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

Friday, February 29, 2008

No one is banned from Intelligent Reasoning

In another ignorance-driven post thorton has said I have banned people.

Not true. I do not ban anyone.

I do have rules that must be followed in order to get your post published:

1- Put up or shut up- IOW support your position. Ignorance-driven drivel will not make ID go away. Subtantiating the claims of your position is the only way to refute ID.

2. Stay on topic

And if you cannot follow 2 simple rules then there is no reason to publish your posts.

posted by Joe G @ 7:46 AM  

56 Comments:

  • At 12:00 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: I do not ban anyone.

    That's rather odd. Over a year ago, you had told me that "nothing else from you will be posted on this blog, in any thread, until you comply" with your list of demands, in particular, that I support a strawman position of your own devising.

    (I have to admit, I was gladdened that I could dispense with the silly arguments. I mean, you normally refuse to grant even the simplest of facts, and it took weeks just to get you to admit that we could treat the contents of 'Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket stuff' as a set — even if his pocket were empty. It probably would have taken years for you to learn to distinguish between subsets and proper subsets, much less nested sets.)

    But it does seem rather odd that you are now claiming that "no one is banned".

     

  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel you refused to stay on-topic and you also refused to support your nonsensical claims.

    And Zachriel it was obvious that your tactic was lies & deception.

    You couldn't understand nested hierarchy if your life depended on it- as evidenced by your stupidity that a paternal family tree represents a nested hierarchy even though reality demonstrates that that any son can belong to at least two different sets- something not allowed in NH.

     

  • At 8:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And I see that your deception continues-

    1) You have to respond in this thread.

    2) Your response must demonstrate that a nested hierarchy is an expected result of Common Descent*.

    3) It must also demonstrate why Common Descent would be falsified if we did not observe a nested hierarchy.

    4) And it must demonstrate why, if all the alleged transitionals that would have had to have existed in a Common Descent scenario were still alive, we would still observe a nested hierarchy.

    Nothing else from you will be posted on this blog, in any thread, until you comply.

    Scientific references would be nice. You know like the reference I posted that demonstrates that evolution can take any direction.

    No strawman- just because you may not understand the ToE and UCD doesn't mean I set up a strawman.

     

  • At 8:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    see also:

    Nested Hierarchy for Dummies

    Male descendents- the violation

     

  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel,

    Do you realize that (t)he fact that the species boundary is indistinct is an important area of evidence cited by Darwin in support of his Theory of Evolution, means that we would not expect a nested hierarchy from UCD?

    Which is why Darwin used well-placed extinction events, NOT UCD, to account for the the observed NH.

     

  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: You couldn't understand nested hierarchy if your life depended on it- as evidenced by your stupidity that a paternal family tree represents a nested hierarchy even though reality demonstrates that that any son can belong to at least two different sets- something not allowed in NH.

    A son can be a member of an infinite number of sets. Anything can be a member of an infinite number of sets. Indeed, everything is a member of the universal set.

    But a son has one-and-only-one father. And only one father's father. That's what we mean by a paternal relationship.

     

  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: No strawman- just because you may not understand the ToE and UCD doesn't mean I set up a strawman.

    Of course it's a strawman if you insist I defend your misstatement of my position.

    Joe G: *Common Descent refers to the premise that all of the extant living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown popuklation(s) of single-celled organisms.

    The nested hierarchy may not properly apply at the roots of the tree of life. It's believed that there was still a universal ancestral population, but one that may have used extensive horizontal evolutionary mechanisms. If so, we wouldn't expect a nested hierarchy. That's why it's a strawman, Joe G.

    In any case, the effect of demanding someone support a strawman of your devising before posting is tantamount to banning. So I find this thread rather humorous.

    Joe G: Which is why Darwin used well-placed extinction events, NOT UCD, to account for the the observed NH.

    Any discussion of the nested hierarchy requires some knowledge of Set Theory and Categorization. It's been a year since we last spoke. Have you taken the time to learn anything about Set Theory? Perhaps taken a class?

     

  • At 9:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G: *Common Descent refers to the premise that all of the extant living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown popuklation(s) of single-celled organisms.

