Exposing the EvoTARD Ignorance of Nested Hierarchies

-
The following is the source of the evoTARD ignorance with respect to nested hierarchies: A nested hierarchy of species. Note what it spews:

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

Unfortunately Linnaean Taxonomy, which the author admits is an objective nested hierarchy, doesn't have anything to do with  "branching evolutionary processes"- Using the tree for classification:

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

The US Army is also a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with "branching evolutionary processes".

The nested hierarchy article goes on to say:

Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme.

Right, but that classification scheme doesn't have anything to do with "branching evolutionary processes".

The issue is with "branching evolutionary processes" you would expect to see numerous transitional forms that would blur all lines of distinction between groups and nested hierarchies require distinct, separate groups. Mammals and reptiles are distinct and separate groups. Yet according to evolutionism there were reptile-like mammals and mamma-like reptiles. Where do you put them in a nested hierarchy scheme? And yes you have to include all organisms because cherry-picking is a no-no when saying such a process will produce X. And including all organisms would make any classification scheme a total mess. Even Darwin said so:

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

That "natural arrangement" would not be a nested hierarchy which is artificial. And finally we have the following:

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. page 34, Eric B. Knox, “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 1–49, 1993

But I am sure that too will continue to be ignored.