Alan Fox and David Kellogg- nested hierarchy ignorant
Over on uncommon descent, both Alan Fox and David Kellogg have tried (and failed) to tell me that the theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.
In an attempt to try to reason with them I asked them if evolution had a direction. They both agreed that it does not.
The next step was to ask them if nested hierarchies required a direction of additive characteristics. They both agreed that NH does not require a direction.
I provided a definition of nested hierarchy that stated nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.
That means if defining characteristics are lost then containment is also lost, therefor nested hierarchy is lost.
And if defining characteristics stay the same then we remain with that set- no nested hierarchy.
Note how, as in any hierarchic system, the divisions are clear in a systematic way, becoming increasingly intense as the hierarchy is ascended.
After reasoning with these dolts didn’t work I asked them to provide an example of a nested hierarchy in which the characteristics were not additive.
Did they provide one?
Nope. Instead Kellogg pulled his head out of his ass long enough to tell me that I am incapable of being reasoned with!
And yet he has never provided any reasoning to support his position!!!!
You are a piece of shit Kellogg and you had better hope we never meet even though I am going to try to make that happen.