In this comical thread at Intelligent Reasoning (I know, get the laughter out before clicking the link.), we have Joe G. trying to avoid answering the question, “Why do you think that scientists are raving lunatics who know nothing about science?”
I have done almost nothing but quote him and he disagrees vehemently with my posts. An odd dynamic. Perhaps my favorite part of the uh, discussion, is that he is asking us to provide his data and arguements for him so that he may have any in the first place.
My interest in the thread is waning fast. I hope that Zachriel sticks with it a bit, though. He has a knack of sticking with the ID crowd and explaining things to them in a manner that is both gentle and easy to understand (though in the end, usually ineffective due to audience composition).
A Clown in the Middle 
Yes, Zachriel certainly demonstrated an enormous reserve of patience on our old blog, and we agree that he is to be commended for his tireless efforts.
I think he really understands that it’s for the lurkers, and that Joe G. will never change his mind, no matter what the facts.
Just left this thought for ol’ Joe, though I doubt it’ll ever be seen.
From the OP –
“ID reality”
Too funny.
Though Joe certainly has his giant logical and reasoning gaps, he is not like DaveScot or Dembski in one refreshing way.
I have found that he really will post about everything that people submit. With one exception he has posted all of my stuff at his blog. Unless you wrote something that is really over-the-top insulting I think he’ll post it.
Well that would be refreshing.
What I posted there is exactly what I posted just above. A little snark, nothing too over-the-top.
I’m good like that.
🙂
I’m going to take back all the good things I said about Joe. It seems he has thought better of posting things he disagrees with.
He won’t post anything to this thread, for example. Now, granted, it is an invitation to Zachriel. My beed, however, is that he responds to my writings without posting them. If you are going to “critique” (though this is far from what Joe does) something, you should post the thing you are critiquing.
So, I guess he IS just his UD idols.
Well, after Joe responded to Janie’s comment (she has to use my Blogger account to comment on the new Beta blogs, so we don’t even bother with hers any more), I dropped him this little gem. We’ll see if it gets posted, but I’m not really that interested…
I smiled because I knew that your comment would substantiate my claims in this thread.
I have yet to see a single thing you’ve said substantiated. If you think otherwise, well, there’s just not much anyone can do to help you.
As I said, your mind is closed, and no amount of reality will change your mind. It’s sad, really.
“CK, you can’t understand normal thinking. Just what “fact” has been explained to me?”
Don’t read for comprehension very well either, do ya Joe? “this fact” very clearly refers back to the preceding clause of the very same sentence.
That fact, Joe. The fact that you are barking up the wrong tree.
Is English not your first language? I’m not being snarky, and not criticizing, just want to know where we stand here.
“That is clearly a negative.”
Yes, Joe. Having a closed mind is definitely a negative, and something to be avoided. I’m glad we agree on that.
“There isn’t any substance to the PoV of sheer-dumb-luck.”
You are attacking a strawman, Joe.
“God…um… the Intelligent Designer…um… the Disembodied Telic Entity did it,” is seriously without substance. In fact, since you seem to have missed the memo from the Discovery Institute, allow me to fill you in.
Even that is no longer the position of the cdesign proponentsists. The new position is “Evolution Sucks”. Now that’s substance, baby!
not.
“Ya see CK I’m fine. People always attempt to mock what they don’t understand. You just provided a glaring example.”
Pot/Kettle, Joe.
There isn’t anything to understand about ID, Joe. There’s no theory. Ask your boy Dembski, or Behe, or Johnson.
All they’ve got is “Evolution Sucks”. The whole movement boils down to “Nuh-uh”.
Not much in the way of science there.
Oh, it would be helpful to have the coments in between there…
#Janie——
Aw, c’mon, Joe. Buy a sense of humor.
Sour grapes have we?
I’m pretty sure my last comment spoke volumes, and I’ll even bet it made everyone but you smile.
Besides, Joe. After having read this entire thread, it’s pretty clear that you are barking up the wrong tree, and this fact has been explained to you in little itty bitty words, and yet you just refuse to grab onto reality.
Zachriel and blipey have taken copious amounts of time to provide you with plenty of substance, but you’ve closed your mind, locked the door, and threw away the key.
What point would there be in wasting yet more vast amounts of time on your silliness?
I just thought I’d brighten someone’s day.
Lighten up.
#Joe——–
At 1:50 PM, Joe G said…
CK:
Aw, c’mon, Joe. Buy a sense of humor.
Why buy what I have plenty of?
CK:
Sour grapes have we?
Mine are sweeter than sweet.
CK:
I’m pretty sure my last comment spoke volumes, and I’ll even bet it made everyone but you smile.
You would be wrong (as usual). I smiled because I knew that your comment would substantiate my claims in this thread. So I thank you.
CK:
Besides, Joe. After having read this entire thread, it’s pretty clear that you are barking up the wrong tree, and this fact has been explained to you in little itty bitty words, and yet you just refuse to grab onto reality.
CK, you can’t understand normal thinking. Just what “fact” has been explained to me?
CK:
Zachriel and blipey have taken copious amounts of time to provide you with plenty of substance, but you’ve closed your mind, locked the door, and threw away the key.
That is clearly a negative. There isn’t any substance to the PoV of sheer-dumb-luck.
Ya see CK I’m fine. People always attempt to mock what they don’t understand. You just provided a glaring example.
