Elizabeth Liddle- Still Clueless WRT Science

-
Poor little Lizzie Liddle doesn't understand science. She doesn't understand how CSI can be a design indicator. It's like this Lizzie- every time we have observed CSI and knew the origin, it has ALWAYS been via agency involvement- ALWAYS, 100% of the time. We have NEVER observed blind and undirected processes producing CSI- NEVER, 0% of the time.

That means when we observe CSI and do NOT know its origins, it is safe to infer some agency was involved.

Lizzie sez:

The only hope for ID, IMO, is to demonstrate that some feature of the simplest possible common ancestor of modern living things is still too complicated to have arisen through chemistry.
 

No Lizzie, it is up to YOU to show that chemistry and physics can produce a replicator and that replicator can then go on to become a living cell. YOUR position needs positive evidence, Lizzie, and to date it doesn't have any.

IOW if neither CSI nor ID existed, your position still wouldn't have anything.

"Non-design null"? Your position doesn't even have that and you don't even realize that it is up to you to provide it!

Darwinian evolution has neither Positive Predictive Validity nor Negative Predictive Validity- it has nothing but losers like you struggling with science.

Richard T Hughes- Quotemining Cupcake

-
Yup Richard T Hughes is a quote-mining cupcake. This time he selectively quotes my post on CSI and omits the final part- :

As I have been telling Alan, CSI is just Shannon information with meaning/ function, ie it is the regular form of information people use every day. So wht all of the convulsions when CSI is mentioned?
 

THAT is the part that explains why CSI is not bogus and why the world depends on it. Yet Richie the faggot fuck decided to leave it out and attack the post as if it wasn't included.

Look for yourself

How Can CSI be a Bogus Concept When the World Depends on It?

-
Alan Fox has a new post titled Complex Specified Information: breaking the mould of Darwinistic evolution or bogus concept.

1- CSI pertains to ORIGINS and Darwinistic evolution takes place AFTER the origins

2- The world depends on CSI so I doubt it is a a bogus concept.

As I have been telling Alan, CSI is just Shannon information with meaning/ function, ie it is the regular form of information people use every day. So wht all of the convulsions when CSI is mentioned?

Black Bears

-
Finally I saw a bear in my yard. I have seen moose, deer, skunks, porcupines, foxes, but no bear. Then last night I was looking out the window and I saw a "big dog" sniffing around. Our little havanese went spastic. We had to put her in the bathroom.

The bear wandered around and then came back to our tower bird feeder hanging from a shepard's hook. It is hanging about 5 feet from the window- a 67" high window- our front windows stop 4 " from the floor. A bear could easly just crash right through as they are only a couple of feet off of the ground.

But anyway the bear bent the shepard's hook and took the entire bird tower! It was full of sunflower seeds. It then bolted back to the woods.

Now I am off to Walmart to get another bird feeder and hopefully some stuff that keeps bears out of the yard. May have to go to the Home Depot for that.

How big was the bear? I would say at least 300 lbs.

Elizabeth Liddle has Totally Lost It

-
Lizzie is fried- Asymmetry?

The first is that ID proponents seem most of the time to be arguing against a claim made by very few (not even Dawkins) – that science shows that there is no Designer. 
 

Nope. We argue that the design inference is rejected out-of-hand.

She goes on:

 Even if scientists were to show, convincingly, a step by step account of life’s history from “mud to man”, we would be in no position to say that life was undesigned.  

It would destroy the design inference if it could be demonstrated that blind and undirected chemical processes can produce a living organism from non-living matter. Just as it would falsify Darwinian evolution if it could be demonstrated that something is out of the reach of a gradual process (Darwin).

Then she proves taht she doesn't get it:

Scientific findings do not show that “materialism is true”. They cannot. Such a conclusion is outside scientific methodology.
 

That isn't what we say. People like Elzinga say materialsim is true. We already know the science doesn't. Wake up, Lizzie.

Then she just losses it:

But ID proponents go further than this – they argue that because science cannot conclude that there is no designer, that we are entitled to conclude that there is.
 

Fuck you. Notice that she doesn't reference any of her spewage? No Lizzie, we say that science has shown there is a designer requirement. Assholes, like you and Elzinger say there isn't such a need all the while never telling us how you reached your conclusion.

More dumbass spewage:

ID proponents claim that current scientific explanations are inadequate, therefore ID.

Nope. As I said scientific explanations say there is a designer requirement.

