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, April 20, 2009

Patrilineage vs. a Paternal Family Tree

Seeing that Erik Pratt- blipey the moronic clown- still thinks that a patrilineage is a paternal family tree I felt it is once again time to expose his continued ignorance.

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


A paternal family tree traces ALL the relatives on the father's side (leading to the father)- women included.

The following is an example of a paternal family tree:

Paternal Family Tree

Another example, complete with a diagram, can been seen HERE-

Note that women ARE included in both examples.

For example any paternal family tree has the father's father AND mother, and each of their fathers and mothers, and so on. All siblings in each ancestral generation are also included

Another problem clownie has is with nested hierarchies.

He still thinks that nested hierarchies are built on descent not characteristics.

Yet he has NEVER supported that claim and as a matter of fact I have provided the data which refutes it.

Does that matter to blipey? Absolutely not.

He wears his ignorance as a badge of honor.

51 Comments:

  • At 5:12 PM, Blogger Mynamehere said…

    He still thinks that nested hierarchies are built on descent not characteristics.Is the identity of an individual's parent not a characteristic of that individual? What about the fact that an individual has an ancestor that was a reptile?

     
  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The characteristics of the parents' offspring are the SAME as the parent.

    If you have evidence to the contrary then please present it.

    "Who's your daddy?" and "Who's your mamma?" are NOT defining characteristics.

    containment set:

    "A containment hierarchy is a hierarchical collection of strictly nested sets. Each entry in the hierarchy designates a set such that the previous entry is a strict superset, and the next entry is a strict subset. For example, all rectangles are quadrilaterals, but not all quadrilaterals are rectangles, and all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. A hierarchy of this kind is to be contrasted with a more general notion of a partially ordered set."

    Following the link to "partially ordered set" we read:

    "A familiar real-life example of a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy. Some pairs of people bear the ancestor-descendant relationship, but other pairs bear no such relationship."

    Not that I expect you to understand that.

     
  • At 1:35 PM, Blogger Mynamehere said…

    Well, I'm living up to expectations; I don't understand. Is the "tree of life" not a nested hierarchy? It fits the pattern of the containment set you describe:

    All vertebrates are animals, but not all animals are vertebrates, and all mammals are animals, but not all animals are mammals.

    I guess the real next question is what is a "defining characteristic"? Doesn't it depend on what purpose you are organizing the set for? If you want to organize based on apparent genetic heritage, you look at the genes; if you want to organize based on coloration, you can organize based on stripes, solids, patterns; if you want to organize based on architecture you can organize based on legs vs. fins vs. neither.

     
  • At 1:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The alleged "tree of life"- it doesn't really exist ya know- doers not represent a nested hierarchy for the simple reason that every point along that alleged trunk and branches represents a TRANSITIONAL form.

    Transitional forms are a MIX of charcteristics.

    So what set would you put them in?

    Also it is a given that "evolution" does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost or gained.

    Nested hierarchy DEMANDS a direction- one of additive characteristics.


    So I take it you didn't understand the post about "contanment" vs "partially ordered" sets.

    Perhaps you should go back to school.

     
  • At 1:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    good luck, mynamehere; Joe still doesn't understand that the Null Set is a subset of every other set.

     
  • At 5:20 PM, Blogger Mynamehere said…

    Well, there's certainly some ambiguity in the Wikipedia definitions. The containment hierarchy page gives the taxonomy of organisms as an example, while the page on partially ordered sets claims that people in a genealogical tree are a partially ordered set. Now that I look at it, there's no statement that the two categories are mutually exclusive.

    Regarding additive characteristics, I think maybe you interpret that requirement too literally. Whales and dolphins have all the defining characteristics of mammals, with the added characteristic that they have lost their legs. Is that an additive characteristic in your view?



    Some answers to your questions above:

    The characteristics of the parents' offspring are the SAME as the parent. If you have evidence to the contrary then please present it. I don't have any new evidence for you. Even if evolution were true, and even if complete fossils or genetic records were available it would be difficult if not impossible to determine which child was the first to have a particular defining characteristic that it's parent did not have.


    Transitional forms are a MIX of charcteristics. So what set would you put them in?Well, from an evolutionary point of view, I think the sets are a human construction imposed on the natural world. As a result there is no single rule for drawing the line between sets.

    As you say, every organism is a transitional organism, and each is part of a population of transitional organisms that make up a set.

