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

Monday, March 03, 2008

A Paternal Family Tree is NOT a Nested Hierarchy!

Seeing that neither Zachriel nor blipey the clown would listen to reason, I sent an email to the author of the website that I have been referencing to support my claim- that a paternal family tree is NOT a nested hierarchy:
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 9:33 AM
To: tfallen@facstaff.wisc.edu
Subject: Nested Hierarchy- a question



Sir,

I am hoping you could settle some confusion. On your webpage about hierarchies, http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm , you say that an Army command isn't a nested hierarchy because the General does not consist of nor contain the soldiers below him. I understand that.

My question is does a paternal family tree represent a nested hierarchy or a non-nested hierarchy? For example this tree http://www.internationalspecialreports.com/middleeast/99/jordan/8-1.gif

It seems obvious to me that the same rules that prevent an Army command from being nested also apply to a paternal family tree.

Could you please clarify this for me.

respectfully,

Joe Gallien


This afternoon I receved his response:
This is not nested. There is a single rule that applies top to bottom, not nesting.



Timothy F. H. Allen

Botany Dept, 430 Lincoln Drive

University of Wisconsin

Madison WI 53706-1381


Now what Zachriel? Are you going to say that an authority on hierarchy is wrong and you and a clown are right?

Go pound sand and come back when you are ready to substantiate your claims with VALID references.

Until then it is obvious that dealing with you is a waste of time- entertaining but still a waste of time.

BTW- CJYman has a blog- click of "reality cheque" in my Links section.

posted by Joe G @ 4:20 PM  

78 Comments:

  • At 12:23 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    A family consists of people and is made up of them....

     

  • At 7:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you have a point?

    A paternal family tree is NOT a nested hierarchy. Period- end of story.

    A family is not a nested hierarchy either.

     

  • At 7:53 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Does a paternal family tree or even a typical spreading chestnut tree constitute a nested hierarchy (assuming suitable set categorizations)?

    It depends on the level of analsysis, so the answer is yes and no. A military hierarchy is a nested command structure. On the other hand, the general does not consist of, nor is derivable from the army. In the nested hierarchy of the army on the ground, he is just another soldier. So as always, it depends.

     

  • At 8:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Does a paternal family tree or even a typical spreading chestnut tree constitute a nested hierarchy (assuming suitable set categorizations)?

    No- absolutely not.

    A military hierarchy is a nested command structure.

    Military command does NOT represent a nested hierarchy.

    So as always, it depends.

    It depends on if the person making the claim is a complete loser- like you. Otherwise the rules of hierarchy apply. And once those are applied neither a paternal family tree, a typical spreading chestnut tree nor military command constitute a nested hierarchy.

    But thanks for demonstrating that you have all the credibility of a crack-whore.

    And thanks for proving that there is nothing that will ever change you PoV- typical characteristic of all evolutionitwits.

    You guys do more to make my case than I could ever do by myself- Thank you.

     

  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And what does this say about Alan Fox and all the rest of the evolutionitwits that agreed with you?

    "Come to my blog and have a debate with Zachriel."

    That you guys couldn't figure this out on your own exemplifies the lower level from which you try to debate.

    And what does this say about your capabilities to understand the scientific data?

    It does demonstrate what you will do to try to make your point in the face of direct refutation.

    Thank you. Thank you very much...

     

  • At 10:33 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    So to clarify. You strongly disagree with the contents of my previous comment?

     

  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To clarify-

    Neither the paternal family tree that you have been using to make your point, nor a chestnut tree is an example of a nested hierarchy.

    If you disagree please provide a valid reference to substantiate your claim.

    IOW your next approved post will contain said reference.

     

  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: It depends on if the person making the claim is a complete loser- like you... But thanks for demonstrating that you have all the credibility of a crack-whore.

    My previous comment is verbatum from my discussions with Professor Allen in 2006. The questions are mine. The answers are his.

     

  • At 2:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Hey dipshit, this is my point:

    In your link, an army IS a nested hierarchy because IT CONSISTS OF SOLDIERS AND IS MADE UP OF THEM.

    Now, try to follow along closely; I know it's hard.

    A family is a nested hierarchy (paternally) because IT CONSISTS OF PEOPLE AND IS MADE UP OF THEM.

    Notice the perfect analogy. That is the point.

    Here are some people who agree with me, some of them with PhDs! Of course, that doesn't really matter--but the above point does!

    Perhaps you could actually address the point and how it is wrong. You know--on a logical basis rather than saying a clown (and all those scientists at my link) are child molesters.

