A note to Zachriel
Zachriel,
You can make all the accusations against me that you want. However until you substantiate any of them they will not see the light of day on my blog.
You accuse me of not understanding nested hierarchy. However if that is true neither does Agassiz, Darwin, Denton, Linnaeus, Mayr nor Simpson. Not to mention Patterson and Thompson.
Your dumba$$ tree analogy fails for reasons presented- that being the same DNA will be found throughout the tree, regardless of what branch or twig. And even though some SNPs may exist, that would be true regardless of the twig or branch. That I can take 20 twigs from any given tree and you could not put them back in their original positions is another example that refutes your analogy.
As for your continued misrepresentation of the debate by referring to "snap shots" of arbitrarily chosen family segments, is an indication you don't know what you are talking about. That you don't understand the concept that Darwin discusses even further exposes your nonsense.
And BTW, just because we can arrange nested hierarchies as a branching diagram in no way should be mistaken to mean that trees can form nested hierarchies just because they too have branches and birds can use the twigs to make a nest in those branches.
To anyone else reading this- I refer you to chapter 6 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" for a thorough scientific refutation of nested hierarchies as evidence for Common Descent. IOW you don't have to listen to me. However it should be obvious by now that there is no way anyone should listen to Zachriel.
You can make all the accusations against me that you want. However until you substantiate any of them they will not see the light of day on my blog.
You accuse me of not understanding nested hierarchy. However if that is true neither does Agassiz, Darwin, Denton, Linnaeus, Mayr nor Simpson. Not to mention Patterson and Thompson.
Your dumba$$ tree analogy fails for reasons presented- that being the same DNA will be found throughout the tree, regardless of what branch or twig. And even though some SNPs may exist, that would be true regardless of the twig or branch. That I can take 20 twigs from any given tree and you could not put them back in their original positions is another example that refutes your analogy.
As for your continued misrepresentation of the debate by referring to "snap shots" of arbitrarily chosen family segments, is an indication you don't know what you are talking about. That you don't understand the concept that Darwin discusses even further exposes your nonsense.
And BTW, just because we can arrange nested hierarchies as a branching diagram in no way should be mistaken to mean that trees can form nested hierarchies just because they too have branches and birds can use the twigs to make a nest in those branches.
To anyone else reading this- I refer you to chapter 6 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" for a thorough scientific refutation of nested hierarchies as evidence for Common Descent. IOW you don't have to listen to me. However it should be obvious by now that there is no way anyone should listen to Zachriel.
posted by Joe G @ 1:34 PM
156 Comments:
At 4:34 PM,
Smokey said…
"You can make all the accusations against me that you want. However until you substantiate any of them they will not see the light of day on my blog."
He's accusing you of censoring his comments. You just substantiated his accusation by assuring him that you will censor them.
"You accuse me of not understanding nested hierarchy."
I do too.
"However if that is true neither does Agassiz, Darwin, Denton, Linnaeus, Mayr nor Simpson. Not to mention Patterson and Thompson."
How do you figure that?
"To anyone else reading this- I refer you to chapter 6 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" for a thorough scientific refutation of nested hierarchies as evidence for Common Descent."
Why, does it have any actual data? That would be required for any thorough scientific refutation.
At 5:05 PM,
Joe G said…
You can make all the accusations against me that you want. However until you substantiate any of them they will not see the light of day on my blog."
Smokey blows in with:
He's accusing you of censoring his comments.
He has accused me of more than that. But thanks for exposing your limited vision.
Smokey:
You just substantiated his accusation by assuring him that you will censor them.
Yup I will only post so many nonsensical and redundant comments.
"You accuse me of not understanding nested hierarchy."
Smokey:
I do too.
And you are proving to be an a$$face too. All fluff no stuff.
At 5:50 PM,
Zachriel said…
So, you make a post with my name in the title, but you won't agree to publish my on-topic response.
An 'accusation' is generally considered a claim of wrongdoing. Not understanding the nested hierarchy is not an 'accusation'.
My only 'accusation' is that you do not fairly and promptly publish my comments. I have trouble imagining you would get so much spam that Blogger's Word Verification wouldn't take care of the problem. But at the very least, you should agree to publish any of my on-topic comments. Otherwise, it would be best to find a neutral forum.
At 6:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
I would be happy to discuss the nested hierarchy, or any other aspect of biological theory. As the primary evidence for common descent is found in the various parallel nested hierarchies, there is no point proceeding to related subjects, such as homologies, until we have a strong foundation in the subject.
The nested hierarchy is a pattern. Like all patterns, it can be defined mathematically and exists outside of biology. A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
Objects can be arbitrarily grouped in nested hierarchies, just as we can arbitrarily arrange them in a circle or other pattern.
At 6:08 PM,
Smokey said…
Smokey:
You just substantiated his accusation by assuring him that you will censor them.
Joe: "Yup I will only post so many nonsensical and redundant comments."
Since you admit to censoring, why are you complaining about Zachriel's fully substantiated accusation?
"And you are proving to be an a$$face too. All fluff no stuff."
Name-calling. Brilliant! Especially since you are falsely claiming to understand NHs, I present you with an NH and challenge you to explain it, and you don't have any idea what it means.
At 7:55 PM,
Joe G said…
Smokey:
You just substantiated his accusation by assuring him that you will censor them.
Joe: "Yup I will only post so many nonsensical and redundant comments."
Smokey:
Since you admit to censoring, why are you complaining about Zachriel's fully substantiated accusation?
Umm, it's not censorship if the comments that aren't posted are just mindless repeats. And I'm unaware of anything that Zachriel has ever substantiated.
Smokey:
Especially since you are falsely claiming to understand NHs, I present you with an NH and challenge you to explain it, and you don't have any idea what it means.
You just love to spew nonsense. So I will tell you what- I call your bluff.
Explaining the NH of myosin will take time- time is very valuable to me- so here it is- I do just that and you give me $10,000 (USD)- that you will first give to an agreed upon neutral party.
Ya see buckwheat YOU are in NO position to test me and you ceratinly aren't going to get away with it for free.
And if I fail to do what you ask I will post an apology on every discussion board I can find and admit I am ignorant.
At 8:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
So, you make a post with my name in the title, but you won't agree to publish my on-topic response.
This proves you can't follow along. How can you be trusted to do anything if you can't even comprehend what is posted?
Zachriel:
An 'accusation' is generally considered a claim of wrongdoing. Not understanding the nested hierarchy is not an 'accusation'.
You are a true dillweed indeed.
Until you provuide some evidence to support that claim it is nothing but a bald accusation and one that would get your butt kicked in a bar scenario.
Zachriel:
My only 'accusation' is that you do not fairly and promptly publish my comments.
There is no reason to keep publishing the same ole nonsense.
Zachriel:
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
EXACTLY! And that is why if all alleged transitionals and intermediates were still alive we wouldn't observe nested hierarchy! There wouldn't be any order. IOW the distinct classes/ groups would be gone.
Just as Darwin and Denton stated.
Class dismissed...
At 9:34 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "EXACTLY! And that is why if all alleged transitionals and intermediates were still alive we wouldn't observe nested hierarchy!"
Even if every individual of a line of descent were still alive, it would form a nested hierarchy, e.g. a paternal family tree. Do you understand why this follows from the definition of a nested hierarchy, and the nature of descent without lineage crossing?
At 9:18 AM,
Joe G said…
ZAchriel,
As I have told you before your paternal family tree is a total misrepresentation of what is being debated.
It is a total misrepresentation because it is an arbitrarily chosen snapshot of a much more vast picture. IOW your snapshot continues up from the top. Or are yoyu saying your top guy just "poofed" into existence? In which case your Common Descent PoV just gfot a dose of falisifying reality. IOW by posting that snapshot you again demonstrate you don't understand NH.
It is also a misrep because all the members are human and NO ONE is saying that a human cannot give rise to another human.
However if all the transitionals and intermediates were still alive we couldn't place organisms into the nice distinct groups that have today. That you can't understand that basic and simple point demonstartes that YOU do not understand nested hierarchy.
And the difference bewteen you and I is that I will gladly tell that to your face.
At 9:40 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: "As I have told you before your paternal family tree is a total misrepresentation of what is being debated."
You didn't answer the question. Again. Does a paternal family tree comprise a nested hierarchy? (Keep in mind the definition of a containment hierarchy.) If granddad is still alive does the paternal family tree still constitute a nested hierarchy?
At 11:37 AM,
Smokey said…
Joe: "Umm, it's not censorship if the comments that aren't posted are just mindless repeats."
Umm, yes it is. Whether they are repeats or not.
Smokey:
Especially since you are falsely claiming to understand NHs, I present you with an NH and challenge you to explain it, and you don't have any idea what it means.
"You just love to spew nonsense. So I will tell you what- I call your bluff."
You're the one bluffing, Joe.
"Explaining the NH of myosin will take time-"
Not if you understand it.
At 12:53 PM,
Smokey said…
"However if all the transitionals and intermediates were still alive we couldn't place organisms into the nice distinct groups that have today."
Sure we could. The common ancestors would be at the nodes.
"That you can't understand that basic and simple point demonstartes that YOU do not understand nested hierarchy."
You're the one who can't explain a nested hierarchy, Joe.
"And the difference bewteen you and I is that I will gladly tell that to your face."
What's your full name and address, then?
At 5:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Does a paternal family tree comprise a nested hierarchy?
Paternal family tress are a misrepresentation of the debate.
That you continue to use that just further exposes your total lack of integrity.
They are also incomplete, just as the one you presented is incomplete.
However seeing you refuse to read the reference provided I bring you the first two paragraphs of Chapter 6 in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":
Whenever classification schemes are drawn up for phenomena which fall into a continuous or obviously sequential pattern—such as climatic zones from the artic to the tropics, subspecies in a circumpolar overlap, the properties of atoms in the periodic table, series of fossil horses, or wind strengths from breeze to hurricane—class boundaries are bound to be relatively arbitrary and indistinct. Most of the classes defined in such schemes are inevitably partially inclusive of other classes, or, in other words, fundamentally intermediate in character with respect to adjacent classes in the scheme. Consequently, when such schemes are depicted in terms of Venn diagrams, most of the classes overlap and the schemes overall have a disorderly appearance.
A quite different type of classification system is termed hierarchic. In which there are no overlapping or partially inclusive classes, but only classes inclusive or exclusive of other classes. Such schemes exhibit, therefore, an orderly “groups within groups” arrangement in which class boundaries are distinct and the divisions in the system increase in a systematic manner as the hierarchy is ascended. The absence of any overlapping classes implies the absence of any sort of natural sequential relationships among the objects grouped by such a scheme."
At 5:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Smokey:
What's your full name and address, then?
Smokey feels froggy! He must also feel dopey now that reality has been released upon him- the reality is that neither he nor Zachriel understands nested hierarchy and choose to project their ignorance onto me.
But anyway I can be found at 505 West St in Keene, NH- just ask for Joe G
At 5:36 PM,
Joe G said…
You just love to spew nonsense. So I will tell you what- I call your bluff."
Smokey:
You're the one bluffing, Joe.
That will be $10,000 (USD) to you to find out.
"Explaining the NH of myosin will take time-"
Smokey:
Not if you understand it.
One thing is for sure- understanding it has nothing to do with understanding nested hierarchy in general. And just the time, effort and materials it will take just to get a proper printout from which to work.
So either put up the $$$ or shut up.
At 5:54 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: Does a paternal family tree comprise a nested hierarchy?
joe g: "Paternal family tress are a misrepresentation of the debate."
The question is whether you understand what constitutes a nested hierarchy, a subject you have specifically blogged on. Until we have a firm understanding of the nested hierarchy, there is no point talking about taxonomies or homologies. So,
Does a paternal family tree comprise a nested hierarchy? If granddad is still alive, does a paternal family tree still comprise a nested hierarchy?
At 6:06 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel, Either focus on the issues of bugger off.
Paternal trees are a misrepresentation and omit the maternal side. One cannot have sons or daughters without that side. However if one includes the maternal side, the BIG picture gets awfully muddled. IOW the neat nested hierarchy that was once seemed to appear there disappears rather quickly.
IOW your example is just another example of your deceptive tactics.
Thank you very much for continuing to demonstrate that you are deceptive.
At 9:38 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Zachriel, Either focus on the issues of bugger off."
You didn't answer the question.
The nested hierarchy is considered important evidence of common descent. *You* have blogged repeatedly on the nested hierarchy. Hence, an understanding and recognition of the properties of a nested hierarchy are crucial to your assertions.
(If and when you grapple with nested hierarchies, then we can proceed to an understanding of how we use independently derived traits to develop taxonomies. Then and only then will it be possible to have a reasonable discussion of phylogeny or homology.)
That you refuse to answer even basic questions about the nested hierarchy calls into question your willingness to engage the subject.
At 7:14 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You didn't answer the question.
I answered the question. You just don't like the answer.
Zachriel:
The nested hierarchy is considered important evidence of common descent.
It might be to you and others that don't understand nested hierarchy. But what does that mean to those who understand NH and know what you say is false?
Zachriel:
Hence, an understanding and recognition of the properties of a nested hierarchy are crucial to your assertions.
So I suggest you go get an education on nested hierarchy and then come back to admit you were wrong.
Zachriel:
That you refuse to answer even basic questions about the nested hierarchy calls into question your willingness to engage the subject.
That you refuse to read the refrences given deomstrates your total lack of integrity.
However seeing you refuse to read the reference provided I bring you the first two paragraphs of Chapter 6 in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":
Whenever classification schemes are drawn up for phenomena which fall into a continuous or obviously sequential pattern—such as climatic zones from the artic to the tropics, subspecies in a circumpolar overlap, the properties of atoms in the periodic table, series of fossil horses, or wind strengths from breeze to hurricane—class boundaries are bound to be relatively arbitrary and indistinct. Most of the classes defined in such schemes are inevitably partially inclusive of other classes, or, in other words, fundamentally intermediate in character with respect to adjacent classes in the scheme. Consequently, when such schemes are depicted in terms of Venn diagrams, most of the classes overlap and the schemes overall have a disorderly appearance.
A quite different type of classification system is termed hierarchic. In which there are no overlapping or partially inclusive classes, but only classes inclusive or exclusive of other classes. Such schemes exhibit, therefore, an orderly “groups within groups” arrangement in which class boundaries are distinct and the divisions in the system increase in a systematic manner as the hierarchy is ascended. The absence of any overlapping classes implies the absence of any sort of natural sequential relationships among the objects grouped by such a scheme."
What part of that don't you understand?
At 7:31 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "That you refuse to read the refrences given deomstrates your total lack of integrity."
I've carefully read everything you have posted in response to my comments.
