Soapy Sam
Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012
|
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 05 2013,01:09) | IIRC, Zachriel tried to explain nested hierarchies to Joe, and after what seemed weeks Joe was on the brink of understanding. And then - crash! the iron curtain fell down, and Joe balked at the last step. It seems to be a psychological problem: If Joe understood nested hierarchy, his whole identity would crumble like CAEK. |
I've found this resource that clears it all up.
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.co.uk/2012.......cs.html
Joe (for 'tis he) Quote | The clade is not constructed based on ancestor-descendent relationships, those are assumed. And ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy- see Eric B Knox, "The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49 |
The clade is not constructed on something that forms a non-nested hierarchy. Which is therefore .... well, OK! You infer phylogeny, you don't assume it. And you try multiple characters. If you keep getting similar trees, a process must be patterning that sharing of multiple characters in 'tree-like' manner. Now what could that be...? He quotes Knox incessantly. Yet if Knox tried to explain it to him, he'd instantly become a "shit muncher". Get Knox to adjudicate, Joe.
-------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G
BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington
|