Intelligent Reasoning

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

Monday, March 10, 2008

The Word is "Patrilineage"

Zachriel and blipey have been trying to tell me about a paternal family tree without understanding what that was. The word they were looking for is:

Patrilineage

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

IOW they can't even get the terminology correct!

42 Comments:

  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger rishy said…

    Hard to answer questions if you close the comments. also tough to answer questions if you never ask me any. Come on, open up the comments again. You look like a coward!

     
  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You had your chance to answer the questions I asked.

    And yes I asked you two questions and you didn't directly respond to either. IOW you are a liar.

    I close the comments in a thread in which the "discussion" does not stay on topic and my opponents refuse to answer my questions.

    Anyone can endlessly needle another person. However intellectual cowards, like you, never ante up.

    Why is that?

     
  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Nope, fucker. The right link.

    We're talking about the link you cite as evidence for what is and is not a NH. That is the link you gave.

    So shut the fuck up and clse another thread!

    That's what people interested in truth do all the time--SHUT THE FUCKERS UP!!!!!!!

    Go JOE!

     
  • At 9:33 PM, Blogger rishy said…

    I am devastated! I have lost my chance to answer your questions! If I am a liar, then you are a pussy! Ask again! Direct your questions to me by name. You are a creationist in denial (though you and I both know you are not in denial, you are trying to prove the unprovable, making you stoopid) and you refuse to admit it. ID was debunked. It's over for you and your ilk. Good luck with your delusion. I hope you don't reproduce!

    Oh, and you close discussion threads, and refuse to publish posts, when they show you are wrong. Why else hide? Chickenshit!

     
  • At 9:54 PM, Blogger rishy said…

    Clearly PZ reads your blog, because he seems to have written this just for you, Joe:

    Can we just get something straight? Science builds on past discoveries. You don't get to cherry pick what bits you want to include in your theory — successful new theories don't throw away old evidence, they extend and strengthen and reinforce, and offer new insights. There may be new theories that follow the theory of evolution … but they will all incorporate the basic facts of earth's history — its age, common descent, the relationships between species, etc. — and will not be any more appealing to creationists than what we've got now.

     
  • At 10:42 PM, Blogger rishy said…

    Aren't you the one who sent a letter asking about a "paternal family tree"? You made no mention then about the fact the the correct word is patrilineage. And, I do not see the difference between a paternal family tree and patrilineage. One is the entity, the other is the graphical representation. Just like a photograph of you is a graphical representation of the entity we know as joe g.

    What was the point of this whole thing?

     
  • At 10:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey you are a moron- and here is why:

    The website talks about RULES. YOU IGNORE all the rules and focus on two sentences. Sentences in which the author assumes that the reader understands must abide by the RULES that preceded those sentences.

    IOW you are a stupid fucker and you deserve to be stifled.

    And again the website that demonstrates the nested hierarchy of the US Army is:

    Operational Unit Diagram

    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 10:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If I am a liar, then you are a pussy!

    You are what you eat. Which would make you a little boys penis.

    Direct your questions to me by name.

    I did.

    I asked you if a son was a descendent or not?

    I also asked you is any family tree a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy?

    I want YOUR answers.

    ID was debunked.

    When and by who? There isn't any observation, scientific data nor evidence that supports the premise that living organisms arose from non-living matter via non-telic processes.

    And it is strange that there still isn't anything in any peer-reviewed journal that can demonstrate the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans can be accounted for by the genetic differences.

     
  • At 10:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Aren't you the one who sent a letter asking about a "paternal family tree"?

    That was the terminology being used by Zachriel.

    And, I do not see the difference between a paternal family tree and patrilineage.

    That's because you are stupid.

    A patrilineage does not include a paternal grandmother. A paternal family tree does.

    What was the point of this whole thing?

    Zachriel thinks that common descent expects a nested hierarchy:

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

    I have shown that it doesn't.

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Can we just get something straight? Science builds on past discoveries.

    It should.

    You don't get to cherry pick what bits you want to include in your theory — successful new theories don't throw away old evidence, they extend and strengthen and reinforce, and offer new insights.

    That's how it should work, anyway.

    There may be new theories that follow the theory of evolution … but they will all incorporate the basic facts of earth's history — its age, common descent, the relationships between species, etc. — and will not be any more appealing to creationists than what we've got now.

    The age of the Earth depends on HOW it was formed. Universal common descent has to be assumed, it can only be "tested" under the assumption. The SAME evidence that supports UCD can be used to support alternative hypotheses.

