Back to Nested Hierarchies- Why Andy Schueler and Jonathan MS Pearce are Ignorant
-
Amazing even after all the evidence that demonstrated Andy was ignorant of nested hierarchies Jonathan MS Pearce is still going around telling people that I lost the bet. That is total bullshit and here is just another reason:
Andy sez that descent with modification will produce a nested hierarchy. However nested hierarchies have a direction, one of increasing complexity. That means the definitions of the levels and sets get more complex as to descend the NH. For example the definition of a human includes all of the other definitions in the line of descent above it as well as the definition of a human (Homo sapiens). Pretty simple actually.
The problem is descent with modification is not like that. Descendants can be more simple than their ancestors. And that means evolution is not expected to produce a nested hierarchy- that along with all the other reasons that Andy ignores as if his willful ignorance means something.
Amazing even after all the evidence that demonstrated Andy was ignorant of nested hierarchies Jonathan MS Pearce is still going around telling people that I lost the bet. That is total bullshit and here is just another reason:
Andy sez that descent with modification will produce a nested hierarchy. However nested hierarchies have a direction, one of increasing complexity. That means the definitions of the levels and sets get more complex as to descend the NH. For example the definition of a human includes all of the other definitions in the line of descent above it as well as the definition of a human (Homo sapiens). Pretty simple actually.
The problem is descent with modification is not like that. Descendants can be more simple than their ancestors. And that means evolution is not expected to produce a nested hierarchy- that along with all the other reasons that Andy ignores as if his willful ignorance means something.
posted by Joe G @ 7:42 AM
71 Comments:
At 9:49 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: However nested hierarchies have a direction, one of increasing complexity. That means the definitions of the levels and sets get more complex as to descend the NH.
You're conflating the description with the thing itself.
At 10:15 AM,
Joe G said…
You're conflating the description with the thing itself.
Make your case- your say-so means nothing.
It is a fact that nested hierarchies demand increasing complexity. And it is a fact that evolution does not.
But then again you have yet to demonstrate an understanding of nested hierarchies
At 10:20 AM,
Joe G said…
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 means that there has to be increasing complexity otherwise you will not have the "consist of and contain" requirement. Duh.
At 10:22 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It is a fact that nested hierarchies demand increasing complexity.
No. They have increasing complexity of description. We may define a mammal for the purposes of classification as a vertebrate with hair, but the description is not a measure of its complexity.
This is like the infamous cake recipe incident. The recipe is not the cake.
At 10:29 AM,
Joe G said…
It is a fact that nested hierarchies demand increasing complexity.
No.
Yes, they do.
They have increasing complexity of description.
Can you have an increasing complexity of description while having decreasing complexity?
We may define a mammal for the purposes of classification as a vertebrate with hair, but the description is not a measure of its complexity.
The description is retarded and would never work in a nested hierarchy.
This is like the infamous cake recipe incident.
It is only infamous to ignorant trolls.
The recipe is not the cake.
No one said that it was.
At 10:41 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Can you have an increasing complexity of description while having decreasing complexity?
mammal: vertebrate with hair
cake,
german chocolate cake: Directions
Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Grease and flour two 9 inch pans.
In a medium saucepan, heat butter, yogurt, chocolate and cola until chocolate is completely melted.
In a large bowl, mix flour, sugar, and baking soda. Add chocolate mixture, buttermilk, eggs and vanilla. Beat until smooth. Pour batter into two 9 inch round pans.
Bake at 350 degrees F (175 degrees C) for 30 to 35 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted into cake comes out clean.
At 10:55 AM,
Joe G said…
Can you have an increasing complexity of description while having decreasing complexity?
Zachriel:
mammal: vertebrate with hair
cake,
Back with the tard
german chocolate cake: Directions
Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Grease and flour two 9 inch pans.
In a medium saucepan, heat butter, yogurt, chocolate and cola until chocolate is completely melted.
In a large bowl, mix flour, sugar, and baking soda. Add chocolate mixture, buttermilk, eggs and vanilla. Beat until smooth. Pour batter into two 9 inch round pans.
Bake at 350 degrees F (175 degrees C) for 30 to 35 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted into cake comes out clean.
LoL! So mammals and cakes are in the same nested hierarchy, ie the nested hierarchy of living organisms that I am discussing? Really?
And now a recipe is a description? Really?
Yes Zachriel we all know that you can be a total ignorant asshole and act as if that makes some sort of point besides that.
