Andy Schueler STILL doesn't Know what a Nested Hierarchy Is
Andy and I bet $10,000 - my claim was that I knew more about nested hierarchies than Andy does. Andy disagrteed and blabbed his ass off, never once referencing a definition of a nested hierarchy- NEVER. OTOH I had referenced definitions of a nested hierarchy.
The point? Andy sez that evolutionism predicts a nested hierarchy. That is because he thinks a branching pattern- any branching patten apparently- forms a nested hierarchy. He never supported that claim. He thinks that Darwin said his "theory" predicted a nested hierarchy because what he said about his diagram- "groups subordinate to groups" - nested hierarchies are "groups WITHIN groups" you ignorant ass- Andy.
Evolution via small incremental steps would produce a smooth blending of defining characteristics. Yet nested hierarchies require clean, distinct categories- no blending allowed.
In order to try to get clean, distnct sets with gradual evolution, the definitions would be so muddled as to make it useless.Andydoesn't understand that either.
Also Andy sed that a family tree would produce a nested hierarchy- unfortunately he never demonstrated such a thing. I would love to see that using defining characteristics as Linneas did.
So the bottom line is Andy still doesn't know what a nested hierarchy is and he thinks his ignorance means something.
Dr Denton supports my claim in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"- Denton knows more than Schueler and supports his claims too.