ATTN: Creationists -- the twin nested hierarchy of taxa

I've been having an email discussion with tyreth regarding evolution and the evidence for/against it. I am currently awaiting a reply regarding the twin nested hierarchy observed in biological taxa, but I'd also like to get the comments of other creationists here about this particular piece of evidence. Specifically, it is so astoundingly statistically significant that I must confess I am at a loss as to how anyone can doubt common descent after examining this evidence.

So... what is the YEC response to the twin nested heirarchy of species? Is there one, or is this piece of evidence simply ignored, or attributed to God just happening to create species in such a way that they appear obviously to have common ancestry? If God did this deliberately, why would he do that? Is he just out to deceive us? This hierarchy is so incredibly unlikely that it could never have been created accidentally -- so if God did that, he did it on purpose. On the other hand, common descent practically requires the development of a twin nested heirarchy, due to its very nature (in fact, if the twin nested hierarchy did not exist, that in itself would be pretty convincing evidence that evolution did not happen).

(I am assuming, since this is an evolution forum here, that all you folks know what the twin nested hierarchy is without the need for me to write a long post explaining it in depth. If not, let me know and I'll explain it to the best of my ability.)

could you tell us plz

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

Can't say I know what it is.....but I'll look it up.

Oh come on, I KNOW you know this. Don't you? Ok, ok, I'll explain it, but you'll have to wait a bit, I'm doing a project at work... I'll post an explanation in about half an hour.

I would hazard a guess that it is related to the morhological/fossil organisation of taxa, and chromosomal/molecular organisation of taxa.

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

I still never understood why this would make him deceiving.

here it is:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr00.html

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

so my guess was right I am a physicist by trade, so I don't know some of the terminologz. sorry for being lazy

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

Thanks!

I think the same arguments are still going to be made both sides. I don't think this really changes anything....Maybe I understand incorrectly, but I think it's saying that we see a flow "genetic" traits that appear parallel to morphology. So that even though another gene could step into have the same function, we see a linear progression of that code through the chain of species.