    The nested hierarchy may not properly apply at the roots of the tree of life.

    Umm as I have told you many times- If it doesn't apply to the roots it doesn't apply at all. That is because the rest of the tree is formed by those roots. Roots not strong- tree falls.

    And using YOUR words we shouldn't expect NH because the species boundary is indistinct.

    Which is why Darwin used well-placed extinction events, NOT UCD, to account for the the observed NH.

    Any discussion of the nested hierarchy requires some knowledge of Set Theory and Categorization.

    So I recommend that you go and get some.

    Why Set Theory is irrelevant when discussing Nested Hierarchy

    From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.

    "Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned."- page10

    That is from an approved high school supplementle text book.

    Your only argument now is tat we are teaching the high school kids the WRONG thing!

    I await your letter to all high schools and scientists who reviewed the text, informing them of their error.

     

  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G: You couldn't understand nested hierarchy if your life depended on it- as evidenced by your stupidity that a paternal family tree represents a nested hierarchy even though reality demonstrates that that any son can belong to at least two different sets- something not allowed in NH.

    A son can be a member of an infinite number of sets. Anything can be a member of an infinite number of sets. Indeed, everything is a member of the universal set.

    But a son has one-and-only-one father. And only one father's father. That's what we mean by a paternal relationship.

    Before it was male descendants.

    IOW your only position now is to move the goalposts.

    Thanks for proving you are an asshole.

     

  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Umm as I have told you many times- If it doesn't apply to the roots it doesn't apply at all. That is because the rest of the tree is formed by those roots. Roots not strong- tree falls.

    That's funny. You're saying the archtypical tree doesn't have a tree shape. A nested hierarchy applies to a tree starting at the trunk. Each branch can have more than one twig, but each twig connects to one and only one branch.

    Joe G: Why Set Theory is irrelevant when discussing Nested Hierarchy

    A nested hierarchy is composed of sets (an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset). Hence Set Theory is essential.

    Joe G: Before it was male descendants.

    Yes, each father can have a number of sons. But each son has one-and-only-one father.

     

  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh my god! You still claim that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy!

    Could you please dig up a list of 1000s of mathematicians who agree with you? Please?

    Then promise to only show us this list when you get your dick sucked.

    Please?

     

  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Could you also backtrack and claim that an empty pocket cannot represent a set?

    Then show us a list of 1000s of mathematicians who agree with you?

    Top Five week, for sure!

     

  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You're saying the archtypical tree doesn't have a tree shape.

    No I never said nor implied any such thing.

    But thanks for once again proving you are a cock-sucking bitch with no grasp on reality.

    A nested hierarchy is composed of sets (an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset). Hence Set Theory is essential.

    When talking about set theory 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.

    With set theory in general anything can be a set. Just put whatever you want in {} and you have a set. Or if you can't find {} just declare what you want to be in a set. Then all subsets are just that set and/ or that set minus any number of items.

    For example with Zachriel's paternal family tree I can make a set of {Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Abdul Ilah,Faisal}. A subset would then be {Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Failsal}. It is a valid set and it is a valid subset. However neither make sense in a nested hierarchy.

    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.

    In nested hierarchy each set and each level are specifically defined by several criteria. This is done such that a person can pick an item from one set, hand it to another person, and from the specifications be able to replace the item in its original set.

    That is why when you are talking about nested hierarchy and someone tries to divert the attention to set theory they are up to nothing but deception.

    And why did you ignore the following:

    From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.

    "Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned."- page10

    That is from an approved high school supplementle text book.

    Your only argument now is tat we are teaching the high school kids the WRONG thing!

    I await your letter to all high schools and scientists who reviewed the text, informing them of their error.

    IOW Zachriel chooses willfull ignorance.

    You rock Zach...

     

  • At 2:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oh my god! You still claim that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy!

    That is because I know what it takes to make a nested hierarchy and neither you nor Zachriel does.

    For example:

    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.

     

  • At 2:47 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! tell us you have a list of thousands of mathematicians who agree with you!

    PLEASE!

