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

Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Total Ignorance @ Peaceful Science

Evos are such a dishonest bunch- dishonest and ignorant. The typical evoTARD spewing nonsense about nested hierarchies as evidence for "evolution":
The nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason why design or separate creations should produce a nested hierarchy. Buildings, art, cars, computers, and even computer code don’t form nested hierarchies. The only process we know of that will necessarily produce this pattern of similarities and differences is evolution.
Lies and ignorance. First off the observed nested hierarchy is Linnaean taxonomy. Using the Tree for Classification:
The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).
Linnaean taxonomy doesn't have anything to do with evolution:
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 main problem is these imbeciles think that just because a nested hierarchy can be depicted as a tree/ branching pattern, that all branching patterns produce nested hierarchies! Yet family trees do not produce nested hierarchies.
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.
The US Army (not the command) is a nested hierarchy- nothing to do with evolution- Armies consist of and contain Corps. Corps consist of and contain Divisions and so on down to the squad and then troop.

Parent populations do not consist of nor contain their descendant population. It produces a non-nested hierarchy.

Mainstream evolution says there were numerous transitional forms. The mere presence of those transitional forms would ruin any attempt to create the distinct categories required of nested hierarchies:
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
Cluelessness and bullshit run rampant over on Peaceful Science


Post a Comment

<< Home