--
Zachriel: You didn't answer the question.
joe g: "I answered the question. You just don't like the answer."
I can't find your answer. The way you answer such a question is by referring to the definition.
The nested hierarchy is a pattern. Like all patterns, it can be defined mathematically and exists outside of biology. A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
Does each son have one and only one father? Can each father have a number of children? If we arrange by fatherhood, is each subset of sons contained strictly within its superset, the father?
So, does a paternal family tree comprise a nested hierarchy? If granddad is still alive does the paternal family tree still constitute a nested hierarchy?
(This may or may not relate to biology. It might just refer to the legal issue of male primogenitor.)
At 8:11 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel provided us with:
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
But obviously he does NOT understand it.
Zachriel:
I've carefully read everything you have posted in response to my comments.
IOW you have NOT bothered to read the references provided. Typical.
Zachriel:
I can't find your answer. The way you answer such a question is by referring to the definition.
Again your demo is irrelevant for the reasons provided. Obviouslty you still cannot follow along.
However seeing you refuse to read the reference provided I bring you the first two paragraphs of Chapter 6 in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":
Whenever classification schemes are drawn up for phenomena which fall into a continuous or obviously sequential pattern—such as climatic zones from the artic to the tropics, subspecies in a circumpolar overlap, the properties of atoms in the periodic table, series of fossil horses, or wind strengths from breeze to hurricane—class boundaries are bound to be relatively arbitrary and indistinct. Most of the classes defined in such schemes are inevitably partially inclusive of other classes, or, in other words, fundamentally intermediate in character with respect to adjacent classes in the scheme. Consequently, when such schemes are depicted in terms of Venn diagrams, most of the classes overlap and the schemes overall have a disorderly appearance.
A quite different type of classification system is termed hierarchic. In which there are no overlapping or partially inclusive classes, but only classes inclusive or exclusive of other classes. Such schemes exhibit, therefore, an orderly “groups within groups” arrangement in which class boundaries are distinct and the divisions in the system increase in a systematic manner as the hierarchy is ascended. The absence of any overlapping classes implies the absence of any sort of natural sequential relationships among the objects grouped by such a scheme."
What part of that don't you understand?
That's it for now. I may have time to check for comments tonight...
At 8:16 AM,
Zachriel said…
Still no answer.
At 2:11 PM,
Zachriel said…
Have you ever figured out what Joseph's confusion is regarding nested heirachies?
At 5:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Still no relevant questions…
(Zachriel's confusion is that he thinks he knows when he really doesn't)
Seeing that Zachriel refuses to see that his example is irrelevant I will spell it out- again.
1) Arbitrary starting point
2) Very limited in scope
3) Involves only one side thereby further demonstrating sample selection bias (unlike Zachriel’s actual tree example there is more than one genetic path back to the roots of human families)
4) Involves the same species and only a very limited snapshot at that
5) Snapshot NH's of common descent are not evidence that Common Descent predicts NH- IOW it is a deceptive tactic
What would the paternal nested hierarchy of man without children look like, if we started with that man? (I crack myself up)
But anyway-
If one wants examples of nested hierarchy one need look no further than military rankings, corporate org charts or (properly) organized filing systems.
Carrying on with Denton- Page 131:
“While hierarchic schemes correspond beautifully with the typological model of nature, the relationship between evolution and hierarchical systems is curiously ambiguous. Ever since 1859 it has been traditional for evolutionary biologists to claim that the hierarchic pattern of nature provides support for the idea of organics evolution. Yet, direct evidence for evolution only resides in the existence of unambiguous sequential arrangements, and these are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes.
Of course evolutionary biologists do not look for the direct evidence in the hierarchy itself but rather argue, as Darwin did, that the hierarchic pattern is readily explained in terms of an evolutionary tree.”
That much we know. However that also supports the claim that Common Descent can live with it (NH) and it can live without it.
Regardless of what Zachriel posts I am NOT debating whether or not living organisms can be placed into a nested hierarchy.
What is obvious, and supported by Darwin and Denton, is that the descent with modification in Common Descent would be sequential. IOW at one point we would have had very reptile-like mammals and very mammal-like reptiles. As for cetaceans there are supposedly 50,000+ transitional forms! Just think of the sequence mess that would make of any attempt at nested hierarchy. Then there is the platypus- an alleged mammal with bird-like features.
IOW those distinct and separate groups lose their boundaries and we would have overlapping. THAT is NOT allowed in a nested hierarchy.
Despite several threads Zachriel cannot get that very basic and simple point through his incredibly dense thickness. Zach earns the status of (a) “walking black hole”.
(Also Zach- you can only be banned once. You can be suspended any number of times. Perhaps the problem here is you don’t understand the English language.)
That's probably it for tonight. Tomorrow's schedule is rough.
But hopefully all Zachriel will have is an apology...
At 6:39 PM,
Zachriel said…
Still not an answer, joe g.
The answer is "yes". A paternal family tree forms a nested hierarchy. Do you understand why this is so?
At 7:39 AM,
Joe G said…
Still no relevant question.
Zachriel, do you understand why your example is irrelevant?
Do you understand why reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles would destroy a nested hierarchy?
Or are you the walking black hole that you pertray?
At 8:06 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Zachriel, do you understand why your example is irrelevant?
Do you understand why reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles would destroy a nested hierarchy?"
It's relevant to purported understanding the nested hierarchy. So, does a paternal family tree constitute a nested hierarchy?
Once you answer this simple question, we can consider other examples.
At 3:36 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Zachriel, do you understand why your example is irrelevant?
Do you understand why reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles would destroy a nested hierarchy?"
Zachriel:
It's relevant to purported understanding the nested hierarchy.
I take it you missed this:
If one wants examples of nested hierarchy one need look no further than military rankings, corporate org charts or (properly) organized filing systems.
Ya see when men can give birth to sons without any female involvement at all, I will listen to your example.
Until then try making a nested hierarchy of descendants starting with one asexually reproducing single-celled organism.
However it should be noted that all this is moot because although Common Descent can live with nested hierarchy for all the reasons provided it does not expect it.
It should also be noted that only people unaware, ie ignorant, of what constitutes a nested hierarchy would think that Common Descent predicts that type of pattern.
The nested hierarchy is a pattern. Like all patterns, it can be defined mathematically and exists outside of biology.
Last I looked organisms are biology.
At 3:41 PM,
Zachriel said…
Ok, Joe G. Everyone can see that you refuse to answer the question. Good luck with that.
At 7:16 PM,
Joe G said…
OK Zachriel, everyone can see you have lost the debate.
Darwin:
"Extinction, as we have seen in the fourth chapter, has played an important part in defining and widening the intervals between the several groups in each class. We may thus account for the distinctness of whole classes from each other- for instance, of birds from all other vertebrate classes from each other- by the belief that many ancient forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other and at that time less differentiated vertebrate classes."
That confirms what Denton stated about the transitionals have to be gone.
What does Zachriel do? Ignore reality.
I claim that nested hierarchy can be found outside of biology. Zachriel counters with distraction yet posts:
The nested hierarchy is a pattern. Like all patterns, it can be defined mathematically and exists outside of biology. A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
BTW transitionals, if they all still existed, would blur attempt at strict containment and would cause an overlapping typology. Overlapping is NOT allowed in nested hierarchy.
I post that any attempt to relate common descent to Common Descent is decptive. Zachriel attempts to us a contrived example of common descent to make his point.
When I provide a valid analogy- that of starting with one asexually reproducing single-celled organism and attempting a nested hierarchy of its "kin", all Zachriel can do is to crawl back under the rock from which he is protected from reality.
Zachriel reminds me of the black knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail"- the one who gets all of his limbs cut off but still insists he can fight.
Good luck with that indeed, Zachriel Maybe someday you will see your egregious error, but I sort of doubt that...
At 9:15 PM,
Anonymous said…
Hello, joe g,
I am finding this discussion quite an interesting read. I haven't really followed arguments re: NH and Common Descent much before, and I want to ask you a question just to see if I understand what you are getting at.
Please correst me if I am wrong ... well, I'm sure you would regardless of my permission ...
So, you are saying that if all "intermediate" forms were alive today, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and any of the "other" life forms that do, in actuality, presently exist. This is so because there would be no defining line separating a "transitional" form from and "non-transitional" form due to gradual evolutionary change. In fact, on this family tree, we would see, from right to left of all animals in existance a continuous, gradual line and all forms in between the far "right" and far "left" of this tree could be regarded as transitional forms.
In fact, it would look more like a graph showing gradual change of climate from north to south pole rather than a tree or an organizational chart as seen in an office staff layout, where each position [or block in the org. chart] is a discrete entity.
Back to the biological forms, the only reason we can actually separate those life forms which are presently alive is because those "in between" forms are extinct. However, if we were to go back in time, and collect all of our extinct "transitional" forms, we would be able to chart them out in accordance with the climate chart that I mentioned earlier -- a smooth, flowing chart where each form slowly overlaps and "blurs" from the preceding form to the next form, with who knows how many forms in between. Then, any talk of a tree would be completely arbitrary, as we would have from left to right all of the forms from simplest to most complex in a smooth, gradually changing, "up and down climate change" type line. Branches could then be arbitrarily added between neighboring forms as all forms are rearranged to create a "tree concept" without ever truly knowing if you had the correct "tree layout."
At 10:01 PM,
Joe G said…
cjyman:
So, you are saying that if all "intermediate" forms were alive today, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and any of the "other" life forms that do, in actuality, presently exist.
There will be a difference. It is that the gradations would be such that there wouldn't be distinct groupings. That is what led Darwin to say what he did.
pg 136 in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":
"There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as an end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral or transitional forms can be permitted to survive. (italics in original)
cjyman:
Back to the biological forms, the only reason we can actually separate those life forms which are presently alive is because those "in between" forms are extinct.
That's how Darwin put it.
However with Common Descent we do NOT have a ratcheting process. Things can be reversed. Structures once gained can be lost.
I blogged about this back in May:
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.”
As for your climate reference- Denton uses it also.
So here is my question to you-
Do you understand that Common Descent does NOT expect/ predict a nested hierarchy but it can accomodate it?
BTW Thanks for reading and responding to my blog...
At 11:33 PM,
Anonymous said…
CJYman (me):
"So, you are saying that if all "intermediate" forms were alive today, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and any of the "other" life forms that do, in actuality, presently exist."
oops, on reading my post, I should've wrote: "So you are saying that if all "intermediate" forms were alive today, the difference between all life forms would be so gradual that we wouldn't be able to classify them as based on their differences from the "other" life forms that do, in actuality, presently exist."
joe g:
"So here is my question to you-
Do you understand that Common Descent does NOT expect/ predict a nested hierarchy but it can accomodate it?"
True, as long as Common Descent does not predict that "nodes" of transitional forms will become extinct. Am I correct? Is this relevant?
joe g:
"BTW Thanks for reading and responding to my blog..."
Thanks for blogging ...
At 8:34 AM,
Joe G said…
cjyman:
"So you are saying that if all "intermediate" forms were alive today, the difference between all life forms would be so gradual that we wouldn't be able to classify them as based on their differences from the "other" life forms that do, in actuality, presently exist."
Exactly. Do you understand that?
Do you understand that Common Descent does NOT expect/ predict a nested hierarchy but it can accomodate it?"
cjyman:
True, as long as Common Descent does not predict that "nodes" of transitional forms will become extinct. Am I correct? Is this relevant?
Extinctions are only importatnt to get rid of those ancestral/ intermediate forms, thereby making the remaining organisms easier to classify (for the reason Darwin stated).
However Common Descent still doesn't predict nested hierarchy for the reason that it is NOT a ratcheting process. IOW it is NOT a progressive process- as cited. IOW if reptiles can "evolve" into mammals then mammals can also "evolve" into reptiles. That is if the scenario so presents itself. At least that is what the article I linked to implies.
So whereas in Zachriel's paternal tree a grandfather will always be above the father who will always be above his sons, evolution does not follow such a sequence. IOW one could start with a reptile, through a muriad of generations we start to see mammal-like reptiles (because the scenario presented itself) but then that trend could also reverse (because the scenario presented itself) and sooner or later we could wind up with an amphibian-like reptile-> in that same sequence. Which IMHO would be akin to a great-great-great- etc,- grandson being placed above the original patriach in Zachriel's scheme.
At 9:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Projection at its finest- Zachriel, instead of admitting he was wrong, chooses to post un-opposed at his hiding place. The following is what he has to say:
I've attempted since April to have Joseph engage the issue of the nested hierarchy.
Umm, reality demonstrates that I have been posting and engaging in discussions about nested hierarchy for years.
At this point, it is clear that he refuses to answer a simple question, even after I have asked repeatedly and pointedly.
That Zachriel doesn't/ didn't like my answers does NOT mean an answer wasn't provided. My answers were clear and to the point.
It's very sad, in a way.
Yes it is sad that Zachriel refuses to face reality.
He really thinks he has made a valid point when he hasn't even grappled with the simplest aspects of the problem.
Now that is projection at its finest! Zachriel refuses to deal with the simplest aspects of what constitutes a nested hierarchy and why Darwin and Denton confirm what I post which refutes what Zachriel spews.
I then use HIS definitions to demonstrate that he is wrong. He ignores that. I provide VALID examples of nested hierarchy to demonstrate I understand the concept. He ignores that also. I provide scientists who demonstrate he is wrong. He again ignores it. I provide references that support my claims and refute his. He refuses to read them and admits to it.
Has Zachriel offered anythingn to support his claims? No. Smokey showed up carrying the same false accusation but he has since vanished. I would bet that is because she now knows how wrong she was.
At 9:46 AM,
Joe G said…
Even the evo-friendly Wikipedia supports what I posted:
Hierarchy
In biology, the study of taxonomy is one of the most conventionally hierarchical kinds of knowledge, placing all living beings are very interestingin a nested structure of divisions related to their probable evolutionary descent. Most evolutionary biologists assert a hierarchy extending from the level of the specimen (an individual living organism -- say, a single newt), to the species of which it is a member (perhaps the Eastern Newt), outward to further successive levels of genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom. (A newt is a kind of salamander (family), and all salamanders are types of amphibians (class), which are all types of vertebrates (phylum).) Essential to this kind of reasoning is the proof that members of a division on one level are more closely related to one another than to members of a different division on the same level; they must also share ancestry in the level above. Thus, the system is hierarchical because it forbids the possibility of overlapping categories. For example, it will not permit a 'family' of beings containing some examples that are amphibians and others that are reptiles--divisions on any level do not straddle the categories of structure that are hierarchically above it. (Such straddling would be an example of heterarchy.) (bold added)
Overlapping categories is exactly what one would get if all the transitionals/ intermediates were still alive.