     

  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey clowny limpdick,

    The challenge still stands- that is all you have to do is present ONE PhD who agrees with YOU.

    IOW find someone with a PhD who says a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy.

     

  • At 3:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    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.

    I would love to see a PhD disagree with that....

     

  • At 3:33 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: 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.

    That's right Sharif Hussein bin Ali is not a nested hierarchy. However, he and his male descendents form a nested hierarchy by paternity.

    This really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp. But you seem unwilling to learn.

     

  • At 3:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Notice how I support my claims with peer-reviewed entries and accepted definitions-

    From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought, edited by Katy Human). This is part of a reviewed series expressing the current scientific consensus.

    "Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned."- page10


    and

    A SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY THEORY


    And all that Zachriel and clowny have are each other.

     

  • At 4:46 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: From the “Contemporary Discourse in the Field Of Biology” series I am reading Biological Evolution: An Anthology of Current Thought.

    The editor, Katy Human, provides articles on the basic mechanisms of evolution, including adaptation. We are in agreement then. Current scientific thought strongly supports the Theory of Evolution.

    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.

    Katy Human: Uncertainty, randomness, nonlinearity, and lack of hierarchy seem to rule existence, at least where evolution is concerned.

    The editor's use of the term "hierarchy" isn't referring to a nested hierarchy. Her point is that humans and bacteria are each just as evolved, just as derived. There is no valid biological hierarchy of better or best. She adds, "In Evolutionary terms, bacteria, by some accounts, are actually far more successful than humans; they are more diverse, more numerous, and, in many cases, far more powerful than we are."

     

  • At 4:48 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    As the thread topic is "banning", why do you hold comments in the moderation queue? If you are worried about spam, Blogger offers a Word Verification feature that works quite well.

     

  • At 6:00 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, off hand, I'd say all these guys will go with paternal family trees being nested hierarchies:

    See here.

    Now, I assume you will be providing a list of thousands of mathematicians who agree with you?

     

  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No Zachriel, Sharif Hussein bin Ali does NOT consist of his sons.

    In order for something to be a nested hierarchy the superset- the set at the top- must consist of AND contain all of the subsets.

    The patriach does not consist of nor contain his descendents.

    This is NOT a difficult concept to grasp.

    Why is it then that you cannot grasp it?

     

  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    That you can't understand the sources you cite is not really our problem, Joe.

    You keep citing a definition that disagrees with you, but never look to see why.

     

  • At 6:05 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, he does not, but the paternal family tree that he is a part of does, Joe.

    Really, a bright second grader can grasp this concept. That you can't is truly mind-boggling.

    A person is a different thing than a family tree, Joe. You DO understand that, right?

     

  • At 6:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The editor, Katy Human, provides articles on the basic mechanisms of evolution, including adaptation.

    Yet no scientific data which demonstrates the changes required are even possible.

    The editor's use of the term "hierarchy" isn't referring to a nested hierarchy.

    If you don't expect hierarchy then it is a given you don't expect a nested hierarchy.

    Ya see, as I have told you and provided evidence for, evolution does NOT have a direction.

    To have a nested hierarchy based on common descent you have one direction. One in which the characteristics are immutable.

    Such is not the case with evolution.

    So even though we can construct a nested hierarchy, that does not mean the ToE expects one.

    And if the roots of a tree don't form a nested hierarchy there is no reason to say that which is derived from those roots should form one.

     

  • At 6:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And again I will use YOUR words to refute the premise that a paternal family tree forms a nested hierarchy:

    "It takes more than two data points to construct a nested hierarchy."

    A paternal family tree has only one- "Who's your daddy?"

     

  • At 6:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As the thread topic is "banning", why do you hold comments in the moderation queue?

    Read the OP- Or are you still unable to comprehend what I post?

     

  • At 6:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That's great clowny.

    You link to THE SAME SITE I DID and claim it supports you.

    The following IS FROM THAT SITE:

    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.

    A person is a different thing than a family tree, Joe. You DO understand that, right?

    Yes I do. I also understand that a paternal family tree nor any family tree, can make a nested hierarchy.

