k.e..
Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:34) | | Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:30) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,19:24) | | Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 03 2018,11:18) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 03 2018,17:21) | keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:
| Quote | | The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. |
WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.
Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:
| Quote | | It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings |
Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.
But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper- “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.
And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:
| Quote | | 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 |
Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.
So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.
And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.
Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses.
Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:
| Quote | | 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. |
Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:
| Quote | | 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. |
and
| Quote | | *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). |
It was based on a common design scheme.
Davey's ignorant call of "special pleading" is just its cowardice. Davey will never be able to actually make a valid case for it. And I am more than OK with that. |
Nonsense creationist special pleading Joe. Don't you have your own dick face blog for that lame piece of special pleading?
In fact if you google dick face nested hierarchy your blog is right at the top. |
It's all facts, Davey. But seeing that you are just an ignorant child molester you wouldn't know anything about that.
I see that you are still too chicken-shit to try to make your case. |
Only true as creationist special pleading.
BTW why do you call creationist animal "kinds" as per Genesis "common design" ARE YOU CONFUSED?
What does your Imam think of that? |
Linnaean taxonomy is based on a common design scheme, just as I have said. |
Only creationists say that. Game up Joe.
--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