    Finally one question I'm interested in your answer to:

    What is a defining characteristic for purposes of this discussion? You say that who your parent is is not a defining characteristic. As I said above, can't we choose whatever we want to be a defining characteristic? Some choices will lead to items falling in nested hierarchies, some will not?

     
  • At 8:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes you moronic clown a null-set is NOTHING- it contains NOTHING.

    And seeing it contains NOTHING just what characteristics define it?

    Ya see as I told Zachriel- the other NH ignorant asshole- the null-set is MEANINGLESS with regards to nested hierarchy.

    Why? Say there is only one species of a specific genra.

    Guess what? THAT species takes on just the definition of the genera.

    IOW there isn't a specific definition just for that spoecies.

    However once a similar population is found- one that fits the characteristics of that genera but not the only species so far in the genera, THEN we can add the qualiufications to differentiate between them.

     
  • At 8:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Myname you are just clue-less.

    Taxonomy is NOT based on descent!

    Taxonomy is based on CHARACTERISTICS!!!

    A paternal family tree is based on descent alone.

    Next you think your ignorance of whales is some sort of refutation.

    Amazing.

    Perhaps you should go back to school as it appears you are uneducated.

    Ya see "legs" are NOT a defining characteristic of mammals.

    Then I said that all points along the trunk and branch of that alleged tree of life is a transitional.

    You twist that into my saying every organism is a transitional.

    IOW you are another who is incapable of reading.

    And yes WE choose what the defining characteristics are.

    So go ahead make a nested hierarchy out of either a paternal family tree or a patrilineage but first YOU must define the levels and the sets.

    Ya see both "animal" and "kingdom" are defined.

    So please have at it.

    I cannot wait for you to demonstrate that a father consists of and contains all of his sons.

    Or that a father consists of and conatins all of his ancestors.

    I then posted a link you should have read.

    Obviously you did not.

    IOW it appears as if you think ignorance is a way to refute an argument.

    The following is another link for you to ignore:

    A SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY THEORYThen you can also ignore the following:

    mammalia"Mammalia - a class of warm blooded animals (mammals) whose common characteristics include the presence of hair, milk-secreting glands, a muscular diaphragm between the abdominal and pleural and mediastinal cavities, a lower jaw composed of a single pair of bones, a middle ear containing three bones, and the presence of only a left systemic arch"

    And still more for you to ignore:

    marine taxonomy• All whales are animals because they have more than one cell, eat food and originate from a fertilized egg—so they first are categorized into the most general category—Kingdom Animalia.

    • Whales are placed into the Phylum Chordata (the category below Kingdom) because they have a spinal cord and gill pouches. In fact, humans are also in Phylum Chordata.

    • Because they are warm-blooded, produce milk for their young and have a heart with four chambers, whales are in the Class Mammalia.

    • At the “Order” category, whales begin to be distinguished from humans and other land mammals. Whales are classified as cetaceans because they live in the water all year round. The suborder is Mysticeti due to the baleen plates in the mouths of whales, helping them to filter in food.

    • Blue whales have folds around their throat that expand to take in large volumes of water when feeding. Because not all whales have this characteristic, blue whales are placed into the Family “Balaenidae”.

    • Within the Family is another group of species more immediately related to each other. The “Genus” for blue whales is Balaenoptera.

    • The definition of a species includes many factors, especially the requirement that individuals must be able to successfully breed with each other. The species name for blue whales is musculus, meaning that in addition to other common traits, whales of the species musculus are able to breed with each other and provide viable (living) offspring. The final scientific name is Balaenoptera musculus with the genus capitalized and the species name in lower case letters and both italicized.


    So here is your challenge:

    Provide the nested hierarchY I have already asked for PLUS provide a nested hierarchy in which characteristics are not added.

    good luck- your next comment has to either contain nthe answers to the challenge or an admission that you don't know what you are talking about.

     
  • At 9:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    mynamehere,

    Do YOU know and understand the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree?

    Please provide an example of both.

     
  • At 10:03 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, a rather simple question was asked of you. I know you find it absolutely impossible to answer any questions, but if you want this discuss to continue meaningfully, you HAVE to answer this one:

    What is a defining characteristic as regards this discussion of nested hierarchies? You need to provide a concrete example of one so we can move on.

     
  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger Mynamehere said…

    Do YOU know and understand the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree?

    Please provide an example of both.
    OK, I think I can do this one.

    My patrilineage is Me, my dad Lou, his dad Karl, his dad Jack, his dad Isidore, his dad Hank, etc.

