I have conversations with evolution deniers, and I've read that the best single piece of evidence for evolution is the congruence of the genetic and morphological nested hierarchies, and the fact that they are predicted on evolution, but not on intelligent design.
I think I have an example of what would falsify the nested hierarchy; please check me on this, I want to get this right.
Because evolution is a historical process, an organism can only share characteristics, or have varied characteristics, of one of its ancestors. If an organism had characteristics that came laterally (?) across the nested hierarchy, as opposed to up or down through its ancestry, that would falsify the hierarchy. An example of this would be a primate with two post-orbital fenestrae (see pic)..
And, we don't find such organisms.
This is not predicted on design because if you design from scratch, without the necessity of varying ancestors' characteristics, you are not limited by not designing a primate with two post-orbital fenestrae.
Do I have this right?