Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Nested Hierarchy for Dummies

Nested Hierarchy for dummies, ie evolutionitwits:

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

A good visual would be the Russian nested dolls.

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

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

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

Here is the $64,000 question:

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


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

17 Comments:

  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Eric said…

    Wow. Way to completely miss the boat.

    I may not "contain and consist" of my father. But I do contain and consist of half of his genome (the other half comes from mom). And since my genome decides what I'm made of and how to make it...

    Ultimately, it's the genes that are in a nested hierarchy, not the organism itself. But since the genes define the organism, we (us evolutionwits) tend to refer to them as the same thing. That you've manged to miss this is... not that shocking actually. Carry on.

     
  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes Eric, YOU completely missed the boat!

    I may not "contain and consist" of my father. But I do contain and consist of half of his genome (the other half comes from mom).

    Actually more than half comes from Mom- she provides the mitochodria and other organelles.

    A nested hierarchy requires the level above to consist of and contain all the levels below it. The same goes for the set or sets on each level.

    Ultimately, it's the genes that are in a nested hierarchy, not the organism itself.

    Ultimately the Nested Hierarchy is thus:

    Population- Community- Organism- Organ Systems- Organs- Tissues- Cells- organelles-blah-blah-blah

    But since the genes define the organism,

    Do they? Genes may influence development but the do not determine it.

    That is why no one can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between allegedly closely related species.

     
  • At 7:36 PM, Blogger Eric said…

    Actually more than half comes from Mom- she provides the mitochodria and other organelles.

    The mitochondria genome is not technically mine. Yes, it's necessary for my survival but it maintains its own genome separate from my own.

    A nested hierarchy requires the level above to consist of and contain all the levels below it. The same goes for the set or sets on each level.

    Right. My father's genome will always consist of half of mine. I suppose, after enough generations, it's possible that the eventual offspring will contain none of the original fathers chromosomes.

    But that's really missing the point of the nested hierarchy of species. When a speciation event occurs, the genome of the old species consists of the genome of the new species, albeit modified slightly.

    Objectively, if this new species contains some new feature, we may slap it into a new genus. Maybe someday, the genus will change enough that we define a new family. But this still doesn't change the fact that given (a) a mechanism for the modification of a genome and (b) heredity, a nested hierarchy will be produced.

    Note also that a new species can never change into a different, already existing genus. If that happens, we screwed up on our classification as that would break the nested hierarchy.

    Do they? Genes may influence development but the do not determine it.

    Nonsense. My genes most certainly define how to make me. They don't define what I'm going to do with my life, but they do define how to build and maintain my brain.

    That is why no one can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between allegedly closely related species.

    Source? Or are you just spewing something you heard somewhere.

     
  • At 8:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Actually more than half comes from Mom- she provides the mitochodria and other organelles.

    The mitochondria genome is not technically mine. Yes, it's necessary for my survival but it maintains its own genome separate from my own.

    That's about the stupidest thing I have ever heard!

    If it is in your body it is yours.

    A nested hierarchy requires the level above to consist of and contain all the levels below it. The same goes for the set or sets on each level.

    Right. My father's genome will always consist of half of mine.

    That does not make it a nested hierarchy.

    Note also that a new species can never change into a different, already existing genus.

    What prevents that from happening? Some place along the line reptiles allegedly changed into mammals...

    Do they? Genes may influence development but the do not determine it.

    Nonsense. My genes most certainly define how to make me. They don't define what I'm going to do with my life, but they do define how to build and maintain my brain.

    "It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it." Dr Michael Denton

    "The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg." geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti

    That is why no one can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between allegedly closely related species.

    Source?

    Why would you think there is a source for that? I know you cannot find a source to refute my claim.

     
  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger Eric said…

    That's about the stupidest thing I have ever heard!

    If it is in your body it is yours.


    It's not part of my genome. It has it's own independent genome separate from the one that my mother and father share with me. It is theoretically capable of surviving without my genome, though it's not likely it would survive long outside the protection of the cell.

    If you don't believe me, look it up.

    "Although most of a cell's DNA is contained in the cell nucleus, the mitochondrion has its own independent genome. Further, its DNA shows substantial similarity to bacterial genomes."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion

    It's completely separate from the 46 chromosomes that define how to build me.

    What prevents that from happening? Some place along the line reptiles allegedly changed into mammals...

    The rules of a nested hierarchy prevent this from happening.

