Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (bfish @ Dec. 07 2006,10:24)|
Have you ever figured out what Joseph's confusion is regarding nested heirachies?
I believe he is confusing the pattern with the argument concerning common descent. Unfortunately, he is not able to separate the concepts. My approach was meant to be as follows:
Define the nested hierarchy in terms of sets.
Use a few simple examples, such as paternity.
Show how objects can be arbitrarily arranged into patterns or groups.
Show how we use independently derived traits to group like objects, such as an apple, an orange and a rock.
Show how organisms can be arranged into a nested hierarchy by taxonomy.
Show how a nested hierarchy is the natural outcome of descent with modification of diverging and uncrossed lines.
Paternity is a typical example of a nested hierarchy, and is not necessarily a biological concept, but often times legal (adoption), political (noble succession) or economic (estates). Yet sons can be grouped in sets by father, and each father is someone's son. Each son has one-and-only-one paternity. To avoid ambiguity, I even provided the specific example of Sharif Hussein bin Ali's royal succession.
Of course, we haven't been able to get past the first part, even after several threads. He just can't give a yes or no answer to the question, "Does a paternal family tree constitute a nested hierarchy?"
Addendum 12/8/2006: I've attempted since April to have Joseph engage the issue of the nested hierarchy. At this point, it is clear that he refuses to answer a simple question, even after I have asked repeatedly and pointedly. It's very sad, in a way. He really thinks he has made a valid point when he hasn't even grappled with the simplest aspects of the problem.
three four five times by Uncommon Descent.
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.