     

  • At 2:57 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I see you disables the comments on the thread where it was shown that you disagree with your own definition. Nice.

    Please be home when I call you so I can get that list.

     

  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Just a reminder to address the POINT and not the people, Joe. It's how real people behave.

     

  • At 3:00 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    How's that calling Professor Allen a crack-whore thing going?

    I thought you were citing him as a backer? Are you now citing him as a disagreeing scientist?

    Which is it?

    Time to shut down the comments on this thread now!

     

  • At 6:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey clowny fuckface,

    The RULES of hierarchy need to be followed.

    BTW KeithS is a known liar and asshole.

     

  • At 6:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My previous comment is verbatum from my discussions with Professor Allen in 2006. The questions are mine. The answers are his.

    My OP contains Professor Allen's response.

    Time and again I asked you tp DEFINE yoour levels.

    Time and again you FAILED to do so.

    YOU claimed that a paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy as is depicted by the diagram you linked to.

    YOU failed to provide anything else- even though I asked you to.

    So now we are at the point of "assuming suitable set categorizations".

    I always go with reality. And reality demonstrates you failed to provide any such suitable set categorizations.

    YOUR depiction isn't a nested hierarchy because it follows a single rule from top to bottom.

    However if you categorize each level by a defined set of characteristics- not "who's your daddy"- then using a family or a paternal family one could form a nested hierarchy, but it will not be based on descent.

    And that has been your whole point- that descent with divergence leads to NH.

     

  • At 6:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW clowny-

    Thank you for once again proving you are a dishonest asshole.

    I noticed you did NOT post Professor Allen's response.

    You are a freak, a liar, a loser and an ignoramus.

     

  • At 6:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    KeithS
    He seems to have plucked this "single rule" objection out of nowhere.

    That is the rule of NH.

    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.

    KeithS:
    Yet the very example he gives of a nested hierarchy, an army, also applies a single rule from top to bottom: "is under the command of

    Keiths is a retard:

    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.

    The Army does NOT command the Corps. The Corps does not command the Divisions.

     

  • At 6:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I see you disables the comments on the thread where it was shown that you disagree with your own definition.

    I see you still can't comprehend what I post. You know the post that explained that the alleged disagreement is all in your bitty little head.

    No, my definition is for dummies who cannot comprehend the webpage with the formal definitions- like you and Zachriel.

    Meaning only a dummy would use it in deference to the rules I have posted many, many times.

    You also failed to abide by the examples given.

    Please be home when I call you so I can get that list.

    Just tell me when you are in the area and where you will be performing.

    I will be there.

     

  • At 7:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Bob O'H isn't a crediblke source either.

    Darwin did NOT use descent with modification to justfy nested hierarchy.

    He used extinction events because if all the transitionals and intermediates were still alive then we wouldn't have distinct categories of organisms.

    "Yet, direct evidence for evolution only resides in the existence of unambiguous sequential arrangements, and these are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes.” Dr Denton PhD and research scientist.

    "Only if diagnostic character traits remain essentially immutable in all members of the group they define is it possible to conceive of a hierarchic pattern emerging as the result of an evolutionary process."- Dr Denton

     

  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: I dd not call Prof Allen a crack-whore.

     

  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How's that calling Professor Allen a crack-whore thing going?

    I did not call Prof Allen a crack-whore.

    I said that Zachriel has all the credibility of a crack-whore (for not admitting he was wrong).

    You twats are truly twisted.

     

  • At 7:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you have a point Zacheriel?

    I am sure that you, being the dishonest ass you are, and clowny being the dishonest ass he is, could twist my response to YOU as responding to someone else.

    But that is just how assholes, like you two, operate.

     

  • At 7:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just a reminder to address the POINT and not the people, Joe.

    Seeing that you NEVER address the point, by your own definition you are not a real person.

     

  • At 7:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To sum it up:

    Zachriel claimed the following diagram was an example of a nested hierarchy:

    http://www.internationalspecialreports.com/middleeast/99/jordan/8-1.gif

    It isn't.

    So now Zachriel is back-tracking to include some unknown assumptions. Keep in miind that until now Zachriel was using the diagram as evidence that descent forms a nested hierarchy. IOW those unknown assumptions are irrelevant to Zachriel's claim.


    IOW as usual when an evolutionitwit is shown to be wrong they flail away and grasp at anything that may keep them from being disgraced.

    Flailing is disgraceful.