They make no testable hypotheses about the nature of the designer, and consider it outside their domain of enquiry.
 

Intelligent DESIGN. The only way to the designer is through the DESIGN, Lizzie. Are you just totally ignorant to how investigations go when all you have if what is left behind- no eyewitnesses?

ID opponents agree that scientific explanations are inadequate, and that a Designer is perfectly possible.

Laughable- I have never heard that.

They provide copious testable hypotheses for postulated non-design processes, and iteratively test them, rejecting some, retaining others, and leading, step by step, to an ever-more detailed picture.
 

What testable hypotheses? You keep leaving those out.

ID proponents dislike engaging with ID opponents; they readily bar people from their forums, and disable comments.
 

Fuck you, bitch. EvoTARDs get barred because they are nothing but a bunch of belligerent cowards.

ID opponents are positively eager to engage with ID proponents, following them to ID websites, and inviting them to their own.
 

ID opponents never engage in anything of substance, Lizzie. All you do is erect strawman after strawman and spew shit.

And you can't even make a case for your position, asswipe. That is why you have to post your bullshit.

You are a pathetic little shit, Lizzie.

 

"Evolution is Not Blind"????

-
Yup Robin sez:

Earth to Joe – evolution is not blind.
 

Intelligent Design Evolution is not blind, Robin. However unguided evolution is blind, mindless and without purpose.

Earth to Robin:

Natural selection and evolution: material, blind, mindless, and purposeless

Elizabeth Liddle- Bluffing Doofus

-
If this wasn't so hilarious it would be pathetic. Elizabeth Liddle is such a clueless doofus that she actually thinks that she can bluff her way through a debate.

Case in point, her newest blog entry titled Andre's Questions. Read it and follow the links.

The first link is just a Google Scolar search on the evolution of lungs. Yet the fisrt articles are just comparative anatomy and say nothing about how blind and undirected processes produced the lung by changing genomes. IOW there isn't any "step-by-step of the evolution of the lung system" to be found at the end of Lizzie's link. I would be surprised if there was a step-by-step explanation of lung development from a molecular level.

Lizzie's next bluff is a book titled Evolution of the Heart from Bacteria to Man. Yeah right. We can't even demonstrate that bacteria can evolve into something other than bacteria. And no one can explain the cellular differentiation process that metazoans require. IOW we don't know what makes a heart a heart. And reading the abstract it is clear that this book is just another comparative anatomy journey. And nothing that sez blind and undirected processes didit.

I take it back. This is pathetic. And unfortunately for evoTARDs, it is all they have...

Pressure Cookers- Why Pressure Cookers?

-
OK they have identified pressure cookers as the container for the low-explosives. Why pressure cookers? Because they are a fat pipe-bomb. And low explosives require a build-up in pressure in order to blow up stuff. So you have this ready-made pressurized container. And it comes with holes in the top so you can run wires from the outside to the inside. Then you just seal around the wires and you have your nice big pressurized chamber.

So a pressure cooker could hold 10-20 pounds of low explosive. Yes pressure cookers could also hold high explosives but unless your high explosive is TATP you don't need a container.

Something else that bothers me is there are explosive-proof trash cans. Every city needs to ante up and purchase those, especially places where they have large events. With those trash cans all the force is directed up through the trash can opening.

Another issue is that the "experts" on TV are talking about tool-marks. Thanks butt-heads. Now the perps know to ditch their tools.

Still no word on the type of explosive. I take that to mean they just aren't releasing that information because we have the technology to make that determination and I am sure the FBI has access to it.

Boston Marathon Explosions

-
Wow. Just wow. I took my family to that event last year. We didn't go this year just because, ie no reason. We had planned to walk around China-town this year. Last year we hit the North End. Our hearts go out to all the victims.

The explosions look(ed) and sound(ed) like black powder/ gun powder. Too much smoke for high explosives. Also I didn't see any windows shattered, and shattering effect (brisance) is how high explosives are measured. True, if you have enough low explosive, such as gun powder, you can shatter windows just by the amount of air you are moving- suck it in and push it out very, very rapidly. Low explosives burn, hence all of the smoke. They have to be confined to explode, whereas RDX is good to go (with a detonator). It's the buildup of gases that causes the explosion wrt low explosives.

It could have been some other type of fuel-air device, but I doubt it was TNT, dynamite, RDX, semtec, C4, PETN nor even ammonium nitrate. I could be wrong because all I have to go by is the TV footage, but with high explsoives (above amno3 and dynamite) it is always a crack then the boom.

The charges that send up the big fireworks could do something like what I saw in Boston.

Now the chase is on. Cowards always get the first hit. But they never get the last.

Andreas Schueler Chokes Again- When "Groups Under Groups" Are NOT "Groups Within Groups"

-
Nested hierarchies are "groups within groups". For example with Linnean Classification the Animal Kingdom consists of and contains Phyla, which in turn consist of and contain Classes and so on. This scheme exhibits summativity. All nested hierachies exhibit summativity. If it doesn't exhibit summativity then it ain't a nested hierarchy. That is what is meant by "groups within groups".

Now it is true that this groups within groups scheme can be displayed as groups under groups. Phyla are under Kingdom. Classes are under Phyla and so on.

For some reason it appears that Andy thinks that this means all groups under groups are also a nested hierarchy. However it is obvious that ancestor populations do not consist of nor contain its descendent populations. That means that any and all schemes that depict ancestor-descendent relationships are non-nested hierarchies because a parent population does not consist of nor contain its descendent populations and it does not exhibit summativity.

Darwin's diagram in "On the Origins of Species..." is a non-nested hierarchy. Non-nested hierarchies are groups under groups (or groups sunordinate to groups) without being groups within groups.

And that brings us to another point- Andy's ignorance of summativity betray's his alleged knowledge of nested hierarchies.

Again for Andy- summary of the principles of hierarchy theory:

Nested and non-nested hierarchies:  nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.
 

THAT is why a family tree, with the parents at the top, is NOT a nested hierarchy. Parents do not consist of nor contain, their children.

Andy also seems to take issue with the fact that nested hierarchies require definitions for its sets and levels:

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. For example, a biological population level is an aggregate of entities from the organism level of organization, but it is only so by definition. There is no particular scale involved in the population level of organization, in that some organisms are larger than some populations, as in the case of skin parasites.
 

Seriously- how does he thinks the entities occupy the space the are given? Does he think someone just puts them there because they want to?

LoL! 

Andreas DipShit Schueler- Sez I am Wrong, Then Agrees with Me, Then Sez I am Wrong While Still Agreeing with Me

-
OK I said that if all the alleged transitional forms still existed that we could NOT form a nice strict, oderly nested hierarchy. Andy Schueler said I was a moron who didn't understand nested hierarchies.

So I quoted Darwin:

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14
 

(Never mind the fact that Darwin's diagram did not depict a nested hierarchy )

The point being that nested hierarchies require distinct groups. So after a few days Andy finally comes to his senses and posts:

What Darwin tried to communicate in this quote was, that demarcation criteria between groups of related organisms have been created by extinction. Think about it, if we assume that all organisms are descendants of a shared common ancestor and modifications happened gradually – how would we classify organisms if every organism that ever lived were still alive today?
 

That is the big question. My bet is that we couldn't form a strict, oderly nested hierarchy. What do you say Andy?

There would only be one meaningful classification, one group that encompasses all life, because there would be smooth gradual transitions from every form to a closely related form. That´s what we would get with universal common descent + gradualism + ubiquitous immortality. We could still arrange species by similarity within ONE group that encompasses all life, but objective distinctions between different groups (or any form of hierarchical classification) would be impossible.
 

Andy agrees with me. Now comes the tricky part:

I still have no clue why JoeG thinks that this supports any of his arguments in any way, shape or form...
 

Most likely because that is my argument. I would say that is a good indicator of why I think that supports my argument.

...however since he must have noticed that organisms are in fact not immortal and that the overwhelming majority of all species that ever lived are extinct.
 

LoL! This is the ole "why are there still monkeys?" in reverse. Just because organisms within a population/ species, die, that doesn't mean the entire species goes extinct. There isn't anything in evolutionism that predicts extinctions- when, where, how, what species- let alone any pattern that may or may not arise from them.

But nice try with the girly backpeddle flail.

Evolutionism would not be refuted if all alleged transitional forms still existed- ie if no extinctions took place. And that means it does not predict/ expect a nested hierarchy based on defined characteristics as it would be OK with or without one.

Alrighty then- Andy agrees with wrt transitional forms ruining a strict, orderly nested hierarchy.

One point for me.

 

 

 

Andreas Schueler, Lying Piece of Shit

-
Andreas Schueler has a lied-filled blog about me.

He sez:

our disagreement started with Joe G´s claims that “everything could be placed into nested hierarchies”,
 

Liar, I did NOT say that. I said just about anything can be placed into a nested hierarchy.

All organisms can- individually. That's quite a bit right there, Andy. Each organism exhibits summativity and that can be captured in a nested hierarchy.

And in the same sentence he lies again:

that evolution from a common ancestor does not predict a nested hierarchy of similarities
 

Nope, I never said, thought nor impled such a thing. IOW Andy thinks I am wrong because he is too stupid to grasp the English language.

Andy then sez:

Regarding, transitional forms, JoeG seems to be unable to understand that those show transitions between an ancestral form and that of it´s descendants and do not represent a mix of traits from distinct groups on the same level of classification. Meaning that they obviously do not “ruin” a nested hierarchy.
 

What a moron. All species are on the SAME level. Linnean taxonomy is the nested hierarchy. Phylogenetic trees are non-nested hierarchies. Our bet pertains to nested hierarchies only.

Phylogenetic trees are non-nested hierarchies because they do not display summativity. In a phylogenetic tree we have one giving rise to two or more.

Andy continues:

Claim Nr. 3 was addressed as well – horizontal gene transfer (which is very widespread among many prokaryotes) indeed does reduce the degree of hierarchical structure for phylogenies, but since vertical transfer of genetic material is still more common than horizontal and since „hierarchical structure“ is not a binary attribute (something which Joe G. had a very hard time understanding…), prokaryotic phylogenies still have a highly significant hierarchical structure (see here and here for example).
 

NESTED HIERARCHY you twit. And I have provided the references that support my claim.

However later Andy agrees that I am correct!:

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

What Darwin tried to communicate in this quote was, that demarcation criteria between groups of related organisms have been created by extinction. Think about it, if we assume that all organisms are descendants of a shared common ancestor and modifications happened gradually – how would we classify organisms if every organism that ever lived were still alive today?
 

EXACTLY!

He goes on to say:

There would only be one meaningful classification, one group that encompasses all life, because there would be smooth gradual transitions from every form to a closely related form. That´s what we would get with universal common descent + gradualism + ubiquitous immortality. We could still arrange species by similarity within ONE group that encompasses all life, but objective distinctions between different groups (or any form of hierarchical classification) would be impossible.
 

So now the fuck agrees with me but I am still wrong? What a total loser.

He then sez:

I still have no clue why JoeG thinks that this supports any of his arguments in any way, shape or form...
 

Well it is what I said. So Andy finally agrees with me and then out of his ass sez that. What the fuck?

 ...however since he must have noticed that organisms are in fact not immortal and that the overwhelming majority of all species that ever lived are extinct.
 

Now THAT is a non-sequitur. Species can very well be immortal. You do understand that if your grandfather dies (or has died) the human species still lives on.

And evolutionism doesn't predict extinctions (what species will go extinct, where, how and when) nor the pattern that will emerge from them.

What a pathetic piece of shit liar you are Andy.

YOU OWE ME $10,000 Andreas Schueler

IT JUST KEEPS GETTING BETTER-

Andy thinks that Theobald agrees with him and refutes me. However Theobald says:

Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme. Based on shared derived characters, closely related organisms can be placed in one group (such as a genus), several genera can be grouped together into one family, several families can be grouped together into an order, etc
 

LINNEAN CLASSIFICATION is the nested hierarchy you stupid fuck. That means that Theobald agrees with what I said.

Andy Schueler, Schooled on Nested Hierarchies

-
Information technology- the creating of network topologies, computer file directories, network and file access privileges in a network, all require the knowledge of tree creation, hierarchal structure and nested hierarchies. I have been doing that for over 30 years. I understand trees, hierarchies and nested hierarchies. I had to in order to survive in the field of information technology.

But anyway, as I told Andy, nested hierarchies are constructed by making sets. Those are specified, well-defined sets in a specified well-defined order. The more characters you can use to define your sets, the better for your nested hierarchy. Each set on one level has to be distinct from the others on that level. For example all the similarities each species may have with another are taken care of on higher levels, such as Genera, Family, on up to the top. See the summary of the principles of hierarchy theory. 

First things first- Linnean taxonomy, ie the observed nested hierarchy with animals, has nothing to do with evolution, guided or unguided. It was created to exemplify a common design. Evolutionists stole it, changed the headings and said theirs can also explain it. Note- NOT predict it, explain it. If anything nested hierarchies are evidence for our cleverness, nothing more. 

