Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies (Read 18253 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • 9,693

  • 59

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #25
So Lizzie two questions ...

Do you think that comparative biology depends on evolutionary theory?

Do you think you can do taxonomy better if you forget about evolution?

^^^^

1) Quite clearly it is possible to do it WITHOUT evolutionary theory, because Linnaeus did.  What it reveals is a pattern of nested hierarchies.
2) Probably.
Then why do you  say that nested hierarchies are evidence for the ToE?

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,593

  • 1173

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #26
So Lizzie two questions ...

Do you think that comparative biology depends on evolutionary theory?

Do you think you can do taxonomy better if you forget about evolution?

^^^^

1) Quite clearly it is possible to do it WITHOUT evolutionary theory, because Linnaeus did.  What it reveals is a pattern of nested hierarchies.
2) Probably.
Then why do you  say that nested hierarchies are evidence for the ToE?

Precisely BECAUSE you can derive them WITHOUT having an evolutionary explanation.  So often, creationists and IDists try to claim that evolutionary theory is "circular" because you need evolutionary theory to find the hierarchies then the hierarchies confirm the ToE.

But this is NOT the case.  As Martin says, the pattern - the distribution of features over organisms - is objectively there.  What evolutionary theory does is provide an explanation for that pattern.

Design does NOT provide such an explanation, because Design is not constrained into lineages.  Because, yes, we do tend to build on what has gone before, there are elements of nesting in some human inventions (trumpets, for instance), but what human designers can do, and evolution can't, is transfer features that have arisen in one lineage over to another as a module.  We can fit cameras in phones, put wheels on houses, put wings on boats, and floats on planes.

Evolution can't do that.  If a lineage "needs" something (or rather, would benefit from something, e.g. better streamlining) it has to evolve it from scratch.  It can't say, hey this penguin could do with some features that would help it to swim, we'll give it dolphin flippers and fish fins.   Those features have to evolve from scratch from what the penguin lineage has to hand.

As I said, the constraints revealed by the OBSERVED nested hierarchies are just those that evolution, as theorised by Darwin, has.  They are NOT the constraints of a human designer. 
  • Last Edit: October 08, 2016, 08:44:34 AM by Pingu

  • fredbear
  • Needs a Life
  • Militantly Confused
  • 667

  • 118

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #27
So Lizzie two questions ...

Do you think that comparative biology depends on evolutionary theory?

Do you think you can do taxonomy better if you forget about evolution?

^^^^

1) Quite clearly it is possible to do it WITHOUT evolutionary theory, because Linnaeus did.  What it reveals is a pattern of nested hierarchies.
2) Probably.
Then why do you  say that nested hierarchies are evidence for the ToE?

Precisely BECAUSE you can derive them WITHOUT having an evolutionary explanation.  So often, creationists and IDists try to claim that evolutionary theory is "circular" because you need evolutionary theory to find the hierarchies then the hierarchies confirm the ToE.

But this is NOT the case.  As Martin says, the pattern - the distribution of features over organisms - is objectively there.  What evolutionary theory does is provide an explanation for that pattern.

Design does NOT provide such an explanation, because Design is not constrained into lineages.  Because yes, we do tend to build on what has gone before, there are elements of nesting in some human inventions (trumpets, for instance), but what human designers can do, and evolution can't, is transfer features that have arisen in one lineage over to another as a module.  We can fit cameras in phones, put wheels on houses, put wings on boats, and floats on planes.

Evolution can't do that.  If a lineage "needs" something (or rather, would benefit from something, e.g. better streamlining) it has to evolve it from scratch.  It can't say, hey this penguin could do with some features that would help it to swim, we'll give it dolphin flippers and fish fins.   Those features have to evolve from scratch from what the penguin lineage has to hand.

As I said, the constraints revealed by the OBSERVED nested hierarchies are just those that evolution, as theorised by Darwin, has.  They are NOT the constraints of a human designer.
Furthermore, evolutionary theory predicts nested hierarchies. ID does not. Why would a designer not put eagle eyes in humans?
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,642

  • 333

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #28
So Lizzie two questions ...

