The statement of "nested hierarchy" is:
There exists a set of traits according to which life can be arranged in a nested hierarchy.
By predicate logic, the opposition of "there exists a <something>" is NOT "there exists a <not-something>". Let me give you an example. Suppose I say that "It rains in Canberra." In formal terms that means
There exists a day on which Canberra experiences rain.
Now it will do you no good to list me the ten or twenty or even two hundred days of this year so far which have been bright and sunny and rainless. In fact all it takes is
one rainy day for my statement to be accurate. The negation is
There exists no day on which Canberra experiences rain.
or
For every day which Canberra experiences, none have rain.
So it is with nested hierarchy. It only takes
one set of hierarchical traits to be accurate. Saying that nested hierarchy is untrue because, say, a trait like "green" doesn't form one, is a bit like saying that it can't possibly rain in Canberra because it didn't rain in Canberra on February 23, 1996.
Do you think that's an unfair burden of proof? Remember that the exact same burden of proof lies on the creationists: they have asserted that nested hierarchy applies equally well to cars. Yet not only have we come up with numerous counterexamples of nested hierarchy - which on their own, mind you, do not disprove nested hierarchy in cars any more than "green" disproves nested hierarchy in life - they
have not even advanced ONE possible nested hierarchy of cars.
All it takes is one, guys. Get to it!