    Just because someone can draw soemthing to resemble the configuration of a nested hierarchy doesn't make it a nested hierarchy.

    And as Zachriel said:

    It takes more than two data points to construct a nested hierarchy.

    The ONLY criterion in a paternal family tree is "Who's your daddy?"

     

  • At 6:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Army command forms a hierarchy, not a nested hierarchy. That is because the general does NOT consist of nor contain, his subordinates.

    The structure of an army- armies-corps-division-brigade-battalion-company-platoon-squad-troop- on the other hand, is a nested hierarchy because the troop belongs to every subset that is above him/ her. And the entity at the top consists of AND contains all the levels below it.

    That you morons refuse to understand that basic and simple concept just further demonstrates your willfull ignorance.

     

  • At 6:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    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.

    Science is NOT done via proclamation.

    When the NAS has the data which demonstrates that genetic accidents can construct useful protein machines and new body plans, please be sure to let me know.

     

  • At 6:41 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You do understand that an army is a different thing than a person, right?

    Like I said, it's not our fault you can't understand the things you cite. My link was not an accident. Why don't you ask any of the folks on that bibliography if they agree with you?

     

  • At 6:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel's own words:

    The fact that the species boundary is indistinct is an important area of evidence cited by Darwin in support of his Theory of Evolution.

    As to the definition of "species", it's not the fault of the definition that the thing itself that is indistinct (or technically, has chaotic boundaries.

    That means that we shouldn't expect to find distinctly defined sets of organisms. Nested hierarchy depends on distinctly defined sets.

    It takes more than two data points to construct a nested hierarchy.

    That means that a paternal family tree doesn't qualify as it only has ONE data point- "Who's your daddy?"

    And unless you have direct observation or can talk to the family, there is a real possibility that you could not figure out the proper sequence.

     

  • At 7:27 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: 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.

    Zachriel: That's right Sharif Hussein bin Ali is not a nested hierarchy. However, he and his male descendents form a nested hierarchy by paternity.

    Joe G: Sharif Hussein bin Ali does NOT consist of his sons.

    That is correct.

    Joe G: In order for something to be a nested hierarchy the superset- the set at the top- must consist of AND contain all of the subsets.

    That's correct. Sharif Hussein bin Ali and his male descendents do constitute such a superset.

    Zachriel: The editor's use of the term "hierarchy" isn't referring to a nested hierarchy.

    Joe G: If you don't expect hierarchy then it is a given you don't expect a nested hierarchy.

    She's not referring to taxonomy, Joe G. Please read her comments in context.

    Zachriel: It takes more than two data points to construct a nested hierarchy.

    Joe G: The ONLY criterion in a paternal family tree is "Who's your daddy?"

    You just confused a data point with a criterion. The paternal family tree we are discussing consists of twenty data points.

    Joe G: Science is NOT done via proclamation.

    No, but you proclaimed your quote-mine to be definitive. In fact, your cited text is dependent on the validity of evolutionary theory.

    Joe G: Nested hierarchy depends on distinctly defined sets.

    I would be happy to discuss taxonomy with you, but first, we need a fundamental understanding of the nested hierarchy.

    The twigs on a archtypical tree arranged by branch and limb form a nested hierarchy. Male descendents of a patriarch grouped by paternity form a nested hierarchy. These are not debatable, but flow directy from the definition of a nested hierarchy.

     

  • At 6:24 AM, Blogger CJYman said…

    I think I may be seeing where the confusion on this topic is coming from.

    First, the base of the tree of life may actually be more of a web than anything else due to HGT. Thus, the base of the tree of life can't be a nested hierarchy.

    Second, a taxonomic categorization is an example of a nested hierarchy, since domain contains kingdom which contains division, class, order, etc.

    However, it is only because of extinction that we have any clear dividing line between living forms. If all animals ever alive were still living then there would be no clear dividing line between where one "changes into the other". The tree of life itself is, after all, supposedly built upon gradual change.

    The tree of life contains the same principle as the "graph of global temperature change." No one reference point contains any other reference point as being in its set. Since it is a record of gradual change from one form to another, then the tree of life itself is not an example of a nested hierarchy, since one living form contains no other living form as a part of its set.