     

  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, I'll take it that you aren't going to address the point?

    All those responses and yet no one that addressed the question. Hmmm.

    Just so we can all remember what the point was, I'll restate it. Joe tried to confuse us by calling everyone names. Ooops.

    The point (and question) was, "What exactly is the problem with this perfect analogy: An army consists of soldiers and is made up of them; a family (paternal family tree) consists of people (sons) and is made up of them."?

    If an army is a nested hierarchy, then a family (paternal family tree) must be also. BASED SOLELY ON THE EXAMPLE GIVEN BY PROFESSOR ALLEN.

    Please try to address THE POINT and not the people, Joe.

    You see that I have addressed the point (again).

    Thanks for being stupid. See, you can call me an asshole, Joe, IF YOU ADDRESS THE POINT.

     

  • At 7:59 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Does a paternal family tree or even a typical spreading chestnut tree constitute a nested hierarchy (assuming suitable set categorizations)?

    Allen: It depends on the level of analsysis, so the answer is yes and no.

    Joe G: No- absolutely not.

    Allen: A military hierarchy is a nested command structure.

    Joe G: Military command does NOT represent a nested hierarchy.

    Allen: So as always, it depends.

    Joe G: It depends on if the person making the claim is a complete loser- like you... But thanks for demonstrating that you have all the credibility of a crack-whore.

    Joe G: If you disagree please provide a valid reference to substantiate your claim.

    I just did.

     

  • At 8:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel,

    The diagram YOU provided does NOT represent a nested hierarchy. Period- end of story.

    That you had to throw in the vague (assuming suitable set categorizations), just further demonstrates your deception.

    YOUR ORIGINAL claim was the diagram you linked to was an example of a nested hierarchy.

    It isn't.

    Admit it and move on.

     

  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So, I'll take it that you aren't going to address the point?

    I did address the point. Don't blame me because YOU are too stupid to understand it.

    If an army is a nested hierarchy, then a family (paternal family tree) must be also. BASED SOLELY ON THE EXAMPLE GIVEN BY PROFESSOR ALLEN.

    The example given by Prof Allen follows the RULES of hierarchy.

    Those RULES- the rules you always ignore- are what determine whether or not a nested hierarchy exists.

    And as Professor Allen said the paternal family tree that Zachriel provided is NOT a nested hierarchy because- "There is a single rule that applies top to bottom, not nesting."

    What part of that don't you understand?

     

  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    c-ya tomorrow...

     

  • At 11:14 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    There is a single rule to an army command structure as well, Joe. You know the command hierarchy that Professor Allen says is a nested hierarchy.

    The rule is: "Is under the command of".

    You have not addressed the point. To do so, you must show where my argument fails.

    So far, you have only stated that it does fail--citing no evidence that it does.

    Please take the analogy (Army vs. Family) and point out exactly where it fails.

    To do this, you must use the items in the analogy (army and family). You must show how they are materially different and where.

    Thanks for not addressing this very specific example. Yet again.

    I addressed, very specifically, the claim of an army being a nested hierarchy. I gave an example of another structure that was materially the same. I compared them.

    You have done none of those things. Please compare and contrast the examples. Even you should e able to do some 6th grade literature.

     

  • At 11:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "A military hierarchy is a nested command structure."

    The COMMAND STRUCTURE is nested.

    That is because each level is specificly defined- IOW each corresponds to a SPECIFIC SET OF DEFINITIONS. And each set on the same level has a different definition as well.

    "On the other hand, the general does not consist of, nor is derivable from the army. In the nested hierarchy of the army on the ground, he is just another soldier."

    Right the NESTED HIERARCHY that I have been posting- Army-Corps- blah blah blah.

    There is a single rule to an army command structure as well, Joe.

    Only if you are ignorant moron. Each level is locked into place by a specified set of definitions.

    Having dealt with the military for decades I know there isn't one rule to an army command.

    So if you can place your family into a structure that is similar to Army-Corps-Division- etc,. or Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species- then do so.

    Each level must have its own specific set of definitions which also include the definitions of the sets they link to.

    And if you follow the example of the Animal Kingdom, then you need two phyla before you can have a Kingdom, and so on.

    So go ahead have at it with your family.

    Take your time I will not be able to check back until tomorrow.

     

  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you take exception to the following:

    An ARMY is a nested hierarchy because it contains soldiers and is made up of soldiers.

    ???

    This is the exact wording of Professor Allen.

    Blipey: There is a single rule to an army command structure as well, Joe.