I’ve always wanted to force IDiots to enroll in a debate class. When they continually get their asses handed to them, it would be fun to do the judge’s card review with them after the tournaments.
I’m pretty sure after a season of going 0-15 with bottom speaker points all year that they’d be certain they won every time. Wouldn’t matter that 15 different judges sat their rounds or that 15 different teams with 15 different strategies defeated them, they’d KNOW IN THEIR HEARTS that they were right and that they were cheated out of a perfect season.
I really do think that this should be a requirement. How can we start this?
JanieBelle: “ID reality”
That was funny.
JanieBelle: “I think he really understands that it’s for the lurkers, and that Joe G. will never change his mind, no matter what the facts.”
Joe G will never change his mind through recourse to argument. That is certain. He won’t even admit to misunderstanding a one-line definition of subsetm, or answer the simplest questions. Consequently, our conversation is forever stalled. If he can’t understand a set, and refuses to learn even the basics, no reasonable discussion concerning the nested hierarchy or taxonomic categorizations is possible. We could discuss this or that, but at root, when starting from a fallacious position, 1+1 can equal anything you want. All the other words do nothing but confuse the underlying issue.
Oddly, he now has posted conditions for me to post. Incredible. Perhaps, if he asks nicely and is willing to answer a few simple questions about his positions, I might consider posting on his blog.
I tried to answer for you, Zachriel. I spent about 25 minutes composing an entry that addressed only his 4 points. I was much nicer than I was in my other posts. I used only his own words and requirements in the post.
He’s waiting for you, though; won’t post mine entry. This has not stopped him from claiming everything in it is idiotic. Now, gee; that’s not fair to attempt to fisk something that is not in the public record. Shame, Joe.
If you’d like to post your response here, Zachriel, I’ll invite him over. If not, I might put mine up, but there’s not much point to that–I already believe me nearly 83% of the time. Interestingly, that puts me fairly high on the chart:
Entity Rate of Blipey’s Belief
——————————————————-
DT’s Idiocy 100%
JB & CK’s Fishing Prowess 92%
Zachriel 87%
Blipey 83%
People Who Juggle 81%
The General Populace 42%
AFDave (11%)
Dembski (19%)
Crandaddy (7.82 X 10^13)
***blush***
Thanks guys!
Kisses to you both.
Joe just started a new thread, ‘Sheer-Dumb-Luck’ – strawman or anti-ID materialistic reality?
Just so you might know, the quote about chance comes from Monad’s philosophical treatise entitled, “Chance and Necessity” — AND being a Boolean operator, the implications of which will probably elude Joe’s understanding.
Subtle distinctions concerning “chance” are well beyond Joe’s kin. We know that lottery balls follow simple rules of physics, yet we still call lottery winners “lucky”. When scientists refer to chance, they refer to the lack of correlation between variables.
My favorite part of him using the Monad quote is that if he understood it all he’d realize that it destroys the concept of design in nature.
Oh, well.
He is the man who responded to a comment of mine by saying that Common Descent (or the very obvious simplification that all life comes from a single source) was supported by the fact that all life comes from different sources. Nice.
Hi guys,
So this is where you go to spread lies about me.
Perhaps Zachriel could explain how those rules of physics came about without invoking an intelligent agency. And Zachriel those conditions were necessary because our discussion was stalled. Just make your case. It is as simple as that- regardless of what you think I know or don’t know; understand or don’t understand about sets.
Also what part about this, don’t you understand:
In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.
When talking about any sets (ie set theory) and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.
IOW anything can be a set in set theory- sets can be defined on the run, picked at random and include items that otherwise wouldn’t be together. However in nested hierarchy a set is defined such that I can take items from different sets, give them to someone who didn’t see me, give them the definitions of the sets and they could place the items back in the sets they were taken from.
To blipey,
I know what the Monod quote does to the concept of design in nature. I wasn’t using it to agree with anything except that the materialistic alternative to ID is sheer-dumb-luck.
As for your other charge that is a total fabrication. I never said anything about CD was supported by the fact that all life comes from different sources.
And blipey, as I told you, you can post in any other thread on my blog. Even that post that you think so much of- you know, the on on CD and NH. I made that perfectly clear. So there isn’t any reason to run back here and whine about it.
BTW I do not think scientists are raving lunatics who know nothing about science. That was something blipey conjured up.
Joe, you throw accusations at people who disagree with you. You refuse to acknowledge points, even one-line definitions you can look up in a book. You won’t answer even simple questions. Yet you want to place preconditions on me.
The issue is the nested hierarchy which is defined in terms of sets as an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. The terms used in this definition are defined as follows:
* A set is a collection of distinct elements considered as a whole.
* An ordered set is one in which the elements are reflexive, transitive and antisymmetrical, e.g. the integers.
* If A and B are sets, then …
** A and B are equal, if they have the same elements.
** If every element of A is also an element of B, then A is a subset of B, and B is a superset of A.
** If A is a subset of B, but A is not equal to B, then A is also a proper (or strict) subset of B.
When we start with a single node, and branch from there, with no lines crossing, this inevitably creates a nested hierarchy. A tree is a nested hierarchy. The twigs can be grouped into sets by branch, the branches into sets by limbs, and the limbs into sets by the trunk. A paternal family tree is a nested hierarchy. The sons (set of male descendents) of Hussein I is included within the sons of Talal which is included within the sons of Abdullah which is included within the sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali. These are not controversial assertions, but a simple application of the definition of a nested hierarchy.