A description of a mammal is not what Zachriel sez. And only a complete moron would use a recipe of a cake as a description of that cake.
At 11:02 AM,
Zachriel said…
The question is whether a description is a measure of the complexity of the object being described. Feel free to provide a description of mammals.
At 11:08 AM,
Joe G said…
The question is whether a description is a measure of the complexity of the object being described.
No, it wasn't. Also context is important but we should have realized what we was dealing with- meaning if we don't spell out every little detail you feel free to move the context to whatever your little mind desires.
Feel free to provide a description of mammals.
Science already has. And no one is free to change it to suit their obfuscation of the day.
But do feel free to construct a clade in which the descendants are less complex than the ancestor- including fewer defining characteristics.
At 11:14 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: No, it wasn't.
Sure it was. You're claiming that the increasing complexity of the description in a nested hierarchy classification means that the objects being described are increasingly complex.
Joe G: Science already has.
Then it should easy enough for you to provide it.
At 11:52 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You're claiming that the increasing complexity of the description in a nested hierarchy classification means that the objects being described are increasingly complex.
In context I am saying that nested hierarchies require an increasing complexity of defining characteristics.
Then it should easy enough for you to provide it.
So you are too lazy to look it up for yourself?
It should be easy for you to provide a population of organisms called mammals with just two defining characteristics. And then show its descendants. Thanks.
And we are still waiting for you to construct a clade in which the descendants are less complex than the ancestor- including fewer defining characteristics.
At 11:55 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: In context I am saying that nested hierarchies require an increasing complexity of defining characteristics.
Defining characteristics is not a complete description of an organism.
Joe G: So you are too lazy to look it up for yourself?
There are many definitions of mammals. You were unhappy with the one we provided, but have been unable to provide an alternative.
At 12:03 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Defining characteristics is not a complete description of an organism
If we used a complete description of an organism my point would be even more obvious. Nice own goal.
There are many definitions of mammals.
How many are scientific definitions that are used in Linnean Classification, ie the constructed nested hierarchy?
It should be easy for you to provide a population of organisms called mammals with just two defining characteristics. And then show its descendants. Thanks.
And we are still waiting for you to construct a clade in which the descendants are less complex than the ancestor- including fewer defining characteristics.
Still waiting and your avoidance proves my point also.
At 12:09 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: If we used a complete description of an organism my point would be even more obvious.
That's not your claim. Your claim is that a "mouse" is more complex than "rodent" because it is further down the nested hierarchy. This conflates the description used to make the nested hierarchy with the object being described.
Furthermore, a mouse is a rodent. Rodent is a set, not an element.
Joe G: Still waiting and your avoidance proves my point also.
We asked you a question. You have refused to answer, but expect an answer to your question posed afterwards.
At 12:09 PM,
Joe G said…
And if your cake is a vertebrate with hair...
At 12:13 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Your claim is that a "mouse" is more complex than "rodent" because it is further down the nested hierarchy.
WRONG! There isn't any population we called "rodent". Stop using Linnean classification when talking about universal common descent and nested hierarchies. The two are not related.
We asked you a question.
And we answered. Don't blame us for your failures.
At 12:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Z:
We may define a mammal for the purposes of classification as a vertebrate with hair
Only if one wants to obfuscate rather than educate. And there still isn't a population called "mammal".
At 12:17 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: There isn't any population we called "rodent".
"Rodents are mammals of the order Rodentia, characterized by a single pair of continuously growing incisors in each of the upper and lower jaws."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodent
Joe G: And we answered.
No. You said "Science already has."
At 12:20 PM,
Joe G said…
There isn't any population we called "rodent".
"Rodents are mammals of the order Rodentia, characterized by a single pair of continuously growing incisors in each of the upper and lower jaws."
Thank you for proving my point. Another own goal.
And we answered.
No. You said "Science already has."
And now you are blaming me for your ignorance of the scientific classification of mammals? Really?
At 12:21 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: And now you are blaming me for your ignorance of the scientific classification of mammals?
In other words, you can't provide a definition of mammal.
At 12:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Science already has provided a definition for "mammal". That means I don't have to. However I do know for a fact that A) mammal is not a population of organisms and B) the scientific definition is by far more complex than yours.
And all of that proves that you are a loser who would rather obfuscate than educate.
At 12:27 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Science already has provided a definition for "mammal".
But you can't seem to find it, even after we have asked several times.
At 12:29 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Obviously YOU can't seem to find it and you need me to do your work for you.