Zachriel- you lose. That you can't understand that by now just further exposes your problem(s).
At 10:05 AM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: "Zachriel, instead of admitting he was wrong, chooses to post un-opposed at his hiding place."
If I am hiding, I am hiding in plain view. But Joseph. You have consistently indicated that you may or may not post my replies on your blog. Clearly, this discussion should be moved to a neutral forum.
Meanwhile, you never did answer this simple question.
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. Take a close look at the definition of a nested hierarchy, and tell us Does a paternal family tree represent a nested hierarchy?
At 10:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You have consistently indicated that you may or may not post my replies on your blog.
I more than clarified that. So stop being such a wuss about it.
Zachriel:
Clearly, this discussion should be moved to a neutral forum.
All the evidence shows the discussion is over and you lost. So why does it have to moved anywhere?
And again there wouldn't be a "paternal family tree" without a metrnal side. IOW your example is bogus for the many reasons already provided.
However if you want an example of nested hierarchy I have provided a few. What is your problem with those examples? cjyman understands the examples so what is your problem?
And what is it about this:
Thus, the system is hierarchical because it forbids the possibility of overlapping categories. For example, it will not permit a 'family' of beings containing some examples that are amphibians and others that are reptiles--divisions on any level do not straddle the categories of structure that are hierarchically above it. (Such straddling would be an example of heterarchy.)
that you don't understand?
Darwin spelled it out for you. Denton spelled it out for you. But for some reason you want to cling to your failed analogy even though the ending will be the same- that being that you lost the debate because Common Descent does NOT predict a nested hierarchy. Sure it can live with it but it can also live without it. (for the many reasons provided)
At 10:57 AM,
Zachriel said…
You still didn't answer the question. Does that mean "no", the paternal family tree does not constitute nested hierarchy?
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. A father's sons can be considered a set. Each of their sons can also be considered a set. And so on. Are these sets nested? The answer follows from the definition of nested hierarchy. I even gave you the answer previously. If you can't grapple with such simple cases, how do you suppose you can understand phylogenetics or cladistics?
At 11:23 AM,
Zachriel said…
You still haven't answered the question. Does a paternal family tree constitute a nested hierarchy?
The answer follows from the definition: a nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. A father's sons can be considered a set. And each of these sons can be fathers, and we can put their male children into their own sets. And so on. Are these sets nested? I even gave you the answer previously.
If you can't understand such simple examples, how can you hope to discuss phylogenetics or cladistics?
At 12:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
a nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
I know what a nested hierarchy is. I knew before you were born.
Zachriel:
A father's sons can be considered a set.
But what happens when a father mates with his daughters? Are the resulting sons placed in the subset of his sons from his wife?
IOW said father has 3 sons each from several women. He also has 3 daughters and 3 wives. With his daughters he has sons and daughters. Some of his sons have at it with his wives, daughters and their own daughters.
All becomes pretty muddled.
Also I provided VALID examples of what constitutes a nested hierarchy. I have yet to provide an example for nested hierarchy that reality demonstrates is no such thing.
That alone demonstrates I understand nested hierarchy.
I will spell it out for you AGAIN:
Thus, the system is hierarchical because it forbids the possibility of overlapping categories. For example, it will not permit a 'family' of beings containing some examples that are amphibians and others that are reptiles--divisions on any level do not straddle the categories of structure that are hierarchically above it. (Such straddling would be an example of heterarchy.)
The fact that you refuse to follow the references or even consider what Agassiz, Darwin, Denton, Mayr, Simpson, Patterson and Thompson say is indicative of your willful ignorance.
As for grappling with facts- well this thread alone demonstrates that you cannot grapple with anything- except for perhaps a strawman or two.
Ya see reality supports the aforementioned scientists, which means it refutes you.
Grapple with that...
At 12:03 PM,
Joe G said…
BTW mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals are an example of overlapping.
School is over. However I am sure you will repeat this course...
At 12:39 PM,
Zachriel said…
At least you are trying. Thank you.
joe g: "But what happens when a father mates with his daughters? Are the resulting sons placed in the subset of his sons from his wife?"
When tracing paternity, the only issue is the father. His sons constitute a single set.
joe g: "IOW said father has 3 sons each from several women. He also has 3 daughters and 3 wives. With his daughters he has sons and daughters."
That's fine. They are all his sons. We're not concerning with anything other than paternity. This is a common issue in traditional society. In modern genetic terms, we are looking at the y-chromosome which is only passed from father to son.
This is not an academic issue, but one of great historical and cultural significance, such as in hereditary monarchies or the division of estates. Today, great paternal family trees have been constructed allowing people to trace their ancestral commonality back for dozens of generations.
But the complete family tree does not represent a nested hierarchy. That's because each child is the blending of various traits from two parents who are also blends of traits from their respective parents. This blending is now known to occur during cellular meiosis as chromosome alleles are exchanged a process called genetic recombination.
But first, let us make sure we are clear on the paternal family tree. Whatever its significance, do you understand why this follows from the definition of a nested hierarchy, and the nature of descent without lineage crossing?
joe g: "BTW mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals are an example of overlapping."
They don't overlap. They are nodes. Try not to confuse the classification with the things themselves. But we will return to this later.
At 1:43 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
At least you are trying. Thank you.
Which is much more than I can say about you. And actually I am done "trying" and you are still refuted.
joe g: "BTW mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals are an example of overlapping."
Zachriel:
They don't overlap.
Ummm, yes they do. They overlap the boundary set by the reptile- mammal distinct classification schema. They overlap traits with each other.
Zachriel:
They are nodes.
There are many nodes along any given single line. IOW every point on a line is a possible node.
Zachriel:
Try not to confuse the classification with the things themselves.
Try not to confuse your falsely inflated ego with anything that reality is concerned with.
Ya see it will be the things themselves that would be doing the overlapping. That is because they will have a mixture of traits consistent with organisms now firmly placed in "mammals" with those firmly placed in "reptiles".
BTW the way we classify things are by the things themselves. And the truth is we wouldn't know where to put the transitionals/ intermediates if they still existed. And come to think of it we probably wouldn't be having this debate if they still existed because a nested hierarchy could not be constructed if they did.
And that is just along one alleged lineage!
pg 136 in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":
"There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as an end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral or transitional forms can be permitted to survive. (italics in original)
Darwin:
"Extinction, as we have seen in the fourth chapter, has played an important part in defining and widening the intervals between the several groups in each class. We may thus account for the distinctness of whole classes from each other- for instance, of birds from all other vertebrate classes from each other- by the belief that many ancient forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other and at that time less differentiated vertebrate classes."
Darwin confirms Denton. Therefore Zachriel had better come up with something much better than he has in order to hope to grasp any sort of saving grace from his defeat.
At 2:01 PM,
Zachriel said…
Don't get ahead of yourself. You still didn't answer the question. Does a paternal family tree comprise a nested hierarchy?
At 8:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Don't get ahead of yourself.
The fish has been caught, filleted, cooked, eaten and passed on down the sewer.
I don't know why you are still floundering about.
Don't you understand that if any nodes existed, they would be crossovers? Something you said would falsify NH.
And the following is the nail in the coffin:
“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 crossovers can exist and it wouldn't do a thing to evolution, ie Common Descent. However, as you pointed out, it would ruin nested hierarchy.
What I continue to find strange is that someone that can't grasp that is trying to tell me about nested hierarchy.
As for your paternal tree- recombination would/ could give each son a different Y chromosome. Further recombination in thsoe sons would add more distance- artificial distance. And nothing would prevent a mutated Y chromosome in one son to mutate back to the Y chromosome his father had and end up what would be his father's grandson.
At 9:07 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "As for your paternal tree- recombination would/ could give each son a different Y chromosome"
We are constructing a paternal family tree based on fatherhood. Modern genetics is not required to do this, and the example I have cited was constructed the old-fashioned way. You look to your sons and grandsons, your father and father's father, your brothers and uncles and nephews. Group them by paternity. This is not that difficult. Click on the link and look at a typical paternal family tree. Now compare it to the definition of a nested hierarchy. Do the sons and sons of sons meet the definition or not? I even gave you the answer.
(In any case, the Y-chromosome is inherited directly from the father with the vast majority of genes not subject to recombination. The Y-chromosome is often used to establish paternal lines-of-descent.)
Does a paternal family tree comprise a nested hierarchy?
At 9:36 PM,
Zachriel said…
Apparently, we should back up even one more step. A set is a collection of distinct things considered as a whole. In this case, do you have a problem with constructing the set of a father's sons?
At 7:50 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel,
You can back up as far as you want. I do understand why you want to go in that direction-> It delays the inevitable, which is the refutation of your claim.
And just for the record:
All I am claimimg is that Common Descent does NOT expect/ predict a nested hierarchy of extant organisms.
I do NOT claim that Common Decent cannot form a nested hierarchy of extant organisms.
There is a huge difference between those two positions.
I have always maintained the claim that limited common descent can form a nested hierarchy in some cases but also to a limited extent.
IOW it really isn't a good example to use.
That said I do understand that a son(s) will always be below the father(s) and the father(s) will always be below the grandfather(s).
However we know that with Common Descent it is possible to take a series of left-hand turns such that future generations may appear to pre-date the original.
At 9:23 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "All I am claimimg is that Common Descent does NOT expect/ predict a nested hierarchy of extant organisms."
You just made a claim that includes the use of the "nested hierarchy". The nested hierarchy is defined in terms of sets. A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
So, can we create a set of a father's sons? If we can, then ... well, let's get an unambiguous answer to this question first.
At 10:30 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You just made a claim that includes the use of the "nested hierarchy".
Yes I know. We have been discussing nested hierarchy Do you have a point?
Zachriel:
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
Note the words "strictly contained".
Also note that the existence of intermediates would blow that away.
Zachriel:
So, can we create a set of a father's sons?
You can do whatever you want Zachriel.
But for the sake of argument, and to move this along, I will say yes, we can create a set of a father's sons.
Your move.
At 10:32 AM,
Joe G said…
IOW Zachriel, I am more than willing to beat you at your own little game. Just be prepared to bring it...
At 10:55 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "I am more than willing to beat you at your own little game."
I don't consider winning an argument to be a valid personal goal. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question.
joe g: "But for the sake of argument, and to move this along, I will say yes, we can create a set of a father's sons."
And each son can be a father each of whose own sons can also constitute a set. So, in light of the definition, does a paternal family tree comprise a nested hierarchy?
At 11:16 AM,
Anonymous said…
On other words, Common Descent only predicts a nested hierarchy to the extent that it predicts that "transitional forms" will become extinct, for without the extinction of "transitional forms" we can not group a gradual, "blurred," transition into a nested hierarchy diagram any more than a graph showing climate change from north to south can be diagramed as a nested hierarchy.
Therefore, since Common Descent does not predict that any number of "transitional forms" will become extinct it does not predict a nested hierarchy.
Correct, or no?
At 11:17 AM,
Anonymous said…
On other words, Common Descent only predicts a nested hierarchy to the extent that it predicts that "transitional forms" will become extinct, for without the extinction of "transitional forms" we can not group a gradual, "blurred," transition into a nested hierarchy diagram any more than a graph showing climate change from north to south can be diagramed as a nested hierarchy.
Therefore, since Common Descent does not predict that any number of "transitional forms" will become extinct it does not predict a nested hierarchy.
Correct, or no?
At 7:17 AM,
Joe G said…
cjyman:
Therefore, since Common Descent does not predict that any number of "transitional forms" will become extinct it does not predict a nested hierarchy.
That is correct. But also it doesn't predict nested hierarchy because of the following:
“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.”
(that was from the article I linked to above)
At 7:22 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "I am more than willing to beat you at your own little game."
Zachriel:
I don't consider winning an argument to be a valid personal goal.
I do.
Zachriel:
So, in light of the definition, does a paternal family tree comprise a nested hierarchy?
It can. It doesn't have to.
At 8:15 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "It can. It doesn't have to."
How about the paternal family tree provided?
CJYman: "On other words, Common Descent only predicts a nested hierarchy to the extent that it predicts that 'transitional forms' will become extinct, for without the extinction of 'transitional forms' we can not group a gradual, 'blurred,' transition into a nested hierarchy diagram ... "
This is not a correct prediction from Common Descent or from the nested hierarchy. The paternal family tree exists whether or not grandfather makes it to the family reunion. The difficulty of unraveling a paternal family tree or phylogeny does not mean the nested hierarchy ceases to exist. The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines. Though each father can have any number of sons, each son has one-and-only-one paternal lineage, their father's father's father.
Like a tree, each branch can have any number of child branches or twigs, but each twig can trace one-and-only-one path to the trunk. Contrast this with a net or web. Cut an arbitrary thread in a web and most likely it will have little effect on the rest of the web.
But we don't want to get ahead of ourselves. Joe has made a claim. He has now claimed that a paternal family tree doesn't necessarily comprise a nested hierarchy. But sons of sons will always be completely contained sets within the paternal hierarchy. Please point to a paternity that does not comprise a nested hierarchy.
At 8:17 AM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: I don't consider winning an argument to be a valid personal goal.
joe g: "I do."
That's where we differ. Discovering and elucidating the truth is my goal.
At 8:46 AM,
Zachriel said…
CJYman: "Therefore, since Common Descent does not predict that any number of 'transitional forms' will become extinct it does not predict a nested hierarchy.
Correct, or no?
Oops. I see that question was directed at Joe G.
At 8:52 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel: I don't consider winning an argument to be a valid personal goal.
joe g: "I do."
Zachriel:
That's where we differ.
That is hardly the only difference.
Zachriel:
Discovering and elucidating the truth is my goal.
Empty words which aren't exemplified by your actions/ posts.
And yes the paternal family tree you provided looks like it fits a nested hierarchy.
Also a peternal family tree in which the father only has one son, who in turn doesn't have any children, is not much of a nested hierarchy. Then if that son dies...
I will also note AGAIN that any paternal family tree has absolutely NOTHING to do with Common Descent.
Zachriel:
The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines.
That is your claim, however you have failed to substantiate it.
Also as science has shown lines can be crossed in any Common Descent scenario. Prediction- Zachriel will continue to ignore the data and continue down some irrelevant path.
At 9:18 AM,
Joe G said…
The main problem with "paternal family trees" are that they are only as valid as the people who directly observe them.
Also the criteria for creating a paternal family great is very different from the criteria used to create a "tree of life".
In a family tree a crossover is a logical fallacy. In the tree of life it could be commonplace.
At 9:37 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Also a peternal family tree in which the father only has one son, who in turn doesn't have any children, is not much of a nested hierarchy. Then if that son dies..."