Once we dispense with these basic definitional questions, I would be happy to continue the discussion. Please start at the top and acknowledge each point until you reach one that you have a problem with. Then explain in particular detail, and without digression, why you consider the definition faulty.
I will not put any preconditions on you, other than that you agree to a civil discourse and a willingness to address the relevant issues. Hopefully, with a bit of efforts, we can soon progress beyond the fundamentals of sets.
joe g: “However in nested hierarchy a set is defined such that I can take items from different sets, give them to someone who didn’t see me, give them the definitions of the sets and they could place the items back in the sets they were taken from.”
Sorry, but that is not part of the definition. The definition of a nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. You need to grasp the fundamental properties of sets so that when we deal with taxonomy you won’t confuse the issues.
A typical example of a nested hierarchy is a command hierarchy such as in an archetypal military organization. Otherwise identical soldiers are assigned to various units and sub-units. The advantage of such a system is that once an order is given, every branch below that in the hierarchy implements the order, and orders are non-conflicting because each branch has only one direct command. This type of organization is often represented with a tree-diagram. Please note that the soldiers can be identical in all respects and reassigned arbitrarily. The nested hierarchy is based not on taxonomy, but on an arbitrary command tree.
Welcome, Joe. Thanks for stopping by. You are more thaan welcome to participate here. Comments are not moderated and, with the exception of rude and crass comments, never removed or modified.
I certainly take exception to many of your claims above, but I’ll leave those to another time. I think it would be more fruitful to have a response to Zachriel’s comment above. It is the standard definition of a NH. So, what in particular do you disagree with and why? Remember, keeping it simple is often the best course of action–it keeps things focused.
I look forward to your response.
In a military organization I know EXCATLY what place in the hierarchy a soldier is placed by his/ her rank. IOW I can place them right back in the NH from whence they came.
Ordered sets in which each subset is strictly contained within the superset allows for what I stated earlier. Someone who allegedly understands nested hierarchy would know that.
So we are still at an impasse for there is NO WAY I will ever listen to Zachriel.
And Zachriel it is you who throws accusations around.
Now what part about the following don’t you understand?
In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.
When talking about any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.
IOW anything can be a set in set theory- sets can defined on the run, picked at random and include items that otherwise wouldn’t be put together.
I am NOT interested in discussing this with Zachriel. IF he has a case to make he knows where he can make it. Otherwise I will continue to think he can’t support his claims (which is obvious from his posts on my blog). BTW the “precondition” was required for the reason already stated.
To blipey, I take exception to almost everything you post…
A paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy because the original father is in reality just another node in another subset. IOW it is a deceptive example to use. This has been repeatedly pointed out to Zachriel. IOW why try to carry on a discussion when one person is obviously being deceptive?
My challenge stands. And I know why Zachriel will not accept it.
joe g: “I am NOT interested in discussing this with Zachriel. ”
That’s your choice, however, the inevitable conclusion in light of your previous misstatements concerning sets indicates you have little understanding of them, much less nested hierarchies, even less phylogenetic trees.
joe g: “In a military organization I know EXCATLY what place in the hierarchy a soldier is placed by his/ her rank. IOW I can place them right back in the NH from whence they came.”
That isn’t sufficient to form a nested hierarchy. You would have to be able to put each unambiguously into their separate platoons or companies. As they are posited to be identical (other than rank), they can be rearranged arbitrarily (whether officer or enlisted). So, even though soldiers do not form a nested hierarchy based on taxonomy, they do form a nested hierarchy based on command structure, i.e. who reports to whom. This ability to reassign officers and enlisted is a distinct advantage when a unit is decimated during battle.
joe g: “A paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy because the original father is in reality just another node in another subset.”
Um, that is not in the definition of a nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. As the sons (set of male descendents) of Hussein I is strictly contained within the sons of Talal which is strictly contained within the sons of Abdullah, that makes it a nested hierarchy — by definition.
joe g: “IOW it is a deceptive example to use. This has been repeatedly pointed out to Zachriel. IOW why try to carry on a discussion when one person is obviously being deceptive?”
I asked you to start at the beginning and to be specific as to which definitions you found faulty. You won’t. You have repeatedly refused to answer even simple questions concerning assertions you have made. The definitions are standard.
joe g: “And Zachriel it is you who throws accusations around.”
joe, from just one thread: a real asswipe, an a$$face too. All fluff no stuff, You just love to spew nonsense, Ya see buckwheat, You are a true dillweed indeed, get your butt kicked in a bar, your total lack of integrity, froggy, dopey, bugger off, deceptive tactics, stalling via deception, Or are you the walking black hole that you pertray?, Now for more decption, crapola, wallow in arrogant ignorance, deceptive tactic, Are you really that stupid?
Zachriel: As the sons (set of male descendents) of Hussein I is strictly contained within the sons of Talal which is strictly contained within the sons of Abdullah
Just to clarify even further, the sons of Abdullah form a nested hierarchy (even though his father, brothers and nephews would not be in this particular set). The sons of Talal form a nested hierarchy (though he has a father). Even the sons of King Faisal form a nested hierarchy (though not a particularly complex one).
This pattern of paternal descent would result in specific predictions concerning the y-chromosome, but we will apparently never progress to that point.
