The discipline of taxonomy will have to reinvent itself if it wants to survive ... written in 2002 ... lol ... not quite the perfect picture Lizzie paints.https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6884/full/417017a.html
Quote from: Pingu on May 19, 2017, 04:18:22 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:09:35 AMIs there a point to all this jackery? Are you gonna come at me one day and say "Aha, Life nests properly and non-life doesn't. Therefore Darwin!" ?? Or what??More or less. Therefore common descent anyway.Try it and see.Then why does Denton - who is an actual professional scientist working in the field of genetics - disagree with you?
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:09:35 AMIs there a point to all this jackery? Are you gonna come at me one day and say "Aha, Life nests properly and non-life doesn't. Therefore Darwin!" ?? Or what??More or less. Therefore common descent anyway.Try it and see.
Is there a point to all this jackery? Are you gonna come at me one day and say "Aha, Life nests properly and non-life doesn't. Therefore Darwin!" ?? Or what??
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 05:04:32 AM I'm thinking that 99.9% of those professional scientists have not concerned themselves with "nested hierarchies" at all. I'm specifically talking about scientists who HAVE concerned themselves with nested hierarchies. I.e. certainly everyone who works in genetics and evolution. It's 99.9% of THOSE who disagree with Denton.Quote Which makes me wonder why it is so important to you It wasn't me who started the thread, "Revisiting Nested Hierarchies".Why is it so important to YOU?
I'm thinking that 99.9% of those professional scientists have not concerned themselves with "nested hierarchies" at all.
Which makes me wonder why it is so important to you
Quote from: Pingu on May 19, 2017, 05:45:40 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 05:04:32 AM I'm thinking that 99.9% of those professional scientists have not concerned themselves with "nested hierarchies" at all. Which makes me wonder why it is so important to youThis is just about the most idiotic thing you have said so far.It's not even the first time he's said it in this thread. It's his preparation for the Badger Leap.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 05:04:32 AM I'm thinking that 99.9% of those professional scientists have not concerned themselves with "nested hierarchies" at all. Which makes me wonder why it is so important to youThis is just about the most idiotic thing you have said so far.
I'm thinking that 99.9% of those professional scientists have not concerned themselves with "nested hierarchies" at all. Which makes me wonder why it is so important to you
Quote from: Pingu on May 19, 2017, 05:46:34 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:05:37 AMQuote from: Fenrir on May 19, 2017, 03:57:15 AMWhere do you put Schwinn electric bikes David?https://electricbikereview.com/schwinn/world-gse/I don't know. I guess it would be tricky ... like a platypus.The platypus isn't tricky. it nests perfectly, quite close to the echidna in fact.Really??!! I'm shocked!!QuoteEhrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:05:37 AMQuote from: Fenrir on May 19, 2017, 03:57:15 AMWhere do you put Schwinn electric bikes David?https://electricbikereview.com/schwinn/world-gse/I don't know. I guess it would be tricky ... like a platypus.The platypus isn't tricky. it nests perfectly, quite close to the echidna in fact.
Quote from: Fenrir on May 19, 2017, 03:57:15 AMWhere do you put Schwinn electric bikes David?https://electricbikereview.com/schwinn/world-gse/I don't know. I guess it would be tricky ... like a platypus.
Where do you put Schwinn electric bikes David?https://electricbikereview.com/schwinn/world-gse/
Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.
Quote from: fredbear on May 19, 2017, 08:36:32 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:21:19 AMQuote from: DaveGodfrey on May 19, 2017, 04:19:30 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:13:59 AMWhy?Because you said you could get inanimate objects to nest. Get to it.I can. The way Denton does it. But perhaps not the way YOU want it done ... which purportedly helps your cause of trying to say "Therefore Darwin" ... and I don't even think YOU can do it properly with "Life" as you think you can.This isn't just a couple of people in an insignificant forum that nobody cares about, Dave. This has been done. Starting with Linnaeus. People, lots of people, have DISCOVERED, that life sorts into a nested hierarchy that extends thousand of layers deep.http://www.onezoom.org/life/Please look at that website. It's the 3rd or 4th time I've posted it.Unless you think that's it's the result of trolls randomly ejaculating nonsense into a cool webpage design in a vast conspiracy that involves literally every biologist, living or dead, you have to admit that there's an extraordinary difference between biological systems and man-made ones."THOUSANDS" of layers now. Wow! This is an awesome big fish story!
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:21:19 AMQuote from: DaveGodfrey on May 19, 2017, 04:19:30 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:13:59 AMWhy?Because you said you could get inanimate objects to nest. Get to it.I can. The way Denton does it. But perhaps not the way YOU want it done ... which purportedly helps your cause of trying to say "Therefore Darwin" ... and I don't even think YOU can do it properly with "Life" as you think you can.This isn't just a couple of people in an insignificant forum that nobody cares about, Dave. This has been done. Starting with Linnaeus. People, lots of people, have DISCOVERED, that life sorts into a nested hierarchy that extends thousand of layers deep.http://www.onezoom.org/life/Please look at that website. It's the 3rd or 4th time I've posted it.Unless you think that's it's the result of trolls randomly ejaculating nonsense into a cool webpage design in a vast conspiracy that involves literally every biologist, living or dead, you have to admit that there's an extraordinary difference between biological systems and man-made ones.