    JoeG: Only if you are ignorant moron. Each level is locked into place by a specified set of definitions.

    The rule is "X is under the command of." What other rule is necessary to organize a command structure, Joe?

    Please list these non-trivial rules that are required to organize an army command structure.

    How is this materially different from a FAMILY?

    A FAMILY contains people and is made up of people.

    JoeG: Each level must have its own specific set of definitions which also include the definitions of the sets they link to.

    X is a man
    X is a member of ______'s family
    X has a _______, _______, and _______ as members of his family.

    Your requirement has been met.

    Please show example of an ARMY that use different rules.

    X is a unit
    X is a member of _______'s unit
    X has ______, ______, and _____ units as members

    Your requirement has been met in the exact same manner.

    How is this analogy wrong?

     

  • At 7:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    An ARMY is a nested hierarchy because it contains soldiers and is made up of soldiers.

    That's false.

    An Army is a nested hierarchy because it consists of and contains ALL of the sublevels.

    The Army is set in place by a specified definition. Corps is set below Army by a specified definition. Division is set below Corps by a specified definition.

    To fulfill the Army's nested hierarchy said Army must contain and consit of at least two Corps. Each Corps must consist of and contain at least two divisions.

    Nested hierarchy is a specifically defined (super)set that consists of and contains specifically defined (sub)sets.

    Only the top level can consist of and contain one set. IOW each sub-level must contain and consist of at least two sets. (Think of the rules for creating a formal outline)

    Each level and each set has its own set of definitions plus encompasses the definition of the set directly above it.

    For example in order to qualify as a Kingdom it has to have at least two different Phyla. If you only have one Phylum then you do not have a Kingdom. Each species is defined separately from its Genus, but includes the definition of its Genus. And the Animal Kingdom consists of and contains all the sets on every level below it.

     

  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G, you've pretty much lost this argument when you called your own cited authority a "crack whore". Pretending you know everything is the surest way to prevent learning.

     

  • At 8:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Blipey: There is a single rule to an army command structure as well, Joe.

    JoeG: Only if you are ignorant moron. Each level is locked into place by a specified set of definitions.

    The rule is "X is under the command of."

    Tell you what clowny- you go and find a VALID reference that agrees with you and we can discuss it.

    I am tired of dealing with your ignorance.

    Military ranks have specified requirements. And even though some may have the same rank not all have command.

    Look at your ignorance-driven example:

    X is a man
    X is a member of ______'s family
    X has a _______, _______, and _______ as members of his family.

    Does X consist of and contain his family? No.

    But an Army does consist of and contain all the levels below it.


    And the following is just plain stupid:

    X is a unit
    X is a member of _______'s unit
    X has ______, ______, and _____ units as members

    Can be described as:

    X is a unit- (whatever that means)

    A unit is a member of _______'s unit

    A unit has _____,____,and____ units as members.

    You just don't make any sense at all.

     

  • At 8:03 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    This is very basic Joe.

    For our paternal family tree, we will define our sets (as I did over a year ago) as a male and all his male descendents. Let's call it the "Sons of the Father" for convenience.

    If we construct the appropriate sets based on the patriarchy of Sharif Hussein bin Ali, we have a clear nested hierarchy.

    Sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali
    Sons of Ali
    Sons of Abdullah
    Sons of Talal
    Sons of Hussein I
    ...

    But I suspect this is whispering in the wind.

     

  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G, you've pretty much lost this argument when you called your own cited authority a "crack whore".

    Only a twisted imbecile would say such a thing.

    What i said:

    But thanks for demonstrating that you have all the credibility of a crack-whore.

    I was talking to YOU- Zachriel.

    That you can't even understand that just proves you are too demented to deal with. However you are entertaining- full of shit- but entertaining none-the-less.

    Pretending you know everything is the surest way to prevent learning.

    So that is why you are incapable of learning.

    You pretend to know more that an expert- the expert who said YOUR diagram is NOT an example of a nested hierarchy.

     

  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For our paternal family tree, we will define our sets (as I did over a year ago) as a male and all his male descendents.

    YOU said it isn't all the male descendents. YOU said it was just the male descendents of male descendents.

    Your model no longer matches the diagram- the diagram you have been linking to since last year. The diagram that YOU claimed was a nested hierarchy.

    And where is the patriach in your new model?

    The following still applies:

    "This is not nested. There is a single rule that applies top to bottom, not nesting."

     

  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: X is a man
    X is a member of ______'s family
    X has a _______, _______, and _______ as members of his family.