    And that's precisely my point. At some point, some reptile developed something resembling sweat glands/mammary glands. It is from this sweat gland containing (and hence this set of genetic material) that all other mammals have derived from. The parent species contains and consists of the genetic material of the child species.

    If some new organism convergently evolves something very much like sweat glands, that does not make it a mammal. If we put it in the mammal class, then we have done so by mistake and it must be reclassified. This does happen on occasion.

    That does not make it a nested hierarchy.

    Strictly speaking, heredity produced from a family tree will not produce a nested hierarchy. But you are conveying that to mean something entirely different than what it actually means.

    When I am classifying species, heredity (family trees) and a changing genome most certainly WILL produce a nested hierarchy.

    "The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg." geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti

    How typical. You quote unscientific statements made by notoriously creationist scientists and expect me not to notice. Here's an idea, find me an instance of one organism who's physical development was not determined by its genetics. If you are correct in your statement that an organism's physical manifestation is not determined by its genetics, then they should be everywhere.


    Why would you think there is a source for that? I know you cannot find a source to refute my claim.


    I don't know why I thought that. I guess I thought that since you were making broad statements with stunning arrogance, you might actually have some reason for making them.

    Every organism I know of has it's physical development determined by its genetics which it derives from its parent(s). If you'll simply enlighten me by pointing me to one that does not have this characteristic, I shall humbly concede this point.

     
  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    eric,

    Mitochondria DNA, if it is in YOUR body, is yours.

    I NEVER said it was part of your nucleic genome. And it came from your mother.

    BTW the rules of NH do not govern the evolution of a population. That you think so just further exposes your ignorance.

    Also nested hierarchies are determined via characteristics, not heredity.

    All humans are in one group. We do NOT have separate classes (groups) for each individual. And that is what we would have if you were correct.

    Every organism I know of has it's physical development determined by its genetics which it derives from its parent(s).

    Here is my idea- find a peer-reviewed article that demonstrates that an organism's genome is what makes it ehat it is.

    If you cannot I will go with the genetics' researchers who agree with me.

    Ya see eric, we have NO idea what makes an organism what it is. And I know you cannot find any peer-reviewed article that will dispute that fact.

     
  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Eric,

    Consider the following:

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

    A taxonomy is a classic example of a containment hierarchy.



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


    Also from wikipedia...

     
  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger bunyip said…

    Sorry buddy - but all you are doing is demonstrating a catastrophic failure to grasp basic biological concepts. You need to find out what evolution actually means before you can challenge it.

     
  • At 3:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi bunyip- Your false accusation, while amusing, is meaningless to me.

    Maybe someday you will stop being a coward and actually make a case against me. Doubtful but maybe.

    Good luck with that...

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger tsopmocful said…

    This post is a ridiculous strawman argument, because evolutionary theory has NEVER stated that Nested Hierarchies of Taxonomic Traits can apply any further than species or subspecies level, PRECISELY because there are NO natural reproductive barriers between members of a species or subspecies, which means that the 'nests' within the 'hierarchies' can NEVER be sustained for long.

    The closest things to Hereditary Nested Hierarchies that could apply within our own human species, is if we ALL lived in highly static, and immobile hunter gatherer societies, where the hierarchy levels would be: Individual, Nuclear Family, Extended Family, Clan, Tribe, Nation, Ethnicity, Subspecies....

    But EVEN THEN, no 'nest' below Tribe could be sustained, because we would start running into inbreeding problems, and which traditional societies don't even stick with, because they have always relied on some means of intertribal mixing for exactly that reason.

    So I'm afraid that your post for 'dummies' will only succeed in keeping those 'dummies' dumb about Nested Hierarchies.

     
  • At 12:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There isn't any evolutionary theory. And evolution does not expect a nested hierarchy.

    It seems that you are dumb when it comes to nested hierarchies. Nice job...

     
  • At 4:31 PM, Blogger tsopmocful said…

    You state that there isn't any evolutionary theory?

    Well, until you can give me a VERY good reason for why YOU think that, when EVERYONE else in the world DOES think that there IS an evolutionary theory, I will just simply ignore such an absurd and unsubstantiated assertion.

    But if you DO indeed think that, then why did you write that "...evolution does not expect a nested hierarchy." if an evolutionary theory doesn't exist?

    And perhaps you need to do something about the header of your blog, which contains the phrases "...exposing the theory of evolution..." and "I also educate evotards about....the theory of evolution..."; otherwise people might think that you are contradicting yourself.

    Of course, even if you ARE correct, science would still need to construct a corpus of testable hypotheses in order to account for, and explain, why living organisms are observed to evolve, which would eventually constitute an evolutionary theory anyway.

