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

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Why a Paternal Family Tree is NOT a Nested Hierarchy- AGAIN!

I don't know why I have to continue to beat a dead horse...

Summary of the Principles of Hierarchy Theory:

With a paternal family tree the sets are determined by ONE AND ONLY ONE criterion- "who's your daddy?"

Hierarchical levels: levels are populated by entities whose properties characterize the level in question.

Note the word "properties".

Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below.

Note the words "set of definitions"

The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels.

Note the words "several criteria".

To re-iterarte- With a paternal family tree levels are determined by ONE and only ONE criterion- “Who’s your daddy?”

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.


As I have already stated several times- a father is like the general. He is on the top of his particular family tree but does not consist of his family. Therefore the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.

That this point is even being debated just further exposes the anti-reality agenda of those who say a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy. Only through ignorance can one make such a claim.

Can anyone find one example of a paternal family tree being passed off as a nested hierarchy by someone with a PhD in science?

Is there any data that shows a father can give rise to any family tree without the aid of a female? If you can't then the "paternal family tree" is just a sham because it is NOT indicative of any reality.

But then again those who make the claim don't deal with reality.

posted by Joe G @ 11:10 AM  

20 Comments:

  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, we are agreed. There is nothing wrong with the following construct:

    ______________Steve
    _____________/_____\
    __________Bob_______Dave
    _________/________/___|___\
    _______Chris___Lenny__Erik__Reggie

    What does this construct tell us?

     

  • At 1:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What does this construct tell us?

    That you can build a pyramid-type structure using people's names.

    It isn't a nested hierarchy, that's for sure.

    And in a discussion about nested hierarchy that would be a key point- to design something that is a nested hierarchy.

    I have already provided two clear cut examples of a nested hierarchy.

    Both follow the rules of hierarchy.

    Why is it that you continue to ignore those rules?

    And again, when you can demonstrate that "Steve" can give birth to "Bob" and "Dave" you will be on to something tangible.

    Until then your scheme is no different than that of the Roman "gods". It looks nice but it isn't indicative of reality.

     

  • At 1:32 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Great. What else does that construct tell us?

    If you look at it, can you answer the following question:

    Who is Bob's Dad?

    Or, is it impossible to answer that question from this chart?

     

  • At 2:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey, IF you have a point then make it. It should be easy to do.

    Please remember to address ALL the points in the OP which refute the premise that a "paternal family tree" is a nested hierarchy.

    I am done playing games and I am through trying to reason with a fucked up and ignorant clown.

     

  • At 12:29 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    You won't let me continue my point from the other thread, so I think it is only fair that I be allowed to make it here.

    My point has been the same from the beginning--to show you that a paternal family tree is a NH.

    How do I do this? Well, the answer is I can't. This is only because you are a moron, however and not because I am wrong.

    1. You have claimed that a paternal family tree cannot exist. I have shown a paternal family tree in the opening comment of this post. You have ignored the point of whether this tree can provide information. I have asked you this many times; I cannot make my point if you avoid everything surrounding it.

    2. If we can agree that the construct in my opening comment provides information (namely, who is who's father), then I can continue to make my case that a paternal family tree is a NH.

    3. OTOH, if you won't answer my question, I cannot continue on with my point.

    4. So, please, does the chart in my opening comment provide any information on the male parentage of Bob, Dave, Chris, Lenny, Erik, and/or Reggie?

    If so, why? If not, why not?

     

  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey, The ONLY point you had in the other thread was to demonstrate you can ignore the rules of hierarchy.

    My point has been the same from the beginning--to show you that a paternal family tree is a NH.

    Which would mean you would have to show that it abides by the rules. You have failed to do so.

    As a matter of fact you appear to be happily ignorant of those rules.

    1. You have claimed that a paternal family tree cannot exist.

    That is a lie. I said it doesn't exist in reality because in reality it takes both a male and female to have children. Biology 101 you twit.

    I then explained my position in a new thread:

    Constructing a scheme not based on reality

    You also ignored it.

    I have shown a paternal family tree in the opening comment of this post.

    That doesn't mean it is a nested hierarchy. What is wrong with you?

    You have ignored the point of whether this tree can provide information.

    That is irrelevant. We are trying to discuss whether or not it is a nested hierarchy NOT whether or not one can get info from it.

    IOW all you have done is to distract from the point.

    I have asked you this many times; I cannot make my point if you avoid everything surrounding it.

    Like you ignore the rules of hierarchy and all the facts about it?

    2. If we can agree that the construct in my opening comment provides information (namely, who is who's father), then I can continue to make my case that a paternal family tree is a NH.