    Does X consist of and contain his family? No.

    Pickett is not Pickett's Division. However, Pickett is a member of Pickett's Division. And similarly for everyone in the Division, from Brig. Gen. Armistead on down to the lowliest soldier.

    Sharif Hussein bin Ali is not his family. But Sharif Hussein bin Ali is a member of the set we defined above, the Sons of Sharif. Abdullah and Talal belong to this set also. Meanwhile, Talal is a member of the set Sons of Abdullah. And so on.

    When we look at the lines on a paternal family tree, it shows the immediate paternal relationships. However, if we combine each male with all his male descendents, then we have a nested hierarchy.

    As Prof. Allen mentioned, another example of a non-nested hierarchy is a pecking order. Consider whom you salute in an army. An enlisted man will salute every General whether in his chain of command or not. Hence, the saluting hierarchy is not nested.

    I have explicitly defined nested sets. When the patriarch Abraham considers his male descendents, he is looking at a nested hierarchy.

     

  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: But thanks for demonstrating that you have all the credibility of a crack-whore.

    I was talking to YOU- Zachriel.

    Your were disagreeing with and replying to Prof. Allen.

     

  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To fulfill the Army's nested hierarchy said Army must contain and consit of at least two Corps. Each Corps must consist of and contain at least two divisions.

    Nested hierarchy is a specifically defined (super)set that consists of and contains specifically defined (sub)sets.

    Only the top level can consist of and contain one set. IOW each sub-level must contain and consist of at least two sets. (Think of the rules for creating a formal outline)

    Each level and each set has its own set of definitions plus encompasses the definition of the set directly above it.

    For example in order to qualify as a Kingdom it has to have at least two different Phyla. If you only have one Phylum then you do not have a Kingdom. Each species is defined separately from its Genus, but includes the definition of its Genus. And the Animal Kingdom consists of and contains all the sets on every level below it.

    But seeing that you can't even follow along I would be better off talking to a wall.

     

  • At 8:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And the bottom line is the nested hierarchy of living organisms is NOT based on descent.

     

  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: YOU said it isn't all the male descendents. YOU said it was just the male descendents of male descendents.

    If there was any misunderstanding, I apologize.

    Zachriel (2006): The easiest way to describe each set is to name each father's sons (meaning all male descendents) by their father's name.

    The sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali
    The sons of Abdullah
    The sons of Talal
    The sons of Hussein I

    Every male descendent of Hussein is a male descendent of Talal. Every male descendent of Talal is a male descendent of Abdullah. Every male descendent of Abdullah is a male descendent of Sharif Hussein bin Ali. These sets are clearly nested. And every paternal family tree has this characteristic nesting, as do the branches of a tree. This is so trivial and obvious, I'm surprised this is something you would argue.

    And yet, a year later, here we are. When Sharif Hussein bin Ali looks down his male line of descent, he sees a nested hierarchy.

    Joe G: And the bottom line is the nested hierarchy of living organisms is NOT based on descent.

    As you have a demonstrated misunderstanding of the nested hierarchy, your claim is meaningless.

     

  • At 9:46 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Only the top level can consist of and contain one set. IOW each sub-level must contain and consist of at least two sets.

    It's rather odd that they would have a word in taxonomy for taxons that have only one member, monotypic.

     

  • At 2:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G: But thanks for demonstrating that you have all the credibility of a crack-whore.

    I was talking to YOU- Zachriel.

    Your were disagreeing with and replying to Prof. Allen.

    No Zachriel- I was respoinding to YOU.

    I was responding to the FACT that you could not and still cannot admit you were and still are wrong.

    Professor Allen agreed with me. The diagram you posted does NOT represent a nested hierarchy.

    That you asked him a very vague question to which he gave a waffling answer in no way supports anything you said.

    That you think it does just proves that you have less credibility than a crack-whore.

    IOW it is obvious you are nothing but another clueless twat.

     

  • At 2:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G: And the bottom line is the nested hierarchy of living organisms is NOT based on descent.

    As you have a demonstrated misunderstanding of the nested hierarchy, your claim is meaningless.

    As you have less credibility than a crack-whore your "rebuttal" is meaningless.

     

  • At 2:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G: Only the top level can consist of and contain one set. IOW each sub-level must contain and consist of at least two sets.

    It's rather odd that they would have a word in taxonomy for taxons that have only one member, monotypic.

    It's not odd. As with everything there are exceptions. Very few, but they exist and that is most likely due to OUR ignorance.