Paternal family tree
Zachriel, you are welcome to your opinions of me but please realize those opinions mean nothing in the real world. Regardless of what you think I know or don’t know, understand or don’t understand about set theory and/ or nested hierarchy you should be able to substantiate your claim pertaining to nested hierarchy and Common Descent.
I told you what definitions of both set theory AND nested hierarchy I accept. That is DEFINITIONS and NOT any unsubstantiated bloviating that may accompany them.
Your continued use of a paternal family tree just demonstrates your deception and justifies every label I gave you.
Also what I said about the military was NEVER intended to be sufficient to form a nested hierarchy. what is sufficient is clear, concise definitions of each and every set. Those definitions alone allow for what I stated- that is to be able to randomlypick items from different sets and having someone by the definitions put them back in their proper sets.
THAT is EXACTLY what a nested hierarchy is all about.
And AGAIN I posted relevant statements about set theory and nested hierarchy. Statements. that if Zachriel would acknowledge them, would allow us to move forward as those statements demonstrate I understand both in the context of the discussion.
That is also why we are at an impasse and there is no way I will listen to Zachriel.
In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.
When talking about any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.
Time to move on to the REAL topic Zachriel. However I understand why you choose to posture instead of post
Claim: sons (set of male descendents) of Talal form a nested hierarchy (by paternity).
Sons of Abdullah = {Neyef, Talal, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
Sons of Nayef = empty set
Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
Sons of Muhammad = empty set
Sons of El Hassan = empty set
Sons of Abdullah = empty set
Sons of Ali = empty set
Sons of Faisal = empty set
Sons of Hashim = empty set
Sons of Hamzah = empty set
Each set is a proper subset of its superset, e.g. every element of the Sons of Talal is also an element in the Sons of Abdullah. This satisfies the definition of nested hierarchy.
That should read
Claim: Sons (set of male descendents) of Abdullah form a nested hierarchy (by paternity).
though the other claim is also valid.
joe g: “Also what I said about the military was NEVER intended to be sufficient to form a nested hierarchy.”
joe g: “If one wants examples of nested hierarchy one need look no further than military rankings, corporate org charts or (properly) organized filing systems.”
Look at Zachriel’s paternal family tree example. See that man at the top? In reality he is not at the top. In reality he is just part of another subset. He could be the whole subset. It doesn’t matter. The point is clear. Zachriel’s deception is clear.
In Zachriel’s example each set may have several nodes (sons). Each node can possibly produce a set of sons. Abitrarily start with a man who had 13 sons, who also had 13 sons each and the nested hierarchy quickly becomes muddled.
In taxonomy we do NOT classify organisms by “who’s your daddy?”. In the real world science uses MORE THAN ONE CHARACTERISTIC, when determining a set.
IOW Zachriel is using even more deception.
Just make your case Zachriel- you know the claim you made that nested hierarchy is a prediction of Common Descent. If you had a case to make you should be able to make it regardless of what you think about me.
You know where I will be.
joe g: Regardless of what you think I know or don’t know, understand or don’t understand about set theory and/ or nested hierarchy you should be able to substantiate your claim pertaining to nested hierarchy and Common Descent.”
As the Theory of Common Descent is based in predictions due to the nested hierarchy, it would behoove us to resolve these issues first. E.g., I just mentioned that there are specific predictions concerning the y-chromosome that derive from the nested hierarchy.
Zachriel,
Try the CONTEXT of the discussion. “Also what I said about the military…” of course was in reference to what I stated IN THIS THREAD!
But thank you for proving another piece of evidence that demonstrates your dishonest tactics.
Yes if we were having this conversation, in person, at a bar, you would get a dope-slap.
One more time- common descent is irrelevant when discussing Common Descent. And it behooves you to make your case regardless of what you think of me.
IOW either you can do it or you cannot. I know the theory of Common Descent is not based in predictions due to the nested hierachy. And I know that because of the science which tells us just that. The science I linked to on my blog. The science you keep ignoring.
joe g: “common descent is irrelevant when discussing Common Descent.”
Of course, this is incorrect. The Theory of Common Descent makes a claim concerning common descent of organisms.
joe g: “Also what I said about the military was NEVER intended to be sufficient to form a nested hierarchy.”
joe g: “If one wants examples of nested hierarchy one need look no further than military rankings, corporate org charts or (properly) organized filing systems.”
It’s hard to know what you are trying to say. Are you claiming that a military hierarchy is or is not a nested hierarchy? First you say it is. Then you say it’s not.
I even wrote out the Abdullah paternal family tree in set notation for you. There is no doubt that it forms a nested hierarchy. Take the definitions of sets, subsets, proper subsets, nested hierarchy, and mechanically apply the rules.
Here’s a corollary: Any non-trivial proper subset of a nested hierarchy is also a nested hierarchy. This corollary follows directly from the definition.
Nice boys!
Joe, see how much fun you can have when you don’t censor your blog?
But, for this to continue, we need to stick the ground rules I think. I know this will be a little hard for you, Joe, but here goes–I’m going to make it easy.
Zachriel has provided you with the standard definition of a NH. In refutation of this, you have basically said, “NaNaNaNaBooBoo”. For you to be taken seriously, you need to do one of the following two things (neither of which I expect you to do, but one can hope).
1. Go down Zachriel’s standard definition point by point until you get to a part of it you disagree with. Tell us clearly and concisely why you isagree with it.