Do you think that comparative biology depends on evolutionary theory?

Do you think you can do taxonomy better if you forget about evolution?

^^^^

1) Quite clearly it is possible to do it WITHOUT evolutionary theory, because Linnaeus did.  What it reveals is a pattern of nested hierarchies.
2) Probably.
Then why do you  say that nested hierarchies are evidence for the ToE?
My two cents.

1) No, comparative biology does not depend upon evolutionary theory. As Pingu noted, Linnaeus did it a century before Darwin came along. But, also, as Pingu noted, it results in nested hierarchies. Which is a basic inherent prediction of the ToE. So, finding nested hierarchies confirms that prediction and so supports the ToE. If one did not find nested hierarchies, one would pretty much have to reject the ToE. On the other hand, nested hierarchies are not a basic inherent prediction of creation nor ID. They could occur, or not. It wouldn't matter.

2) I doubt it's easier to do taxonomy if one ignores evolution. The ToE provides the mechanism for why there are nested hierarchies. That mechanism is common descent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)
Quote
Taxonomy (from Ancient Greek: τάξις taxis, "arrangement", and -νομία -nomia, "method"[1]) is the science of defining groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups. Organisms are grouped together into taxa (singular: taxon) and these groups are given a taxonomic rank; groups of a given rank can be aggregated to form a super group of higher rank, thus creating a taxonomic hierarchy.[2][3] The Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus is regarded as the father of taxonomy, as he developed a system known as Linnaean classification for categorization of organisms and binomial nomenclature for naming organisms.

With the advent of such fields of study as phylogenetics, cladistics, and systematics, the Linnaean system has progressed to a system of modern biological classification based on the evolutionary relationships between organisms, both living and extinct. An example of a modern classification is the one published in 2009 by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group for all living flowering plant families (the APG III system).[

I would note Linnaeus did not have to deal with fossils in his classification. But modern taxonomy does. The ToE provides the links between the past and the present. The entire modern system relies heavily upon common descent, which is another key component of the ToE and which is supported by nested hierarchies.
Are we there yet?

  • fredbear
  • Needs a Life
  • Militantly Confused
  • 667

  • 118

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #29
So Lizzie two questions ...

Do you think that comparative biology depends on evolutionary theory?

Do you think you can do taxonomy better if you forget about evolution?

^^^^

1) Quite clearly it is possible to do it WITHOUT evolutionary theory, because Linnaeus did.  What it reveals is a pattern of nested hierarchies.
2) Probably.
Then why do you  say that nested hierarchies are evidence for the ToE?
My two cents.

1) No, comparative biology does not depend upon evolutionary theory. As Pingu noted, Linnaeus did it a century before Darwin came along. But, also, as Pingu noted, it results in nested hierarchies. Which is a basic inherent prediction of the ToE. So, finding nested hierarchies confirms that prediction and so supports the ToE. If one did not find nested hierarchies, one would pretty much have to reject the ToE. On the other hand, nested hierarchies are not a basic inherent prediction of creation nor ID. They could occur, or not. It wouldn't matter.

2) I doubt it's easier to do taxonomy if one ignores evolution. The ToE provides the mechanism for why there are nested hierarchies. That mechanism is common descent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)
Quote
Taxonomy (from Ancient Greek: τάξις taxis, "arrangement", and -νομία -nomia, "method"[1]) is the science of defining groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups. Organisms are grouped together into taxa (singular: taxon) and these groups are given a taxonomic rank; groups of a given rank can be aggregated to form a super group of higher rank, thus creating a taxonomic hierarchy.[2][3] The Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus is regarded as the father of taxonomy, as he developed a system known as Linnaean classification for categorization of organisms and binomial nomenclature for naming organisms.

