The Nested Hierarchy fiasco
My claim has ALWAYS been that the theory of evolution does NOT predict nested hierarchy. Sure it can explain it but there is a huge difference between explaining something and predicting it. My position is clearly stated in many of my blogs. That I heavily referenced chapter 6 in Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" should have been a clue- Oops Zachriel refused to read my reference. Quite the twit that one.
May Archive
November archive
Another fact is that the theory of evolution does NOT predict vertebrates. It does not predict metazoans and it does not predict there would be organisms who could study and ponder the universe.
That vertebrates are observed is meaningless. The debate is about predictions- at least that is what I was discussing.
Just how can one predict a pattern of something that isn't even predicted to exist?
I then posted THE RULES of hierarchy. Zachriel and his ilk just ignore them or twist them.
That the scientists I quote disagree with my overall inference is also irrelevant to the point being discussed. Obviously they are perfectly happy with the fact that nested hierarchy isn't observed through-n-through because they understand it isn't to be expected.
And no Zachriel, I do not need to visit Alan's blog again*. My last visit was two days ago and I am sure the discussion hasn't progressed much beyond grunting and posturing.
BTW Zachriel, humans are eukaryotes. And if one can't make a nested hierarchy out of our alleged single-celled ancestors why would one expect to be able to make one from their descendants? From chaos, order? From the survival of random replicators?
And just so that everyone is clear, the following was Zachriel's position before reality smacked him upside his head:
Zachriel said:
If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.
*Evolution in action- watching a mob of evolutionitwits "evolve" into a blob of spineless, nadless wonders.
May Archive
November archive
Another fact is that the theory of evolution does NOT predict vertebrates. It does not predict metazoans and it does not predict there would be organisms who could study and ponder the universe.
That vertebrates are observed is meaningless. The debate is about predictions- at least that is what I was discussing.
Just how can one predict a pattern of something that isn't even predicted to exist?
I then posted THE RULES of hierarchy. Zachriel and his ilk just ignore them or twist them.
That the scientists I quote disagree with my overall inference is also irrelevant to the point being discussed. Obviously they are perfectly happy with the fact that nested hierarchy isn't observed through-n-through because they understand it isn't to be expected.
And no Zachriel, I do not need to visit Alan's blog again*. My last visit was two days ago and I am sure the discussion hasn't progressed much beyond grunting and posturing.
BTW Zachriel, humans are eukaryotes. And if one can't make a nested hierarchy out of our alleged single-celled ancestors why would one expect to be able to make one from their descendants? From chaos, order? From the survival of random replicators?
And just so that everyone is clear, the following was Zachriel's position before reality smacked him upside his head:
Zachriel said:
If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.
*Evolution in action- watching a mob of evolutionitwits "evolve" into a blob of spineless, nadless wonders.
posted by Joe G @ 9:08 PM
4 Comments:
At 12:18 AM,
Bettawrekonize said…
If you observe a large group of human beings, do they form any sort of nested hierarchy? If so, does that nested hierarchy resemble their actual (known) relationships? I think not. It's possible for someone to have blue eyes (and genes for blue eyes), have a brother without blue eyes (or the genes) and yet have a cousin with blue eyes. They could even have a second or third or fourth, etc... cousin that has blue eyes. These are violations of this alleged nested hierarchy. So if evolution does not produce any sort of nested hierarchy within a species, why should it produce this alleged nested hierarchy when the organisms speciate? The answer is that it shouldn't. Those violations that exist within a specie don't just go away when the organisms speciate.
At 10:00 AM,
Joe G said…
If you observe a large group of human beings, do they form any sort of nested hierarchy?
No.
Thank you for your support.
BTW you only have to post once. I will put it up when I get to it- and if you post late at night please wait until the next day for it to appear.
At 1:28 PM,
Bettawrekonize said…
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-sound-of-a-nested-heirarchy-shattering/
Has more details on that. Go to
http://forums.christianity.com/m_2825724/mpage_2/tm.htm
Where I go into extreme detail of why this alleged nested hierarchy is a huge problem for UCD and refute every argument made by those who believe that it should somehow predict a nested hierarchy. Read the evolutionists arguments and my refutations and even a layperson could understand why UCD should not predict any sort of nested hierarchy.
At 2:14 PM,
Joe G said…
Betta:
Denton shattered that myth in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".
UCD does not predict NH. It merely accomodates it.
Even Darwin had to call upon timely extinctions to account for NH.
Anyone who thinks that NH is a prediction of UCD is delusional at best and dishonest or wicked at worst.
Post a Comment
<< Home