Grow up
At 12:30 PM,
Joe G said…
If science hasn't defined what a mammal is then how did Zachriel know it is a vertebrate with hair? Both of those are scientifically defined...
At 12:30 PM,
Zachriel said…
Still can't provide a definition of mammal? Didn't think it was that difficult.
At 12:31 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: If science hasn't defined what a mammal is then how did Zachriel know it is a vertebrate with hair?
You rejected that definition. We asked for what you considered a good definition.
At 12:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Still can't provide a definition of mammal? Didn't think it was that difficult.
Then what are you waiting for? YOU brought up mammals. It is up to YOU to provide the proper definition in the context of the discussion. Yet you have failed to do so.
At 12:33 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It is up to YOU to provide the proper definition in the context of the discussion.
Okay. A vertebrate with hair follicles.
At 12:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You rejected that definition.
Anyone with an education would. And only an asshole on an agenda would provide the definition that you provided.
We asked for what you considered a good definition.
And we told you.
At 12:36 PM,
Joe G said…
It is up to YOU to provide the proper definition in the context of the discussion.
Okay. A vertebrate with hair follicles.
And you are a ball-less asshole.
At 12:37 PM,
Joe G said…
So Zachriel isn't a mammal- Z doesn't have a spine...
At 12:39 PM,
Zachriel said…
You're sputtering. Please provide an acceptable definition of mammal.
At 12:45 PM,
Joe G said…
You're flailing and floundering. And "mammal" doesn't have any place in this discussion for the reason provided.
At 12:47 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: "mammal" doesn't have any place in this discussion for the reason provided.
Your original post concerned nested hierarchy classification of organisms. Mammals is an example. We provided a simple definition, which you rejected. You are free to provide another definition, but otherwise, we have to assume you can't support your claim.
At 12:54 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Your original post concerned nested hierarchy classification of organisms.
Wrong again. The original post concerns the claim that universal common descent predicts a nested hierarchy. And "mammal" is not a population that can be found in universal common descent.
Now stop being such a fucking infant- or is that all you can do?
At 12:55 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: nested hierarchies have a direction, one of increasing complexity. That means the definitions of the levels and sets get more complex as to descend the NH...
Correct.
Joe G: Descendants can be more simple than their ancestors. And that means evolution is not expected to produce a nested hierarchy
That doesn't follow. Just because the description used for classification is more complex doesn't mean the organism is more complex.
Furthermore, it doesn't make sense. When we classify squirrels and mice together as rodents, it doesn't mean "rodents" is simpler. "Rodents" is the set that contains squirrels and mice.
At 1:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Descendants can be more simple than their ancestors. And that means evolution is not expected to produce a nested hierarchy
That doesn't follow.
It does if you understand how scientists classify organisms. You don't so you are confused.
Just because the description used for classification is more complex doesn't mean the organism is more complex.
The two usually go hand-in-hand. However you don't seem to be able to stay in conext. That is your problem, not mine.
Zachriel:
When we classify squirrels and mice together as rodents, it doesn't mean "rodents" is simpler.
"Rodent" is not a population that can be found in universal common descent.
Obviously you are proud to be an obtuse fuck.
At 1:02 PM,
Joe G said…
However the definition of "rodent" is simpler than the definition of squirrels and mice.
At 1:08 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: "Rodent" is not a population that can be found in universal common descent.
Actually, there is a lot of information about the evolution of rodents.
Joe G: However the definition of "rodent" is simpler than the definition of squirrels and mice.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that "rodent" is simpler, because rodent is a set not an element. And the common ancestor of squirrels and mice is probably not simpler either, being fully adapted to its own environment.
Did you ever come up with a definition of mammal?
At 1:23 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Actually, there is a lot of information about the evolution of rodents.
Non-sequitur.
..., because rodent is a set not an element
Exactly.
Did you ever come up with a definition of mammal?
Science has and as I have said it is irrelevant to the OP.
At 10:25 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: "Rodent" is not a population that can be found in universal common descent.
Most evidence points to monophyly of rodentia.
Joe G: Science has
But you can't seem to find it.
Joe G: I have said it is irrelevant to the OP.
Your claim concerned the relationship between phylogeny and complexity, so looking at examples from biology is certainly relevant.
At 11:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Most evidence points to monophyly of rodentia.
"Rodentia" is not a population that can be found in universal common descent.
But you can't seem to find it.
