Alan Fox is Proudly Ignorant of Nested Hierarchies

-
The TSZ ilk are a bunch of clueless retards. Now Alan Fox spews:

The nested hierarchy is a necessary consequence of branching descent from a common ancestror.

Bullshit. I know that is what evoTARDs say but I also know they cannot support that claim.

Look, morons, just because a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a branching diagram doesn't mean that branching processes produces a nested hierarchy. There are rules that have to be followed for a nested hierarchy. One rule is each level consists of and contains lower levels (that is until you get to the last level). And you do NOT get that by mere branching descent. A family tree is not a nested hierarchy and guess what? It represents branching descent from common ancestors!

Again, with branching descent defining characteristics can be lost. And once lost any nested hierarchy will also be lost if it is based on defining characteristics. Denton went over that in "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".

Also Alan's claim is NOT supported by peer-review. See Know, The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics.

Alan also spews this bit of willful ignorance:

That there is no scientific theory of design, with entailments, that makes falsifiable predictions?.

And yet we have said exactly how to test ID and what will falsify it. Your willful ignorance, while amusing, is meaningless, Alan.


Now I know why I was banned from TSZ- I kept correcting their ignorance and it finally got to them. This way they can spew their ignorance without having to deal with the facts.

John Harshman is also Proud to be Ignorant of Nested Hierarchies

-
John Harshman is willfully clueless. He sez:

Now, I believe in ancestors (and I can describe them in many particulars based on phylogenetic reconstruction, but that’s not relevant) because their existence is the only explanation for the nested hierarchy of life.

And yet Linnaean Classification is a nested hierarchy of life and it doesn't have anything to do with Common Descent or evolution. Also phylogenies are NOT a nested hierarchy, moron:

Understanding Phylogenies- Look at the diagrams. Every node is an alleged common ancestor. And every node is also a separate level. With nested hierarchies the levels consist of and contain lower levels. Yet the ancestral populations do NOT consist of nor do they contain their descendants. That is a simple concept yet it seems to be way over the heads of the TSZ ilk.

Se also:

The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics

The whole paper is useful but for this argument start on the bottom of page 9- HENNIG’S USE OF HIERARCHIES. UC Berkley, and all the other evos are making the same mistake as Henning did. But hey, it's only been corrected for decades so I can understand why they haven't caught on:

Hennig (1966: 70–72) presented in his fig. 18 (my Fig. 3, with parts of the figure labelled a and b instead of I and II) two different graphic representations of a hierarchic system that he regarded as corresponding exactly to one another. Figure 3a is a modified Venn diagram that depicts a nested hierarchy. As mentioned above, a fully nested hierarchy displays the property of summativity. This model constitutes an important special case because the organizational criterion is containment (Allen &Hoekstra,1984).Entities at a higher level of organization contain, or are composed of, entities at the next lower level of organization. In this case, the whole is the sum of the parts. Hierarchies that employ organizational criteria other than containment may be referred to as non-nested, and these do not display summativity (Allen & Hoekstra, 1984). Figure 3b is an arrow diagram that represents species begetting species. This could be interpreted as a linear representation of history (a directed, non-reticulate network), or, as Hennig intended, as a non-nested hierarchy with ancestor-descendant relationship as the organizational criterion.

Contrary to Hennig’s statement (1966: 70), a and b in Figure 3 do not correspond exactly, a point made earlier by Simpson (1961: 62–63) using virtually identical diagrams (his fig. 3A, C). These two models differ because life, as an evolving system, is innovative and generative. In Figure 3b, ‘stem species’ 1 (for convenience, Species 1) is the ancestor of Species 2 and Species 5, which are in turn ancestors to their descendants. In Figure 3a, the numbers associated with Species 1 through 5 indicate the monophyletic groups of terminal species derived from various ancestral species. Although Species 1 may have given rise to the terminal species, the ancestral Species 1 is clearly not the same as the set of (or not equal to the sum of) the terminal species.  

Read the paper and buy a vowel, John

This Just In- EvoTARD Alert!

-
OK hold on to something- I was just told that the first step of a process is NOT included in the process. For example the first step of natural selection is random, as in happenstance, variation. Yet when I told Dave Mullenix that natural selection includes variation and it was the first step of NS he told me:

Ah, there's the problem. You misunderstand how evolution works, then you criticise that mistaken version.

The real first strep is mutation, which provides a slightly altered genome.

OK so the "real" first step isn't variation, it's mutation- which is what causes the variation. He sure did show me, eh?

Then when I provided Ernst Mayr supporting my claim, Dave retorts:

Notice that the FIRST STEP is variation and the SECOND STEP is natural selection.

What I had originally said:

Natural selection includes the variation- it is the first step of NS. 

So according to Davey Mullenix the first step of a process is not included in the process.

And they call us IDiots...

Of Bald Assertions and Evolutionism

-
To "argue" for evolutionism all one needs are bald assertions. Case in point Allan Miller spews:

DNA determines the species that emerges, not ‘the cell’.

Evidence please. Oh, that's right he doesn't have any evidence to support that claim. None what-so-ever. Allan's spewage is nothing but a bald assertion and one he will never demonstrate. And as a matter of fact geneticists know differently. For one see geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti's book Why Is A Fly Not A Horse? And also read the following from geneticist Dr. Michael Denton:

To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes. 

Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene- Michael Denton “An Anti-Darwinian Intellectual Journey”, Uncommon Dissent (2004), pages 171-2

So there isn't any evidence to support Allan's claim and plenty of evidence against it. Not that Allan cares...

The Following is NOT a Nested Hierarchy- Allan Miller is an Idiot

-
Allan Miller thinks the following diagram is a nested hierarchy:- although it isn't his fault the site is wrong- Nested Hierarchy?

