Joe G
Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007
|
| Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,11:40) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,19:35) | | Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 04 2018,11:33) | | Quote (Joe G @ Jan. 04 2018,19:25) | 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.
Too bad Davey is a chicken shit |
Special Pleading
| Quote | Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for an argument to work, a proponent needs to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that the argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, proponents introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules. While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special.
The fallacy is a conditional fallacy, because special cases do exist; in other cases, the fallacy is circular ad hoc. |
|
OK, make your case that the definition applies to my post. I bet that you can't. |
It's all about the context Joe you have made the wrong choice of words again. |
LoL! You can't make your case. Another prediction fulfilled. Thank you
--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth
"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton
Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code- Acartia bogart, TARD
YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism
|