    That and the fuzzy boundaries around any given species.

    And it is because of those fuzzy boundaries that we wouldn't see a nested hierarchy of living organisms if all the alleged transitionals and intermediates were still alive.

    The distinct catergorization that NH requires is lost in a sea of transitionals.

    5th graders understand that- but crack-whores don't.

     

  • At 2:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And something for clowny- Please do enjoy the following articles about Army command structure- and note the complete absence of your rule:

    Army changes major command structure:

    ”Based on a recommendation from the Army Campaign Plan, the Army has changed its major command structure to reflect a more effective and efficient command and control structure for supporting the modular force. With this change, the term "MACOM" (major Army command) will no longer be used. The Army now has three types of major commands: Army command, Army service component command (ASCC), and direct reporting unit.
    Army commands perform many Title 10 functions across multiple disciplines. The Army commands include the Army Forces Command, Army Training and Doctrine Command, and Army Materiel Command.”

    They must have changed it from "X is under the command of".

    Adapting the Major Army Command structure




    United States Army Chain of Command (Organization)

     

  • At 2:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have explicitly defined nested sets.

    Your "definitions" have been found wanting.

    You need to define the levels AND the sets.

    The Animal Kingdom has a specific definition. It is separate from the set.

    The level Phyla has a definition and each Phyla (set on that level) has a separate definition.

    I have asked you time and again to define your levels and your sets. You think they can be the same.


    When the patriarch Abraham considers his male descendents, he is looking at a nested hierarchy.

    Not according the an expert.

    And another note on monotypic- even YOU said there has to be more than two data points.

    One of the rules of NH is to be able to construct a nested hierarchy out of any TWO levels- and only sometimes is an exception allowed.

     

  • At 2:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To reiterate a very important point:

    Professor Allen agreed with me. The diagram you posted does NOT represent a nested hierarchy.

    That you asked him a very vague question to which he gave a waffling answer in no way supports anything you said.

    That you think it does just proves that you have less credibility than a crack-whore.

    IOW it is obvious you are nothing but another clueless twat.

     

  • At 2:54 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Zachriel: Does a paternal family tree or even a typical spreading chestnut tree constitute a nested hierarchy (assuming suitable set categorizations)?

    Allen: It depends on the level of analsysis, so the answer is yes and no.

    Joe G: No- absolutely not.

    Allen: A military hierarchy is a nested command structure.

    Joe G: Military command does NOT represent a nested hierarchy.

    Allen: So as always, it depends.

    Joe G: It depends on if the person making the claim is a complete loser- like you... But thanks for demonstrating that you have all the credibility of a crack-whore.

    Joe G: If you disagree please provide a valid reference to substantiate your claim.

    I just did.

     

  • At 2:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW, with a monotypic classification you go back to the level in which the definition stopped changing- ie stopped getting more specified.

    The reason for the definition change between levels and sets is to help differentiate between that which is similar.

     

  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: That you asked him a very vague question to which he gave a waffling answer in no way supports anything you said.

    No, Joe G. I framed the question in order to elicit as much information as possible so that I might understand Prof. Allen's views. And as he says, the level of analysis does matter.

    If we group males with their immediate male offspring it does not form a nested hierarchy. But if we group males with all their male offspring, it does form a nested hierarchy.

    ----

    Joe G: Only the top level can consist of and contain one set. IOW each sub-level must contain and consist of at least two sets.

    Zachriel: It's rather odd that they would have a word in taxonomy for taxons that have only one member, monotypic.

    Joe G: It's not odd. As with everything there are exceptions. Very few, but they exist and that is most likely due to OUR ignorance.

    Then your statement that "each sub-level must contain and consist of at least two sets" was incorrect. I take your comment as a correction.

     

  • At 7:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    There is no reason to assume that similar morphology demands similar genetics, as convergent evolution of marsupials and eutherian mammals will attest. Creatures such as the marsupial mouse and the eutherian mouse look very similar, but they differ a great deal in their genetics and biochemistry. This is because there are many ways for DNA to encode for the same proteins or the same regulatory elements, thus resulting the same morphology with different genetics. Therefore while common design would not predict such a congruence between trees, common descent would. Thus, common descent is greatly corroborated by such congruence.

    I read this somewhere, memorized it, and posted it.

     

  • At 8:35 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Do you still not know what an empty set is, Joe?

     

  • At 8:37 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    X is a platoon
    X is a member of a company
    X has A, B, and C as member squads.