Look at the diagram closely. Every node is a hypothetical ancestral POPULATION. And ancestral populations do not consist of nor do they contain the daughter populations.

ADDED:

The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics

The whole paper is useful but for this argument start on the bottom of page 9- HENNIG’S USE OF HIERARCHIES. UC Berkley, and all the other evos are making the same mistake as Henning did. But hey, it's only been corrected for decades so I can understand why they haven't caught on:

Hennig (1966: 70–72) presented in his fig. 18 (my Fig. 3, with parts of the figure labelled a and b instead of I and II) two different graphic representations of a hierarchic system that he regarded as corresponding exactly to one another. Figure 3a is a modified Venn diagram that depicts a nested hierarchy. As mentioned above, a fully nested hierarchy displays the property of summativity. This model constitutes an important special case because the organizational criterion is containment (Allen &Hoekstra,1984).Entities at a higher level of organization contain, or are composed of, entities at the next lower level of organization. In this case, the whole is the sum of the parts. Hierarchies that employ organizational criteria other than containment may be referred to as non-nested, and these do not display summativity (Allen & Hoekstra, 1984). Figure 3b is an arrow diagram that represents species begetting species. This could be interpreted as a linear representation of history (a directed, non-reticulate network), or, as Hennig intended, as a non-nested hierarchy with ancestor-descendant relationship as the organizational criterion.

Contrary to Hennig’s statement (1966: 70), a and b in Figure 3 do not correspond exactly, a point made earlier by Simpson (1961: 62–63) using virtually identical diagrams (his fig. 3A, C). These two models differ because life, as an evolving system, is innovative and generative. In Figure 3b, ‘stem species’ 1 (for convenience, Species 1) is the ancestor of Species 2 and Species 5, which are in turn ancestors to their descendants. In Figure 3a, the numbers associated with Species 1 through 5 indicate the monophyletic groups of terminal species derived from various ancestral species. Although Species 1 may have given rise to the terminal species, the ancestral Species 1 is clearly not the same as the set of (or not equal to the sum of) the terminal species.  

And Allan Miller Proves he is Ignorant of Nested Hierarchies

-
The ignorance never ends over on TSZ. Allan Miller spews:

Inheritance with branching predicts that a nested hierarchy will occur.

Really? Based on what? Linnaean Taxonomy, the observed nested hierarchy, doesn't have anything to do with   "Inheritance with branching". So what is this nested hierarchy that "Inheritance with branching" based on? Is it based on shared characteristics? Then "Inheritance with branching" would predict a smooth blending of characteristics that would blur all lines of distinction that nested hierarchies require.

Look, morons, humans produce nested hierarchies and not nature. Nested hierarchies require defined levels and defined sets. Nature doesn't do definitions. As Darwin said:

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

Then there is this:

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. 

With Allan's mechanism each level is a population. And parent populations do not consist of nor do they contain the daughter populations. But then again evoTARDs are totally ignorant of nested hierarchies.

Exposing the EvoTARD Ignorance of Nested Hierarchies

-
The following is the source of the evoTARD ignorance with respect to nested hierarchies: A nested hierarchy of species. Note what it spews:

The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

Unfortunately Linnaean Taxonomy, which the author admits is an objective nested hierarchy, doesn't have anything to do with  "branching evolutionary processes"- Using the tree for classification:

Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.

The US Army is also a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with "branching evolutionary processes".

The nested hierarchy article goes on to say:

Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme.

Right, but that classification scheme doesn't have anything to do with "branching evolutionary processes".

The issue is with "branching evolutionary processes" you would expect to see numerous transitional forms that would blur all lines of distinction between groups and nested hierarchies require distinct, separate groups. Mammals and reptiles are distinct and separate groups. Yet according to evolutionism there were reptile-like mammals and mamma-like reptiles. Where do you put them in a nested hierarchy scheme? And yes you have to include all organisms because cherry-picking is a no-no when saying such a process will produce X. And including all organisms would make any classification scheme a total mess. Even Darwin said so:

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

That "natural arrangement" would not be a nested hierarchy which is artificial. And finally we have the following:

Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification. page 34, Eric B. Knox, “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 1–49, 1993

But I am sure that too will continue to be ignored.

 

More Ignorant Spewage from TSZ- Nested Hierarchies

-
EvoTARDs are so predictable but totally clueless. They actually think that Common Descent has to produce a nested hierarchy. Yet the Common Descent being discussed by evos would be expected to produce a smooth blending of characteristics which would destroy a nested hierarchy.

That's right, transitional forms, by their very nature, would blur all lines of distinction between groups. Even Darwin knew this. He called upon well timed extinctions to produce the distinct groups we now observe.

Read this bit of ignorance from TSZ:

So common descent is still the best scientific theory that actually explains the nested hiearchy. Thank you.

Only a willfully ignorant ass would say that and yet evoTARds say it all of the time. It's as if they are proud to be ignorant of nested hierarchies.

Again- Linnaean Taxonomy is the observed nested hierarchy when it comes to biology. And yet Linnaean Taxonomy doesn't have anything to do with Common Decent! It was based upon the idea of a Common Design which is entailed in Linne's (Linnaeus) "archetypes".  

Transitional forms, which evos claim there should be, argue against the claim that Common Descent produces a nested hierarchy. So why are evos so slow to grasp that simple fact?

Common Descent doesn't have a chance at explaining a nested hierarchy, unless one changes what a nested hierarchy is and what it entails.

Shooting Deaths vs Abortions

-
Yes the Las Vegas mass murder was a definite tragedy. However we would need to have 54 of those a day for 365 days in order to reach the carnage wrought by abortions in just the USA.

Strange that the same people who rail against guns also support abortions.

Just think about that and let it set in.