    My paternal family tree is my dad Lou, his parents, his 4 grandparents, his 8 great-grandparents, etc.

     
  • At 2:05 PM, Blogger Mynamehere said…

    I said that all points along the trunk and branch of that alleged tree of life is a transitional.

    You twist that into my saying every organism is a transitional.
    I'm sorry, I didn't mean to twist your words. I guess I didn't understand what you meant. Can you clarify what you mean by points along the trunk and branch that are all transitional? Species, organisms, populations?

    I think of each organism as a point on the trunk or a branch of the tree. I do think that every organism is either a transitional organism (between the species that preceded it and the one or more species that its population evolves into), or a member of a species that is going to go extinct without child species.

    On another matter. When you say that the tree of life doesn't exist, do you mean that there is no common descent because kinds were specially created, or are you referring to the recent discoveries that the base of the so-called tree is more like a bush?

     
  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    I have been over this several times:

    The defining characteristics of a nested hierarchy is what ever is decided upon.

    For taxonomy I have provided an example in the following thread:

    Nested Hierachy and evolution- another refutation of the premise

    For example:


    "All members of the Animalia are multicellular (eukaryotes), and all are heterotrophs (that is, they rely directly or indirectly on other organisms for their nourishment). Most ingest food and digest it in an internal cavity.

    Animal cells lack the rigid cell walls that characterize plant cells. The bodies of most animals (all except sponges) are made up of cells organized into tissues, each tissue specialized to some degree to perform specific functions."


    Chordates have all the characteristics of the Kingdom PLUS the following:


    "Chordates are defined as organisms that possess a structure called a notochord, at least during some part of their development. The notochord is a rod that extends most of the length of the body when it is fully developed. Lying dorsal to the gut but ventral to the central nervous system, it stiffens the body and acts as support during locomotion. Other characteristics shared by chordates include the following (from Hickman and Roberts, 1994):

    bilateral symmetry
    segmented body, including segmented muscles
    three germ layers and a well-developed coelom.
    single, dorsal, hollow nerve cord, usually with an enlarged anterior end (brain)
    tail projecting beyond (posterior to) the anus at some stage of development
    pharyngeal pouches present at some stage of development
    ventral heart, with dorsal and ventral blood vessels and a closed blood system
    complete digestive system
    bony or cartilaginous endoskeleton usually present."

    Or you could have just read a biology textbook you moronic clue-less clown.

     
  • At 7:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Mynamehere,

    A patrilineage would be a father, followed by his sons, followed by their sons, followed by their sons, etc.

    It is a line of DESCENT, which means you do not go back.

     
  • At 7:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Umm the whole tree is caput, not just the base.

    But that is NOT evidence against universal common descent.

    That said transitionals are a MIX of characteristics.

    Nested hierarchy demands distinctly defined categories which transitional organisms would violate if they still existed.

    \The best universal common descent can hope for is a LINEAGE- a sequence, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

    Is that numbered sequence a nested hierarchy?

    One more question- are you reading the links I have provided?

    It doesn't appear that you are...

     
  • At 8:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    In order to continue this discussion you HAVE to answer the following:

    What is a patrilineage?

    What is a paternal family tree?

    Provide examples of both.

     
  • At 9:57 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I am no longer interested in this discussion with you, Joe. Have your discussion with Mynamehere. I will however, for the last of several times, point out that if we can arbitrarily suggest a defining characteristic for a nested hierarchy, there are multiple characteristics that make the tree of life a nested hierarchy (as Mynamehere pointed out above).

     
  • At 11:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes Erik, I understand that you do not understand the difference between a patrilineage and a paternal family tree.

    I also understand that you do not have any understanding of nested hierarchy.

    And for both of those resons we cannot have a discussion pertaining to any of those topics.

    Also there isn't any reason any tree of life could be represented as a nested hierarchy.

    That is because once all the (alleged) transitional forms are represented all the nicely distinct categories fade away.

    And I have been telling you that for over a year but you are so stupid that you cannot understand that.

    I almost forgot, as I told you before-

    The defining characteristrics are set in stone for each nested hierarchy.

    Yes they can be anything as long as all subsets must consist of and contain all the characteristrics of the set above it.

    And the nested hierarchy must conform to the rules- those rules that you still haven't read-

    A SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY THEORYBut then again you are an entertainer and have absolutely no clue about the real world.


    One more thing- mynamehere is grasping for something. So referencing him? just proves you are an imbecile.