    So, in practice, because of extinction, our categorization system of types of animals is a nested hierarchy. However, in reality, since animals have supposedly evolved gradually then there is no point on the tree of life that contains within its set any other point. Thus, the tree of life itself is not an example of a nested hierarchy.

    The closest we can come to a nested hierarchy is to draw clearly defined circles around groups of animals which contain other groups of animals within its set.

    But even this fails to produce true nested hierarchy since, as far as I understand, animals can be hard to classify. One method of classification will produce a different tree of life than another method of classification. I'm looking into this. If this is the case then even more credibility is lent to the case that even the practical system of classification which is useful only as a result of extinction is not really a true classification since the boundary lines are blurred as in the gradually changing graph example. Again, with gradual, blurring definitions of sets and a gradual change from one set to the other as in a graph of global temperature or a tree of life a true nested hierarchy is impossible.

    If it doesn't conform to the "russian doll" principle it's not a nested hierarchy.

    Therefore, in practical application a taxonomic system -- only possible as a result of extinctions so as to potentially draw some clear boundaries -- may be a nested hierarchy only if the sets are actually clearly defined and if there is no blurring or overlapping of set boundaries, but in reality the actual tree of life is most definitely not a nested hierarchy.

     

  • At 7:00 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe,

    Following your (I hesitate to call it) logic, a tree is not an example of a nested hierarchy. You win a kwepie doll if you can explain why.

    I can explain your position; can you explain mine?

     

  • At 7:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G: Sharif Hussein bin Ali does NOT consist of his sons.

    That is correct.

    Then we agree that a paternal family tree is NOT a nested hierarchy.

    Thanks.

    Joe G: In order for something to be a nested hierarchy the superset- the set at the top- must consist of AND contain all of the subsets.

    That's correct. Sharif Hussein bin Ali and his male descendents do constitute such a superset.

    So now we are back to male descendents? No we are back to the violoation I posted earlier.

    With an Army the superset looks like:

    {Army{1stArmy{1stCorp {1stDivision {1stBrigade {1stBattalion(1stCompany{1stPlatoon{1st Squad {troop}}}}}}}


    With YOUR scenario we cannot make such a superset.

    In my sceanrio, the Army that sits on top of the nested hierarchy consists of and contains all the levels below it.

    In YOUR scenario
    Sharif Hussein bin Ali sits on top and does NOT consist of nor contain the levels below it.

    That you are too simple-minded to grasp such a thing proves you are in no position to discuss anything with me.

    So run along and see if you can find someone with some kind of authority that agrees with you and bring them here.

    I am now going to start enforcing the rules- so either put up or shut up.

     

  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A tree is NOT a nested hierarchy for the simple reason that if I give you twenty twigs and branches you could not place them back in their proper position on the tree.

    With a nested hierarchy each set is locked into position via a strict set of definitions.

    You do understand that an army is a different thing than a person, right?

    Yes I do. An Army contains and consists of people. Sharif Hussein bin Ali does NOT contain nor consist of the people below him.

     

  • At 7:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G: Science is NOT done via proclamation.

    No, but you proclaimed your quote-mine to be definitive.

    That is because the data supports it.

    In fact, your cited text is dependent on the validity of evolutionary theory.

    It may be but that does not validate the theory of evolution.

    Heck you can't even provide a testable hypothesis based on non-telic processes.

    The twigs on a archtypical tree arranged by branch and limb form a nested hierarchy. Male descendents of a patriarch grouped by paternity form a nested hierarchy. These are not debatable, but flow directy from the definition of a nested hierarchy.

    Those are VERY debatable and it has become very clear that you cannot cite any authority who agrees with you.

    Male descendents violates the rules of nested hierarchy as each male can be claimed by a number of other males as a descendent.

     

  • At 7:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And again, Darwin did NOT use UCD to account for the nested hierarchy of living organisms. He used well-placed extinctions to account for it.

    That is because "species" is an ambiguous, at best, concept- complete with blurred, non-distinct boundaries.

     

  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To Zachriel and clowny,

    Your next posts have to have at least one valid reference to support your contention that a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy.

