Mysterious Definition of Nested Hierarchy?
David Kellogg believes that I am unable to be reasoned with because he told me, without any support, that the few evolutionary scientists I disagree with pertaining to nested hierarchy and the theory of evolution, use a different definition of a nested hierarchy.
Did you get that?
They do not use the standard and accepted definition that I and the majority of people use, they have some ultra-secret version only they can understand.
So how about Kellogg- can you produce the allegedly different version of nested hierarchy that those evolutionary scientists use?
I promise I will do my best to understand but I first have to know what it is I am supposed to be understanding.
Did you get that?
They do not use the standard and accepted definition that I and the majority of people use, they have some ultra-secret version only they can understand.
So how about Kellogg- can you produce the allegedly different version of nested hierarchy that those evolutionary scientists use?
I promise I will do my best to understand but I first have to know what it is I am supposed to be understanding.
posted by Joe G @ 4:49 PM
5 Comments:
At 3:55 PM,
Hermagoras said…
I know I should ignore you, but first I need to ask a question: is the Linnaean classification system, in your view, a nested hierarchy?
At 4:11 PM,
Joe G said…
If by that you mean KPCOFGS, then yes, that architecture forms a nested hierarchy, as I stated in another thread.
As far as I know that has never been disputed.
The dispute is whether or not such a pattern is to be expected with evolution.
Evolution does not have a direction and nested hierarchies demand one of additive characteristics.
At 4:37 PM,
Hermagoras said…
Well, I don't think evolution as such predicts a nested hierarchy. But if complex beings such as ourselves are the result of evolution, then a nested hierarchy would indeed be expected, looking backward from there. As the Oxford Encyclopedia of Evolution puts it, "the nested hierarchies in Linnaean classifications are consistent with an explanation that involves common ancestry and the divergence of related groups. Common ancestry provided an explanation for more inclusive taxa and divergence from that common ancestry provided a rationale for the subdivision of those more inclusive taxa into less inclusive taxa."
At 7:44 PM,
Joe G said…
Wrong again David.
Ya see with evolution defining traits/ characteristics can be lost.
With a nested hierarchy they cannot be lost or the nested hierarchy is also lost.
Then there is the fact that with evolution we would expect transitional forms.
Transitional forms from their very definition provide a MIX of traits.
IOW if all the alleged transitionals were still alive then we wouldn't observe a nested hierarchy.
So the bottom line is the Oxford Encyclopedia of Evolution is full of shit.
At 7:28 AM,
Joe G said…
It is also worth repeating that nested hierarchy was FIRST used as evidence for a common design and all evos did when they took over was to replace archetype with common ancestor:
One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.-- Ernst Mayr-
Simpson echoed those comments:
From their classifications alone, it is practically impossible to tell whether zoologists of the middle decades of the nineteenth century were evolutionists or not. The common ancestor was at first, and in most cases, just as hypothetical as the archetype, and the methods of inference were much the same for both, so that classification continued to develop with no immediate evidence of the revolution in principles….the hierarchy looked the same as before even if it meant something totally different.-
IOW nested hierarchy was and is used as evidence for Common Design.
With Common Descent traits can be gained and lost. And seeing that biological classification is done via traits, well any normal person would understand the implications.
Post a Comment
<< Home