2. Provide your definition yet again, but THIS TIME with a cite as to the source of this definition and information about who uses this definition in their work. Mind that this source cannot be “Joe’s Brain” but rather be of an independent nature.
Either of these two simple things will allow the conversation to progress. If you choose to provide neither (the choice I fully expect you to make), please continue to spout off here, you may accidentally provide real info one of these days.
may gravity be kind,
blipey
blipey, On my blog both Zachriel and I have agreed to an accepted definition of NH. All he is doing now is prcticing decption, as if he needs the practice.
Now Zachriel, instead of making his case, chooses deception. That much is obvious just from his posts here. Again he twists what I posted, took something I posted out-of-context, and when this was explained to him he just became more obtuse. Which is pretty much standard when dealing with anti-IDists.
All someone needs to do is to try to follow the discussion I attempted in this blog. He can’t even do that- stay in context with the discussion in this blog.
Sets- tennis has sets- game-set-match. By Zachriel’s logic seeing that tennis uses sets we need to know absolutely everything about tennis before we can understand sets.
The ONLY way for this conversation to progress is for Zachriel to make his case. However I understand why he does not- he cannot.
He has made his case, Joe. How do we know this? What do you need to make your case? You need a statement.
Check. Zachriel has provided you with a statement (the definition of NH)
You need a source for that information.
Check. He has provided you with the source. Not in this thread, so I will reproduce one here.
You have neither refuted his source or provided one of your own. Please do so in order taht we may continue before we all die of old age.
Ummm Zachriel has failed to make his case that nested hierarchy is a prediction of Common Descent. How do I know this?
From Wikipedia hierarchy
Thus, the system is hierarchical because it forbids the possibility of overlapping categories. For example, it will not permit a ‘family’ of beings containing some examples that are amphibians and others that are reptiles–divisions on any level do not straddle the categories of structure that are hierarchically above it. (Such straddling would be an example of heterarchy.)
NO OVERLAPPING, which is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along.
In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.
When talking about any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.
My xase was that nested hierarchy is evidence for Common Design. A claim I substantiated on my blog.
Thanks again Joe for not answering the question. Why is this so hard to do? I get the impression that if I asked you to tell me which fruit was your favorite, you answer with the following:
“A tomato is considered by some to be fruit and others think it is not, so when considering what to do with one, you might decide to eat pineapples instead. I don’t like green beans.”
There are 4 points in Zachriel’s definition of NH. Which do you disagree with? Why?
We cannot (it’s one word, btw) discuss NH and Common Design until you tell us what yu object to in the standard definition of NH. Or cite your own mathematical definition (that is not what the post above is) of NH and tell us who uses it.
Eagerly awaiting your very easy response (they’re numbered for you and everything!),
blipey
I don’t have ANY objections to the STANDARD/ ACCEPTED (ie not Zachriel’s rendition) definition of nested hierarchy.
Now, what part about what I provided is giving you problems?
In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.
Which fits the definition I provided above.
When talking about any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set be included with items from another set on the same level.
Zachriel also provided the following (4th post from the top), which I AGREE with:
The nested hierarchy is a pattern. Like all patterns, it can be defined mathematically and exists outside of biology. A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset.
However this definition is interesting because earlier Zachriel was making a big stink about using NH with designed objects.
Now what part about that don’t you understand?
EvoWiki-
Nested hierarchy” refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. For instance, all bats (order Chiroptera) are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. Likewise, all whales (order Cetacea) are also mammals, and thus also vertebrates.
While it might seem that this arrangement is obvious and unavoidable, it is not. Taxonomic groups are defined by traits and it should be possible to mix traits from multiple defined groups. An example from classical mythology is the Pegasus, a creature with features defined as both mammal and bird (class Aves). Mammals and birds are both orders, so, if pegasus existed, it would be a violation of the nested hierarchy, a creature that belonged to two seperate groups.
Alleged transitionals and intermediates would blur the distinct groupings. Groups/ sets would have arbitrary boundaries. Mammal-like reptiles and reptile-like mammals are perfect examples- classification is done with more than one characteristic and not one of the defining characteristics is “who’s your daddy?”.
Oops! Did someone say something about a creature with features defined as both mammal and bird?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the platypus
And just to correct Zachriel yet again, I never said, thought, nor implied that a military hierarchy is not a nested hierarchy.
I take it blipey worships you for your ability to become obtuse at a moments notice. Or perhaps it is just your unflagging dishonesty.
Yet another Joe G. comment with no mention of which of the 4 points of the NH definition he disagrees with.
If you were in school and the teacherasked you this question would you just say I don’t have to answer you and expect him to just say, “Okay, great. I respect your intellectual prowess without any evidence other than your say so?”
just wonering,
blipey
If I were in school the teacher would not present nested hierarchy the way Zachriel did.
Also I would say exactly what I posted and substantiate it with the references provided. And ya know what- the teacher would praise me for doing so.
Just curious- why do you stroke Zachriel?
Um. Where exactly is the reference for your definition of a NH? Haven’t managed to see it in any of your myriad comments. You know, information like…Websters NSD, The Journal of Mathematics, The Big Book of All Things Definitionary…anything???
I’m sure it will be along any minute now.
Pulling the words in the definition from your own brain doesn’t count, unless you can substantiate that you are an expert in NH and set theory.