    If you wonder why your posts don't show up the reason is you didn't provide such a reference.

     

  • At 8:19 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    CJYman: First, the base of the tree of life may actually be more of a web than anything else due to HGT. Thus, the base of the tree of life can't be a nested hierarchy.

    That is quite possibly correct, which returns us to the topic. Joe G required that I defend a position I didn't have, a strawman. Hence, it was tantamount to banning, something he claimed he didn't do. I notice he still holds my comments in moderation.

    CJYman: However, it is only because of extinction that we have any clear dividing line between living forms.

    Extinction helps make us discern the nested hierarchy, but assuming we have diverging lines of common descent, the nested hierarchy would exist regardless.

    CJYman: Since it is a record of gradual change from one form to another, then the tree of life itself is not an example of a nested hierarchy, since one living form contains no other living form as a part of its set.

    But the twigs on the tree associated by their branch and limb certainly do form a nested hierarchy.

    CJYman: Thus, the tree of life itself is not an example of a nested hierarchy.

    Wrong, for the reason given. The twigs on a tree associated by their branch and limb form a nested hierarchy.

    CJYman: The closest we can come to a nested hierarchy is to draw clearly defined circles around groups of animals which contain other groups of animals within its set.

    If organisms descended by divergence from common ancestors, then we have a nested hierarchy. Just as an archetypcal tree is a nested hierarchy from the trunk up.

     

  • At 8:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    However, it is only because of extinction that we have any clear dividing line between living forms. If all animals ever alive were still living then there would be no clear dividing line between where one "changes into the other". The tree of life itself is, after all, supposedly built upon gradual change.

    Thanks CJYman. I have explained that exact thing to these nitwits but they just refuse to understand.

    That is why I am going to continue to enforce the rules of the blog.

    I don't have time to spoon-feed droolers who do not want to eat.

     

  • At 8:23 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Then we agree that a paternal family tree is NOT a nested hierarchy.

    The male descendents of a patriarch grouped by paternity form a nested hierarchy. This is not something that is debatable.

    Joe G: With YOUR scenario we cannot make such a superset.

    Of course we can. That you keep saying otherwise is just silly. Just put each male in a set with all of his male descendents.

    Joe G: In YOUR scenario Sharif Hussein bin Ali sits on top and does NOT consist of nor contain the levels below it.

    You're not very good at reading. You've had a year to think about it. The top superset is Sharif Hussein bin Ali *and* all his male descendents.

    Joe G: A tree is NOT a nested hierarchy for the simple reason that if I give you twenty twigs and branches you could not place them back in their proper position on the tree.

    Of course it's a nested hierarchy. It's easy to see that when they are still attached to the tree, of course.

    Joe G: Male descendents violates the rules of nested hierarchy as each male can be claimed by a number of other males as a descendent.

    I'm sorry for your family troubles. But each son has one-and-only-one biological father.

     

  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Your next posts have to have at least one valid reference to support your contention that a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy.

    That's rich — considering the thread topic.

     

  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel,

    You are confusing the title with the topic.

    The topic is:

    In another ignorance-driven post thorton has said I have banned people.

    Not true. I do not ban anyone.

    I do have rules that must be followed in order to get your post published:

    1- Put up or shut up- IOW support your position. Ignorance-driven drivel will not make ID go away. Subtantiating the claims of your position is the only way to refute ID.

    2. Stay on topic

    And if you cannot follow 2 simple rules then there is no reason to publish your posts.


    No one will be banned. All you have to do is to actually find a valid reference that supports YOUR claims.

    If you cannot then there is nothing left to discuss.

     

  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: No one will be banned. All you have to do is to actually find a valid reference that supports YOUR claims.

    If you cannot then there is nothing left to discuss.

    You suppress two of my comments that directly responded to your claims. It's your blog, Joe G. But don't dissemble about banning people.

     

  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Repeating your well-refuted nonsense is NOT substantiating your claim with a valid reference.

    That you think so just further demonstrates your lack of integrity.

    Banning means I will not let you post here no matter what.