    It's not that difficult, Joe. Try to put that huge brain of yours to something besides inhaling meth.

     

  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you still not know what an empty set is, Joe?

    You, Zachriel, Richie, rishy all comprise an empty set.


    Each one of you is an empty set and when you put four empty sets together you still have an empty set.

     

  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tim:
    A military hierarchy is a nested command structure.

    {military hierarchy{command structure}}

    A seeing that you like to play hide the reference-

    "A classic example of a non-nested hierarchy is a military command in which a general at the top controls his lieutenants, who control their sergeants, and so on down the chain of command until we finally reach the level of the individual troops."

     

  • At 1:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe G: That you asked him a very vague question to which he gave a waffling answer in no way supports anything you said.

    No, Joe G. I framed the question in order to elicit as much information as possible so that I might understand Prof. Allen's views. And as he says, the level of analysis does matter.

    The question was vague and the answer "it depends" is waffling.

    My question was DIRECT and DIRECTLY refutes your use of a paternal family tree as evidence of a nested hierarchy.

    You STILL have NOT defined your levels.

     

  • At 1:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There is no reason to assume that similar morphology demands similar genetics, as convergent evolution of marsupials and eutherian mammals will attest.

    And there is no reason to assume that similar genetics demands a common ancestor, as convergent evolution will also attest.

     

  • At 1:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    X is a platoon
    X is a member of a company
    X has A, B, and C as member squads.

    It's not that difficult, Joe.

    What's your point? I have already posted about the Army structure.

    You are just rearranging what I posted.

    Are you THAT stupid?

     

  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And ONE MORE TIME-

    Zachriel YOU are a piece of shit snapping asshole.

    ALL of my responses were to YOU, Zachriel.

    My response was to YOUR post.

    And that you think asking a vague question and recieving a waffle for an answer in any supports you, then you are lower than a piece of shit.

    Do you need me to clarify any of that?

     

  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Does a paternal family tree or even a typical spreading chestnut tree constitute a nested hierarchy (assuming suitable set categorizations)?

    What assumptions? Vague.

    It depends on the level of analsysis, so the answer is yes and no.

    Waffle.

    On the other hand, the general does not consist of, nor is derivable from the army.

    A father does not consist of, nor is derivable from his family.

    Also the FATHER sits ALONE on TOP of his paternal family tree.

    Just as Zachriel's link portrayed. The link that an expert said is NOT an example of a nested hierarchy.

     

  • At 8:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel: It's rather odd that they would have a word in taxonomy for taxons that have only one member, monotypic.

    Joe G: It's not odd. As with everything there are exceptions. Very few, but they exist and that is most likely due to OUR ignorance.

    Then your statement that "each sub-level must contain and consist of at least two sets" was incorrect. I take your comment as a correction.

    Only if you ignore my follow-up post:




    BTW, with a monotypic classification you go back to the level in which the definition stopped changing- ie stopped getting more specified.

    The reason for the definition change between levels and sets is to help differentiate between that which is similar.

     

  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Do you still not know what an empty set is, Joe?

    You, Zachriel, Richie, rishy all comprise an empty set.


    Each one of you is an empty set and when you put four empty sets together you still have an empty set.


    YOUR BEST ATTEMPT YET AT HUMOR. This borders on descent. You're getting better.

     

  • At 3:57 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I explicitly stated the X is a company stuff BECAUSE:

    YOU APPEAR TO DISAGREE WITH YOURSELF.

    If you would address the specifics of armies being made up of soldiers and families being made up of people, you would get this.

    You have yet to address why one is correct and the other (even though it is a direct and exact correlation) is incorrect.

    Please try to do so.

     

  • At 10:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I explicitly stated the X is a company stuff BECAUSE:

    YOU APPEAR TO DISAGREE WITH YOURSELF.

    What I appear to do to you has no relevance to what I actually do.

    If you would address the specifics of armies being made up of soldiers and families being made up of people, you would get this.

    If you would READ the links I have been providing then you would know the difference.

    Yes, an Army is made up of people, but the Army is also made of of Corps, Divisions... and so on.

    Do you split up a family into Corps, Divisions, and so forth? No.

    Perhaps if you weren't so damn ignorant you would understand.

    You have yet to address why one is correct and the other (even though it is a direct and exact correlation) is incorrect.

    Only a moron would think there is a direct and exact correlation.

    But then again you are an evolutionitwit.

     

  • At 10:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Do you still not know what an empty set is, Joe?