Actively Awaiting Awesome Arsenal of Actual Authenticity,
blipey
The references to the NH definitions can be found @ Wikipedia, under “hierarchy” and EvoWiki, under “nested hierarchy”- you know, just as I posted. And I understand why you didn’t see it. You are too busy being plain ole stupid.
I take you haven’t been following along and just decided to jump into the middle of something that you just can’t comprehend.
Also, as I stated, Zachriel provided a definition on my blog (that I linked to and provided the post) that I AGREE with. THAT should be the end of it- we had an agreement 4 posts into a 156 post thread.
Nested Hierarchy at EvoWiki
Hierarchy at Wikipedia
and answers.com has a list of definitions:
Hierarchy
I’m still a little perplexed at the lies in this thread’s OP. You didn’t quote me. You took what I said and twisted it into something you wanted it to say. IOW yours is a classic example of setting up a strawman.
Then you compound that stupidity with even more nonsense- I never asked you to provide anything but that which would substantiate the anti-ID claims.
It appears that you have some kind of warped convertor between your optic input and your comprehension center. Must be part of the gentic defect that left you as a human toothprick…
joe g: “Ummm Zachriel has failed to make his case that nested hierarchy is a prediction of Common Descent. ”
A nested hierarchy of descendant relationships is expected from any such descent without uncrossed lines. You are still confusing this with predictions concerning inherited traits. For instance, if particular traits are not inherited, then we would not necessarily expect that the pattern of traits would match the nested hierarchy of inheritance. However, the nested hierarchy due to descendant relationships would still exist.
A nested hierarchy is an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. Per definition, the male descendants of Abdullah form a nested hierarchy based on paternity. On this thread, I actually detailed the sets manually, but as always, you ignored it. Anyone can see that the male descendants of Abdullah form a nested hierarchy according to the definition. And from this definition, we can make valid empirical predictions. But no such discussion can occur until you accept the basics of how sets and nested hierarchies are constructed.
Claim: Sons (set of male descendents) of Abdullah form a nested hierarchy (by paternity).
Sons of Abdullah = {Neyef, Talal, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
…
Zachriel, I know your assertion. You have to substantiate it. This is what the EvoWiki reference states (which is similar to what you said, but substantially different):
“In fact, a nested hierarchy is the almost inevitable result of descent with modification, if no transfer of traits between branches of descent is possible.”
Notice the words “almost inevitable” and “if no transfer of traits is possible”. IOW Zachriel, you took something that was NOT part of the definition, altered it and are now trying to pawn it off as the definition.
Also I am not confusing anything. Your inference skills just suck.
And again you use of an alleged paternal family tree is misleading and therefore deceptive. It is misleading because the guy at the top of your alleged tree really isn’t at the top. He is just another node in another subset. And therefore your use of it as an example of nested hierarchy is also wrong. That you keep using it tells me you don’t know what you are talking about. And until you address those points we do not have anything to discuss.
You shouldn’t wonder why I ignore your pathetic irrelevant and misleading example. I have plainly spelled it out for you time and again.
And as a final note I do accept how the real world constructs sets and nested hierarchy. Always have.
Joe:
And as a final note I do accept how the real world constructs sets and nested hierarchy. Always have.
Obviously not. You keep claiming that a paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy because people have fathers. This s stupid. Let’s say that we take the tree from Adam (and also say that we accept that the Biblical account is correct for this example). Adam had no father, his paternal family tree represents a NH even in your warped view.
Next, we have the flood. Noah is the oldest dude (and only dude of his generation) alive. So, due to circumstance, we can treat him as if he had no father (even though he obviously did). So, his paternal family tree represents a NH even in your warped view.
We have now provided an example of a paternal family tree from a dude that had a father. Why does this not fit your definition?
Eagerly…yawn…waiting…zzzzz…a respon….,
blipey
Oh, if you didn’t notice, I didn’t quote you in the post. I quoted myself. I have asked you the very question above several times. You have not answered it.
ignorance must be profitable,
blipey
Ummm YOUR words:
I have done almost nothing but quote him
Also the question you accuse me avoiding is NOT something I must defend. I never said, thought nor implied that scientists are raving lunatics who know nothing about science.
But I understand why a toothprick like you would lie like that. It is all you have.
Also it is NOT my claim that a paternal family tree is not nested hierarchy because people have fathers. You must be one stupid son-of-a-bitch to come to that inference.
What I said was that any starting father is in reality just another node in yet another subset.
Also no classification system, none, nada, not one, uses the “characteristic “who’s your daddy?” AND taxonomy uses several characteristics.
So for those three reasons alone Zachriel’s example is bogus. That you can’t understand that is par for the course. I do have to remember that I am dealing with an ignorant group…
There is a reason why mathematicians and scientists endeavor to use explicit definitions.
I have posted the definition of nested (containment) hierarchy, an ordered set such that each subset is strictly contained within its superset. I have posted common definitions of sets and subset, including strict (proper) subsets. I believe you have an intuitive understanding of these concepts.
Sons (male descendants) of Abdullah = {Neyef, Talal, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
Do you have a problem with the claim that Sons of Abdullah constitutes a set per our defintions?
Above, I defined each of the paternal subsets. Please note that they are all proper subsets. Please explain whether Sons of Abdullah is or is not a nested hierarchy.
joe g: “Also it is NOT my claim that a paternal family tree is not nested hierarchy because people have fathers. You must be one stupid son-of-a-bitch to come to that inference.