     
  • At 11:30 AM, Blogger Mynamehere said…

    The best universal common descent can hope for is a LINEAGE- a sequence, such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

    Is that numbered sequence a nested hierarchy?
    Well, if species 2 is descended from species 1, and species 3 is descended from species 2, then species 2 is a transitional species between 1 and 3.

    And I think it is a nested hierarchy based on characteristics of descent. Species 2 is descended from species 1. Species 3 is descended from species 1 and has the added characteristic of being descended from species 2. Etc. Each subset contains all the relevant characteristics of the one above it, plus one more.

     
  • At 2:56 PM, Blogger Mynamehere said…

    To answer another of your questions: One more question- are you reading the links I have provided?

    It doesn't appear that you are...
    I think I have read all the linked items that are on your blog and the ones about hierarchies, taxonomies generally, and containment sets, etc. I haven't read the ones about mammalian and marine taxonomy because I agree with what you say about those, and because the specifics are not relevant to the issue I'm interested in.

     
  • At 10:03 PM, Blogger Lee said…

    It's hard to believe you're still straining at the same gnat.

    The term "paternal" just means pertaining to the father, and "paternal tree" can apply to tracing a father's entire family history, or to just the male lineage, as is common in certain cultures, or when tracing y-chromosome genealogy. But this is just semantics, pater and patri sharing the same root "father".

    Does a patrilineage form a nested hierarchy?

     
  • At 7:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    mynamehere,

    There isn't a characteristic called "descent".

    IOW you have no idea what a "characteristic" is.

     
  • At 7:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Lee,

    a patrilineage forms a LINEAGE, hence the name.

    And only uneducated fools think that a lineage forms a nested hierarchy.

    Also I have already asked an expert about a patrilineage and a nested hierarchy.

    He answered it does not.

     
  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I thought you said we could arbitrarily assign a characteristic?

    That means we can choose the characteristic of "father".

    Or did you lie when you said characteristics can be arbitrarily chosen. If that's the case, you still need to give us an example of a defining characteristic.blipey

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    Thank you for continuing to prove that you are an imbecile.

    "Father" is NOT a characteristic.

    I have provided more than enough information pertaining to characteristics that would allow a second grader to understand the premise.

    But you are so stupid you just cannot comprehend anything.

    As I said if you are good at being a clown then stick to it because you absolutely suck at everything else.

     
  • At 11:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    In order to continue this discussion you HAVE to answer the following:

    What is a patrilineage?

    What is a paternal family tree?

    Provide examples of both.


    That clownie has failed to respond to that demonstrates it does not have a clue.

     
  • At 11:26 AM, Blogger Mynamehere said…

    So, is it your position that a "characteristic" for purposes of creating a hierarchy of species can only be a physical characteristic?

     
  • At 3:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As opposed to metaphysical?

    I don't know of any species defined by metaphysical characteristics, do you?

     
  • At 7:11 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    "Father of" is a physical characteristic. It is definable. Your reasons for excluding "father of" as an arbitrary characteristic are strange indeed. Arbitrary being, well, um arbitrary.

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

    "Father of" is NOT a physical characteristic you stupid fuck.

    Ya see YOU do NOT get to arbitrarily define what is and isn't a characteristic.

    You CAN try to arbitrarily assign characteristics but good luck making a nested hierarchy from that.

    But let's look at "father of".

    Say a bank robbery took place and people were asked to talk to ma sketch artist.

    Would the sketch artist be able to draw something with the input of "father of"? Absolutely not.

    And then there is the following:

    "A familiar real-life example of a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy. Some pairs of people bear the ancestor-descendant relationship, but other pairs bear no such relationship."

    What part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 10:14 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    In order to continue this discussion you HAVE to answer the following:

    What is a patrilineage?

    What is a paternal family tree?

    Provide examples of both.


    That clownie has failed to respond to that demonstrates it does not have a clue.

     
  • At 7:50 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe, I've done that on multiple threads in the past. I am not interested in rehashing any of that. It matters not what answers people give to you, you will always find something else to talk about.

    So, with the new stuff:

    you said we COULD arbitrarily assign characteristics and then just said in your last comment that we CANNOT arbitrarily assign characteristics for the purposes of constructing a nested hierarchy.

    So, which is it? Or is this like entertainers? Simultaneously worthless and worthwhile?

     
  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,


    YOU said arbitrary characteristics.

    I said The defining characteristics of a nested hierarchy is what ever is decided upon.Also you have NEVER answered the questions I posed- NEVER and that is because you are an intellectual coward.

