Nested Hierarchy and Universal Common Descent- Shattering the Myth

For some time Zachriel has been trying to convince me that universal common descent (with modifification) leads to a nested hierarchy. And all the time he was trying to convince me I have been telling him why it does no such thing.

Seeing that there was no end to this discussion I went out and did some research.

I found it strange that if UCD led to nested hierarchy it wasn't presented in any biology textbooks. So I dug a little deeper to find out why that is.

It seems the only "source" for this is Talk Origins:

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.-Douglas Theobald

Two things wrong with that statement:

1) A nested hierarchy is more than merely “groups within groups”.
2) The pattern represents “groups under groups” (Darwin's words). And as Darwin pointed out each horizontal line is equal to a thousand generations or more.


Figure 1

I request the reader to turn to the diagram illustrating the action, as formerly explained, of these several principles; and he will see that the inevitable result is, that the modified descendants proceeding from one progenitor become broken up into groups subordinate to groups.-Charles Darwin (bold added)

But with organic beings the case is different, and the view above given accords with their natural arrangement in group under group; and no other explanation has ever been attempted.-Charles Darwin (bold added)

Not “groups within groups”, as the talk-origins article states it.

So I went and re-read "On the Origins of Species". And just as I have been saying UCD does not predict a nested hierarchy:

The intervals between the horizontal lines in the diagram, may represent each a thousand or more generations.-Charles Darwin chapter 4

In chapter 14:

If, however, we suppose any descendant of A or of I to have become so much modified as to have lost all traces of its parentage in this case, its place in the natural system will be lost, as seems to have occurred with some few existing organisms.-Charles Darwin chapter 14

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

There you have it- Darwin's words refute the notion that UCD predicts a nested hierarchy and for the very reasons I have been telling Zachriel since he started spewing his nonsense.

Richard Dawkins says that Intelligent Design is OK*

*As long as the designer is not "God". See his interview in the upcpoming movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

So what happens if we allow for Intelligent Design and in the course of our investigation we discover that the designer is "God"?

It would be too late to say that ID is not science because of some arbitrary definition. That would be like shutting the barn door AFTER the horses got out.

The Word is "Patrilineage"

Zachriel and blipey have been trying to tell me about a paternal family tree without understanding what that was. The word they were looking for is:

Patrilineage

Line of descent as traced through men on the paternal side of a family.

IOW they can't even get the terminology correct!

Who said it?

A containment hierarchy is a hierarchical collection of strictly nested sets. Each entry in the hierarchy designates a set such that the previous entry is a strict superset, and the next entry is a strict subset. For example, all rectangles are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are rectangles, and all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. A hierarchy of this kind is to be contrasted with a more general notion of a partially ordered set*.

A taxonomy is a classic example of a containment hierarchy.



*A familiar real-life example of a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy.

A Paternal Family Tree is NOT a Nested Hierarchy!

Seeing that neither Zachriel nor blipey the clown would listen to reason, I sent an email to the author of the website that I have been referencing to support my claim- that a paternal family tree is NOT a nested hierarchy:

Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 9:33 AM
To: tfallen@facstaff.wisc.edu
Subject: Nested Hierarchy- a question



Sir,

I am hoping you could settle some confusion. On your webpage about hierarchies, http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm , you say that an Army command isn't a nested hierarchy because the General does not consist of nor contain the soldiers below him. I understand that.

My question is does a paternal family tree represent a nested hierarchy or a non-nested hierarchy? For example this tree http://www.internationalspecialreports.com/middleeast/99/jordan/8-1.gif

It seems obvious to me that the same rules that prevent an Army command from being nested also apply to a paternal family tree.

Could you please clarify this for me.

respectfully,

Joe Gallien

This afternoon I receved his response:

This is not nested. There is a single rule that applies top to bottom, not nesting.



Timothy F. H. Allen

Botany Dept, 430 Lincoln Drive

University of Wisconsin

Madison WI 53706-1381

Now what Zachriel? Are you going to say that an authority on hierarchy is wrong and you and a clown are right?

Go pound sand and come back when you are ready to substantiate your claims with VALID references.

Until then it is obvious that dealing with you is a waste of time- entertaining but still a waste of time.

BTW- CJYman has a blog- click of "reality cheque" in my Links section.

Male Descendents- the Violation- again

Enough with the hints. It’s apparent I will just have to cut to it.

It was first posited that a paternal family tree, which Zachriel posted as having a father, alone at the top level as the patriarch, is a nested hierarchy.