What I said was that any starting father is in reality just another node in yet another subset.”
It’s not an inference, but a clear statement of what you claimed. You said this, “A paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy because the original father is in reality just another node in another subset.” Note the terms “not” and “because“.
And the term is “superset”.
joe g: “Also no classification system, none, nada, not one, uses the “characteristic “who’s your daddy?” AND taxonomy uses several characteristics. ”
That is incorrect. Paternal descent is an area of great interest to both scientists and laypeople. I would be happy to provide cites if you have any doubt concerning this. E.g., a huge nested hierarchy of paternal descent has been constructed for humans which helps them determine aspects of their genealogy beyond mere memory or historical records.
Zachriel, I know what I said. I know how and why it is accurate with respect to reality.
I will type more slowly for you:
The starting father in YOUR example is just another node in yet another subset. THAT is a FACT.
Also what I said about classification is true. If I brought you into a room of men & boys,all from the same lineage, you could not tell me who belongs in what set. And yes that makes all the difference in the world. No doubt you will disagree but then you are a dee-dee-dee.
Taxonomy uses several characteristics and not one characteristic is “who’s your daddy?”
Therefore in order to keep this discussion IN-CONTEXT any examples must follow those rules.
It is really plain and simple. Just like you guys…
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
Zachriel, thy name is Patience.
Joe:
A paternal family tree is not a nested hierarchy because the original father is in reality just another node in another subset.
and later:
Joe:
Also it is NOT my claim that a paternal family tree is not nested hierarchy because people have fathers.
Joe claims there is no contradiction between these 2 statements of his. Anyone??? Anyone???
Come on, Joe. I realize you have a small problem with actual facts, but could you explain how these two statements are in fact the same?
No, of course you can’t. But I look forward to your next post (which have the same level of content as the following:).
Red brick go the house long NH, no father…toothprick, I no wear burbon shag-a-licious, Nate ID fireplace rowdy, sciency, inference, no IT IS YOU, bye-bye now.
clearing my throat in preparation for laughter,
blipey
Joe:
Ummm YOUR words:
I have done almost nothing but quote him
Ummm. Joe the sentence references the link to YOUR site, not this post. Please do try to keep up.
reading my own words–which Joe may change at will because they are not as cool as Joe Words–for comprehension,
blipey
Zachriel:
That is incorrect. Paternal descent is an area of great interest to both scientists and laypeople.
Here’s an easy test of this that you mat actually be able to do while out finishing your Christmas Shopping, Joe. Walk into the nearest Mormon Temple; ask to see their geneology records. Then tell them that they aren’t interested in paternal descent–see what they say.
This could prove humorous as there is a very good reason that Mormons are VERY interested in paternal descent. So, SOMEONE’S interested…unless, of course, you aren’t counting Mormons as people….
Note to all:
Sorry about the comments that got held up in moderation. They are in the thread above now. I don’t think they change the basic tenor of the discussion or the flow, but Joe does provide so pertinent info that got held up. Here’s the link to the post above.
I’ve also changed the number of links you can post without getting held up.
apologies,
blipey
blipey, it is obvious that you are nothing but a spine-less and gut-less wonder.
It is amazing that you have lived this long…
Your last comment has zero content, Joe. You can call me anything you want (and I’ll gladly post it), but do try to add something to the actual discussion going on while doing it. Please keep this in mind.
thanx,
blipey
And it is obvious that you are a spineless, dickless wonder, Joe. And brainless, too.
If you’ve got nothing (and that IS the case), and all you can do is insult my favorite clown, you’re going to deal with MY mouth, and I don’t think you want that, asshole.
I hope you read me loud and clear, Joe.
Put up some evidence, douchebag. At least some logic. Even a little fucking content, you twit.
Say something worth saying, for once. As it is, you’re wasting oxygen, and contributing to global warming with no observable benefit.
Sorry Blipey.
My lover appears to be in a rather aggressive mood. I think I’ll find another medium for her to use as an outlet.
I’ll see you later. I’m going to be tied up for a while.
😉
ikillme
Wow. CK & JB:
While I understand the venom, let’s try to at least pretend to play nice. Sarcasm is funnier and good sarcasm flexes the mental muscles a bit…like a good pun (not an oxymoron, btw).
I do appreciate the comments, all the same, especially in the Paul Nelson thread. I’ll let my “play nice” here speak for both places, though.
may gravity be kind (and I know it will be),
blipey
Of course, My Most Noble Lord Blipey.
We hear, and obey.
May we kisseth milord’s nipples by way of our most humble apologies?
😉
Sorry, My Most Noble Lord Blipey.
My Lover doth speak truly, and also speaks she so when she calleth me “Kathryn The Hammer” of late, for my patience with ignorance weareth thin, and my tongue is like unto a sledge.
Alloweth thou me to join my mistress in the nipple kissing, and all shall be well with us.
😉
Aw. Joe pulls a DaveTard and runs for the hills. I understand running when outmatched, but it was just that I thought he was so smart he’d stick around. How ’bout it, Joe? Come back and show us how smart you are.
Well, if you’re bored….
Funny stuff in that one. Boring after a while, though. Homobigots are a lot like creationists. In fact, it’s funny that the Venn diagram for the two groups is almost just one set.
Ok, not funny haha, but funny ironic.
Ok, not even ironic, just sad.
re: Joe
Was it something I said?