YOU can't seem to find it. You think that a mammal is a hairy backbone- no mouth, no anus, nothing but hair or hair follicles and a backbone.
I don't know anyone but you who thinks that.
Your claim concerned the relationship between phylogeny and complexity,
Phylogeny is not nested hierarchy. You are confused.
so looking at examples from biology is certainly relevant.
Then start doing so.
At 11:14 AM,
Joe G said…
It should be easy for you to provide a population of organisms called mammals with just two defining characteristics. And then show its descendants. Thanks.
And we are still waiting for you to construct a clade in which the descendants are less complex than the ancestor- including fewer defining characteristics.
At 11:46 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: "Rodentia" is not a population that can be found in universal common descent.
Rodentia is a population that is hypothesized to share common descent with the rest of life. Try rephrasing your objection.
Joe G: YOU can't seem to find it.
Vertebrates with hair follicles.
Joe G: You think that a mammal is a hairy backbone- no mouth, no anus, nothing but hair or hair follicles and a backbone.
No. When classifying organisms you don't describe every feature of the organism, but the characteristics that distinguish the organism from the superset. We could define mammals as tetrapods with mammary glands.
If you prefer a different definition consistent with classification into a nested hierarchy, then please provide it. Otherwise, we'll assume you simply can't.
Joe G: Phylogeny is not nested hierarchy.
Phylogenies are determined by nested hierarchies. But if you prefer, your claim concerned the relationship between phenotypic classification and complexity.
At 12:48 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Rodentia is a population that is hypothesized to share common descent with the rest of life.
No, it isn't a population. Rodentia is a group of mammals, the largest group of mammals. It definitely is NOT a population that is hypothesized to share common descent with the rest of life.
Zachriel:
When classifying organisms you don't describe every feature of the organism, but the characteristics that distinguish the organism from the superset.
The superset also contains defined characteristics and all must be included in the discussion- starting with Animalia. Otherwise you are just being a dick on an agenda.
Zachriel:
We could define mammals as tetrapods with mammary glands.
That leaves ceataceans out. Manatees- out. Dugongs- out. Pinnapeds- questionable.
Starting with Aristotle scientific minds knew that you used as meany characteristics as possible- the more the better. Ernst Mayr talks about this also. And between the two was Linnaeus, who definitely used more than two.
So why are you insisting on being a piece-of-shit asshole?
Zachriel:
Phylogenies are determined by nested hierarchies.
No, they are not.
At 1:00 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It definitely is NOT a population that is hypothesized to share common descent with the rest of life.
Of course it is. All organisms are hypothesized to share a common ancestor.
Joe G: The superset also contains defined characteristics and all must be included in the discussion- starting with Animalia.
Well, eukaryotes at least.
In any case, saying mammals are vertebrates entails the defining characteristics of vertebrates.
Joe G: That leaves ceataceans out.
Cetaceans are classified tetrapods (though not quadrupeds). They have rudimentary hindlimbs during development.
Joe G: Starting with Aristotle scientific minds knew that you used as meany characteristics as possible
Actually, you want as few distinguishing characters as possible. But we'll await your definition.
At 1:52 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel,
Rodentia is not a population. You are obviously just an ignorant asshole.
Cetaceans are classified tetrapods (though not quadrupeds).
They are not tetrapods.
They have rudimentary hindlimbs during development.
Rudimentary flippers are not legs nor legs with feet.
In any case, saying mammals are vertebrates entails the defining characteristics of vertebrates.
Then it is included which means your simplification is bullshit- just as I have said.
Actually, you want as few distinguishing characters as possible.
Not according to the experts. So we have Zachriel, a known ignorant asshole, vs. the experts.
At 2:59 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Rodentia is not a population.
It's a set of related populations.
Joe G: {Cetaceans} are not tetrapods.
Yes, they are grouped as tetrapods. So are snakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod
Joe G: Rudimentary flippers are not legs nor legs with feet.
Arms and wings aren't legs either.
Joe G: Then it is included
That's right. The group vertebrate entails many other defining characteristics, such as eukaryotic cell structure.
At 3:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
It's a set of related populations.
Exactly and that means you are an asshole for bringing it up because it is irrelevant to the OP.
Yes, they are grouped as tetrapods. So are snakes.
So what? They don't have legs and feet. Tetrapods have legs and feet.
Arms and wings aren't legs either.
Very good. Humans have arms, legs and feet. Birds have wings, legs and feet. Bats have wings, legs and feet. Tetrapod does not mean quadruped.