    However I WILL let you post here if and only if, you follow my rules.

    And if you cannot then find some other blog to pollute or go play in traffic.

     

  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Banning means I will not let you post here no matter what.

    However I WILL let you post here if and only if, you follow my rules.

    Your rules include my having to support a strawman of your devising. Dissembling is worse than banning.

    The good news is that you exhibit the reasons why no one in science takes Intelligent Design seriously, and why laypersons should too.

     

  • At 11:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Universal Common Descent is NOT a strawman.

    If anything YOUR position is a strawman YOU set up once you realized that nested hierarchy does not apply to the bulk of living organisms.

    Now I am saying that YOU have to support YOUR claims with a VALID reference.

    Just repeating the same refuted nonsense is not providing a valid reference.

    The great news is you give everyone reasons why to not trust any evolutionitwit.

    And you have also demonstrated there isn't even a hypothesis for your position- by refusing to offer one.

    Thanks- you jokers do more to help me than I could ever do alone.

    BTW there are scientists- people in science- who take ID very seriously.

    But thanks again for demonstrating your dishonesty.

     

  • At 12:54 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: If anything YOUR position is a strawman YOU set up once you realized that nested hierarchy does not apply to the bulk of living organisms.

    Zachriel (May 2006): Please quit misrepresenting my views. My position has been consistent. The early evolution of eukaryotes is still only partly understood. Common Descent does not properly apply to the origins of cellular. The most strongly supported theory is endosymbiosis, but that may be supplanted as genomic data becomes available. All scientific theories are subject to revision upon new information.

    Joe G: And you have also demonstrated there isn't even a hypothesis for your position- by refusing to offer one.

    My views are quite conventional in most respects. I would be happy to state such a hypothesis, but that requires agreement on fundamental terminology, something you seem unable to grasp.

    Joe G: But thanks again for demonstrating your dishonesty.

    I note your continued lack of respect towards others. I assure you that I do hold the positions I espouse.

     

  • At 4:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel said:
    If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.

    Yes it is true that Zachriel then retreated from that position once he saw it was indefensible.

    BTW the ONLY evidence for endosymbiosis for the origins of eukaryotes is the rejection that euks came first.

    However I really would love to see your hypothesis based on non-telic processes.

    My bet is you don't have one but instead will present a hypothsis based on UCD. Evidence for UCD is NOT evidence for a mechanism- see "the Edge of Evolution" by Dr Behe.

    And I will also bet that any hypothesis you can provide for UCD I could rearrange and use as support for either convergence or common design.

     

  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The male descendents of a patriarch grouped by paternity form a nested hierarchy. This is not something that is debatable.

    An expert disagrees with Zachriel.

    Now what?

    Male descendents violates the rules of nested hierarchy as each male can be claimed by a number of other males as a descendent.

    I'm sorry for your family troubles. But each son has one-and-only-one biological father.

    YOUR family tree may be a straight line, but most people have one father, TWO grandfathers, FOUR great-grandfathers, EIGHT great-great-grandfathers. And each one can lay claim to the male descendents.

    IOW you think that a human can belong to two diffent phyla and that would not violate the nested hierarchy.

    Strange.

    But anyways- deal with the expert who refutes you and agrees with me.

    IOW find an expert that will be willing to come forward and agree with you- ie a VALID reference.

     

  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I note your continued lack of respect towards others.

    Respect is earned. And you have earned disrespect.

    I have given you multiple opportunities to support your position with valid references.

    And time and again you have refused to do so.

    You get what you deserve.

     

  • At 7:18 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Uh, Joe. That's why a family tree is not a nested hierarchy and a PATERNAL FAMILY TREE is.

    Unless you think that your mother's ancestors are included in a PATERNAL FAMILY TREE...

    You don't think that do you? If so, please prove that a paternal family tree (with the only criterion being paternal descent) has anything to do with mothers.

    If not, why would you mention the mother's ancestors?

     

  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That's why a family tree is not a nested hierarchy and a PATERNAL FAMILY TREE is.

    According to an expert a paternal family tree is NOT a nested hierarchy.

    You lost clowny- as usual.

     

<< Home