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

Man, you are the absolute master of misunderstanding. I don't think that brief summary means anything near what you think it means.

 

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??

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?

Well, Bluffy, why then do literally thousands of professional scientists actually working productively in the field, rather than writing books about what they think and then changing their minds, disagree with much of Denton's first book. Why did he reverse his POV in his later work?

Wotta bluffoon.

Here. Thread needs a little pure innocence relief.

Classify her, Davey.

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.

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?

Isn't even older Denton among those that disagree with younger Denton?

Quite a conundrum for Bluffy.

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

This 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.

It makes me wonder if there is a place near Bluffy that's got a good sized cliff and is called Badger's Leap.
If not, there should be.

I know, I know, Bluffy could get those Bobcats to make one right in his little Shackgrila.

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

Hey Bluffy, did you log in or pay to read the full article? Or just saw the enticing title and cherry picked it?

Do you have any idea why the author, H. Charles J. Godfray, would write an article with such a title and what his point was?

Where 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!!

Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch (1967), "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, 214:349-352, April 22, p. 352
Our 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.

Bluffy, what does Ehrlich's 1967 article (things have progressed some in the intervening years) about "our" (actually his personal) understanding of the ToE and it's potential agreement with Popper (who later recanted such) to do with nested hierarchies? And/or common descent?

Is this just another example of you scrambling to find something that you think supports you? 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.

Will you ever learn anything?

Wotta bluffoon.

Why?

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!

Yes, have you checked? Have you looked at the various "trees" representing that hierarchy?

Because, it may come as a surprise, probably an unacceptable one to you, but you haven't a clue about any of this. None. And you are of the opinion that despite having no education in the subjects under discussion (hell, you can't even remember what you supposedly learned for your reputed cum laude BS in EE), training in the same or any experience at all in the same, your opinions are more valid than the virtually the entirety of the scientific community, both now and in the past.

Wotta bluffoon.

Why?

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.

Would it include Badger in the name? Or Bluffy? Or BBB (Bluff, Bluster and Bravado)?  How would that go? Bluffia Blusterii Bravadocus? Please note, I'm not a big student of Latin so forgive the mistakes.

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.

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.

Yes, I know, you're a damnable manipulating bitch and all, you and Pingu. But I prefer to think of it less as orating at or to him and more as poking him with a stick. Which he seems to enjoy, who knew the psyche of bluffoonery could be so complicated.

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

Man, 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.

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

Man, 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.

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

Man, 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.

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

Man, 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.

I am shocked, to my very core!

Bluffy is such a dumbfuck it's surprising he's not been appointed President for Life of Dumbfuckistan.

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

Man, 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.

I don't have university WiFi, and I managed to google up a copy almost immediately. And I read it. It's an interesting article, and its certainly interesting to see what has, and hasn't, changed in the intervening years.

But no, it has nothing whatsoever to do with nested hierarchies. Congratulations Dave, on being an abject failure at everything you've attempted to do in this thread.

Well it's good to know that nested hierarchies have nothing whatsoever to do with taxonomy.  Good to know indeed.

-6000 year old Earth
---North America
-----America
-------The Real ^TM 'Merica
---------Missouri
-----------Straw Hovel
-------------Shitbucket
---------------Dave's shit
-----------------Dave's understanding of nested hierarchies

<  continues to make a fool of himself over an article he linked without reading  > 

You think that if an article about taxonomy doesn't mention nested hierarchies, that means that nested hierarchies have nothing whatsoever to do with taxonomy.

You are an idiot.

How many articles about chemistry mention the periodic table?

Well 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.

Well 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.

I dare you to count the layers down to Monarda punctata.

Since it's possible that not every member of this site has Dave's mastery of Google-Fu (I leave the question of which Dave as an exercise for the reader): "Challenges for taxonomy" | Nature (PDF)

From the article Hawkins linked without ever reading:

In this article I shall first explore why descriptive taxonomy is in such straits (in contrast, its sister subject, phylogenetic taxonomy, is flourishing).

oops 
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

... looks like Hawkins has stepped in it again. 

Dave is just trotting out some of his well worn "use their own words against them" trope.  he has a whole copy-paste thing on his blog, and when he faces defeat again he just trots out a few of these quotemines and then disappears in a cloud of squid ink while verily declaring victory over the evil Darwinist Club.

... 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.

Don't forget Hawkins's concept of epistemology is essentially  scriptural.