|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Power of the New Intelligent Design... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
sensei writes: A rant and a few examples is not a definition. What is a hierarchy? The definition has already been given to you. A few examples: "When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc." "what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record. When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc." Also, don't you know how to use google? One of the more interesting things I have observed is that ID/creationists often don't know how to use google. Strange that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
What is a hierarchy? Even after all these explanations you still cannot answer your own question. You prove yet again you know nothing. If you cannot understand a simple concept like the nested hierarchy you will be hopelessly lost when you get to natural selection. Creationist dunce without a clue.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Apparently, you don't even know what a definition is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
I asked for a definition. Not an explanation. How noobish are you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
sensei writes: I asked for a definition. Not an explanation. And you got one. What is even more worrisome is that you claim the theory of evolution is false even though you don't understand one of the most basic facts of biology, the nested hierarchy. It's like someone claiming the theory of relativity is false, and then that same person has to ask someone to explain what spacetime is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
sensei writes: Apparently, you don't even know what a definition is. "what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record. When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
I asked for a definition. Not an explanation. And you have received them many times but you are too intellectually stunted to recognise them. You still have no idea what you are talking about. You try to fight against things that you don't understand and you are looking more and more foolish with each post.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
You don't know what a definition is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Learn what a definition is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
sensei writes: You don't know what a definition is. I think we can all see what obstinance is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
I asked for a definition of hierarchy. You come up with something people refer to as nested hierarchy. Telling me what people refer to, is not a definition. And it is not even a definition of what I asked for. So you failed double. I need to spell everything out for you, just shows that you are not at a level to do science at all, without drawing wrong conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
sensei writes: I asked for a definition of hierarchy. You come up with something people refer to as nested hierarchy. Other people did give you a definition. You are demonstrating to us that you can't deal with evidence. Instead, you are trying to distract everyone with arguments about semantics. Are you going to deal with the observation of the nested hierarchy or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Still insisting on your precious nested hierarchy, but too dumb to give a definition.
You claim to observe a nested hierarchy, that it is predicted. Then you need to specify before looking at data, what is a hierarchy, in the first place. One of you mentioned ranking. So you need to specify how you determine ranks. From what data, genetic sequences or fossils or both? When is one species ranked above another? If it is by descent, then no, we have not observed descent from a common ancestor between most pairs of two seperate species. So the claim of observing nested hierarchy is doubtful at best. You may have arrived at nested hierarchy by logical deduction from a model. And your logical steps could be questionable. As I have said before, feel free to present your observations, that you see as best evidence you got.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
sensei writes: Still insisting on your precious nested hierarchy, but too dumb to give a definition. Here ya go. "what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record. When we study their traits, species naturally cluster into groups based on suites of similar, inherited traits (i.e., homologies). And they don’t just cluster into groups. They cluster into groups within groups within groups…etc." Will you address the evidence now?
One of you mentioned ranking. So you need to specify how you determine ranks. From what data, genetic sequences or fossils or both? When is one species ranked above another? No species are ranked above others. The groups are nested, so it is the nesting that is hierarchical. In classical Linnaean taxonomy the ranks look like this: Ranks are determined by the distribution of shared features. The more common the shared feature is the basal the rank.
If it is by descent, then no, we have not observed descent from a common ancestor between most pairs of two seperate species. We observe living populations producing nested hierarchies through evolutionary mechanisms. mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains - PMC You can also predict a nested hierarchy based on first principles which are the mechanisms of vertical inheritance, mutation, and isolation of subpopulations.
So the claim of observing nested hierarchy is doubtful at best. Your uninformed denials do not cast doubt on the science. You don't even understand what a nested hierarchy is, for crying out loud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sensei Member Posts: 480 Joined: |
Observing patterns in one group of species is hardly sufficient evidence for the nested tree that you draw from your universal common ancestry hypothesis. So no, we have not observed nested hierarchy anywhere higher up, anywhere at significant high enough levels where it really counts.
So sorry to break it to you, but your evidence is insufficient and weak.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024