When the shit flows it flows freely
OK ok I got curious and visted Alan's blog. Nothing new. Just more of the same strokers doing what they do best.
Alan's less than cordial invitation
I said my piece over on Alan's blog and I feel contaminated somehow. My 4 year old understands science better than that ilk.
Zachriel:
And yet, not a single one of Joe's arguments address the syllogism. "If life descended (along uncrossed lines) from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern (of descendent relationships)" is a mathematical truism.*
Ummm, I have more than dealt with that bit of nonsense. Ya see with the theory of evolution nothing prevents lines from being crossed, uncrossed and recrossed. Traits can be gained and traits can be lost- only to be regained.
And coming out of the single-celled bush there isn't any way one would expect order- because as I said the theory doesn't predict metazoans in the first place.
Yes the theory can live with NH but that was never the point.
Zachriel:
The rest of his argument concerns the detection of such a nested hierarchy and the implications if such a pattern is found. I would be happy to engage this argument if Joe wishes, but it makes no sense to discuss the empirical evidence for this pattern if he doesn't even understand how to recognize it.
My offer to debate Zachriel on this is still open.
He submits his opening and I will then submit mine.
And this little bit is total BS:
Joe: "Nested Hierarchy is [not] a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"
I said:
"Nested Hierarchy is a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"
is duly noted.
I take the con, Zachriel takes the pro. Or at least Zachriel should put his position in writing so we all know what it is. My position hasn't changed since before I started blogging- The theory of evolution does not predict nested hierarchy.
Zachriel continues with his bluff with:
These two statements are not equivalent.
Joe: "Zachriel concedes the point- the theory of evolution does NOT predict a nested hierarchy."
Joe: "Nested Hierarchy is [not] a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"
With that I should get the right to punch Zachriel in the head. MY words were:
Zachriel:
The nested hierarchy of morphology and genomics is an observation AND a prediction.
Nested hierarchy was never predicted but it is observed. It isn't observed for single-celled organisms, does that mean it wasn't predicted for them?
Zachriel:
We observe a pattern, then predict it will continue to apply, perhaps in somewhat different circumstances.
And if we didn't observe the pattern of nested hierarchy the theory of evolution would not miss a beat. Accomodating observations should NEVER be conflated with predicting what we will observe.
Yes Zachriel, your job is done. And I thank you for demonstrating you have absolutely no clue...
*I have dealt with this bit of dishonesty before but I will do it again here. Zachriel just twisted the following:
Nested Hierarchy
Not quite what Zachriel stated, is it?
And although that same site also claims:
That doesn't make sense in light of the fact we don't observe nested hierarchy throughout the kingdoms. It also doesn't make sense because we know traits can be lost and gained and convergent evolution is real.
And just to remind everyone:
A Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory
Alan's less than cordial invitation
I said my piece over on Alan's blog and I feel contaminated somehow. My 4 year old understands science better than that ilk.
Zachriel:
And yet, not a single one of Joe's arguments address the syllogism. "If life descended (along uncrossed lines) from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern (of descendent relationships)" is a mathematical truism.*
Ummm, I have more than dealt with that bit of nonsense. Ya see with the theory of evolution nothing prevents lines from being crossed, uncrossed and recrossed. Traits can be gained and traits can be lost- only to be regained.
And coming out of the single-celled bush there isn't any way one would expect order- because as I said the theory doesn't predict metazoans in the first place.
Yes the theory can live with NH but that was never the point.
Zachriel:
The rest of his argument concerns the detection of such a nested hierarchy and the implications if such a pattern is found. I would be happy to engage this argument if Joe wishes, but it makes no sense to discuss the empirical evidence for this pattern if he doesn't even understand how to recognize it.
My offer to debate Zachriel on this is still open.
He submits his opening and I will then submit mine.
And this little bit is total BS:
Joe: "Nested Hierarchy is [not] a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"
I said:
"Nested Hierarchy is a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"
is duly noted.