Then that line goes extinct.
joe g: "I will also note AGAIN that any paternal family tree has absolutely NOTHING to do with Common Descent."
A nested hierarchy is a specific pattern and has certain attributes across the class. If there is a tree-of-life, i.e. a nested hierarchy, then it shares the attributes of this class.
Zachriel: The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines.
joe g: "That is your claim, however you have failed to substantiate it."
It follows directly from the definition. "Descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines" leads precisely to the topology of the paternal family tree, an instance of the nested hierarchy.
joe g: "In a family tree a crossover is a logical fallacy."
In a paternal family tree. Of course, as previously mentioned, the general family tree is not a nested hierarchy and every sexual union is an opportunity for a recombination of traits.
joe g: "In the tree of life it could be commonplace."
This is an empirical question and one worth discussing. However, we can't proceed until we are sure of the validity of this claim, The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines..
At 1:23 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "I will also note AGAIN that any paternal family tree has absolutely NOTHING to do with Common Descent."
Zachriel:
A nested hierarchy is a specific pattern and has certain attributes across the class.
WTF? That has nothing to do with what I said.
Zachriel:
If there is a tree-of-life, i.e. a nested hierarchy, then it shares the attributes of this class.
Again that has nothing to do with what I said.
Zachriel: The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines.
joe g: "That is your claim, however you have failed to substantiate it."
Zachriel:
It follows directly from the definition. "Descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines" leads precisely to the topology of the paternal family tree, an instance of the nested hierarchy.
Now you're just being a dork. Either that or you really can't comprehend what I am posting. In which case you're just a "dee-d-dee".
But thak you for fulfilling my prediction.
The criteria for creating a paternal family great is very different from the criteria used to create a "tree of life".
Now about this:
The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines..
It depends on the criteria used, as well as the sample taken.
At 2:37 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines.
joe g: "That is your claim, however you have failed to substantiate it."
Zachriel: It follows directly from the definition. "Descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines" leads precisely to the topology of the paternal family tree, an instance of the nested hierarchy.
joe g: "Now you're just being a dork. Either that or you really can't comprehend what I am posting. In which case you're just a 'dee-d-dee'."
Not a comment likely to be seen as strengthening your argument.
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
First and foremost, descent is an ordered pattern. A descendent can never be their own ancestor. We will call the ancestor the 'father', and the descendents, 'sons'. The sons of a father constitute a set. Each of these sons can also be a father, and the sons of each also constitutes a set. Each of these subsets is completely contained within the larger superset. This is called a containment or nested hierarchy.
Now, you might claim that there are reasons other than common descent that a nested hierarchy could form, but that is not being disputed. The claim is that descent and divergence along uncrossed lines comprises a nested hierarchy.
joe g: "It depends on the criteria used, as well as the sample taken."
The claim is not an empirical fact, but a consequent of the definition.
joe g: "The criteria for creating a paternal family great is very different from the criteria used to create a 'tree of life'."
We haven't attempted taxonomy, yet. As you keep making reference to the nested hierarchy, it would behoove us to fully comprehend it before proceeding.
At 4:11 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel,
You have done nothing, nada, zip, zilch to strengthen your argument.
All you are doing is stalling via deception.
Zachriel:
First and foremost, descent is an ordered pattern.
No, it isn't. It only goes in one direction (or stops). But that does not equate to order.
Just following a large family's FAMILY tree for say 10 generations would refute any ordered pattern claim.
Zachriel:
A descendent can never be their own ancestor.
But descendent populations can revert to their ancestor's type and be indistinctive from them.
Zachriel:
As you keep making reference to the nested hierarchy, it would behoove us to fully comprehend it before proceeding.
That you think that Common Descent predicts a nested hierarchy tells me will we never proceed. That is because you obviously don't and won't "fully comprehend it".
And as I have been telling you for weeks- paternal family trees are a bad example to use. It only has a single criterion to fulfill that determines what subset you belong to.
Can anyone provide any other examples of nested hierarchy that only has one requirement for set determination?
At 4:32 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: First and foremost, descent is an ordered pattern.
joe g: "No, it isn't. It only goes in one direction (or stops). But that does not equate to order."
My Goodness. In set theory, an ordered set is one in which the elements are reflexive, transitive and antisymmetrical, e.g. the integers. In the case of descent, "it only goes in one direction". That's exactly right. You cannot be your own ancestor.
joe g: "But descendent populations can revert to their ancestor's type and be indistinctive from them."
joe g: "That you think that Common Descent predicts a nested hierarchy tells me will we never proceed."
Um, we haven't got up to the Theory of Common Descent. That requires an understanding of reproductive isolation and taxonomy. I will be happy to proceed when you admit to the understanding that descent and divergence along uncrossed lines inevitably results in a nested hierarchy — by definition.
At 7:26 AM,
Joe G said…
Again, merely going in one direction does NOT equate to order. Especially when that direction is just away from the starting point.
Zachriel:
Um, we haven't got up to the Theory of Common Descent.
Stop stalling.
Zachriel:
That requires an understanding of reproductive isolation and taxonomy.
I understand both.
Zachriel:
I will be happy to proceed when you admit to the understanding that descent and divergence along uncrossed lines inevitably results in a nested hierarchy — by definition.
Show me from where you got that definition.
At 7:51 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Stop stalling."
The vast majority of biologists consider the nested hierarchy to be crucial evidence in support of the Theory of Common Descent. There is no reasonable discussion possible of this evidence until you understand the nature of the pattern at issue.
joe g: "Show me from where you got that definition."
Um, you provided such a definition yourself, customized for biological uses. However, a more general definition of a contaiment hierarchy can be found here.
Try to draw a diverging line-of-descent such that no lines intersect. You will find the familiar topology of a tree. Or, if you prefer, you can work with standard set diagrams. Descent will always form a nested hierarchy as long as no descendent has more than one direct ancestor, in which case, each member of the set will inevitably have one-and-only-one ancestral line.
Making this determination has nothing to do with biology or empiricism, but the nature of sets.
At 8:24 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The vast majority of biologists consider the nested hierarchy to be crucial evidence in support of the Theory of Common Descent.
Either provide a reference to support that claim or admit it is nothing but another bald assertion.
Also show that said biologists use only ONE characteristic when determining sets- as in what goes n what set.
joe g: "Show me from where you got that definition."
Zachriel:
you provided such a definition yourself, customized for biological uses.
You have serious problems. That was NOT part of the definition. It was part of the post-definition bloviating.
And again- I challenge Zachriel to demonstrate that any scientist would determine a set in a sted hierarchy scheme by using one and only one characteristic.
For that is all Zachriel has when using his examples.
At 10:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Zachriel:
The vast majority of biologists consider the nested hierarchy to be crucial evidence in support of the Theory of Common Descent.
If any of those alleged "vast majority" are reading this I challenge you to read Chapter 6 in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and then tell us how Denton is incorrect.
I should also note that just because a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a branching tree does not mean a branching tree equates to nested hierarchy.
At 10:51 AM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: The vast majority of biologists consider the nested hierarchy to be crucial evidence in support of the Theory of Common Descent.
joe g: "Either provide a reference to support that claim or admit it is nothing but another bald assertion."
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
That the nested hierarchy is the primary evidence of common descent starts with Darwin's Origin of Species and leads to today's scientific journals and research programs on Cladistics
and Systematics.
joe g: "Also show that said biologists use only ONE characteristic when determining sets- as in what goes n what set."
We haven't attempted taxonomy yet. As you keep making reference to the nested hierarchy, it would behoove us to fully comprehend it before proceeding.
Do you understand why descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines comprises a nested hierarchy? If a descendent has only one immediate ancestor, then each descendent can trace one-and-only-one ancestral history. Just as a twig on a tree has one-and-only-one path to the trunk.
If we are ok with this, then I would be happy to proceed to discussing how objects can be arbitrarily arranged into patterns.
At 10:52 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "I should also note that just because a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a branching tree does not mean a branching tree equates to nested hierarchy."
A branching tree is an *instance* of a nested hierarchy.
At 11:03 AM,
Joe G said…
Here is something else to consider-
In Zachriel's "paternal fammily tree" example if the sets consist of the entire generation- ie starting "set" = Father; second "set" = ALL of his sons; next "set" = ALL of their sons; etc., then all we have is a flow chart.
However if each son is considered a "set" and each of their sons is a subsequent set, it becomes apparent there isn't any "groups within groups" to talk about.
At 11:29 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe g: Here is something else to consider-
In Zachriel's "paternal fammily tree" example"
Well, you could arrange them by height, but that's not the issue. You have already indicated that you accept that the cited paternal family tree represents a nested hierarchy. The easiest way to describe each set is to name each father's sons (meaning all male descendents) by his name.
The sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali
The sons of Abdullah
The sons of Talal
The sons of Hussein I
Each of these sets is nested in the set above it in the hierarchy. (The sons of Nayef is an empty set.)
At 1:31 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "I should also note that just because a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a branching tree does not mean a branching tree equates to nested hierarchy."
Zachriel:
A branching tree is an *instance* of a nested hierarchy.
No it isn't.
Now for more decption:
Zachriel: The vast majority of biologists consider the nested hierarchy to be crucial evidence in support of the Theory of Common Descent.
joe g: "Either provide a reference to support that claim or admit it is nothing but another bald assertion."
Zachriel:
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
Umm, that does NOT support your assertion. Also the NAS claim has been shown to be crapola.
Zachriel:
That the nested hierarchy is the primary evidence of common descent starts with Darwin's Origin of Species and leads to today's scientific journals and research programs on Cladistics
and Systematics.
That is mere BS. Darwin disagrees with you in the book you cite!
And as I said if you think nested hierarchy is evidence for Common Descent then there is no way we will EVER get past the point of understanding nested hierarchy.
And actually I reluctantly agreed to the use of a paternal family tree as an example of nested hierarchy. I did so only for the sake of argument.
So in each of your "sets" there are any number of nodes?
The challenge stands- obviously Zachriel does NOT intend to read the relevant referenced material but that is not a refutation of that material.
At 2:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel's paternal example only looks good if the numbers are low- IOW if the original father has a manageable number of sons, who in turn do the same. However with a high volume of sons, who in turn do the same, those good looks fade into obscurity.
At 4:14 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Zachriel:
A branching tree is an *instance* of a nested hierarchy.
No it isn't."
Handwaving. In fact, the branches of a tree can be defined as sets, just as the branches of the Sharif Hussein bin Ali paternal family tree can be defined as sets. I note you did not even attempt to look at the issue in detail. Let's try again.
The easiest way to describe each set is to name each father's sons (meaning all male descendents) by their father's name.
The sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali
The sons of Abdullah
The sons of Talal
The sons of Hussein I
Every male descendent of Hussein is a male descendent of Talal. Every male descendent of Talal is a male descendent of Abdullah. Every male descendent of Abdullah is a male descendent of Sharif Hussein bin Ali. These sets are clearly nested. And every paternal family tree has this characteristic nesting, as do the branches of a tree. This is so trivial and obvious, I'm surprised this is something you would argue.
joe g: "And actually I reluctantly agreed to the use of a paternal family tree as an example of nested hierarchy. I did so only for the sake of argument."
Actually you said, "And yes the paternal family tree you provided looks like it fits a nested hierarchy."
Which it does. As does every paternal family tree, as do the branches of a tree. The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines.
Try drawing a few such diagrams.
At 7:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
A branching tree is an *instance* of a nested hierarchy.
No it isn't."
Zachriel:
Handwaving.
But that is ALL you are doing!
Zachriel:
In fact, the branches of a tree can be defined as sets,...
That is just plain ole nonsense. You are jusy making stuff up, throwing at the wall and hoping it sticks.
I noticed you ignored this:
Zachriel's paternal example only looks good if the numbers are low- IOW if the original father has a manageable number of sons, who in turn do the same. However with a high volume of sons, who in turn do the same, those good looks fade into obscurity.
You also ignored the fact that Darwin disagrees with you in the book YOU cited!
Zachriel:
The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines.
That is also unsubstantiated nonsense. You just can't repeating nonsense and hope it will turn into something tangible.
Trees do NOT form a nested hierarchy. That a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a branching tree does not mean a branching tree equates to nested hierarchy.
That evolution does NOT have a direction- as the SCIENCE demonstrates- would tell any and every objective person that nested hierarchy would not be an expected outcome of evolution.
Earlier Zachriel mentioned cladistics. It should be noted cladograms do NOT directly convey who came from whom.
At 8:00 AM,
Zachriel said…
This is a probably a question of taxonomy.
joe g: "I noticed you ignored this:
Zachriel's paternal example only looks good if the numbers are low- IOW if the original father has a manageable number of sons, who in turn do the same. However with a high volume of sons, who in turn do the same, those good looks fade into obscurity."
That is incorrect. It doesn't matter how many branches are involved, its a mathematical certainty that paternal descent will form a nested hierarchy. In practice, when confronted with limited evidence, it may be difficult to reconstruct a nested hierarchy. But that is an issue of taxonomy and systematics. We will approach that subject after you admit to an understanding of the pattern of a nested hierarchy.
joe g: "Trees do NOT form a nested hierarchy. That a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a branching tree does not mean a branching tree equates to nested hierarchy."
This is incorrect. We can name the sets similar to the way we named the branches of the paternal hierarchy. The set containing the main trunk and its descendents we can call Sharif Hussein bin Ali and his descendents. A large branch of that trunk can be called Abdullah and his descendents. And so on. The twigs of Hussein I are wholly contained within the stem of Talal which are wholly contained within the branch of Abdullah which is wholly contained within the main trunk and its descendents we called Sharif Hussein bin Ali.
joe g: "It should be noted cladograms do NOT directly convey who came from whom."
Cladistics is a type of systematics that uses the *differences* among organisms to infer ancestry, but the cladogram itself does directly diagram these posited evolutionary relationships.
cladistics: a system of biological taxonomy that defines taxa uniquely by shared characteristics not found in ancestral groups and uses inferred evolutionary relationships to arrange taxa in a branching hierarchy such that all members of a given taxon have the same ancestors.
cladogram: a branching diagrammatic tree used in cladistic classification to illustrate phylogenetic relationships.
phylogenetic: based on natural evolutionary relationships.
At 8:08 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "That evolution does NOT have a direction- as the SCIENCE demonstrates- would tell any and every objective person that nested hierarchy would not be an expected outcome of evolution."
We're not up to taxonomy or evolutionary relationships. We are discussing a particular pattern that you have repeatedly referenced, the nested hierarchy.
The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines.
Draw some diagrams of "descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines". You will find that they all inevitably form nested hierarchies.