The group vertebrate entails many other defining characteristics, such as eukaryotic cell structure.
I know and that is why your bogus over-simplification of "mammal" was easily exposed.
At 4:32 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: it is irrelevant to the OP
You might want to reread the original post, because the various groupings and how they are defined is the question raised in the original post.
Zachriel: Yes, they are grouped as tetrapods. So are snakes.
Joe G: So what?
Because in biology the term "tetrapod" includes organisms with fewer than four limbs.
Joe G: Tetrapods have legs and feet.
In biology, the term "tetrapod" includes organisms with fewer than four limbs. We provided a reference.
Joe G: I know and that is why your bogus over-simplification of "mammal" was easily exposed.
That's fine. Perhaps you could provided the defining characteristics of mammals, and rodents while you're at it.
At 5:39 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You might want to reread the original post, because the various groupings and how they are defined is the question raised in the original post.
That is incorrect.
At 5:43 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: That is incorrect
You really don't want to have a discussion or clarify your views, do you?
Joe G: nested hierarchies have a direction, one of increasing complexity. That means the definitions of the levels and sets get more complex as to descend the NH...
Correct.
Joe G: Descendants can be more simple than their ancestors. And that means evolution is not expected to produce a nested hierarchy
That doesn't follow. Just because the description used for classification is more complex doesn't mean the organism is more complex.
You could start by providing the defining characteristics for mammals, rodents, and for a mouse.
At 6:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Descendants can be more simple than their ancestors. And that means evolution is not expected to produce a nested hierarchy
Zachriel:
That doesn't follow.
It does to people who understand nested hierarchies. Denton goes over this point in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"- perhaps you should start there and get back to us when you have read the chapter of systematics.
At 6:58 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: It does to people who understand nested hierarchies.
You presented an argument in the original post. You refuse to defend it, even to discuss it.
You could start by providing the defining characteristics for mammals, rodents, and for a mouse.
At 6:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You presented an argument in the original post.
Yes we did and obviously you are too stupid to understand it. We cannot discuss what you are too stupid to understand.
At 8:20 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Yes we did
The usual way when asked for clarification or support is to provide clarification or support. Not sure why you have so much trouble with that simple concept.
You could start by providing the defining characteristics for mammals, rodents, and for a mouse.
At 9:17 AM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
The usual way when asked for clarification or support is to provide clarification or support.
Denton, 1985
At 10:00 AM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Denton, 1985
Sorry. Thought you could defend your own position.
We checked in the science section of the library and it wasn't to be found. We'll check with the librarian to see if a copy is available.
At 12:27 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Thought you could defend your own position.
Denton said it and defended it. And we are more than willing to defend it and will do so when someone makes relevant arguments or asks relevant questions. You are not that person.
And Denton's books should be in the same section as Dawkins' and Darwin's books.
At 12:32 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: Denton said it and defended it.
We were responding to the original post on this thread, which you said.
Joe G: However nested hierarchies have a direction, one of increasing complexity. That means the definitions of the levels and sets get more complex as to descend the NH.
Agreed.
Joe G: Descendants can be more simple than their ancestors.
Sure they can.
Joe G: And that means evolution is not expected to produce a nested hierarchy- that along with all the other reasons that Andy ignores as if his willful ignorance means something.
You're conflating the complexity of the description used for classification with the complexity of the object being classified.
As you made the claim, you should be able to defend it. Are you saying you can't defend it, but that you are just reciting something someone else said?
At 1:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You're conflating the complexity of the description used for classification with the complexity of the object being classified.
You only say that because you are ignorant of how classification schemes work.
For example a mammal would have a set of characteristics, call that set X. Rodents have all of the characteristics in X plus the characteristics in set Y. And mice would have all of the characteristics of sets X and Y plus the characteristics in set Z.
In any given clade it is the same structure.
Are you saying you can't defend it,
And we are more than willing to defend it and will do so when someone makes relevant arguments or asks relevant questions. You are not that person.
At 1:33 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: You only say that because you are ignorant of how classification schemes work.
Perhaps, but you have been unable to provide a classification scheme for mammals or rodents.
Joe G: For example a mammal would have a set of characteristics, call that set X.
Please be specific. What is that set of characteristics?
Joe G: Rodents have all of the characteristics in X plus the characteristics in set Y. And mice would have all of the characteristics of sets X and Y plus the characteristics in set Z.
Sure, so the description becomes more complex. We already granted that way up there in the thread.