    OK carry on. But do NOT continue to ignore the rules as posted in the OP.

    3. OTOH, if you won't answer my question, I cannot continue on with my point.

    You wouldn't have a point if you answered my questions. And reality already refuted the premise that a "paternal family tree" is a nested hierarchy.

    I will go with reality as it appears you choose to remain ignorant of it.

    4. So, please, does the chart in my opening comment provide any information on the male parentage of Bob, Dave, Chris, Lenny, Erik, and/or Reggie?

    IF you chart above is represenative of some family in which the patriach sits on top and all his descendants are below him, then yes it does. It shows that Steve is the father of Bob and Dave. Bob is the father of Chris and Dave is the father of Lenny, Erik and Reggie.

    And as I have posted many times now:

    On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

    A father is like the general. He is on the top of his particular family tree but does not consist of his family. Therefore the best a paternal family tree can hope for is a non-nested hierarchy.

    What part about that don't you understand?

    And why can't you refernce someone using a paternal family tree as a nested hierarchy. Ya know someone with a PhD in science.

    That alone is very telling.

    The best your butt-buddy Zachriel could muster is a Y chromosome clad which is not a paternal family tree.

    If your next post doesn't address the refuting points in the OP, I will know that you don't have a point and instead wish to argue from ignorance. Which is an obvious fact of life where you are concerned.

     

  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To sum up blipey's position:

    Ignore the rules of hierarchy.

    Lie about what your opponent posted.

    Push on at all costs despite having already been soundly refuted.

     

  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The Hierarchy of Family Structures:

    Patriarchy and patrilineage is one hierarchical model that includes the males of the home having more power over the women of the family and lineage is traced through male descendants. This type of hierarchical structure is most common in "Western" monogamous families although it may be slowly changing.

    Note the absence of the word "nested".

     

  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What a paternal family tree scheme looks like:

    ______________X
    ______________|
    __________Sons of X (0-?)
    ______________|
    ________Sons of Sons of X(0-?)
    ______________|
    _____Sons of Sons of Sons of X(0-?)

    Then we can substitute any name for X and give each level any number of sons we want.

    We can have as many levels as we want. It doesn't matter, it's all made up anyway.

    We can name the Sons of X and all sons on any level any name we want.

    But anyway- The question is, how can the Sons of X or any level below it, ever be on the same level as X?

    In the Army example Squad B will always be on the same level as Field Army. It is part of the Field Army. It is also part of every level leading from it to Field Army.

    With a paternal family tree you can collapse all lower levels (levels below X) into "male descendants of X".

    A father is on the top of his particular family tree but does not consist of his family.

    Is there anyone else who doesn't understand this simple concept?

     

  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    This following is very vague. WHAT is made up?

    It doesn't matter, it's all made up anyway.

    That people exist? No. People do exist.

    That people have fathers? No. People have fathers.

    What EXACTLY is made up?

     

  • At 6:17 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    A squad is indeed a part of a field army. And Bob is indeed a part of Steve's (his father's) family. These are equivalent.

    A Squad is not the EQUAL of a field army, but merely a part of it.

    Bob is not the EQUAL of Steve, but merely a part of his family.

    Is this wrong? If so, how?

     

  • At 6:20 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Read this explanation, Joe. It is quite good.

    franky172 explains a nested hierarchy--with math!!

     

  • At 9:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A squad is indeed a part of a field army. And Bob is indeed a part of Steve's (his father's) family. These are equivalent.

    A father is on top of his paternal family tree but does NOT consist of his family.

    A Field Army sits on top of the Army nested hierarchy and consists of every node below it.

    The two are far from equivalent.

    That is how it is wrong.

    As for what's made up- the whjole scenario is made up blipey.

    What happens to your scheme when the person at the top node doesn't have any children or male descendents?

     

  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I read frank172 and he is incorrect also. Not only that he appears to put words in my mouth. That seems to be common amonst evolutionitwits.

    Perhaps you guys should focus on the OP and the rules of hierarchy theory.

    You seem to think that by ignoring those rules you can do anything you want.

    When you get a reputable person to agree with you, someone with a PhD in science or math, bring that person here and we will hash it out.

    With Kingdon, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species,
    we sapiens (species) also belong to the Genus Homo, the Family Hominindae, the Order Primates, the Class Mammalia, the Phylum Chordata and the Kingdom Anamalia.

    With a paternal family tree the lower levels will never be part of the upper level. The person on the top will always be a separate entity.

