For years I have been saying that evolution does not predict/ expect a nested hierarchy. And for as many years evotards have been saying that it does.
The difference is that I have provided the reasoning for my claims- reasoning that includes an evolutionary biologist's potential falsification of the claim that evolution predicts/ expects a nested hierarchy. That reasoning pertains to a mix of characteristics. With a nested hierarchy you cannot have that. Yet with the current theory of evolution we would expect to observe exactly that.
For example Kevin R. McCarthy (AKA OgreMKV) sez:
I'd just like to remind Joe, that of 24 distinguishing features between birds and dinosaurs, Archeopteryx has 17 that are dinosaur characters (and not bird) and only 4 that are bird characters (and not dinosaur). The remainder are intermediate between dinosaur and bird.
Ooops! That would be a violation of nested groups.
This is too funny as out of one side of their arses evotards claim evolution predicts/ expects and nested hierarchy yet out of the other side they provide examples that violate a nested hierarchy. And the real funny part is they don't even understand that is what they are doing!
So I will say it again- transitional forms, by their very definition, violate nested hierarchies.
Only if you use a crackpot definition of nested hierarchies.
ReplyDelete"It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings." Douglas Theobald
ReplyDeleteHowever seeing that YOU are too much of a feaking coward to provide a valid definition of a nested hierarchy from a valid source, you little blurt is totally meaningless- but it does expose your ignorance.
"A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies." Ibid
ReplyDelete