Trunks, branches, stems and twigs are nested. We make a single cut of a branch, and all its stems and twigs are cut off from the trunk, as well. This is an inevitable consequence of how trees grow. However, a web is not a nested hierarchy. Cut an arbitrary thread, and the rest of the web will probably be little disturbed.
Once you understand this basic principle, we can proceed to how we can arbitrarily arrange objects into patterns. Then on to taxonomy!
At 9:29 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Earlier Zachriel mentioned cladistics. It should be noted cladograms do NOT directly convey who came from whom."
Here is a Google Images search for cladograms only on .edu domains. They each show a standard nested tree diagram *directly* indicating the posited ancestors. This example from Yale Research depicts "evolutionary trees showing the effect of extinction on biodiversity. The tree on the left depicts the real events in history, with species formed by lineage branching but most going extinct. Only one branch survive to the present day. The tree on the right depicts what the evolutionary tree would appear to be if species never went extinct; species would continue branching (creating more biodiversity) until reaching a point of saturation." Both trees are nested structures, of course.
At 1:38 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Trees do NOT form a nested hierarchy. That a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a branching tree does not mean a branching tree equates to nested hierarchy."
Zachriel:
This is incorrect.
Again you are wrong for the many reasons already provided. One is that I can take several twigs from several branches of any given tree and you would not be able to place them back correctly. The other is that the same DNA will be found throughout the tree or any differences will not relate to any hierarchy.
Try making a nested hierarchy starting with one asexually reproducing single-celled organism and following it for a month in a scenario condusive for reproductive success.
Then come back and talk to me.
Zachriel:
The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines.
Nope. You can say that all you want but it will always remain meaningless until you find something to support it.
Zachriel
Draw some diagrams of "descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines". You will find that they all inevitably form nested hierarchies.
It forms a branching something.
You still don't understand nested hierarchy. Even though you link to cladistics you don't understand them either.
Zachriel:
They each show a standard nested tree diagram *directly* indicating the posited ancestors.
I know what they do. I know what they assume. It is that assumption that is being questioned. Also if all the alleged ancestors were alive we would have the bush but lose the nested hierarchy.
joe g: "It should be noted cladograms do NOT directly convey who came from whom."
Zachriel:
Cladistics is a type of systematics that uses the *differences* among organisms to infer ancestry, but the cladogram itself does directly diagram these posited evolutionary relationships.
They use similarities to infer ancestry and the differences to determine the distance. Did you read the cite you provided? LoL!
Also that doesn't even address what I posted. No one uses the "characteristic" who's your daddy? for determining a cladagram.
Also remember Agassiz:
What we call branches expresses, in fact, a purely ideal connection between animals, the intellectual conception which unites them in creative thought. It seems to me the more we examine the true significance of this kind of group, the more we shall be convinced that they are not founded upon material relations.
Nested hierarchy works best when the items being placed exist only on the periphery. Anything that doesn't exist on the periphery either requires its own class, which muddles the order and creates a possible crossover.
Also as I have stated cladistics and nested hierarchy just state that differences exist without ever explaining those differences.
At 3:32 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "One is that I can take several twigs from several branches of any given tree and you would not be able to place them back correctly."
You're trying to apply taxonomy which is not the issue. It is quite possible that using taxonomy alone we might not be able to distinguish which of two brothers fathered which cousins.
We have defined the parts of a tree based on their relationship to one another, just as we define sons based on their family relationships -- not on their individual taxonomic characteristics.
joe g: "Try making a nested hierarchy starting with one asexually reproducing single-celled organism and following it for a month in a scenario condusive for reproductive success."
They would be clones and probably taxonomically indistinguishable. However, if we were to trace each organism as they reproduce, their descent would still form a nested hierarchy.
Zachriel: Draw some diagrams of "descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines". You will find that they all inevitably form nested hierarchies.
joe g: "It forms a branching something."
"Something"? There are names for patterns. Please provide us an image of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines that does not comprise a nested hierarchy.
--
Correction: Cladistics is a type of systematics that uses the *derived similarities* among organisms to infer ancestry. Sorry for the confusion.
--
We'll try again. We are not discussing taxonomy or evolution. We are discussing a specific mathematical relationship, one you have made repeated reference to. A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
Consider a pattern generated by descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines. By definition, each and every descendent can have one and only one direct ancestor (or lines would cross). The descendent will be contained in the set that includes the direct ancestor and any other descendents of that ancestor. This set will also be contained in any set that includes the ancestor's ancestor, and so on to the top of the tree.
It would not form a nested hierarchy if a descendent can have more than one direct ancestor (such as in a general family tree). With crossed lines, the sets overlap and are not strictly nested.
Don't they teach basic set theory in your country?
At 5:47 PM,
Joe G said…
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
Show us one commonly used instance of nested hierarchy that only uses ONE defining characteristic.
Show us one such example in which not one defining characteristic is NOT "who's your daddy?" or "who's your momma?"
That way I will really know if you know what nested hierarchy really is.
Until then chew on this:
starting on the bottom of page 136-
"If the hierarchy suggests any model of nature it is typology and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature's divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the system naturae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity."
Sooner or later Zachriel will have to either deal with the refutation presented by Dr Denton or he can choose to wallow in arrogant ignorance...
At 7:14 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Show us one commonly used instance of nested hierarchy that only uses ONE defining characteristic."
I already did that. The paternal family tree has been used throughout human history to apportion wealth and power. Many family names are inherited solely through the paternal line.
But, you are still conflating taxonomy with the nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy itself is simply a defined relationship between sets, i.e. a pattern. Descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines leads to a nested hierarchy *defined in terms of that descent*. A father has sons. The sons become fathers.
In the case of a paternal family tree, we define the sets based on male descent (sons). The twigs of Hussein I are wholly contained within the stem of Talal which are wholly contained within the branch of Abdullah which is wholly contained within the main trunk of Sharif Hussein bin Ali. This defined assignment to sets has nothing to do with taxonomy, but paternity.
(What the end-points of the process of descent might look like is a taxonomic issue, e.g. the descendents of "asexually reproducing single-celled organism" will be clones and generally indistinguishable.)
joe g: "Sooner or later Zachriel will have to either deal with the refutation presented by Dr Denton or he can choose to wallow in arrogant ignorance..."
Denton's argument is that Common Descent does not necessarily imply that we can detect the nested hierarchy in the extant twigs of the tree of descent. I would be happy to deal with those issues, but we cannot proceed until we have a clear understanding of the terms being used in that discussion.
--
0. Grouping items into sets.
1. Nested hierarchy.
2. Arbitrary arrangements.
3. Taxonomy, using independently derived traits to group objects.
...
We're still on #1.
At 7:50 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Show us one commonly used instance of nested hierarchy that only uses ONE defining characteristic."
Zachriel:
I already did that. The paternal family tree has been used throughout human history to apportion wealth and power. Many family names are inherited solely through the paternal line.
As far as I can tell YOU are the only person who uses the paternal family tree as an example of nested hierarchy. Other people may use it but not as an example of NH.
I will also note your failure to provide an example which does NOT use "who's your dadday"" or "who's your momma?" as a characteristic.
I take both failures to mean you do NOT understand nested hierarchy.
joe g: "Sooner or later Zachriel will have to either deal with the refutation presented by Dr Denton or he can choose to wallow in arrogant ignorance..."
Zachriel:
Denton's argument is that Common Descent does not necessarily imply that we can detect the nested hierarchy in the extant twigs of the tree of descent.
That is the basics but there is more. And it happens to be true for all the reasons already provided. The reasons that you keep ignoring.
Zachriel:
I would be happy to deal with those issues, but we cannot proceed until we have a clear understanding of the terms being used in that discussion.
IOW you will never deal with the real issues. Never. And that is because you will never understand the terms being used.- Anyone who thinks a tree is a nested hierarchy should not even be debated.
By placing items into sets you need some way of being able to pull items from their sets and have someone else place them back in their proper places (someone who did not see you remove them and replaced them solely of the set criteria).
At 7:55 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "By placing items into sets you need some way of being able to pull items from their sets and have someone else place them back in their proper places (someone who did not see you remove them and replaced them solely of the set criteria)."
Clearly we are still on step #0.
You do not understand set theory. A set is not a box you put things into. A set is a collection of objects, abstract or otherwise. Constructing a set does require a clear definition of the members of the set.
But you already agreed that we can consider that the male children of a father can be considered a set, so I don't see why we have moved backwards. And we can consider the twigs on a stem to be a set.
What seems to be your problem with this?
At 8:13 AM,
Zachriel said…
I have some apples. Let's call this collection of apples "my bushel of apples". Now, these apples look just like any apples, but these are my apples, and these are the apples I want to talk about. Maybe I'll sell "my bushel of apples", maybe I'll eat "my bushel of apples", or maybe I'll make cider with "my bushel of apples".
So is "my bushel of apples" a properly defined set?
At 9:32 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Clearly we are still on step #0.
If we are it is of your own doing by introducing irrelevant examples and nonsensical analogies as opposed to just sticking with the definition(s) provided and seeing if Common Descent would predict such a thing.
Zachriel:
You do not understand set theory.
You don't undertstand nested hierarchy. That is obvious if you think that a process that is not limited in direction, displays oscillation as a rule, and shold be "largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity".
BTW using arbitrary sets further exposes your deceptive tatctics.
Your Yale link which you cited :
The tree on the right depicts what the evolutionary tree would appear to be if species never went extinct;
Is total BS because they never displayed all the spiecies that existed. Just a few that we know about. There are great leaps between those branches. "Hopeful monster plus" leaps.
IOW just another deceptive tactic.
At 9:55 AM,
Zachriel said…
You did not answer this question concerning how sets are constructed.
Is "my bushel of apples" a properly defined set?
At 12:08 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Is "my bushel of apples" a properly defined set?
No. Not in the context of any discussion about nested hierarchy.
In any other context your bushel would be a properly defined set.
With NH you can't have two or more sets with the same characteristics.
In set theory that is allowed. Overlapping is also allowed.
Your deception grows...
At 12:23 PM,
Zachriel said…
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
joe g: "No. Not in the context of any discussion about nested hierarchy.
In any other context your bushel would be a properly defined set."
The definition of a set doesn't change willy-nilly when we talk about a nested hierarchy.
As we aren't discussing the nested hierarchy at this point, then the answer is yes, "my bushel of apples" constitutes a properly defined set. Please notice that it is defined by ownership and not by taxonomic categorization.
Here are some other sets:
"Sam's three sons"
"three twigs on a single branch"
Any problem with this so far?
joe g: "With NH you can't have two or more sets with the same characteristics."
We're getting ahead of ourselves again. You're trying to apply taxonomy to derive a nested hierarchy.
At 1:16 PM,
Joe G said…
If Zachriel wants to see a REAL example of nested hierarchy all he has to do is make that very unfamiliar trip to his local library and check out the Dewey Decimal Classification system.
That is if they have libraries in his country and that they use such a system.
Zachriel:
The definition of a set doesn't change willy-nilly when we talk about a nested hierarchy.
True. There isn't anything "willy-nilly" about it. The fact remains you just can't take any ole collection of sets, that were arbitrarily thrown together, and create a nested hierarchy from that collection.
However you just provided more evidence that demonstrates you don't know what you are talking about.
joe g: "With NH you can't have two or more sets with the same characteristics."
Zachriel:
We're getting ahead of ourselves again.
That's because you only know four "speeds"- obstruct, distract, conflate and confuse.
Zachriel:
You're trying to apply taxonomy to derive a nested hierarchy.
Wrong again.
However it is obvious that you are trying to apply deception to derive NH.
Let's see how you do with the DDC example...
At 1:43 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "If Zachriel wants to see a REAL example of nested hierarchy all he has to do is make that very unfamiliar trip to his local library and check out the system."
Yes, the Dewey Decimal Classification system is an arrangement of books into a nested hierarchy, but is not the only way to do so.
joe g: "True. There isn't anything "willy-nilly" about it. The fact remains you just can't take any ole collection of sets, that were arbitrarily thrown together, and create a nested hierarchy from that collection."
Sure you can, though such an arrangement may or may not have utility.
A traditional military command structure is a type of nested hierarchy. The advantage of such a system is that once an order is given, every branch below that in the hierarchy implements the order, and orders are non-conflicting because each branch has only one command. This type of organization is often represented with a tree-diagram.
--
Ok, let's review our list.
0. Grouping items into sets.
A set is a collection of distinct things considered as a whole. The criteria for selection can be as arbitrary as "what do I have in my pocket?"
E.g., a man's male descendents can be considered as a set.
1. Nested hierarchy.
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
E.g., the set of Hussein's male descendents is strictly nested within the superset of Sharif Hussein bin Ali's male descendents. A nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines.
2. Arbitrary arrangements.
Objects can be arranged into patterns without regard to their intrinsic characteristics.
E.g., otherwise identical soldiers can be arranged in nested hierarchies (a military bureaucracy) for the purpose of command.
3. Taxonomy, using independently derived traits to group objects.
...
Are we good on 0 through 2?
At 8:08 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Yes, the Dewey Decimal Classification system is an arrangement of books into a nested hierarchy, but is not the only way to do so.
I am sure that anything that can be arranged in a nested hierarchy can also be arranged via other schemes.
joe g: "True. There isn't anything "willy-nilly" about it. The fact remains you just can't take any ole collection of sets, that were arbitrarily thrown together, and create a nested hierarchy from that collection."
Zachriel:
Sure you can,
Only you would say something like that. But then again you don't understand NH.
Oh well. This has been and still is going nowhere.
Zachriel,
Read the references I have given. I have shown you the courtesy of reading yours- albeit only to find out what you provided was either irrelevant or didn't support your claims.
Now if you are unwilling to read the references I provided there is no use continuing with this. Especially in the light that you aren't any authority and I have authorities telling me you are wrong.
At 10:15 PM,
Zachriel said…
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
Please provide a definition of a set, and explain why these are or are not sets:
Sam's three sons.
Three twigs on a single branch.
My bushel of apples.
The contents of my pocket.
What if my pocket is empty?
At 10:34 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Now if you are unwilling to read the references I provided there is no use continuing with this. Especially in the light that you aren't any authority and I have authorities telling me you are wrong."
The primary reference you provided indicated that "a nested hierarchy is the almost inevitable result of descent with modification, if no transfer of traits between branches of descent is possible." I agree with this statement, and it derives directly from the definition of a nested hierarchy as an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
I have also already indicated that I would be happy to discuss Denton's ideas, but only after you have demonstrated a basic understanding of the nested hierarchy. As the nested hierarchy is a notion in sets, that means you have to have a foundation in set theory.
At 10:37 PM,
Zachriel said…
I know you indicated that winning arguments is of paramount importance to you, but in case you are actually interested in learning, you could try an introductory textbook on set theory, such as Hrbacek's "Introduction to Set Theory" or Enderton's "Elements of Set Theory".
At 9:13 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel continues to expose his dishonesty:
I know you indicated that winning arguments is of paramount importance to you
You know no such thing because I never indicated any such thing.
Zachriel:
Please provide a definition of a set,
I know what a set is buttwipe. I also know that what a set is is irrelevant to this discussion.
joe g: "Now if you are unwilling to read the references I provided there is no use continuing with this. Especially in the light that you aren't any authority and I have authorities telling me you are wrong."
and more dishonesty:
The primary reference you provided indicated that "a nested hierarchy is the almost inevitable result of descent with modification, if no transfer of traits between branches of descent is possible."
The primary reference was and still is chapter 6 in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".
The reference you are referring to was a secondary reference used to merely define nested hierarchy. But instead of focusing on the definition you continue to focus on the unsubstantiated bloviation the cite provided.
Zachriel:
I have also already indicated that I would be happy to discuss Denton's ideas, but only after you have demonstrated a basic understanding of the nested hierarchy.
I have demonstrated that basic understanding by providing examples of nested hierarchies.
And you can't discuss Denton until you have read the chapter in question.
Now I refuse to discuss anything else with you until you read that chapter and respond to the points made.
Zachriel:
As the nested hierarchy is a notion in sets, that means you have to have a foundation in set theory.
Set theory allows for overlapping. NH does not. Therefore it is deceptive to discuss set theory in light of NH.
I will also note that in all this time Zachriel has FAILED to make any point except the point he can be deceptive and dense with the best.
And if Zachriel is interested in actually learning something he should read Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". However I know he won't because it is easier to argue from ignorance and try to project that ignorance onto more knowledgeable opponents.
At 10:31 AM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: Please provide a definition of a set, and explain why these are or are not sets:
Sam's three sons.
Three twigs on a single branch.
My bushel of apples.
The contents of my pocket.
What if my pocket is empty?
joe g: "I know what a set is buttwipe."
In other words, you can't answer the questions for the benefit of our readers.
joe g: "I also know that what a set is is irrelevant to this discussion."
Sets are the basis of mathematics and of the mathematics of pattern. The nested hierarchy is defined in terms of sets. As you used the term "nested hierarchy" in the original post, that makes the definition of a set relevant.
joe g: "Now I refuse to discuss anything else with you until you read that chapter and respond to the points made."
You don't have to respond, but it would less than honest for you not to post my response.
In any case, I would be happy to discuss Denton's ideas. In particular, his statements on the analysis and definition of nodes are faulty. As his assertions concern the nested hierarchy, then we can't discuss his analysis without understanding the fundamental properties of hierarchical structures.
There should be no reason to still be contending about the uncontroversial nature of sets.
joe g: "Set theory allows for overlapping. NH does not. Therefore it is deceptive to discuss set theory in light of NH."
That's a standard category error. The nested hierarchy is a type of set pattern. Not all sets are nested hierarchies, but all nested hierarchies are sets.
joe g: "And if Zachriel is interested in actually learning something he should read Denton's 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis'."
I would be happy to discuss Denton and his book. However, you have indicated several misunderstandings concerning the nested hierarchy. As long as you continue with your misunderstandings, we can't advance the discussion.
I really didn't think this would be so difficult. This is how I had hoped this discussion to proceed:
Z: A set is an arbitrary collection of elements. A coin, a key and a grocery list are a set.
J: Really?!
Z: They are the set "What is in my pocket".
J: Ok, so a set is an arbitrary collection of things.
Z: Or ideas.
J: How so? And what does this have to do with the "nested hierarchy"?
Z: A "memory of a warm breeze" is an element of the set of "memories from my vacation", and that is a set nested within the set of "all my memories".
J: So a nested set just means a set that is completely contained within another.
Z: Quite so! Now you have it. So referring to a paternal family tree, the male descendents of Hussein I is a set nested within the larger set of the male descendents of Sharif Hussein bin Ali.
J: That's obviously so. It's just like a tree! And it appears that all patterns of descent would be that way.
Z: Not quite. If we include mothers *and* fathers, then your mother's ancestry is distinct from your father's ancestry. The sets are not nested, but overlapping.
J: So the nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence, *but* only as long as lines are uncrossed.
--
Z: I have three objects on a table; an apple, an orange, and a rock. How can we group these?
J: Well, the apple and the orange would be grouped together.
Z: Could we group the apple and rock together?
J: Well, according to the rules of sets, I suppose you could, but it wouldn't be the *best* way to categorize them, I don't think.
Z: That's right. We can group them any way we want, and we can arrange them in any pattern we want, but there are characteristics of the objects that allow for natural groupings.
J: That's right. Apples and oranges are both parts of plants.
Z: Ripened plant ovaries. And now we can begin a discussion of how scientists use independently derived traits to determine the taxanomic groupings of organisms, and how these groupings form nested sets.
J: I see now why we have to understand how sets are formed before proceeding to the much more complex task of assigning organisms to the various sets biologists refer to as "taxa".
At 1:46 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Now I refuse to discuss anything else with you until you read that chapter and respond to the points made."
Zachriel:
You don't have to respond, but it would less than honest for you not to post my response.
I will gladly post your nonsense so that people can see how messed up you are.
Also you aren't in any position to talk about honesty. You are one of the most dishonest people I have ever read.
joe g: "Set theory allows for overlapping. NH does not. Therefore it is deceptive to discuss set theory in light of NH."
Zachriel:
That's a standard category error.
Trying to discuss anything with you is a category error. Saying that NH does not allow overlapping is a fact.
ZAchriel:
Not all sets are nested hierarchies,
THAT is what I said. You have many issues and should see someone about them.
joe g: "And if Zachriel is interested in actually learning something he should read Denton's 'Evolution: A Theory in Crisis'."
Zachriel:
I would be happy to discuss Denton and his book.
Now you are lying.
Zachriel:
However, you have indicated several misunderstandings concerning the nested hierarchy.
All misunderstandings are yours and yours alone.
and the following just shows how FoS Zachriel is:
In any case, I would be happy to discuss Denton's ideas. In particular, his statements on the analysis and definition of nodes are faulty. As his assertions concern the nested hierarchy, then we can't discuss his analysis without understanding the fundamental properties of hierarchical structures.
First you have to read what Denton says before you can comment on it. Seeing that you haven't read Denton then any comments about what he said are pure BS.
Zachriel:
This is how I had hoped this discussion to proceed:
And I would have hoped that you would have read the referenced material before running your trap.
I also would have hoped that you had something, anything that would substantiate your claims. I provided plenty of references to substantiate mine.
At 3:28 PM,
Joe G said…
Earth to Zachriel:
Denton page 122
"Biological classification is basically the identification of groups of organisms which share certain characteristics in common and its beginnings are therefore as old as man himself. It was Aristotle who first formulated the general logical principles of classification and founded the subject as science. His method employed many of the principles which are still used by biologists today. He was, for example, well aware of the importance of using more than one characteristic as a basis for identifying classes, and he was also aware of the difficult problem which has bedeviled taxonomy ever since: that of selecting the characteristics to be used and weighing their relative significance."
Good night, and good luck...
At 5:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: That's a standard category error. The nested hierarchy is a type of set pattern. Not all sets are nested hierarchies, but all nested hierarchies are sets.
joe g: "THAT is what I said."
Actually, you said this.
joe g: "Set theory allows for overlapping. NH does not. Therefore it is deceptive to discuss set theory in light of NH."
This is a faulty assertion. When discussing nested hierarchies, we ARE talking about set theory. Your statement treated them as disjunct categories. Ironically, they are nested.
--
joe g (quoting Denton): ""Biological classification ..."
Well, there you are. The very first words concern sets.
class: a group, set, or kind sharing common attributes.
--
Please provide a definition of a set, and explain why these are or are not sets:
Sam's male descendents.
Twigs on a single branch.
My bushel of apples.
The contents of my pocket.
What if my pocket is empty?
They are all sets, of course. Just say so, and we can move on.
--
Following are the issues we are trying to resolve. They are definitional and non-controversial.
* A set is a collection of distinct things considered as a whole.
* A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
* The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines. A tree.
--
If we resolve these issues, we can move on to how we use independently derived traits to derive a taxonomy.
At 6:24 PM,
Joe G said…
The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines. A tree.
That is NOT definitional. That you would say such further exposes your dishonesty.
joe g: "Set theory allows for overlapping. NH does not. Therefore it is deceptive to discuss set theory in light of NH."
Zachriel:
This is a faulty assertion.
It is a fact, not an assertion. Which part do you think is incorrect?
A) Set theory allows for overlapping
true or false
B) NH does not allow for overlapping
true or false
Zachriel:
When discussing nested hierarchies, we ARE talking about set theory.
With nested hierarchhies we talk about SPECIFIED sets. Sets that are either wholy inclusive or exclusive. There can be no overlapping. With set theory you can have two sets but each set partially includes the other. These points of overlap would be NH's disallowed crossovers.
Also to expose your selective reading, which firther exposes your dishonesty, just a little history of what I said on sets and NH:
"True. There isn't anything "willy-nilly" about it. The fact remains you just can't take any ole collection of sets, that were arbitrarily thrown together, and create a nested hierarchy from that collection."
Denton page 122
"Biological classification is basically the identification of groups of organisms which share certain characteristics in common and its beginnings are therefore as old as man himself. It was Aristotle who first formulated the general logical principles of classification and founded the subject as science. His method employed many of the principles which are still used by biologists today. He was, for example, well aware of the importance of using more than one characteristic as a basis for identifying classes, and he was also aware of the difficult problem which has bedeviled taxonomy ever since: that of selecting the characteristics to be used and weighing their relative significance."
One has to wonder why Zachriel does NOT understand the importance of something that everyone else has understood for millenia.
Now either Zachriel can choose to deal with reality or continue his dishonesty...
At 11:49 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "A) Set theory allows for overlapping, true or false
B) NH does not allow for overlapping, true or false"
These are both true statements. It was your conclusion that was faulty. From these two facts you claimed that "Therefore it is deceptive to discuss set theory in light of NH." In fact, you are always talking in terms of sets and set theory when talking about the nested hierarchy.
joe g: "The fact remains you just can't take any ole collection of sets, that were arbitrarily thrown together, and create a nested hierarchy from that collection."
Sure you can. But the sets may or may not have any particular utility. The Dewey Decimal System is such an arbitrary (and useful system). Or, nesting books by their first letters to group them into categories could also be used to create a nested hierarchy (Catch-22, Fahrenheit 451, and A Tale of Two Cities would be sorted very close together, while other books by Heller, Bradbury and Dickens might be located in other wings of the library entirely), but such an ordering would probably have less utility. At the extreme, we could create completely arbitrary groupings.
What you are doing is confusing the specific nested hierarchy of taxonomic classification with the nested hierarchy as a pattern of sets. That's why you have trouble recognizing that the paternal family tree or a botanical tree as a nested hierarchy. It's important to recognize exactly what a nested hierarchy is so that when we discuss nodes and taxa that we will be clear what we are talking about.
Are these sets?
* Sam's male descendents.
* Twigs on a single branch.
* My bushel of apples.
* The contents of my pocket.
* What if my pocket is empty?
Of course they are! And we can even nest these sets into other sets. The set 'contents of my pocket' is nested in the set 'contents of everybody's pockets'. It would be helpful if you would explicitly recognize this fact, so that we may move forward.
joe g: "One has to wonder why Zachriel does NOT understand the importance of something that everyone else has understood for millenia."
I am quite aware of the importance of taxonomy to biology. I think we have made some progress on the notion of sets. But please be explicit. Following are the issues we are trying to resolve. They are definitional and non-controversial.
* A set is a collection of distinct things considered as a whole.
* A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
* The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines. A tree.
--
If we resolve these issues, we can move on to how we use independently derived traits to derive a taxonomy.
At 8:00 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "A) Set theory allows for overlapping, true or false
B) NH does not allow for overlapping, true or false"
Zachriel:
These are both true statements.
Thank you.
Zachriel:
It was your conclusion that was faulty.
Doubtful.
Zachriel:
From these two facts you claimed that "Therefore it is deceptive to discuss set theory in light of NH." In fact, you are always talking in terms of sets and set theory when talking about the nested hierarchy.
Umm again you are demonstrating your dishoensty by selecting what you want to read.
What you posted of what I said was preceeded by this:
"True. There isn't anything "willy-nilly" about it. The fact remains you just can't take any ole collection of sets, that were arbitrarily thrown together, and create a nested hierarchy from that collection."
So in that context I was perfectly correct.
joe g: "The fact remains you just can't take any ole collection of sets, that were arbitrarily thrown together, and create a nested hierarchy from that collection."
Zachriel:
Sure you can.
Perhaps in your mind you can. However in the real world it can't be done.
Paternal family "trees" do NOT exist. Here is why:
Trees have roots and a trunk. What are the roots and trunk of a paternal family tree? The original father is really nothing but a node in a larger set.
Zachriel:
* The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines. A tree.
You can't just keep repeating something and hope it will be true.
joe g: "One has to wonder why Zachriel does NOT understand the importance of something that everyone else has understood for millenia."
Zachriel:
I am quite aware of the importance of taxonomy to biology.
Now you are either being willfully ignorant, stupid or just continuing your dishonesty.
Chew on this you dishonest little prick:
He was, for example, well aware of the importance of using more than one characteristic as a basis for identifying classes,
MORE THAN ONE CHARACTERISTIC. Get that through your thick head.
At 8:14 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "So in that context I was perfectly correct."
Geez, Joe G. Context has nothing to do with it. "It is deceptive to discuss set theory in light of NH." is a false statement. A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. You can't talk about nested hierarchies without talking about sets.
joe g: "Paternal family "trees" do NOT exist. Here is why:
Trees have roots and a trunk. What are the roots and trunk of a paternal family tree? The original father is really nothing but a node in a larger set."
By defining out sets thusly. (Sons = male descendents.
The sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali
The sons of Abdullah
The sons of Talal
The sons of Hussein I
The set 'sons of Hussein I' are nested within the set 'sons of Abdullah'. This is an inevitable consequent of of descent with uncrossed lines. Is there a purpuse to why you continue to argue against the obvious?
You never answered the very simple questions I posed.
Are these sets?
* Sam's male descendents.
* Twigs on a single branch.
* My bushel of apples.
* The contents of my pocket.
* What if my pocket is empty?
Is there a reason why you are afraid of these questions?
joe g: "MORE THAN ONE CHARACTERISTIC. Get that through your thick head."
Those are questions of taxonomy. Taxonomy is how we can use independently derived traits to define elements of a set. We will get to that when we reach agreement on the fundamentals of set theory and the nested hiearchy.
At 8:16 AM,
Joe G said…
The reason that any ole sets can't be put into a nested hierarchy is that NH does NOT allow for overlapping and any ole sets can cause overlapping. And that is just the start.
At 8:52 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "So in that context I was perfectly correct."
Zachriel:
Geez, Joe G. Context has nothing to do with it.
Context has everyting to do with it.
Zachriel:
"It is deceptive to discuss set theory in light of NH." is a false statement.
It is a true statement for the reasons already provided. Ignoring those reasons just further exposes your dishonesty (or stupidity).
Now for Zach's deception:
Zachriel:
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
True and that supports what I said.
Zachriel:
You can't talk about nested hierarchies without talking about sets.
Irrelevant. All sets cannot be placed in an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
joe g: "Paternal family "trees" do NOT exist. Here is why:
Trees have roots and a trunk. What are the roots and trunk of a paternal family tree? The original father is really nothing but a node in a larger set."
Zachriel:
By defining out sets thusly.
Umm that does NOT answer anything. All it does is to further expose your deception and dishonesty.
The fact remains that your alleged "paternal family tree" is not a tree at all- for the reasons provided.
joe g: "MORE THAN ONE CHARACTERISTIC. Get that through your thick head."
Zachriel:
Those are questions of taxonomy.
Seeing we are discussing nested hierarchy and Common Descent, taxonomy is very relevant. And any examples that do not use more than one characteristic are irrelevant and deceptive. Although I understand why you choose to do so.
Zachriel:
We will get to that when we reach agreement on the fundamentals of set theory and the nested hiearchy.
Reaching any agreement with you is almost impossible. I will use the standard definitions of both- set theory and nested hierarchy. I don't care if you agree or not. Your agreement is irrelevant to whether or not Common Descent predicts NH.
I have provided many reasons why it does not. All you have provided is dishonesty and irrelevant examples and you still haven't provided any reasons why it does.
At 8:56 AM,
Zachriel said…
You didn't answer the question.
Are these sets?
* Sam's male descendents.
* Twigs on a single branch.
* My bushel of apples.
* The contents of Sam's pocket.
* What if my pocket is empty?
Let's call the contents of a pocket, pocket-stuff. Now, Sam is from Ballyvourney.
* Is the set 'Sam's pocket-stuff' nested within the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'?
* And as Ballyvourney is in County Cork, is the set 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff'?
* And is the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'Irish pocket-stuff'?
These are standard questions in set theory. The answers are probably obvious to our readers.
At 9:01 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Seeing we are discussing nested hierarchy and Common Descent, taxonomy is very relevant."
That is our goal. Currently, we are only discussing the nested hierarchy as a class of sets. That was the original post, after all.
Are we in agreement on the fundamental definitions, then?
* A set is a collection of distinct things considered as a whole.
* A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
* The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines. A tree, such as the sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali.
At 9:01 AM,
Zachriel said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 9:02 AM,
Joe G said…
I will use the standard definitions of both- set theory and nested hierarchy. I don't care if you agree or not. Your agreement is irrelevant to whether or not Common Descent predicts NH.
It is obvious to our readers that you are a dishonest and deceptive poseur.
At 9:07 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "I will use the standard definitions of both- set theory and nested hierarchy."
Then you won't mind providing answers to a few simple questions — for illustrative purposes.
At 9:08 AM,
Joe G said…
At 9:54 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Seeing we are discussing nested hierarchy and Common Descent, taxonomy is very relevant."
Zachriel:
That is our goal.
Yup and anything else would be nothing more than a distraction.
Zachriel:
Currently, we are only discussing the nested hierarchy as a class of sets.
That may be what you and your mouse are discussing but I don't want any part of it. That is because it is nothing but a deceptive distratction.
Zachriel:
That was the original post, after all.
The original post was to further expose your dishonesty. It was also to further examine nested hierarchy and Common Descent, ie taxonomy.
And the following is just plain BS:
Zachriel:
* The nested hierarchy is the inevitable consequent of descent and divergence along *uncrossed* lines.
Again merely re-stating something does NOT make it come true.
Zachriel:
A tree, such as the sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali.
As I have shown such a tree does not exist. Trees have roots, trunks, branches etc. Your example does not have roots nor a trunk.
"MORE THAN ONE CHARACTERISTIC. Get that through your thick head."
At 10:11 AM,
Zachriel said…
In other words, you cannot answer these simple questions concerning sets and the nested hierarchy.
Are these sets?
* Sam's male descendents.
* Twigs on a single branch.
* My bushel of apples.
* The contents of Sam's pocket.
* What if my pocket is empty?
Let's call the contents of a pocket, pocket-stuff. Now, Sam is from Ballyvourney.
* Is the set 'Sam's pocket-stuff' nested within the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'?
* And as Ballyvourney is in County Cork, is the set 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff'?
* And is the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'Irish pocket-stuff'?
These are standard questions in set theory. The answers are probably obvious to our readers. (Let me give you a hint. The answer is "yes" to all these questions.)
At 1:16 PM,
Joe G said…
I will answer questions that pertain to nested hierarchy and Common Descent.
Also your alleged nested hierarchy example is bogus for many reasons. Each reason further expsoes your dishonesty. Which basically means we know you are lying when you post.
Let's call the contents of a pocket, pocket-stuff. Now, Sam is from Ballyvourney.
* Is the set 'Sam's pocket-stuff' nested within the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'?
Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney. And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket.
* And as Ballyvourney is in County Cork, is the set 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff'?
* And is the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'Irish pocket-stuff'?
It all depends. Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies. (substitute Euros, money, keys, etc. for pocket-knives)
Oh, did I say, "MORE THAN ONE CHARACTERISTIC. Get that through your thick head."?
At 3:15 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket."
We now can be certain that you do not understand set theory. You might try an introductory textbook on set theory, such as Hrbacek's "Introduction to Set Theory" or Enderton's "Elements of Set Theory". Or talk to a local mathematician.
At 9:02 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket."
Zachriel:
We now can be certain that you do not understand set theory.
(as Dan Akroyd would say) "Jane you ignorant slut!"
Zachriel, you are either stupid, dishonest or both. What I said has NOTHING to do with set theory and EVERYTHING to do with nested hierarchy.
You do realize that not everyone who reads this blog is as stupid and twisted as you are.
Thanking you for demonstrating absolutely and without doubt that you are a spewer of manure; poseur extraordinare and utterly useless when it comes to discussing relevant topics.
At 9:28 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket."
I'm sorry, joe g, but that is simply a false statement and implies that you do not understand basic set theory. Every set is a subset of at least one other set. You need to educate yourself on how sets work before pontificating on the subject.
joe g: "Thanking you for demonstrating absolutely and without doubt that you are a spewer of manure; poseur extraordinare and utterly useless when it comes to discussing relevant topics."
Such ad hominem does not substantiate an argument. I would entertain a discussion on generalized set theory, but only if you make an reasonable attempt to engage the subject.
At 7:55 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket."
Zachriel:
I'm sorry, joe g,
I know you are.
Zachriel:
but that is simply a false statement
Umm that statement is a true statment in the context I was discussing- oe the conext of NESTED HIERARCHY.
Zachriel:
and implies that you do not understand basic set theory.
As I already told you I was NOT talking about set theory.
Zachriel:
I would entertain a discussion on generalized set theory,
If you want to discuss set theory then go some place else. Here we are discussing nested hierarchy and its relation to Common Descent.
At 8:45 AM,
Zachriel said…
This is your statement. I note that it includes the word "set".
joe g: "And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket."
That is a false statement. You need to correct that misstatement.
At 10:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
This is your statement. I note that it includes the word "set".
joe g: "And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket."
I know what it includes but the statemnet must also be taken IN CONTEXT!
What part about that don't you understand?
Here is the CONTEXT:
Zachriel:
* Is the set 'Sam's pocket-stuff' nested within the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'?
Notice the word 'nested', obviously trying to falsely depict a nested hierarchy. Therefore my response of:
Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney. And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket.
Is absolutely correct And your charge of:
That is a false statement.
Displays ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty or any combination.
Allof this in light of the full context which is obvious without Zachriel's unwarranted editing:
* And as Ballyvourney is in County Cork, is the set 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff'?
* And is the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'Irish pocket-stuff'?
It all depends. Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies. (substitute Euros, money, keys, etc. for pocket-knives)
But I understand Zachriel's tactics. Pound the table Zach, it is all you have...
At 10:49 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket."
Sure there can. The set of 'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'. And the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'County Cork pocketstuff'. Hence, 'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of at least two other sets.
At 1:12 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "A) Set theory allows for overlapping, true or false
B) NH does not allow for overlapping, true or false"
Zachriel:
These are both true statements.
With that understood let's re=examone Zach's latest folly:
Here is the CONTEXT:
Zachriel:
* Is the set 'Sam's pocket-stuff' nested within the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'?
Notice the word 'nested', obviously trying to falsely depict a nested hierarchy. Therefore my response of:
Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney. And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket.
Is absolutely correct.
Zachriel, cornered and trying to find a way out CHANGES what was originally stated to:
The set of 'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'. And the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'County Cork pocketstuff'. Hence, 'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of at least two other sets.
All of which is irrelevant in the context of nested hierarchy.
Does Zachriel really think people are as stupid as he is?
At 5:25 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney. And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket."
Every set is a subset of at least one set. Repeating your mistake doesn't make it any more true.
At 8:54 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Every set is a subset of at least one set.
So a set of everything would be a subset of what?
Zachriel:
Repeating your mistake doesn't make it any more true.
The only mistake I am making is trying to discuss something with you. And unfortunately it is true that you are incredibly dense or just plain ole dishonest.
At 10:16 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "So a set of everything would be a subset of what?"
Every set is a subset of the universal set, including the universal set. Every set is a subset of itself.
Now consider two sets, A and B. A is a subset of the union of A and B, even if A and B are disjoint, even if one set is the universal set, even if one set is empty.
{1, 2} U {red, white} = {1, 2, red, white}
'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' which is a subset of 'County Cork pocket-stuff' which is a subset of 'Irish pocket-stuff'. By definition, that makes Ballyvourney Classification a nested hierarchy.
--
joe g: "If Zachriel wants to see a REAL example of nested hierarchy all he has to do is make that very unfamiliar trip to his local library and check out the Dewey Decimal Classification system."
We agree Dewey Decimal Classification forms a nested hierarchy. Of note, Dewey Decimal Classification is based on *arbitrary sets*. There are countless other classification schemes for books such as I pointed out previously, just as there is for pocket-stuff.
joe g: "Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies."
As you point out, we could categorize pocket-stuff by contents rather than by who owns the pocket. However, we could also categorize books by some other, incompatible scheme. That doesn't change the fact that Dewey Decimal Classification or the Ballyvourney Classification scheme is a nested hierarchy.
If and when we progress to taxonomy, we will discuss how to use independently derived traits to create categories.
At 7:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Here is the CONTEXT:
Zachriel:
* Is the set 'Sam's pocket-stuff' nested within the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'?
Notice the word 'nested', obviously trying to falsely depict a nested hierarchy. Therefore my response of:
Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney. And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket.
Is absolutely correct And your charge of:
That is a false statement.
Displays ignorance, stupidity, dishonesty or any combination.
Allof this in light of the full context which is obvious without Zachriel's unwarranted editing:
* And as Ballyvourney is in County Cork, is the set 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff'?
* And is the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'Irish pocket-stuff'?
It all depends. Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies. (substitute Euros, money, keys, etc. for pocket-knives)
But I understand Zachriel's tactics. Pound the table Zach, it is all you have...
Zachriel:
Every set is a subset of itself.
That is false. The empty set is not a subset of itself.
At 8:18 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Ya see if we also have a set of 'pocket-knives' and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies."
Then, contrary to your previous assertion, Dewey Decimal Classification is not a nested hierarchy because there are many other ways to arrange books in libraries. You could, for instance, group all the books together that have knives in them, just like you do with pocket-stuff.
joe g: "Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney."
You must not know Sam. Sam can always be found at the Ballyvourney Mills Inn dancing the Ballyvourney Jig.
joe g: "That is false. The empty set is not a subset of itself."
The empty set is a subset of every set, including itself. Every set is a subset of itself. And every set is a subset of the union of that set with any other set. Hence,
'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'.
At 8:33 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Ya see if we also have a set of 'pocket-knives' and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies."
Zachriel:
Then, contrary to your previous assertion, Dewey Decimal Classification is not a nested hierarchy because there are many other ways to arrange books in libraries.
That proves your stupidity as what you just posted has NOTHING to do with NH. The fact that items listed in a nested hierarchy can be arranged via some other scheme does NOT violate NH.
Wikipedia:
The empty set, written ø, is also a subset of any given set X. (This statement is vacuously true, see proof below) The empty set is always a proper subset, except of itself.
Zachriel:
'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'.
You do understand that everyone reading this can plainly see that you have changed the original sentence to the one above. IOW everyone reading this knows you are dishonest. Thanks.
At 8:49 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "The empty set is not a subset of itself."
False.
joe g: "The empty set is always a proper subset, except of itself."
True.
At 8:57 AM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: 'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'.
joe g: "You do understand that everyone reading this can plainly see that you have changed the original sentence to the one above."
I changed it several posts ago for clarity (a containment hierarchy generally refers to a non-trivial arrangement of sets — see definition), and in response to this specific exchange.
joe g: "And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket."
Zachriel: Sure there can. The set of 'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'.
At 9:08 AM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: 'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'.
To be even more precise. Being nested means to be a proper subset within a nested hierarchy. Being a subset means just that.
'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' is true.
'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a nested set within Ballyvourney Classification is also true.
But they are not the same statements.
At 9:25 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "The empty set is not a subset of itself."
Zachriel:
False.
joe g: "The empty set is always a proper subset, except of itself."
Zachriel:
True.
First please stop attributing things to me that I did not say.
Then if you want to be a nit-picky semantic prick, please provide a valid explanation.
At 9:30 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
I changed it several posts ago for clarity (a containment hierarchy generally refers to a non-trivial arrangement of sets — see definition),...
You changed it becasue the original was bogus and I exposed it.
Zachriel:
... and in response to this specific exchange.
Here is the CONTEXT:
Zachriel:
* Is the set 'Sam's pocket-stuff' nested within the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'?
(Notice the word 'nested', obviously trying to falsely depict a nested hierarchy. Therefore my response of:)
Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney. And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket.
(All of this in light of the full context which is obvious without Zachriel's unwarranted editing:)
* And as Ballyvourney is in County Cork, is the set 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff'?
