http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

Quote
As seen from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as "groups within groups", otherwise known as a nested hierarchy. The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains.
And so on... there's more.

"Nested Hierarchy" is just another way of claiming their counterfeit tree of life (recall the real Tree of Life?) reflects reality. Evolutionists investigating the matter say otherwise.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

Researching what goes on inside cells has produced results, and there hasn't been much luck forcing things to fit into the desired tree. Near the bottom of the third (short) page of the article, I noticed an indication of fear.
Quote
Even so, it is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works. "If you don't have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology?" asks Bapteste. "At first it's very scary... but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds." Both he and Doolittle are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong - just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe. Some evolutionary relationships are tree-like; many others are not. "We should relax a bit on this," says Doolittle. "We understand evolution pretty well - it's just that it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn't the only pattern."
See the term 'scary'? Think about it. What's scary about the discoveries?

Oh, it's possible to focus on one careless word, and get the wrong impression. Indeed it is. The problem with that suggestion is that the very same term is used by another researcher on page four.
Quote
Rose goes even further. "The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that," he says. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century.

Yes, new discoveries are scary for the evofaithful. This is as it should be, if you think about it.

The "nested hierarchy" nonsense is quite polywrong, but there's no need to go into all the mistakes. Evolutionism itself is abandoning the tree, reluctantly. It has long served as a propaganda tool, and they have quite an emotional attachment, but it's out. That's the bottom line.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson