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.