formulated the general logical principles of classification and founded the subject as science. His method employed many of the principles which are still used by biologists today. He was, for example, well aware of the importance of using more than one characteristic as a basis for identifying classes, and he was also aware of the difficult problem which has bedeviled taxonomy ever since: that of selecting the characteristics to be used and weighing their relative significance." (bold added)
This is all relevant because my debate with Zachriel is with biological classification and biological classification alone.