     
  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In order to continue this discussion you HAVE to answer the following:

    What is a patrilineage?

    What is a paternal family tree?

    Provide examples of both.


    That clownie has failed to respond to that demonstrates it does not have a clue.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Right. We've decided on "father of" as the defining characteristic of our nested hierarchy.

    Kind of arbitrary, really....

     
  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Father of" is NOT a characteristic.

    Only an imbecile- you- would think so.

    And in the end:

    "A familiar real-life example of a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy. Some pairs of people bear the ancestor-descendant relationship, but other pairs bear no such relationship."

    Partially ordered sets do NOT form a nested hierarchy.

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In order to continue this discussion you HAVE to answer the following:

    What is a patrilineage?

    What is a paternal family tree?

    Provide examples of both.


    That clownie has failed to respond to that demonstrates it does not have a clue.

     
  • At 7:27 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    examples of characteristics:

    red, hard, taller than 6 ft 2 inches, happy, father of....

     
  • At 7:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "father of" is not a characteristic.

    And it doesn't matter if you keep repeating it.

     
  • At 7:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In order to continue this discussion you HAVE to answer the following:

    What is a patrilineage?

    What is a paternal family tree?

    Provide examples of both.


    That clownie has failed to respond to that demonstrates it does not have a clue.

    IOW Erik Pratt is an example of a dickhead.

    He has the characteristic of having a dick for a head.

     
  • At 9:31 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Good, Joe. That's an example of a characteristic--an arbitrarily chosen one, too. Perhaps we're getting somewhere. Now, for how "father of" fails to be a characteristic? And how happy does qualify? What about Earthling? Or non-corporeal? Do all those count?

     
  • At 7:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    How does "father of" qualify as a characteristic?

    Can a sketh artist correctly sketch a criminal with that description? Absolutely NOT.

    Is a father, his sons and their sons collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy?

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

    "A familiar real-life example of a partially ordered set is a collection of people ordered by genealogical descendancy. Some pairs of people bear the ancestor-descendant relationship, but other pairs bear no such relationship."

    Partially ordered sets do NOT form a nested hierarchy.

     
  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    A sketch artist couldn't draw something that's non-corporeal either, Joe. But you can certainly group things by non-corporeality.

    Really, Joe, get a dictionary. Read it. I know it's boring, but you may benefit more than any other human being has ever benefited from reading a book.

    This is just like you defining entertainer as actor on the other thread. When, really, actor is a subset of the much larger set of "Entertainer".

    I know you're not much on set theory. All cognacs are brandies, but not all brandies are cognacs. This is directly analogous to all actors are entertainers but not all entertainers are actors.

     
  • At 11:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "father of" is not a characteristic.

    IOW YOU need the dictionary dickhead.

    You also don't seem to understand that partially ordered sets do NOT form a nested hierarchy.


    But anyway- dickhead is your defining characteristic.

    And I didn't redefine entertainer as an "actor".

    However I know I was NOT referring to writers and Native Americans.

     
  • At 11:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And in case you missed it- this is your last opportunity to address the following:

    blipey- Do you still think that a patrilineage is a paternal family tree?

    Do you know the difference between the two?

    Can you provide an example of a patrilineage and an example of a paternal family tree?

    Answer those questions or fuck off.

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    the important thing is not Native Americans, Joe. It is CLOWNS in Native American culture as opposed to say, circus clowns.

     
  • At 11:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The important thing is that I was NOT referring to Native Americans NOR Native American clowns.

    That you would even try comparing Native American clowns with what you do just demonstrates your desperation.

    Now address the outstanding issue:

    blipey- Do you still think that a patrilineage is a paternal family tree?

    Do you know the difference between the two?

    Can you provide an example of a patrilineage and an example of a paternal family tree?

    Answer those questions or fuck off.

     
  • At 2:30 PM, Blogger Mynamehere said…

    Joe-
    Certain characteristics within genes show evidence of descent. Those characteristics can be used to create a graphic or schematic representation of the history of life. Call it what you will, a tree, a lineage, a frizzle, or whatever.

    The fact that these characteristics are not visible to the naked eye of a sketch artist does not make them inaccessible to us or unusable by us.

     
  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes and until one gets to that point- in which molecules are needed- there are the observable physical characteristics that are used.

    Even bacteria are described via those physical characteristics.

    Now to get down to the nitty-gritty, sure we can and do use genetics.

    And the history of life relies on untestable assumptions.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home