    YOUR confusion is easy to see:

    A Squad is not the EQUAL of a field army, but merely a part of it.

    Bob is not the EQUAL of Steve, but merely a part of his family.


    The correct way to word it would be:

    Bob is not the equal of Steve and he is not part of Steve.

    Bob is a separate entity.

    However I do think it's funny that you think that other morons are going to be able to help you out.

     

  • At 1:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And anyone who thinks the structure alone dictates whether or not a nested hierarchy exists is totally lost:

    franky172:

    In this way the web page he cites is properly correct:

    General --> Major --> PFC

    is not a nested hierarchy because "Majors" are not "Generals". But the following is a nested hierarchy (where U(x) represents "under the command of 'x'":

    Code Sample

    U(General)
    / \
    U(Major1) U(Major2)
    / \ / \
    U(PFC1),U(PFC2),U(PFC3),U(PFC4).

    Only a dolt would even attempt something like that.

    NEITHER are an example of a nested hierarchy because the general does not consist of the men he commands, regardless of how you draw it.

    Why is it that you people still refuse to abide by the rules of hierarchy?

    Why is it that you also refuse to draw your scheme without names, as in the two examples I have given?

    And why would blipey run to some other anonymous imbeciles for support?

     

  • At 1:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Using franky's "logic"

    K->P->C->O->F->G->S

    is NOT a nested hierarchy but:

    ______________K
    ______________/\
    _____________P__P
    ____________/\__/\
    ___________C_C__C_C
    __________/\_/\_/\_/\

    and so on is!!!

    It would be best to find someone that actually knows what they are talking about.


    Better luck next time clowny. Until then I will have to go with the experts and authorities that agree with my premise that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy.

     

  • At 1:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To sum up blipey's position:

    Ignore the rules of hierarchy.

    Lie about what your opponent posted.

    Push on at all costs despite having already been soundly refuted.


    And that there are other imbeciles that agree with blipey sure does say quite a bit about the level of education of evolutionitwits.

     

  • At 4:20 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I believe you are the only individual who believes that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy.

    I believe you may also be the only person in the world (in history) that believes a paternal family tree is a ficticious construct. Of course, you could prove me wrong by finding someone who will also say that a paternal family tree doesn't exist. If they use the phrase "in reality" it would be a super bonus. I await contact from this person.

    Have fun in the looney bin.

    Two things to think about:

    1. If Dave is the son of Chris, who is the son of Steve, is the following true or false?

    Steve's family consists of Chris's family and of Dave's family.

    You see, a NH is merely a relational structure not the entities themselves. Could it be that a paternal family tree is merely a way to classify the relationship between families?

    2. If someone did not have a son, this would in no way affect the relationship between the nodes that actually exist. It would merely simplify the overall structure.

     

  • At 6:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I believe you are the only individual who believes that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy.

    That's odd because I have yet to find one educated person who can show that it is a nested hierarchy.

    It doesn't follow the rules.

    I guess it would be a nested hierarchy if you disallow the rules and go by looks alone.

    I believe you may also be the only person in the world (in history) that believes a paternal family tree is a ficticious construct.

    I do NOT believe that. You are one twisted freak.

    What I said is that it takes a man and woman to create children. Therefore a paternal family tree, by ignoring the woman,(nice display of chauvanism by the way) ignores reality.

    Of course, you could prove me wrong by finding someone who will also say that a paternal family tree doesn't exist.

    I am still waiting for a paternal family tree to arise without the aid of a woman.

    You see, a NH is merely a relational structure not the entities themselves.

    LoL!!! That is why I have been asking you to draw up a paternal family tree without the names.

    Are you that stupid?

    One more time for the learning impaired:

    In both valid schemes of a nested hierarchy that I have presented, it is clear that the lowest level belongs to ALL nodes leading to it INCLUDING the top level.

    A human- Homo sapien sapien, is an animal- animal kingdom.

    A squad is part of the Field Army.

    In clowny's example Bob, will never be part of Steve. Dave will never be part of Steve. Steve is alone and can never consist of the levels below him.

    Steve's family consists of Chris's family and of Dave's family.

    In a paternal family tree Steve is at the top node- alone. Not Steve's family. Steve does not consist of his family any more than a general consists of his troops.


    Looks like I have your position summed up correctly.

     

  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Ultimately, we're talking about groupings based on characteristics of an organism, not actual organisms.

    Are you insinuating that I do not receive my characteristics from my biological father (and mother)?

    Darwin didn't know about DNA or Mendelian inheritance, but he knew we shared information with our parents somehow, which is all he needed to know.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home