I think Joe’s afraid of girls.
🙂
Hey, and what about the nipple kissing?
Just stopping by to see if Joe ever answered my question, only the first in a string of inferences.
Sons (male descendents) of Abdullah = {Neyef, Talal, Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
Do the Sons of Abdullah form a valid set?
I guess Joe is afraid of answering the question. The followup concerns the proper subsets Sons of Abdullah.
Sons of Talal = {Hussein I, Muhammad, El Hassan, Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
Sons of Hussein I = {Abdullah, Ali, Faisal, Hashim, Hamzah}
No, Zachriel, no answers. I don’t think any will be forthcoming, either. It’s really too bad. The number of interesting discussions that get nixed just because one party refuses to behave civilly is incredible. Particularly with the Evo / IDC debate, I don’t think it matters sometimes what you say. If you are perceived as the enemy, whatever you say is wrong a priori–a sad state of affairs.
I go into each new thread that I participate in wishing for actual discussion, though I rarely expect such an occurance. That’s why I like threads like the Abiogenesis Thread at AtBC. even though I don’t have a thing to add to the discussion, following it is fun.
This is where the fundy mind breaks down, in my opinion–curiosity, excitement in learning something you didn’t know before. I truly can’t think of anything I like better than that epiphany of really learning something I never knew before–really getting it.
On the topic of IDiots, one of our commenters is now appearing (as a courtesy from me – I’m good like that!) on Fundies Say The Darndest Things, so go vote for him!
Details can be found on Kate’s blog.
Kisses!
Meanwhile, Joe says “Blipey is correct in his assessment that Zachriel will not allow Zachriel, at this moment, to post at this thread.”
I have a much more open policy *honk* . Anyone *honk* can comment on my blog — as long as they dress like a clown *honk*, juggle *honk*, guffaw with abandon *honk*, and only if honkng *honk* accompanies them whereever they walk *honk* or whenever they talk *honk*.
Joe *honk* can comment on my blog anytime he wants *honk*! It’s in his hands!
*honk*
Just to be very clear. I am more than happy to answer Joe’s questions concerning the nested hierarchy. However, in order to answer his questions, we have to discuss, duh, the nested hierarchy. And as the nested hierarchy is defined in terms of sets, that means we have to discuss, duh, sets.
Joe simply doesn’t know much about set theory. That’s ok. But because he refuses to admit any deficiency or error, he closes to door to learning.
The answer is “yes”. The Sons (male descendents) of Abdullah do form a set. As the Sons of Talal is a proper subset of the Sons of Abdullah, and the Sons of Hussein I is a proper subset of Sons of Talal (and similarly for every other paternally devised subset), that means the Sons of Abdullah forms a nested hierarchy — by definition.
joe g: “In the “paternal family tree” there is no way “A given entity may belong to any number of levels, depending on the criteria used to link levels above and below.” It just cannot happen.”
Sure it can, and it does. Hussein I is a Son (male descendent) of Abdullah. And Hussein I is a Son of Talal. Hussein I is an element of two other, nested sets.
The point being that nearly all forums for the discussion of Intelligent Design are heavily censored to prevent open debate. Intelligent Design crumbles as a so-called scientific theory when exposed to the light.
Joe exemplifies this.
Of course he does. At core, I believe it is this quality of willful ignorance that is the absolute worst thing about IDiots.
Whether or not someone is right or wrong is of importance, but not to my mind of ultimate importance. If one is unwilling to learn, is not curious in any way, is adverse to research, and prefers an isolated existence to actual rational human interaction, he has assuredly given up much chance of ever being right (unless he’s a rare genius on the Wile E. Coyote level).
Fascinating! Now Joe’s dedicated an entire thread to calling me names! I must have rattled him. Poor Joe.
Argumentum ad Poopieheadum
And he says WE are wasting his bandwidth….
Dork. That’s almost as dumb as Argumentum ad Footwear
wekillusdon’twe?
🙂
Hi blipey et. al.,
Try not to get too upset with Joseph. (Well, easier said than done.)
Galileo wrote Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, a conversation with three characters, Salviati (being Galileo), Sagredo (the intelligent layperson), and Simplicio (the adamant Aristotelian). Each character has their role to play.
Unfortunately, Simplicio resembled the Pope a bit too closely, and Galileo was summoned to Rome where he saw the error of his ways.
Are we getting a recanting from Joe? If not, I see no other choice but to convene the Inquisition. I think, as card carrying Church-Burnin’-Ebola-Boys (and Girls), no less is expected of us. Death to our enemies! Now, this is the way science is decided!
Joe.
Thou standest condemned. Plead therefore unto us and the Lord thy sins, that it may go quickly for thee.
Aye, Joe.
Convicted and condemned of ignorance and heresy.
Confess thy sins that thou mayest spend eternity with the FSM, enjoying the fondling caress of His Noodly Appendage, that tickleth where never shineth the sun.
I’m sorry to say, but Joe is a Eukaryo-centrist. A Eukaryo-bigot, if you ask me. (Currently the last comment, #38.)
Bacteria rule!
Top of the food chain. Right above worms.
A plague o’ both your houses!
They have made worms’ meat of me.
Joe, why do you hate bacteria?
Good lord. There might be some sort of Guiness Book record for this: Single Topic Between 3 People that has the Most 100 Comment Threads on Multipple Blogs.
We should submit it.
Submit it? I can’t even remember it!