    If PZ or anyone wants ID to go away all you have to do is SUPPORT YOUR POSITION!

    Start by offering a testable hypothesis based on non-telic processes.

     
  • At 11:05 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    No, I don't ocus on two sentences, Joe.

    I have continually, without fail, asked you to address the SPECIFICS of why a family made up of people (paternally) fails to satisfy the rules.

    Far from ignoring the rest of the link, I have given MULTIPLE examples of why a paternal family tree follows those rues.

    YOU, on the other hand, have never once addressed the SPECIFICS of why a family made up of people fails to meet the same criteria as an army made up of soldiers.

    Just so you can ignore it again, here we go:

    Pickett's Division is made up of soldiers in Pickett's Division.

    Dave's Family is made up of people (sons, in our case) in Dave's Family.

    Pickett's Division is a part of the 4th Army Group.

    Dave's Family is part of Chris's Family.

    Why is an Army a NH and a Family (paternally), not a NH?

    Please give SPECIFIC counter EXAMPLES.

    Thanks for merely linking to something that you said a year ago. No new info from, Joe! He likes his thinking 15th century.

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    A patrilineage does not include a paternal grandmother. A paternal family tree does.


    Excuse me? Only in the sense that we add her on. She is not necessary for the structuring of the paternal family tree.

     
  • At 11:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Define your LEVELS and define your SETS.

    IOW clowny it is obvious that you have focused only on those two sentences.

    Again to be a Kingdom- as in Animal Kingdom- requires that certain criteria be met. To be in the Animal Kingdom criteria independent of the level has to be met.

    With both that example and the Army there is NOT a single rule from top to bottom.

    With your example it is a partially ordered set:

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

    Do you not understand English?

    BTW-Dave's family- who's Dave?

    Provide a real-life, verifiable example. You don't get to make shit up.

     
  • At 1:36 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you don't care to work through the examples you give?

    Merely stating things doesn't make them true, Joe.

    Why don't you give an example of those rules in an Army? List them for us. Show how each rule is a non-trivial element necessary for ordering the Army.

    You haven't done that; why not?

    I've given you my list of rules for both an Army and a Family. You haven't bothered to refute them or to even comment on them. Why not?

    To be a member of Pickett's Division you must be under the direct command of Pickett, or under the command of someone who is under the direct command of Pickett.

    To be a member of Bob's Family you must be descended directly from Bob, or descended from someone who is directly descended from Bob.

    Look. It's the same thing.

    Why is an Army a NH and a Family (paternally) not a NH?

    Thanks for not being able to shopw your work. Yet again.

     
  • At 8:47 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    In all the months of discussing this did you not bring this point up because it was trivial?

    And you're now bringing it up to divert from the fact that you aren't addressing the issue?

    You think this is a very strong point in your favor for some reason?

     
  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A hierarchy of this kind is to be contrasted with a more general notion of a partially ordered set*.

    A taxonomy is a classic example of a containment hierarchy.



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


    Is Zachriel's example a collection of people ordered by descendency?

    Yes. Therefor it is a PARTIALLY ORDERED SET.

    What part of that don't you guys understand?

     
  • At 1:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why don't you give an example of those rules in an Army?

    I provided a link- read it.

    Yes to be in Pickett's division you would be under his command. But WHAT put you there? What gave Pickett a division in the first place?

    The PRE-DEFINED STRUCTURE.

    I provided an example- the Animal Kingdom.

    You chumps have yet to define your levels and your sets.

    In all the months of discussing this did you not bring this point up because it was trivial?

    I dropped it. The only reason I bring it up now is because you guys are obviously too stupid and too lazy to find things out for yourselves.

     
  • At 1:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel,

    Just because you can draw a diagram to look like a nested hierarchy doesn't mean you have a nested hierarchy.

    But thanks for once again proving that you are an imbecile.

     
  • At 1:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Pre-defined

    Squad - 9 to 10 soldiers. Typically commanded by a sergeant or staff sergeant, a squad or section is the smallest element in the Army structure, and its size is dependent on its function.

    Platoon - 16 to 44 soldiers. A platoon is led by a lieutenant with an NCO as second in command, and consists of two to four squads or sections.

    Company - 62 to 190 soldiers. Three to five platoons form a company, which is commanded by a captain with a first sergeant as the commander's principle NCO assistant. An artillery unit of equivalent size is called a battery, and a comparable armored or air cavalry unit is called a troop.

