Andreas Schueler, Lying Piece of Shit
Andreas Schueler has a lied-filled blog about me.
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 similaritiesNope, 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.
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, etcLINNEAN CLASSIFICATION is the nested hierarchy you stupid fuck. That means that Theobald agrees with what I said.