Common Descent Does NOT predict a Nested Hierarchy- a Demonstration

All credit to Denton Chapter 6 "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" pages 134-35

Over on the Teleological blog the subject of Common Descent and nested hierarchy is being discussed. There are others who insist, despite all the data to the contrary, that NH is a prediction of Common Descent.

Now we can put this dead horse in the crematorium and fire those burners:

We have populations A, B, C, D (possessing unique character traits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7)

They are all nested under hypothetical population Z (acquired trait 1) with A & B being under hypothetical population X (acquired 2) and C & D being under hypothetical population Y (acquired 3). So draw Z diverging into X & Y with X diverging into A & B with Y diverging into C & D.

A- 124
B- 125
C- 136
D- 137

(A acquired 4, B acquired 5, C acquired 6 and D acquired 7)

Nice neat nested hierarchy.

NH based on Common Descent depends on immutable characteristics. IOW there wasn’t anything preventing the following:

A- 124
B- 25
C- 36
D- 137
(Oops B & C lost 1)

What happened to the nested hierarchy? (keep reading and feel free to sing along)

Nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah
heeeeyyyyheyyyayyy goo-ood bye (to the argument that Common Descent predicts NH)

Everybody join in-

Nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah
Heeeyyyyheeeyyyayy go-ood bye

You people in Kansas-

Nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah
Heeeyyyyheeeyyyayy goo-ood bye

the ACLU-

Nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah
Heeeyyyyheeeyyyayy goo-ood bye

Judge Jones III-

Nah nah nah nah
nah nah nah nah
Heeeyyyyheeeyyyayy good bye

(fade-->they're coming to take me away haha hoho heehee)

And there is more:

Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis

Abstract: Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation. Pattern pluralism (the recognition that different evolutionary models and representations of relationships will be appropriate, and true, for different taxa or at different scales or for different purposes) is an attractive alternative to the quixotic pursuit of a single true TOL.

(HT to ARN's finest)