Quote from: DaveGodfrey on May 19, 2017, 04:19:30 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:13:59 AMWhy?Because you said you could get inanimate objects to nest. Get to it.I can. The way Denton does it. But perhaps not the way YOU want it done ... which purportedly helps your cause of trying to say "Therefore Darwin" ... and I don't even think YOU can do it properly with "Life" as you think you can.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:13:59 AMWhy?Because you said you could get inanimate objects to nest. Get to it.
Why?
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 08:41:51 AMQuote from: fredbear on May 19, 2017, 08:36:32 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:21:19 AMQuote from: DaveGodfrey on May 19, 2017, 04:19:30 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 04:13:59 AMWhy?Because you said you could get inanimate objects to nest. Get to it.I can. The way Denton does it. But perhaps not the way YOU want it done ... which purportedly helps your cause of trying to say "Therefore Darwin" ... and I don't even think YOU can do it properly with "Life" as you think you can.This isn't just a couple of people in an insignificant forum that nobody cares about, Dave. This has been done. Starting with Linnaeus. People, lots of people, have DISCOVERED, that life sorts into a nested hierarchy that extends thousand of layers deep.http://www.onezoom.org/life/Please look at that website. It's the 3rd or 4th time I've posted it.Unless you think that's it's the result of trolls randomly ejaculating nonsense into a cool webpage design in a vast conspiracy that involves literally every biologist, living or dead, you have to admit that there's an extraordinary difference between biological systems and man-made ones."THOUSANDS" of layers now. Wow! This is an awesome big fish story!It looks like you can now Sponsor a Leaf.I'm tempted to sponsor Microsporidium sp. BLAP1 LAP, one of the more deeply nested species, in Dave's name.
RAFH, you're orating at a man who has been inexplicably enraged for a couple years now because someone suggested he ought to learn something about the plants growing on his own property. He doesn't like learning. He likes to pretend he does, though.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 08:36:39 AMThe discipline of taxonomy will have to reinvent itself if it wants to survive ... written in 2002 ... lol ... not quite the perfect picture Lizzie paints.https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6884/full/417017a.htmlMan, you are the absolute master of misunderstanding. I don't think that brief summary means anything near what you think it means.
Quote from: borealis on May 19, 2017, 09:16:20 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 08:36:39 AMThe discipline of taxonomy will have to reinvent itself if it wants to survive ... written in 2002 ... lol ... not quite the perfect picture Lizzie paints.https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6884/full/417017a.htmlMan, you are the absolute master of misunderstanding. I don't think that brief summary means anything near what you think it means.I doubt he read - or even read - any of it beyond the line he quoted.
Quote from: VoxRat on May 19, 2017, 10:22:06 AMQuote from: borealis on May 19, 2017, 09:16:20 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 08:36:39 AMThe discipline of taxonomy will have to reinvent itself if it wants to survive ... written in 2002 ... lol ... not quite the perfect picture Lizzie paints.https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6884/full/417017a.htmlMan, you are the absolute master of misunderstanding. I don't think that brief summary means anything near what you think it means.I doubt he read - or even read - any of it beyond the line he quoted.Well, there's not much of a summary there and the only thing Bluffy cherry-picked was the title.
Quote from: RAFH on May 19, 2017, 10:24:07 AMQuote from: VoxRat on May 19, 2017, 10:22:06 AMQuote from: borealis on May 19, 2017, 09:16:20 AMQuote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 08:36:39 AMThe discipline of taxonomy will have to reinvent itself if it wants to survive ... written in 2002 ... lol ... not quite the perfect picture Lizzie paints.https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n6884/full/417017a.htmlMan, you are the absolute master of misunderstanding. I don't think that brief summary means anything near what you think it means.I doubt he read - or even read - any of it beyond the line he quoted.Well, there's not much of a summary there and the only thing Bluffy cherry-picked was the title. Ah - I guess it's my university wi-fi connections (one of the perks of octohattery!) When I click the link, I get the full article. Needless to say, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything that Hawkins has brought up in this discussion.
< continues to make a fool of himself over an article he linked without reading >
Well it's good to know that nested hierarchies have nothing whatsoever to do with taxonomy. Good to know indeed.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on May 19, 2017, 11:16:32 AMWell it's good to know that nested hierarchies have nothing whatsoever to do with taxonomy. Good to know indeed.Are you sure you don't have some kind of clinical impairment, Dave?Nobody can be this stupid.I have never come across someone so committed to his own abject ignorance. So driven to avoid learning anything.Try reading for comprehension, not quote-mine-able nuggets.Do the exercise you agreed with Pingu to do. And one more time. Look around. Investigate. see how deep some of the branches go:http://www.onezoom.org/life/Or continue acting like a confused turnip.
In this article I shall first explore why descriptive taxonomy is in such straits (in contrast, its sister subject, phylogenetic taxonomy, is flourishing).
... You do know Ehrlich is not the last word in science, don't you? He's not the final arbiter, nor is Popper. Nor anyone else. It's not the person, it's their ideas that count. And they only count if they are based upon demonstrable evidence interpreted through sound logic which is then accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community over an extended period of time that extends to the present.