    You, Zachriel, Richie, rishy all comprise an empty set.


    Each one of you is an empty set and when you put four empty sets together you still have an empty set.


    YOUR BEST ATTEMPT YET AT HUMOR.

    I wasn't being funny. You and the moron triplets are about as empty as it gets.

     

  • At 10:55 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Do you split up a family into Corps, Divisions, and so forth? No.

    Sure you do.

    Dave's family
    Bob's family
    Chris's family
    etc

    Now, would you care to actually answer the question?

    Why is an army a NH while the PERFECTLY LIKE family is not?

    Please address the new information above.

     

  • At 10:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

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

    Zachriel:
    That's correct. A family tree is only partially ordered. Each marriage represents a cross between different lineages.

    Ya see blipey Zachriel agrees that a family tree is not a nested hierarchy.

    Why is an army a NH while the PERFECTLY LIKE family is not?

    It has to do with the definition of levels and sets plus the fact that as Zachriel stated "Each marriage represents a cross between different lineages."

    Ya see clowny the Animal Kingdom isn't a nested hierarchy because it contains and consists of animals.

    It is a nested hierarchy because of the way we catergorize those animals- in nested sets with pre-specified levels and defined sets.

     

  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is an army a NH while the PERFECTLY LIKE family is not?

    Only in your twited little mind is an Army structure anything like a family.

    Thank you for continuing to prove that you are a moron.

    Heck even Zachriel knows that a family is not a nested hierarchy.

    Argue with him.

     

  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I agree that a family tree is not a nested hierarchy.

    You have yet to demonstrate that you know what the difference between a family tree and a paternal family tree is.

    I am not arguing that a family tree is a NH. Please read for comprehension.

     

  • At 10:57 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Uh, Joe...

    That's 2 comments in a row where you have changed my argument into something that I am not arguing. That's very dishonest.

    Once again, I am arguing that a paternal family tree is a NH--NOT A FAMILY TREE, in general.

    Thanks for being stupid.

     

  • At 11:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I agree that a family tree is not a nested hierarchy.

    Then why did YOU ask:

    Why is an army a NH while the PERFECTLY LIKE family is not?

    And why this initial response:

    A family consists of people and is made up of them....

    So when you say:

    I am not arguing that a family tree is a NH.

    You are a fucking liar. THAT is pretty much ALL you have been doing.


    A petrnal family tree isn't a nested hierarchy because:

    There is a single rule that applies top to bottom, not nesting.

    AND

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

    All family trees are a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy.

    Thanks again for proving that you are a dishonest moron.

     

  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    A family is a nested hierarchy (paternally) because IT CONSISTS OF PEOPLE AND IS MADE UP OF THEM.


    Here. I've put the relevant part in bold for you, dipshit.

    You can find the comment (as can everyone else) right here.

    It's not my fault that you can't follow along.

     

  • At 5:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A family is a nested hierarchy (paternally) because IT CONSISTS OF PEOPLE AND IS MADE UP OF THEM.

    But an Army is NOT a nested hierarchy just because it consists of and contains people.

    The Animal Kingdom is NOT a nested hierarchy just because it consists of and contains animals.

    Neither the Army nor the Animal Kingdom follow one single rule from top to bottom.

    You haven't understood a word I posted.

    It is truly amazing that your brain has the capability to use a computer.

    And BTW- the word is patrilineage

    Line of descent as traced through men on the paternal side of a family.

    You morons can't even get the terminology correct.

     

  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In your link, an army IS a nested hierarchy because IT CONSISTS OF SOLDIERS AND IS MADE UP OF THEM.

    As I have been telling you- THAT IS INCORRECT. There isn't anything in any link that comes close to saying that.

    Only a moron could make such a connection.

     

  • At 5:46 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Blipey: In your link, an army IS a nested hierarchy because IT CONSISTS OF SOLDIERS AND IS MADE UP OF THEM.

    JoeG: As I have been telling you- THAT IS INCORRECT. There isn't anything in any link that comes close to saying that.

    Only a moron could make such a connection.

    From this link of Joe's:

    Professor Allen: For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy.

    We can all go there and read it, Joe. For God's sake.

     

  • At 7:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wrong link clowny- And also the link you posted has certain RULES that also must be followed. The RULES that YOU keep ignoring- because you are ignorant.

    However your selective quote-mining just further demonstrates your continued dishonesty.

    The following is the link which demonstrates the nested hierarchy of the US Army:

    Operational Unit Diagram

     

<< Home