I take the con, Zachriel takes the pro. Or at least Zachriel should put his position in writing so we all know what it is. My position hasn't changed since before I started blogging- The theory of evolution does not predict nested hierarchy.
Zachriel continues with his bluff with:
These two statements are not equivalent.
Joe: "Zachriel concedes the point- the theory of evolution does NOT predict a nested hierarchy."
Joe: "Nested Hierarchy is [not] a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"
With that I should get the right to punch Zachriel in the head. MY words were:
Nested Hierarchy is a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms.
Zachriel:
The nested hierarchy of morphology and genomics is an observation AND a prediction.
Nested hierarchy was never predicted but it is observed. It isn't observed for single-celled organisms, does that mean it wasn't predicted for them?
Zachriel:
We observe a pattern, then predict it will continue to apply, perhaps in somewhat different circumstances.
And if we didn't observe the pattern of nested hierarchy the theory of evolution would not miss a beat. Accomodating observations should NEVER be conflated with predicting what we will observe.
Yes Zachriel, your job is done. And I thank you for demonstrating you have absolutely no clue...
*I have dealt with this bit of dishonesty before but I will do it again here. Zachriel just twisted the following:
Nested Hierarchy
In fact, a nested hierarchy is the almost inevitable result of descent with modification, if no transfer of traits between branches of descent is possible.
Not quite what Zachriel stated, is it?
And although that same site also claims:
The most obvious explanation for the observed nested hierarchy of taxonomic categories is evolution.
That doesn't make sense in light of the fact we don't observe nested hierarchy throughout the kingdoms. It also doesn't make sense because we know traits can be lost and gained and convergent evolution is real.
And just to remind everyone:
A Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory
posted by Joe G @ 1:34 PM
4 Comments:
At 3:51 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
We observe a pattern, then predict it will continue to apply, perhaps in somewhat different circumstances.
The pattern in question was first observed in the absence of the theory of evolution. And it was predicted to apply also in the absence of the theory.
As a matter of fact all that the proponents of the ToE did was change the word archetype with common ancestor:
"One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor."-- Ernst Mayr
IOW job well done Zachriel. You have really demonstrated how intellectually handicapped anti-IDists are.
At 4:26 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes he did-
Zachriel:
The Theory of Common Descent does not properly apply to the early evolution of cellular life.
EvoWiki on Common Descent
"Common descent is the idea that two populations or species share a common ancestral species, and are both descended from that ancestor by normal processes of replication. This is a fairly commonplace notion.
The theory of common descent states that all species (on Earth, at least) share common ancestors, back to a single common ancestor of all life. This is a fairly profound notion."
Of course I doubt that Zachriel could properly apply anything...
At 8:36 PM,
Joe G said…
OK wait- we have Zachriel, the non-authority, non-expert, and non-scientist saying:
"If life descended (along uncrossed lines) from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern (of descendent relationships)" is a mathematical truism.
And we have Dr Denton, authority, expert and scientist saying:
"Yet, direct evidence for evolution only resides in the existence of unambiguous sequential arrangements, and these are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes."
IOW If life descended (along uncrossed lines) from a common ancestor, it would form an unambiguous sequential arrangement, which are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes.
100,99,98,97,96...1- descent with modification along uncrossed lines and no nested hierarchy...
At 8:04 AM,
Joe G said…
To summarize:
Nested hierarchy has nothing to do with the theory of evolution nor Common Descent. That it is observed is neither a positive nor a negative for either as both would be perfectly OK without it.
IOW if we were to populate a habitable planet with single-celled organisms we wouldn't expect the subsequent diversity to resemble a nested hierarchy. And if NH was a prediction of the ToE or CD then we would expect NH and if we never observed NH that would count against the theory.
And it is abundantly clear that neither Zachriel nor Alan Fox can grasp any of the concepts I have presented.
Post a Comment
<< Home