That said each species belongs to a well defined set. That set, in turn, belongs to a larger set, Genera.  Each Genera belongs to a Family (another set), which belongs to an Order (another set), which belongs to a Class (yup, another set), which belongs to a Phylum (another set), which belongs to a Kingdom, then we have a domain and finally “the” superset, all living organisms. I call it “the” superset because every subset has to have all of the attributes of that superset. All the sets exhibit summativity.

All species are on the SAME level. Andy didn't seem to understand that. But that is because he notion of a nested hierarchy is a non-nested hierarchy with one species giving rise to two (or more).

Transitional forms are species too. They are defined as having a mix of defining characteristics from two other species. A mammal-like reptile doesn’t qualify as a mammal (not enough defining characteristics), nor does it qualify as a reptile (not enough defining characteristics). So you would either have to throw it out OR make more “branches” by redefining everything and using fewer and fewer defining characteristics for each set. You would have to do this for each alleged transitional form. And your scheme would become a mess very quickly. And its objectivity would diminish as more “branches” are added.

 

It is a very simple concept- the more points that have to be connected, you need more lines to connect them. And in any classification scheme, more lines mean more definitions. And when you have more definitions you will have fewer defining characteristics for each organism. And that would make each set less distinguishable from the others. Species will blend as opposed to being separate distinct categories. But that is the nature of gradual evolution. We would expect a blending of characteristics. And anyone who thinks differently is the fool. And obvioulsy Andy Schueler and his evoTARD minions, think differently.

Joe Felsenstein- Clueless 'til the end

-
Fatman Joe Felsenstein has a new article Does CSI Enable Us to Detect Design?

Yes, it does Joe. However you, being a moron, don't know how to detect anything.

Joe sez:

When Shallit and Elsberry found a hole in Dembski’s theorem, and when I pointed out that the theorem was unable to refute the effectiveness of natural selection (because its specification changed in midstream) we were right.
 

Earth to Fat Joe Felsenstein- There isn't any evidence that natural selection can do anything, let alone create CSI. As a matter of fact natural selection requires the existence of CSI.

EVIDENCE- yours is a position that is absent of evidence. So until you actually have some, perhaps you should just keep stuffing donuts into your hole.

Joe spews:

But whether I am right about that or not, Dembski and Marks have not provided any new argument that shows that a Designer intervenes after the population starts to evolve.
 

No intervention required dickhead. Did Dawkins "weasel" require intervention to reach the target? Do computer prograns require intervention to do what they are designed to do?

OK so Felsenstein still doesn't have any evidence to support his trope.

Joe Felsenstein, scientifically illiterate joke

Andy Schueler's Devastating Refutations of My Claims

-
I said:

As for nested hierarchies- LoL!. The fact that the theory of evolution posits a gradual change, which means there would be many, many transitional forms, it is clear that the theory does not expect a nested hierarchy based on traits. Transitional forms by definition means there would be organisms with a mixture of defining traits, which would ruin a nested hierarchy based on traits.

Andy replied:

 Ergo, you were completely and utterly clueless about what nested hierarchies are just two months ago, and anything you might know about it has been learned within this timeframe. I on the other hand studied Molecular Biology and Bioinformatics and study phylogenetic trees (which requires an understanding of nested hierarchies) regularly at work since roughly five years (if I count the time since I started working mostly independently) and my work has been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Evidence for those claims can of course be provided and I´ll happily provide you with copies of my academic certificates and publications (and my bank account of course).

Now I hope you honor your commitment and thanks a lot for ten thousand bucks!
 

That's it! Nothing that actually even addresses what I wrote. Just a bald declaration tat I am wrong.

I also understand trees. Over 30 years working in information technology designing network topologies, computer directory trees and server access trees. All of that requires knowledge of trees, hierarchies and nested hierarchies.

I have archives on this blog loaded with discussions of nested hierarchies. No one has ever disputed that wrt transitional forms.

Now along comes Andy and just baldly declares I am wrong, even though Darwin and Denton agree with me?

If you read what Andy writes you can easily see that he conflates hierarchy and nested hierarchy. He's totally clueless.

Further down it continues:

And I am correct- transitional forms, by their very nature, contain a MIX of defining characteristics. THAT violates a nested hierarchy.