With the advent of such fields of study as phylogenetics, cladistics, and systematics, the Linnaean system has progressed to a system of modern biological classification based on the evolutionary relationships between organisms, both living and extinct. An example of a modern classification is the one published in 2009 by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group for all living flowering plant families (the APG III system).[

I would note Linnaeus did not have to deal with fossils in his classification. But modern taxonomy does. The ToE provides the links between the past and the present. The entire modern system relies heavily upon common descent, which is another key component of the ToE and which is supported by nested hierarchies.
Ha ha. I beat you to it with the TL;DR version.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • 9,693

  • 59

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #30
OMG  The last few posts reveal such ignorance that I don't know if I will have the stomach to respond.

  • 9,693

  • 59

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #31
Un.

Smegging.

Believable.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,593

  • 1173

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #32
OMG  The last few posts reveal such ignorance that I don't know if I will have the stomach to respond.

Well, do try, because frankly ^^^ is un smegging believable.

If you have a counter-rebuttal, please at least TRY to articulate it. 

  • fredbear
  • Needs a Life
  • Militantly Confused
  • 667

  • 118

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #33
OMG  The last few posts reveal such ignorance that I don't know if I will have the stomach to respond.
You really have to make the effort to spell out what you perceive to be the "ignorance". Failure to do so will be interpreted as a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,642

  • 333

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #34
OMG  The last few posts reveal such ignorance that I don't know if I will have the stomach to respond.

Well, do try, because frankly ^^^ is un smegging believable.

If you have a counter-rebuttal, please at least TRY to articulate it.
Articulation is another of those strong points Bluffy must get by without.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,593

  • 1173

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #35
He's bluffing.  He has no clue how to respond to my answer to his question.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,593

  • 1173

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #36
So Lizzie two questions ...

Do you think that comparative biology depends on evolutionary theory?

Do you think you can do taxonomy better if you forget about evolution?

^^^^

1) Quite clearly it is possible to do it WITHOUT evolutionary theory, because Linnaeus did.  What it reveals is a pattern of nested hierarchies.
2) Probably.
Then why do you  say that nested hierarchies are evidence for the ToE?

Precisely BECAUSE you can derive them WITHOUT having an evolutionary explanation.  So often, creationists and IDists try to claim that evolutionary theory is "circular" because you need evolutionary theory to find the hierarchies then the hierarchies confirm the ToE.

But this is NOT the case.  As Martin says, the pattern - the distribution of features over organisms - is objectively there.  What evolutionary theory does is provide an explanation for that pattern.

Design does NOT provide such an explanation, because Design is not constrained into lineages.  Because, yes, we do tend to build on what has gone before, there are elements of nesting in some human inventions (trumpets, for instance), but what human designers can do, and evolution can't, is transfer features that have arisen in one lineage over to another as a module.  We can fit cameras in phones, put wheels on houses, put wings on boats, and floats on planes.

Evolution can't do that.  If a lineage "needs" something (or rather, would benefit from something, e.g. better streamlining) it has to evolve it from scratch.  It can't say, hey this penguin could do with some features that would help it to swim, we'll give it dolphin flippers and fish fins.   Those features have to evolve from scratch from what the penguin lineage has to hand.

As I said, the constraints revealed by the OBSERVED nested hierarchies are just those that evolution, as theorised by Darwin, has.  They are NOT the constraints of a human designer. 

I do not want this to get lost.

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 5,343

  • 1024

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #37
Michael Denton--no friend of creationism and a competent geneticist
good god you are an idiot.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 5,343

  • 1024

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #38
He's bluffing.  He has no clue how to respond to my answer to his question.
This is one of those where he's rolled the bluff, bluster and bravado all into one, one-sentence, post.
So, no.... I'm pretty sure we're not going to see an actual response.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,236

  • 677

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #39
So Lizzie two questions ...

Do you think that comparative biology depends on evolutionary theory?

Do you think you can do taxonomy better if you forget about evolution?

^^^^
No

And

Yes.

Let's see if you can figure out the next important question.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,236

  • 677

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #40
So Lizzie two questions ...

