Another note for Zachriel, liar, loser and momma's boy
Zachriel is again acting like himself, liar, loser and momma's boy- see for yourself:
Zach's hack job on reality.
Here is the reality- I didn't run away from anything. I am right here. I am not refusing to allow you to respond to anything on my blog. The key to Zachriel's posting privileges here has been given to him. What he does with it is up to him.
Now instead of responding to the relevant points Zachriel again brings up the irrelevant "paternal family tree". It is irrelevant for the many reasons already provided, plus it does not even fitthe definition of hierarchy.
I challenge anyone to search for "paternal family tree and nested hierarchy" to see if Zachriel's bogus example comes up and is used by anyone except Zachriel- someone with expertise in the subject would be nice. Good luck.
So how would you describe Zachriel's behavior? I already have...
Zach's hack job on reality.
Here is the reality- I didn't run away from anything. I am right here. I am not refusing to allow you to respond to anything on my blog. The key to Zachriel's posting privileges here has been given to him. What he does with it is up to him.
Now instead of responding to the relevant points Zachriel again brings up the irrelevant "paternal family tree". It is irrelevant for the many reasons already provided, plus it does not even fitthe definition of hierarchy.
I challenge anyone to search for "paternal family tree and nested hierarchy" to see if Zachriel's bogus example comes up and is used by anyone except Zachriel- someone with expertise in the subject would be nice. Good luck.
So how would you describe Zachriel's behavior? I already have...
posted by Joe G @ 8:06 AM
25 Comments:
At 9:48 AM,
JohnADavison said…
I agree. He is just another darwimp. The internet is crawling with them.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
At 10:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Dr Davison,
How have you been? Even though we do not always agree I really do appreciate your efforts in explaining your position- which is based on scientific investigation.
I respect you sir.Thank you.
At 4:33 AM,
JohnADavison said…
Well thank you Joe.
"The applause of a single human being is of great consequence."
Samuel Johnson
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
At 7:27 AM,
Alan Fox said…
Joe
If you are seriously interested in debating Zachriel in a neutral venue, where neither of you can be accused of using moderation unfairly, you may like to post here. I am posting the same invitation to Zachriel.
PS
John might be prepared to confirm my moderation policy, as he has had experience of it, and is still posting at my blog.
At 9:03 AM,
Joe G said…
keiths:
I'm happy to confirm that Zachriel's example of a paternal family tree is, as he claims, a nested hierarchy.
Really? Are you sure you're not dopey?
keiths:
The website you quoted yesterday, "A Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory",
cites an army as an example of a nested hierarchy.
Yes it does.
keiths:
The analogy with a paternal family tree is direct.
No it isn't. In the Army a private can climb the ranks. In a family once you are the son of X you will always be the son of X and never X and never be above X or equal to X.
Ya see I could put several Army personnel in a room and someone could put them in order by their rank. However if I took several generations of a family in one room you would be hard-pressed to sort them into the right categories.
At 9:07 AM,
Joe G said…
Alan Fox:
If you are seriously interested in debating Zachriel in a neutral venue, where neither of you can be accused of using moderation unfairly, you may like to post here.
Thanks but all I am seriously interested in is for Zachriel to substantiate his claim that nested hierarchy is an expectation (ie a prediction) of the theory of evolution.
And he can do so in the proper thread on my blog. I have nothing more to say until I see that presentation. IOW I have nothing to debate as I have already rested my case, even though I do have another trump card to play.
At 9:33 AM,
Joe G said…
Thie following still stands:
I challenge anyone to search for "paternal family tree and nested hierarchy" to see if Zachriel's bogus example comes up and is used by anyone except Zachriel- someone with expertise in the subject would be nice. Good luck.
At 11:26 AM,
Alan Fox said…
So, you only feel safe in an environment where you can censor comments you don't like?
By the way, have you seen this?
At 12:05 PM,
Joe G said…
Allan Fox:
So, you only feel safe in an environment where you can censor comments you don't like?
No, I feel safe pretty much everywhere I go- including Iraq and the rain forest of Colombia.
At 12:13 PM,
Joe G said…
And yes AF, I have read Theobald's assertions. I have also read the refutation.
You do realize that nested hierarchy was once used as evidence for a Common Design? IOW I am not saying we don't observe NH. I am saying that it isn't an expected outcome of the theory of evolution.
That should be obvious to anyone who understands the theory. Because if you understand the theory then you will understand the following:
Can evolution make things less complicated?
Scientists suggest cell origins involved a forward-and-backward process
Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.
Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.
