Why? Because we don’t see such a nested arrangement if we’re trying to arrange objects that haven’t arisen by an evolutionary process of splitting and descent. Take cardboard books of matches, which I used to collect. They don’t fall into a natural classification in the same way as living species.
Wow, this is desperate. He is trying to prove why we wouldn't expect to find similarties in animals by saying that we don't find the same kind of similarties in matchboxes? Wow. Not sure how to respond to that. Uhmm, you are comparing the mind of God - who would logically reuse perfected processes and parts in multiple creations - to random people who make matchboxes as evidence? Isn't this Chapter 1? Shouldn't you be starting with your best stuff? Wait - this is your best stuff? Oh wow. This is sad. Ok, well, you are going to do that how about a better example. How about something more complex - like an automobile. Would you find that an auto maker would use the same parts on different models? Actually, yes, you find that Toyota, Honda, Ford, etc - all use the some of the same parts in different models. Why? Because they work! Why reinvent the wheel? This is common sense.