Do you think that comparative biology depends on evolutionary theory?

Do you think you can do taxonomy better if you forget about evolution?

^^^^

1) Quite clearly it is possible to do it WITHOUT evolutionary theory, because Linnaeus did.  What it reveals is a pattern of nested hierarchies.
2) Probably.
Then why do you  say that nested hierarchies are evidence for the ToE?
Nice sleight of hand there.

Try again.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,236

  • 677

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #41
OMG  The last few posts reveal such ignorance that I don't know if I will have the stomach to respond.
You certainly don't have the guts to.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,236

  • 677

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #42
Un.

Smegging.

Believable.
Keep bluffing, Bluffy.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 5,343

  • 1024

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #43
There's a really gem-like irony to Hawkins's "argument" here.
He invokes Martin Brazeau's caution about the circularity of using taxonomy as an argument for evolution while using evolution as an argument for taxonomy.
But he invokes the authority of Michael fucking Denton
Quote
no friend of creationism and a competent geneticist
whose authority - such as it is - derives entirely from the fact that he IS a friend, in fact a beatified saint, of creationism, and an INcompetent geneticist, with no track record of contributing one bloody thing to the field, beyond spreading misinformation to the willingly ignorant.

So he's using Denton's alleged authority as support for the dumb ideas that Denton champions - which authority derives entirely from those dumb ideas. (Hint: would Hawkins - or any of us - have ever heard of Denton but for his championing of creationist talking points?  :no:  )
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • fredbear
  • Needs a Life
  • Militantly Confused
  • 667

  • 118

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #44
There's a really gem-like irony to Hawkins's "argument" here.
He invokes Martin Brazeau's caution about the circularity of using taxonomy as an argument for evolution while using evolution as an argument for taxonomy.
But he invokes the authority of Michael fucking Denton
Quote
no friend of creationism and a competent geneticist
whose authority - such as it is - derives entirely from the fact that he IS a friend, in fact a beatified saint, of creationism, and an INcompetent geneticist, with no track record of contributing one bloody thing to the field, beyond spreading misinformation to the willingly ignorant.

So he's using Denton's alleged authority as support for the dumb ideas that Denton champions - which authority derives entirely from those dumb ideas. (Hint: would Hawkins - or any of us - have ever heard of Denton but for his championing of creationist talking points?  :no:  )
Let's face it, Dave is incapable of mounting a coherent defense of his position in his own words. Worse, he is incapable of articulating a coherent description of his own understanding of the theory of evolution. At best, all we will get it a pithy one-liner that betrays the fundamental lack of understanding of this sad, sad little man.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,593

  • 1173

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #45
He can't articulate a defense of his position, because he doesn't have one.  What he has is "evolution is wrong because that's what I want to believe".

  • fredbear
  • Needs a Life
  • Militantly Confused
  • 667

  • 118

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #46
He can't articulate a defense of his position, because he doesn't have one.  What he has is "evolution is wrong because that's what I want to believe".
I don't think I'm alone in hoping that at some point he will transcend the demon to finally come to some understanding, let alone acceptance, of the theory of evolution. It is, at least for me, the basic reason for continuing to monitor these forums.
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,593

  • 1173

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #47
Yeah.  I wouldn't even mind if he rejected the evolutionary / old earth arguments, but he can't even see them, let alone mount a counter argument.

  • fredbear
  • Needs a Life
  • Militantly Confused
  • 667

  • 118

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #48
Yeah.  I wouldn't even mind if he rejected the evolutionary / old earth arguments, but he can't even see them, let alone mount a counter argument.
If there's any chance, for this forum, for Dave, for my faith in humanity, it is in the eventual transcendence of the demon. I'm not particularly hopeful,
"...without considering any evidence at all - that my views are more likely - on average - to be correct.  Because the mainstream is almost always wrong" - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,593

  • 1173

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #49
Yeah.  Just letting the info in would be huge.

But the Demon certainly slammed the door shut hard right now.