Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Really, it's better than just that
In full. In sequence. First (bolds my emphasis)
Quote | Alan Fox and David Kellogg- nested hierarchy ignorant Alan Fox and David Kellogg- nested hierarchy ignorant
Over on uncommon descent, both Alan Fox and David Kellogg have tried (and failed) to tell me that the theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.
In an attempt to try to reason with them I asked them if evolution had a direction. They both agreed that it does not.
The next step was to ask them if nested hierarchies required a direction of additive characteristics. They both agreed that NH does not require a direction.
I provided a definition of nested hierarchy that stated nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels.
That means if defining characteristics are lost then containment is also lost, therefor nested hierarchy is lost.
And if defining characteristics stay the same then we remain with that set- no nested hierarchy.
Note how, as in any hierarchic system, the divisions are clear in a systematic way, becoming increasingly intense as the hierarchy is ascended.
After reasoning with these dolts didn’t work I asked them to provide an example of a nested hierarchy in which the characteristics were not additive.
Did they provide one?
Nope. Instead Kellogg pulled his head out of his ass long enough to tell me that I am incapable of being reasoned with!
And yet he has never provided any reasoning to support his position!!!!
You are a piece of shit Kellogg and you had better hope we never meet even though I am going to try to make that happen. |
oh yeah. the only thing that is getting increasingly intense is the Mullah Joe G's blood pressure. and maybe the pressure on his prostate gland as he squinches that butt plug while chewing that can of spinach open with his teeth.
VERY NEXT BLOG POST
note the about face "I didn't mean to hurt you kitten you know I love you I'll never hurt you again"
Quote | Mysterious Definition of Nested Hierarchy? David Kellogg believes that I am unable to be reasoned with because he told me, without any support, that the few evolutionary scientists I disagree with pertaining to nested hierarchy and the theory of evolution, use a different definition of a nested hierarchy.
Did you get that?
They do not use the standard and accepted definition that I and the majority of people use, they have some ultra-secret version only they can understand.
So how about Kellogg- can you produce the allegedly different version of nested hierarchy that those evolutionary scientists use?
I promise I will do my best to understand but I first have to know what it is I am supposed to be understanding. |
this fool is a stark raving lunatic.
Joe, either go get some professional help, or run for your local school board. please don't do both that would be boring.
-------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|