    Battalion - 300 to 1,000 soldiers. Four to six companies make up a battalion, which is normally commanded by a lieutenant colonel with a command sergeant major as principle NCO assistant. A battalion is capable of independent operations of limited duration and scope. An armored or air cavalry unit of equivalent size is called a squadron.

    Brigade - 3,000 to 5,000 solders. A brigade headquarters commands the tactical operation of two to five organic or attached combat battalions. Normally commanded by a colonel with a command sergeant major as senior NCO, brigades are employed on independent or semi-independent operations. Armored cavalry, ranger and special forces units this size are categorized as regiments or groups.

    Division - 10,000 to 15,000 soldiers. Usually consisting of three brigade-sized elements and commanded by a major general, divisions are numbered and assigned missions based on their structures. The division performs major tactical operations for the corps and can conduct sustained battles and engagements.

    Corps - 20,000 to 45,000 soldiers. Two to five divisions constitute a corps, which is typically commanded by a lieutenant general. As the deployable level of command required to synchronize and sustain combat operations, the corps provides the framework for multi-national operations.

    Army - 50,000 + soliders. Typically commanded by a lieutenant general or higher, an army combines two or more corps. A theater army is the ranking Army component in a unified command, and it has operational and support responsibilities that are assigned by the theater commander in chief. The commander in chief and theater army commander may order formation of a field army to direct operations of assigned corps and divisions. An army group plans and directs campaigns in a theater, and is composed of two or more field armies under a designated commander. Army groups have not been employed by the Army since World War II.

     
  • At 4:21 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Just because you can draw a diagram to look like a nested hierarchy doesn't mean you have a nested hierarchy.

    No. We have a nested hierarchy because it's an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. The diagram *represents* this natural relationship.

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    We have a nested hierarchy because it's an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.

    It's not a nested hierarchy because it doesn't follow the rules- you STILL have NOT defined the levels or the sets (hint- you don't define sets by listing the contents). It also follows a single rule from top to bottom.

    Also you STILL have "a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy."

    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 5:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Also I don't see Sharif Hussein bin Ali in any of the lower levels.

    IOW even with your dishonest imbecilic ploy you still can't pull it off.

     
  • At 5:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Zachriel, the word is patriLINEAGE for a reason.

    That you think a lineage is a nested hierarchy just further exposes your ignorance.

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Far from ignoring the rest of the link, I have given MULTIPLE examples of why a paternal family tree follows those rues.

    Clowny it has become obvious that you do not know what a paternal family tree is.

    Either that or you and Zachriel are right and the rest of the world is wrong...

     
  • At 8:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So you still can't explain your own link? That's rich. Please, tell us about these rules, Joe. Don't say, "Look at this link."

    Actually explain the rules for us, Joe. What's the matter? Do you not understand your own link? What's preventing you from discussing it?

    Bob's (Great Grandfather) Family: A group consisting of at least 1 male descendant of Bob, and all of their sons.

    Dave's (Grandfather) Family: A group consisting of at least 1 male descendant of Dave, and all their sons.

    Chris's (Father) Family: A group consisting of at least 1 male descendant of Chris, and all their sons.

    Reggie: A group consisting of Reggie.

    Zachriel has already given you the set notation for this structure multiple times. It is identical to the structure used to organize an army.

    You have never addressed this issue. Could you please do so now?

    I am so looking forward to your explanation that a Nested Hierarchy must include attached combat battalions and the word "colonel".

     
  • At 12:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    I have explained it several times already.

    What you have is a patriLINEAGE.

    Do you think 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 is also a nested hierarchy?

    With the US Army each level is defined AND each set in that level is defined independently.

    For example- there are more than one Corps per Army. Each Corps has SPECIFIC duties to perform. Therefor each Corps is distinctly different from the other Corps in that Army.

    I am so looking forward to your explanation that a Nested Hierarchy must include attached combat battalions and the word "colonel".

    That you would even post such a thing proves that you are an imbecile.

    Why don't YOU present your example to Dr Allen and see what he says?

     
  • At 6:49 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    In what way does a string of integers resemble a family tree? Or (taking "10" into account) a string of numbers?

     
  • At 6:50 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    I see you also failed to address the issue of the example I gave. Do you not understand it?

    I can have a third grader come over to your house and tutor you...

     
  • At 8:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Dr Allen, the expert, agrees with me and disagrees with you.

    That is enough for me.

    Write to him and ask him for yourself.