You're basically saying that mice are more complex than rodents which are more complex than mammals, even though mice are an instance of rodents and an instance of mammals.
Please be specific. What is that set of distinguishing characteristics for mammals, rodents, mice?
At 3:31 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Perhaps, but you have been unable to provide a classification scheme for mammals or rodents.
So no one has ever classified mammals nor rodents then. However Zachriel thinks that the ONLY difference between reptiles and mammals are hair follicles.
Please be specific. What is that set of characteristics?
X.
Sure, so the description becomes more complex. We already granted that way up there in the thread.
That is how a nested hierarchy is constructed.
You're basically saying that mice are more complex than rodents which are more complex than mammals
Only a moron would say such a thing and here you are.
As I have said many times, "mammal" and "rodent" are irrelevant distractions brought on by a complete ass that calls itself Zachriel.
You are obviously unable to have a discussion. Good luck with your insipidity...
At 4:24 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: However Zachriel thinks that the ONLY difference between reptiles and mammals are hair follicles.
No, but hair follicles is a distinction between them. If we had to note every difference between reptiles and mammals, then we would have to include every nucleotide difference. If we have to note every difference between books, we would have to look at every letter in order to classify them. If we had to note every difference between people, we would have to note every freckle.
Joe G: X
Are you saying the classification of mammals won't fit into the margin of the page?
Joe G: That is how a nested hierarchy is constructed.
That's how some nested hierarchies are constructed, typically those having to do with classificatory schemes.
Joe G: As I have said many times, "mammal" and "rodent" are irrelevant distractions
You introduced the nested hierarchy of organisms. Mammals and rodents are taxa within that classification.
At 5:03 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
No, but hair follicles is a distinction between them.
There are many more differences that scientists note
If we had to note every difference between reptiles and mammals, then we would have to include every nucleotide difference.
Only an asshole on an agenda would say something like that. Is every human classified separately due to the nucleotide differences?
Are you saying the classification of mammals won't fit into the margin of the page?
Only an asshole on an agenda would ask that question.
That's how some nested hierarchies are constructed, typically those having to do with classificatory schemes.
Name some that are not constructed that way. And don't post again until you can.
You introduced the nested hierarchy of organisms.
With respect to descent with modification.
Mammals and rodents are taxa within that classification.
Linnean classification does not reflect descent with modification. Linnean classification is evidence that nested hierarchies are a purely man-made construct. Also evolution by descent with modification didn't predict mammals.
As I have been telling you, you cannot use Linnean classification when discussing nested hierarchies and descent with modification. All you accomplish by trying to conflate the two is the shitty mess you have created here.
Nice job asshole- well assholes do produce shit so there you have it.
At 5:37 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: There are many more differences that scientists note
Sure, but it only takes a few to distinguish them for the purposes of classification. So you really don't know how to classify mammals without looking at billions of traits?
The rest of your comment was lost, probably due to Tourette that has infected your communications.
At 7:00 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
Sure, but it only takes a few to distinguish them for the purposes of classification.
Sure if and only if the sets are so distinct as to exclude any transitions between the two.
So you really don't know how to classify mammals without looking at billions of traits?
Mammals don't have billions of traits. Add "trait" to the growing list of things you are ignorant of.
But anyway, seeing that you won't answer any of my challenges, and seeing that you have already been proven ignorant wrt nested hierarchies and seeing that you can't even understand the OP, it's is time I move on.
But thanks for the entertainment. It's nice to see that you will do anything but address the issues and your failings.
At 12:37 PM,
Zachriel said…
Zachriel: Sure, but it only takes a few to distinguish them for the purposes of classification.
Joe : Sure if and only if the sets are so distinct as to exclude any transitions between the two.
You introduced the distinction between reptiles and mammals. Perhaps you could provide the distinguishing characteristics necessary for classification.
At 2:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Zachriel:
You introduced the distinction between reptiles and mammals.
The distinctions have nothing to do with the OP. And evolutionism does not predict either. Evolutionism would be perfectly happy with reptiles with hair and mammary glands. Apparently you are too dim to understand any of that.
At 3:52 PM,
Zachriel said…
Joe G: The distinctions have nothing to do with the OP.
Yet if was you who introduced the distinction between reptiles and mammals. Perhaps you could provide the distinguishing characteristics necessary for classification.
At 6:50 AM,
Joe G said…
Perhaps you could stop being such a cowardly asshole and get an education so you can participate in a discussion
Post a Comment
<< Home