    But that is ALL BESIDE THE POINT, and can be dealt with LATER, as it is IRRELEVANT to the point of your post, AND my response to it, which was about answering your '$64000 question' of: In a paternal family tree scheme, does the top level, the father, consist of and contain the lower levels? - to which I answered, yes, he is an Individual member of a Nuclear Family (which could be conceivably, but pointlessly, subdivided into Parents and Siblings).

    So, would you like my bank details now for you to send the prize money to?

    P.S. Btw, if your post about Nested Hierarchies had nothing to do with evolutionary theory, then what was the point of including it in your blog that is (in your own words) all about evolutionary theory?

    In fact, what was your reason for asking that '$64000 question' in the first place?

     
  • At 6:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Please reference this alleged theory of evolution. Not someone talking about it. Not Darwin's as his wasn't a theory, more like a collection of ideas that needed to be tested.

    And there can be evolution without a theory, duh. Gravity existed before Newton and Einstein proposed their scientific theories about it.

    In a paternal family tree scheme, does the top level, the father, consist of and contain the lower levels? - to which I answered, yes, he is an Individual member of a Nuclear Family (which could be conceivably, but pointlessly, subdivided into Parents and Siblings).

    That is the dumbest thing ever. A parent does not consist of nor contain its offspring.

     
  • At 7:23 PM, Blogger tsopmocful said…

    I already DID reference the theory of evolution for you!
    I told you that you mention it twice in the header of your own blog.
    Don't you remember?

    So by rights, it should be YOU citing your sources for the theory of evolution to ME.

    And OF COURSE it's dumb to try and call a Nuclear Family a part of a Nested Hierarchy!
    I ALREADY told you that in my FIRST post, when I said that Taxonomic Nested Hierarchies DON'T APPLY to anything below species level, because there are NO reproductive barriers WITHIN a species (by definition) to sustain the existence of a 'nest'.

    My conjectural extensions of it were to demonstrate TO YOU just how meaningless it IS to try and apply one within a species.
    Especially humans, because even as hunter gatherers we are NEVER static or immobile as in my hypothetical scenario.

    So I was only indulging and humouring YOUR apparent misconceptions about Taxonomic Nested Hierarchies!
    Not mine!

    So 'duh' yourself, fella!

    Golly, you lose track of the subject easily, don't you?

    And you have even forgotten to answer my questions from the end of my last comment!

    Do you need a bit of a nap or something?
    I don't mind waiting!

    P.S. I AM glad that you accept that living organisms evolve though.
    Perhaps you could even have a shot at producing a testable hypothesis to explain why they do, and to account for ALL the observed phenomena!

    I'd love to hear it!

     
  • At 9:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You referenced someone talking about it.

    The purpose of the $64,000 question is that some other people were saying that a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy.

     
  • At 10:48 PM, Blogger tsopmocful said…

    Well, whoever those 'other people' were, they were WRONG, and I just explained why they were.

    I'm surprised that you ever took their braindead assertion on board.

    And as for evolutionary theory, let me make something clear...

    I have no problem with having a robust discussion, but I refuse to play sillybuggers over whether a 'theory of evolution' exists or not.

    It's bloody infantile, and all you achieve with such games is to insult my intelligence and undermine your own credibility.

    If you are TRULY unaware that a 'theory of evolution' exists, then you have no business in dismissing such a theory, or of asserting any 'alternative' hypothesis first, without exhaustively, and scientifically, FALSIFYING ANY existing theories regarding the origin of species.

    But just in case you really ARE (yeah, right) just as ignorant as you profess yourself to be, then simply google 'the theory of evolution', or even the outdated term 'the modern synthesis'.

    There is even a Wikipedia article called 'Evolution As Fact And Theory'.

    All that might help to jog your obviously poor memory about what the theory of evolution is.

    (A Hint: It's the thing creationists don't want their kids taught in US science classes.)

    Now with all that to engross you, I don't expect you to waste my time with this silly non issue again, or I will declare you unfit for a reasonable discussion about ANYTHING AT ALL.

     
  • At 8:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey dickface, either link to this alleged theory of evolution or shut up. I googled it and all I get is people talking about it. Science requires quantification and Darwin didn't offer any and neither has anyone else since. There aren't any equations for the evolution of something like ATP synthase. There are just speculations.

    Look, obviously you don't know jack about science.

    Well, whoever those 'other people' were, they were WRONG, and I just explained why they were.

    You are years too late...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home