* And is the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'Irish pocket-stuff'?
It all depends. Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies. (substitute Euros, money, keys, etc. for pocket-knives)
But I understand Zachriel's tactics. Pound the table Zach, it is all you have...
(rewinding tape- will continue to replay as required)
At 9:36 AM,
Joe G said…
And ONE MORE TIME:
In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.
When talking about any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.
Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies. (substitute Euros, money, keys, etc. for pocket-knives)
What part about that don't you understand?
At 10:09 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "First please stop attributing things to me that I did not say."
That's funny. The false statement is properly attributed, but you disown the true statement. You are correct, the true statement is attributable to Wikipedia though you did quote it with the expectation that it was a claim you accepted.
joe g: "Then if you want to be a nit-picky semantic prick, please provide a valid explanation."
It's no more nit-picky than any aspect of set theory. You will eventually want to argue about nodes and the nature of categorizations. Consequently, the basics of set theory are essential. That's why I kept asking you specific questions about sets, many of which you have yet to answer.
--
A set is a collection of distinct elements considered as a whole.
If A and B are sets, then ...
A and B are equal, if they have the same elements.
If every element of A is also an element of B, then A is a subset of B, and B is a superset of A.
If A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B, then A is also a proper (or strict) subset of B.
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
--
Ballyvourney Classification is a nested hierarchy, just as is Dewey Decimal Classification. The former is based on the location of pockets, while the latter is based on arbitrary classes of subject matter. We could base a classification of pocket-stuff on the types of objects found in pockets, just as we could arrange books in any of a number of other classification schemes. (I mentioned such a classification earlier where Catch-22, Fahrenheit 451, and A Tale of Two Cities would be sorted very close together, while other books by Heller, Bradbury and Dickens might be located in other wings of the library entirely.)
These are sets:
* The sons of Hussein I.
* Twigs on a branch.
* My bushel of apples.
* The contents of Sam's pocket.
* What if Sam's pocket is empty?
These are nested hierarchies (with appropriate definitions and uncrossed lines):
* Tree
* Tree Diagram
* paternal family tree
* Descent along uncrossed lines. (We are not making any claims at this time about being able to deconstruct such a nested hierarchy from taxonomic characteristics.)
A family tree which inclues maternal and paternal lines is not a nested hierarchy. The lines cross. The sets overlap and are not nested (strict subsets).
At 10:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
I changed it several posts ago for clarity (a containment hierarchy generally refers to a non-trivial arrangement of sets — see definition),...
You changed it becasue the original was bogus and I exposed it.
Zachriel:
... and in response to this specific exchange.
Here is the CONTEXT:
Zachriel:
* Is the set 'Sam's pocket-stuff' nested within the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'?
(Notice the word 'nested', obviously trying to falsely depict a nested hierarchy. Therefore my response of:)
Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney. And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket.
(All of this in light of the full context which is obvious without Zachriel's unwarranted editing:)
* And as Ballyvourney is in County Cork, is the set 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff'?
* And is the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'Irish pocket-stuff'?
It all depends. Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies. (substitute Euros, money, keys, etc. for pocket-knives)
But I understand Zachriel's tactics. Pound the table Zach, it is all you have...
(rewinding tape- will continue to replay as required)
And ONE MORE TIME:
In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.
When talking about any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.
Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies. (substitute Euros, money, keys, etc. for pocket-knives)
What part about that don't you understand?
and from the original post in this thread:
To anyone else reading this- I refer you to chapter 6 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" for a thorough scientific refutation of nested hierarchies as evidence for Common Descent. IOW you don't have to listen to me. However it should be obvious by now that there is no way anyone should listen to Zachriel.
A paternal family tree is no such thing for the many reasons already listed. A tree is not nested hierarchy. That NH can be depicted as a tree says more about the people doing the drawing than it does about any relation to actual trees.
At 11:19 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "You changed it becasue the original was bogus and I exposed it."
I made two different statements, each of which is true.
'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a subset of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'.
'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket-stuff' is a nested set within Ballyvourney Classification.
joe g: "Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney."
Where is Sam, joe g?
joe g: "And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket."
And this statement is still false, as is "The empty set is not a subset of itself." It's ok not to know much about sets, but please don't then pretend otherwise. Try to learn from your experiences and show some respect to those who are willing to discuss these matters with you.
joe g: "Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies."
You complete avoided the comment concerning Dewey Decimal Classification and how, being an arbitrary schema, there are other classifications that would contradict this nested hierarchy. You have also repeatedly refused to answer simple questions about sets.
Which of these are sets?
* The sons of Hussein I.
* Twigs on a branch.
* My bushel of apples.
* The contents of Sam's pocket.
What if Sam's pocket is empty?
--
Why is winning an argument apparently so much more important to you than learning the truth about things?
At 8:23 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Why is winning an argument apparently so much more important to you than learning the truth about things?
BWAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAAAA
Two things:
1) You could only "teach" me how to be dishonest and deceptive. That is the truth of that "thing".
2) This thread alone provides more than enough evidence that you are dishonest and deceptive. IOW you really need to practice what you preach.
Now go stand in front of a mirror, look yourself right in the eyes, and repeat, WORD FOR WORD:
Why is winning an argument apparently so much more important to you than learning the truth about things?
Because it is obvious that the ONLY way for you to "win" anything is by deception and dishonesty.
At 8:26 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
I changed it several posts ago for clarity (a containment hierarchy generally refers to a non-trivial arrangement of sets — see definition),...
You changed it becasue the original was bogus and I exposed it.
Zachriel:
... and in response to this specific exchange.
Here is the CONTEXT:
Zachriel:
* Is the set 'Sam's pocket-stuff' nested within the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'?
(Notice the word 'nested', obviously trying to falsely depict a nested hierarchy. Therefore my response of:)
Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney. And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket.
(All of this in light of the full context which is obvious without Zachriel's unwarranted editing:)
* And as Ballyvourney is in County Cork, is the set 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff'?
* And is the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'Irish pocket-stuff'?
It all depends. Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies. (substitute Euros, money, keys, etc. for pocket-knives)
But I understand Zachriel's tactics. Pound the table Zach, it is all you have...
(rewinding tape- will continue to replay as required)
And ONE MORE TIME:
In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.
When talking about any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.
Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies. (substitute Euros, money, keys, etc. for pocket-knives)
What part about that don't you understand?
and from the original post in this thread:
To anyone else reading this- I refer you to chapter 6 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" for a thorough scientific refutation of nested hierarchies as evidence for Common Descent. IOW you don't have to listen to me. However it should be obvious by now that there is no way anyone should listen to Zachriel.
A paternal family tree is no such thing for the many reasons already listed. A tree is not nested hierarchy. That NH can be depicted as a tree says more about the people doing the drawing than it does about any relation to actual trees.
Time to wake up Zachriel and face the truth about things...
At 8:47 PM,
Zachriel said…
Where is Sam, joe g?
joe g: "Because it is obvious that the ONLY way for you to 'win' anything is by deception and dishonesty."
As I already informed you, I have no desire to win any argument. Not only have you failed to make a convincing argument, but through your refusal to yield on the most obvious of points, you reveal a lack of any willingness to carry on a useful discussion. In particular, you have made several demonstrably false statements, yet you refuse to acknowledge and correct those misstatements (e.g. concerning the empty set).
joe g (from original post): "You accuse me of not understanding nested hierarchy."
You agreed to this definition of a nested hierarchy, an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. You have made several misstatements concerning sets, so that would indicate that your knowledge of the subject is lacking.
Which of these are sets?
* The sons of Hussein I.
* Twigs on a branch.
* My bushel of apples.
* The contents of Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket. What if Sam's pocket is empty?
* The contents of all the pockets in Ballyvourney.
At 7:28 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
As I already informed you, I have no desire to win any argument.
Your continued dishonesty and deception betray your words.
Zachriel:
Not only have you failed to make a convincing argument,
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. However I will go with reality which demonstrates that your claim that Common Descent predicts nested hierarchy has been refuted.
And reality also demonstrates that you have done absolutely nothing to even try to support your claim.
Zachriel:
you have made several demonstrably false statements, yet you refuse to acknowledge and correct those misstatements
If I have YOU have been totally unable to explain those misstatements. Just saying they are misstatements is meaningless, especially coming from a dishonest little prick like you.
joe g (from original post): "You accuse me of not understanding nested hierarchy."
Zachriel:
You agreed to this definition of a nested hierarchy, an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
Yse and you have provided examples which violate NH.
Zachriel:
You have made several misstatements concerning sets, so that would indicate that your knowledge of the subject is lacking.
You have made several false accusations against me and you have not substantiated any one of them.
If you keep making false accusatioins you can find another blog to pollute.
At 7:30 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
I changed it several posts ago for clarity (a containment hierarchy generally refers to a non-trivial arrangement of sets — see definition),...
You changed it becasue the original was bogus and I exposed it.
Zachriel:
... and in response to this specific exchange.
Here is the CONTEXT:
Zachriel:
* Is the set 'Sam's pocket-stuff' nested within the set of 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff'?
(Notice the word 'nested', obviously trying to falsely depict a nested hierarchy. Therefore my response of:)
Only if Sam is in Ballyvourney. And there cannot exist any other set that would also include something that is in Sam's pocket.
(All of this in light of the full context which is obvious without Zachriel's unwarranted editing:)
* And as Ballyvourney is in County Cork, is the set 'Ballyvourney pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff'?
* And is the set 'County Cork pocket-stuff' nested within the set 'Irish pocket-stuff'?
It all depends. Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies. (substitute Euros, money, keys, etc. for pocket-knives)
But I understand Zachriel's tactics. Pound the table Zach, it is all you have...
(rewinding tape- will continue to replay as required)
And ONE MORE TIME:
In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.
When talking about any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.
Ya see if we also have a set of "pocket-knives" and if some people in County Cork have pocket-knives in their pockets we have a duality that cannot exist in nested hierarchies. (substitute Euros, money, keys, etc. for pocket-knives)
What part about that don't you understand?
and from the original post in this thread:
To anyone else reading this- I refer you to chapter 6 of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" for a thorough scientific refutation of nested hierarchies as evidence for Common Descent. IOW you don't have to listen to me. However it should be obvious by now that there is no way anyone should listen to Zachriel.
A paternal family tree is no such thing for the many reasons already listed. A tree is not nested hierarchy. That NH can be depicted as a tree says more about the people doing the drawing than it does about any relation to actual trees.
Time to wake up Zachriel and face the truth about things...
At 7:35 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW I notice you have failed to explain why I was incorrect in my statement pertaining to empty sets.
Ya see if an empty set cannot be a proper subset of itself it stands to reason that:
"The empty set is not a subset of itself."
Now just saying tat is false is NOT an explanation and given your nack for lying is unacceptable.
If your next psot conatins any un-substantiated accusations it will not be posted.
It would be prudent for you to return to the topic of Common Descent and nested hierarchy.
At 7:41 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "If I have YOU have been totally unable to explain those misstatements."
joe g: "The empty set is not a subset of itself."
That is a false statement. The empty set is a subset of every set, including itself. Every set is a subset of itself. And every set is a subset of the union of that set with any other set.
--
A set is a collection of distinct elements considered as a whole.
If A and B are sets, then ...
A and B are equal, if they have the same elements.
If every element of A is also an element of B, then A is a subset of B, and B is a superset of A.
If A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B, then A is also a proper (or strict) subset of B.
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
--
joe g: "You have made several false accusations against me and you have not substantiated any one of them."
An 'accusation' is generally considered a claim of wrongdoing. Not understanding the nested hierarchy is not an 'accusation'. I have not accused you of anything in this sense of the word. (Please compare to your own language concerning me and others.) However, your ignorance of set theory, and therefore the nested hierarchy, is plain.
It's plain because you don't understand the basic terminology of sets. It's plain because you are afraid to answer simple questions concerning sets.
Which of these are sets?
* The sons of Hussein I.
* Twigs on a branch.
* My bushel of apples.
* The contents of Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket. What if Sam's pocket is empty?
* The contents of all the pockets in Ballyvourney.
At 7:51 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Ya see if an empty set cannot be a proper subset of itself it stands to reason that:
"The empty set is not a subset of itself.""
A subset is not equal to a proper subset. I provided the definition and cites above, available to anyone who might stumble into this thread.
--
The empty set IS a subset of itself. Every set is a subset of itself.
The empty set IS NOT a proper subset of itself. No set is a proper subset of itself.
--
It's not that someone might be wrong. But that by refusing to admit error they can preclude the opportunity to learn. Please read the cites.
At 8:06 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
A subset is not equal to a proper subset.
Spoken like a real asswipe.
Zachriel:
The empty set IS NOT a proper subset of itself. No set is a proper subset of itself.
One must wonder why all sites only say that about an empty set. IOW I would say that again you are lying.
At 8:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
An 'accusation' is generally considered a claim of wrongdoing. Not understanding the nested hierarchy is not an 'accusation'.
Seeing that I understand nested hierarchy and have for years, what you spew is an accusation.
Zachriel:
However, your ignorance of set theory, and therefore the nested hierarchy, is plain.
If this thread is ANY indiaction it is obvious you are a clue-less pinhead. Also demonstrated is the fact that I understand both better than you ever will.
As for reading citations I will note that you have yet to read the most impostant citation I referenced.
At 8:18 AM,
Zachriel said…
SUBSET
If every element of A is also an element of B, then A is a subset of B, and B is a superset of A.
PROPER SUBSET
If A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B, then A is also a proper (or strict) subset of B.
If A was a proper subset of A, then A <> A, a contradiction.
At 8:24 AM,
Joe G said…
Ummm that has NOTHING to do with an empty set.
IOW your example does NOT demonstrate that A is an empty set and as such is a subset of itself.
Are you really that stupid?
Do you really think anyone will believe anything you post when you continually post BS?
At 8:29 AM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "IOW your example does NOT demonstrate that A is an empty set and as such is a subset of itself."
It applies to all sets, joe g. I provided the definitions with cites. I see you are still refusing to answer my simple questions.
Which of these are sets?
* The sons of Hussein I.
* Twigs on a branch.
* My bushel of apples.
* The contents of Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket. What if Sam's pocket is empty?
* The contents of all the pockets in Ballyvourney.
At 1:29 PM,
Joe G said…
An empty set is defined separtely from all other sets. An empty set is like a period at the end of a sentence.
But all this is just a distraction.
You need to focus on:
Calling Zachriel's Bluff- Nested Hierarchy and Common Descent
However feel free to take your deception and dishonesty elsewhere to whine about how I made you put up or shut up....
Post a Comment
<< Home