“We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
IOW with the theory of evolution lines can be crossed and recrossed. Traits can be gained and lost.
And hierarchy sets are determined by more than one criterion.
At 12:18 PM,
Alan Fox said…
Well the thread is open and Zachriel has already posted there. My reading of Zachriel's problem with your blog is that you have rejected some posts and published others, and is, therefore, unwilling to post here again. Obviously, it is entirely your decision, but it might make the "liar, loser and momma's boy" taunt seem even more like projection if you don't show.
At 12:25 PM,
Joe G said…
AF:
My reading of Zachriel's problem with your blog is that you have rejected some posts and published others, and is, therefore, unwilling to post here again.
I have set in place a specific criterion for Zachriel. It is an easily fulfilled criterion. And once fulfilled he is free to post here.
I did so because he was wasting both my time and my bandwidth.
Now it is time for him to sh!t or get off of the pot.
AF:
Obviously, it is entirely your decision, but it might make the "liar, loser and momma's boy" taunt seem even more like projection if you don't show.
I really don't care about your opinion Alan. I have more that substantiated my claim about Zachriel.
At 12:25 PM,
Alan Fox said…
Joe writes:
And yes AF, I have read Theobald's assertions.
The text and diagram is from "Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. Theobald is reproducing the original.
Have a look at page 273 of "The Blind Watchmaker" (better yet, read all of chapter 10), even if only to better know the mind of the enemy.
At 12:28 PM,
Joe G said…
AF:
The text and diagram is from "Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin.
Read it. I noticed he didn't substantiate any of his claims.
I read "The BlindWatchmaker" also. I was very unimpressed with both as neither has ever substantiated their claims.
At 12:30 PM,
Alan Fox said…
I have more that substantiated my claim about Zachriel.
That or than? If than, who, other than yourself, thinks that your description fits Zachriel? That was rhetorical, BTW.
At 12:36 PM,
Alan Fox said…
Well, please yourself Joe. Just curious, how do you decide what is an unsubstantiated claim?
At 12:37 PM,
blipey said…
And we're still waiting for any substantiation on your part, Joe. How 'bout something besides rhetoric?
No?
Great.
At 9:08 PM,
JohnADavison said…
I asked Alan Fox to abandon Darwimpianism and gave him until January 1, 2007 to comply with my request. If he hasn't, we will just have to write his blog off as nothing but a subsidiary of "After the Bar Closes" aka "The Slippery Floors Saloon" aka "Esley Welsberry's Last Stand" aka "The Alamo of Darwimpian mysticism."
I predict he will soon shut down his union shop in any event. I don't see what else he can do. It is laughable.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
At 9:09 AM,
Joe G said…
Joe wrote:
In the Army a private can climb the ranks. In a family once you are the son of X you will always be the son of X and never X and never be above X or equal to X.
keiths:
Are you seriously suggesting that the mobility of elements is a defining characteristic of a nested hierarchy?
That is what the rules I posted state.
keiths:
The website you quoted certainly does not include that criterion in its definition.
Not only does it say that I highlighted that portion a few times already. But here it is again:
Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question. A given entity may belong to any number of levels, depending on the criteria used to link levels above and below.
At 9:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Alan Fox:
Just curious, how do you decide what is an unsubstantiated claim?
Well first there is a claim. Then there must be something to substantiate it- like data, facts, or observation. If none of those follows the claim it is unsubstantiated.
With the theory of evolution there isn't any data, facts or observation that demonstrates a population of bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria.
With the theory of evolution there isn't any data, facts or observation that demonstrates a population of single-celledcan "evolve" into anything but single-celled organisms.
And with the human/ chimp alleged divergence there isn't any data, facts or observation that demoinstrates that any mutation/ selection process can account for the physiological and anatomical differences we do observe between the two populations.
At 9:16 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
And we're still waiting for any substantiation on your part, Joe.
What do you want me to substantiate?
What do you think that scientists have substantiated pertaining to the theory of evolution? That way I will have a reference.
At 12:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Alan Fox:
My reading of Zachriel's problem with your blog is that you have rejected some posts and published others, and is, therefore, unwilling to post here again.
Then why is he filling up my comment moderation page? Again reality refutes those who wish to argue from ignorance...
At 10:34 PM,
blipey said…
How's that VR machine coming?
At 7:23 AM,
Joe G said…
blipey:
How's that VR machine coming?
Yours seems to be stuck in never-never land, for you are a lost little boy...
At 8:25 PM,
Joe G said…
And Richie Hughes is a cupcake.
Post a Comment
<< Home