It was then shown that a patriarch does not consist of nor contain his male descendents. That wasn’t enough.

Now that has evolved to the top level being whoever you choose, as well as all of that person’s male descendants. Each subsequent level has some male descendent(s) occupying it. D(x):x={x, all male descendents of x}.

All along I have dropping hints.

blipey spewed that I was saying “fathers have fathers” so it isn’t a nested hierarchy. So close and yet so far

I kept hinting at the female side of the equation. That has fallen of deaf ears. Not my fault.

So here it is:

If all sons have mothers, and all mothers have fathers, how many hierarchies does Sam’s son- D(sam)->D(sam’s first son)- belong to?

HINT: He is the descendent of two potentially unrelated men- his father and his mother’s father.

Maybe your tree has your father and your mother’s father as the same guy. Otherwise you have a violation as the sets are no longer contained.

Can one soldier belong to two different squads or two different divisions at the same time?

Can a human belong to two phyla?

Nested Hierarchy for Dummies-again

Nested Hierarchy for dummies, ie evolutionitwits:

A nested hierarchy is nothing more than a well defined(super) set which contains and consists of other specified (sub)sets.

A good visual would be the Russian nested dolls.

For example when discussing Living Organisms we divide everything into Kingdoms. Humans are Homo sapien sapiens- Homo being the Genus, with the species and subspecies- are in the Kingdom Anamalia.

IOW the Kingdom Anamalia consists of and contains every level below it. Anamalia being the superset, with Chordata a more refined subset and Primates being a more refined set of Chordates so on down to the species level. Each level being a more refined level of the one above. Each level containing and consisting of the levels below it.

In the Army example we would be classifying the US Army which is broken up into Field Armies, which contain and consist of Corps, which contain and consist of Divisions, which contain and consist of Brigades, which contain and consist of Battalions, which contain and consist of Companies, which contain and consist of Platoons, which contain and consist of Squads & Sections. Squads and sections contain and consist of soldiers. Each level, down to the soldier, has a well defined role and place in the scheme.

Here is the $64,000 question:

In a paternal family tree scheme does the top level, the father, consist of and contain the lower levels?


(If you answer "yes" you are a complete moron and if you answer "no" then you see why a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy. You are not a complete moron.)

Thorton hears a who

Thorton calls me a chicken-shit and a coward because he is unable to understand Intelligent Design and unable to substantiate the claims made by his anti-ID position.

That's evolutionary thinking for ya.

Then there is the fact that thorton is noticeably missing from all of my blogs dealing with biology. As a matter of fact blipey, Richie and rishy are also missing from those blogs. And why is the only thing that Richie and clowny posted in the design hypothesis blog, nothing but ignorance-driven drivel?

I would like to thank all of you for helping me make my case for ID and against the ToE.

No one is banned from Intelligent Reasoning

In another ignorance-driven post thorton has said I have banned people.

Not true. I do not ban anyone.

I do have rules that must be followed in order to get your post published:

1- Put up or shut up- IOW support your position. Ignorance-driven drivel will not make ID go away. Subtantiating the claims of your position is the only way to refute ID.

2. Stay on topic

And if you cannot follow 2 simple rules then there is no reason to publish your posts.

Posting on other forums

It never fails. Once again I have been invited to post on another forum.

It is as if the data that no one can bring to this forum will magically appear on some other forum!

The peer-reviewed article(s) that would support universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents- the article(s) no one posting here can seem to find- will magically appear if I post in another forum!

The data that demonstrates non-telic processes can command molecules to build other molecules that not only help other molecules but also produce the chemical products required for cellular and organismal life, will suddenly appear if I only went to another forum!

All I can say to those people is- You are full of shit!

If you cannot bring the data here- the data that would shut me up- why should I think that it would be posted on any other forum?

And if anyone has access to a forum with scientists just ask them about the data which demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise to new protein machinery and new body plans. If they won't answer you there is no way they will answer me.

Evolutionary research? Inquiring minds want to know

Seeing that evolutionitwits would rather tell me what I mean as opposed to what I say, let's see how they deal with this:

Can you present any research, past or present, that supports the the notion of universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic mistakes?

Can you present any research, past or present, that demonstrates that mutations can accumulate in such a way as to give rise not only to new protein machinery but also to new body plans?

Or are evolutionists still conducting "science" via promissory notes and majority rule? (meaning my questions may be answered some time in the future and that many scientists accept it is good enough to validate the theory now)