He does come back with this non-response:

Dude, this is about the single dumbest thing that you could have said about this subject, seriously – I really could not imagine a more outrageously stupid comment about nested hierarchies. Let me walk you through that reeeaaal slow. You seem to think that mixing features violates a nested hierarchy. If this would be true (hint: it isn´t), then the very existence of nested hierarchies would be a logical impossibility, because the only collections of entities where there is ZERO mixing of features, are collections where all entities are either exactly identical or completely different.

 

Mixing DEFINING characteristics, you moron. Of course there will be shared characteristics throughout. That is the basis of a nested hierarchy- similarities. However the organisms in different sets cannot share DEFINING characteristics. Mammals do not have feathers. A mammal with feathers would ruin the existing scheme.

The asshole can't even follow along. What kind of publshed scientist is he?

Nested Hiearchy- Potential Falsication:

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings. Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not. Gymnosperms (e.g. conifers or pines) occasionally could be found with flowers, but they never are. Non-seed plants, like ferns, could be found with woody stems; however, only some angiosperms have woody stems. Conceivably, some birds could have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers (they are an excellent means of insulation). Certain fish or amphibians could have differentiated or cusped teeth, but these are only characteristics of mammals. A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies. Unlike organisms, cars do have a mix and match of characters, and this is precisely why a nested hierarchy does not flow naturally from classification of cars.

If it were impossible, or very problematic, to place species in an objective nested classification scheme (as it is for the car, chair, book, atomic element, and elementary particle examples mentioned above), macroevolution would be effectively disproven. More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified.

 

Does Andy also think that Theobald is stupid?

 

Transitional Forms and Nested Hierarchies- Support from Darwin and Denton - Andy Schueler eats it

-
I told Andy Schueler that if all the alleged transitional forms were alive, then we would not be able to form a nice strict and objective nested hierarchy. Andy threw a hissy-fit.

However Darwin agrees with me:

Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14
 

And like the coward he is Andy cried "That doesn't support your claim!" LoL! 

Denton agrees with me:

There is another stringent condition which must be satisfied if a hierarchic pattern is to result as the end product of an evolutionary process: no ancestral forms can be permitted to survive. This can be seen by examining the tree diagram on page 135. If any of the ancestors X, Y, or Z, or if any of the hypothetical transitional connecting species stationed on the main branches of the tree, had survived and had therefore to be included in the classification scheme, the distinctness of the divisions would be blurred by intermediate or partially inclusive classes and what remained of the hierarchic pattern would be highly disordered.- Denton, “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” page 136 (X, Y and Z are hypothetical parental node populations)
 

Oops. Andy sez I can use any judges I want. Well Andy I will take Darwin and Denton.
You lose.

EvoTARD Commenter Bets Me $10,000 and Loses. What to do?

-
Oh well. They really thouht they had me beat until reality stepped in. In the end Andy lost because he did not understand that nested hierarchies need to exhibit summativity. If it doesn't have summativity then the diagram isn't a nested hierrachy. Period, end of story.

The point is that I had claimed that transitional forms, by their very definition, would violate a nested hierarchy scheme. Ya see they have a mix of characteristics of two or more other species, and that means you would have to create a new set, which means redefining all the old sets.

Andy Schueler  tried to get around this by posting a diagram. Unfortunately he posted a diagram of a non-nested hierarchy with one parent population giving rise to two daughter populations. That violates summativity.

See The use of hierarchies as organizational models:

The fact that speciation ends with two species, not two halves of a species, is an indication that this hierarchy lacks summativity, and therefore, is non-nested. pg 13
 

So Andy posted a diagram of a non-nested hierarchy and tried to pass it off as a nested hierarchy. He even tried to berate me for not understanding it. I just didn't understand why someone who claims to understand nested hierarchies would try to get away with such a thing.

Their victory claiming thread is here, and the diagram is somewhere down in the thread.

I am sure that I will never get my money. Oh well.

"Here are Some Numbers, are They Designed?"

-
Maybe it's an April Fool's joke. Unfortunately it started before today.

Oh well, the stupidity runs deep with evoTARDs. OM now wants IDists to prove ourselves by determining whether or not a string of numbers is designed.

The moron doesn't seem to understand that archaeology, forensic science, SETI and even evolutionism all depend on our ability to determine design from nature, operating freely.

But that is besides the point. OM obvioulsy doesn't understand science. If someone came up to a scientist with a list of numbers and asked that question, the scientist would ask where the numbers came from.

If the only answer is "They were found on this paper and the paper was in the printer's output tray." Then it is obvious someone did it. Most likely a human. Duh.

What was OM expecting?