     
  • At 9:14 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Yep. No other experts on the planet except him. And even he doesn't agree with you like you think he does.

    Remember, Joe, you keep telling us that appeal to authority isn't the way to go.

    So, how about actually addressing the ISSUES--since that's what so important?

     
  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    And while you're at it, could you please explain your STRING of INTEGERS are equivalent to a FAMILY TREE analogy.

    That's just bizarre. You're slipping into some weird state of dementia that's low even for you.

     
  • At 4:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Bob's (Great Grandfather) Family: A group consisting of at least 1 male descendant of Bob, and all of their sons.

    Dave's (Grandfather) Family: A group consisting of at least 1 male descendant of Dave, and all their sons.

    Chris's (Father) Family: A group consisting of at least 1 male descendant of Chris, and all their sons.

    Reggie: A group consisting of Reggie.



    Define the levels AND the sets.

    The definitions have to be independent.

    Also all you are doing is making up names as if the form makes it a nested hierarchy.

    And neither of you mental midgets can even get the form correct!!!

    For example

    To qualify for “Kingdom” status certain criteria must be met and to which set on that level the organism belongs to requires a separate criteria.

    Also for every superset there has to be at least TWO subordinate sets. A Kingdom has to have at least to phyla, each phylum requires at least two Classes, each Class requires at least two Orders, each Order requires at least two Families, each Family requires at least two Genera and each Genera requires at least two species.

    And as I told your butt-buddy Zachriel, in the case of a monotypic organism- only one species- the defining traits of that organism go back to the set after the last branching point:

    ”Since Linneaus demanded that every species be placed in a genus, if there was only one species, the characteristic of the species would also define the genus, at least until another species was discovered that might share that genus”.-page 58 of Sudden Origins-Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species by Jeffrey H. Schwartz PhD, professor of anthropology Univ. of Pittsburg

    Each level is defined inclusive of the level(s) above it and each set in each level is also defined inclusive of the set(s) above it.


    In what way does a string of integers resemble a family tree?


    The string of integers resembles your patrilineage.

    IOW you are so stupid you STILL don’t understand the terminology.

     
  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW clowny, a paternal grandmother is every part of a paternal family tree as the paternal grandfather.

    There is a website that you can "ask the experts". Or you can go to ancestry.com and ask them.

    You can even buy charts on the internet that you fill in and guess what? The paternal mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, etc., are all included!

     
  • At 8:10 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    To qualify for “Kingdom” status certain criteria must be met and to which set on that level the organism belongs to requires a separate criteria.

    Like what? You never really get around to defining anything, Joe.

     
  • At 8:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Also for every superset there has to be at least TWO subordinate sets.

    Still having trouble with the null set, huh? what,are you from ancient Egypt. We have invented the zero, Joe.

     
  • At 8:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    I am awaiting the response from Dr Allen- or any verified expert, meaning something from a peer-reviewed article- that supports your position.

    Ypu guys are also ignotring the following:

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

    Do you not understand English?

     
  • At 12:21 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    If the relevant variable is "who is your father" it doesn't matter who the mother is, Joe.

    The mother could be anyone--we don't care. It matters who the father is. Do you grasp this basic point?

     
  • At 3:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    clowny:
    If the relevant variable is "who is your father" it doesn't matter who the mother is, Joe.

    Right but it is STILL a PATRILINEAGE. And a lineage is NOT a tree nor a nested hierarchy.

     
  • At 3:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Also for every superset there has to be at least TWO subordinate sets.

    clowny:
    Still having trouble with the null set, huh? what,are you from ancient Egypt. We have invented the zero, Joe.

    I have never had any trouble with the null set. However if we used your "logic" a null set would be a nested hierarchy all by itself. But it isn't, which furtehr proves your stupidity.

     
  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To qualify for “Kingdom” status certain criteria must be met and to which set on that level the organism belongs to requires a separate criteria.

    blipey:
    Like what? You never really get around to defining anything, Joe.

    Pick up and read a biology textbook. If it is a good one it will have that definition in it. It should also have definitions for each kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species.

    And it is amazing how stupid you are not to have realized that.

    Then again you are a clown...

     
  • At 3:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    clowny:
    Yep. No other experts on the planet except him. And even he doesn't agree with you like you think he does.

    Yep the expert agrees with me 100%. And I have asked to to find one verified expert and you have failed to do so.

    And it is even more telling that not one biology text book uses nested hierarchy as evidence for common descent.

    The ONLY place that states UCD = NH is talk origins- a website designed for liars by liars.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home