k.e..
Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,18:03) | | Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,10:02) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:59) | | Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:58) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,17:55) | | Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,09:53) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 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.
My Challenge to Davey still stands- I will gladly debate him on a neutral forum about nested hierarchies. And then have the readers vote on who won |
Joe the only reason you show up here for an old fashioned ass kicking so regularly is because you are a sad deluded seriously lonely fool/tard with too much time on your hands.
On top of that nobody bothers going to your blog where you are trying to peddle the same bullshit and you are so lonely. S
o kindly lift your game and tidy up your attitude and get off the creationist cool aid for a day or two and design some other bullshit because the horse you are flogging is well and truly dead.
Joe you are mistaking the attention you are getting here for an interest in you.
The fact is everyone is just enjoying laughing at you. |
And yet no one here has ever kicked my ass. Reality demonstrates quite the opposite. Not one of you can find any evidence to support the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. You don't even have a scientific theory.
And you are all proudly ignorant of nested hierarchies. |
Only in your tiny mind fool otherwise your vomit would be in PubMed. |
Whatever, Davey. I have noticed that all you can do is shit yourself. That doesn't refute anything I have posted |
Joe I really like your arguments. They are rational, logical and stay away from over the top hyperbole. You have convinced me. |
You don't have any arguments, Davey. You are just a loser coward |
Unlike you Joe who only has creationist S-P-E-C-I-A-L P-L-E-A-D-I-N-G because Joe Tard is S-P-E-C-I-A-L.
--------------
"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
|
