Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, April 04, 2013

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.


Post a Comment

<< Home