Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Now with extra smileys :parrot: :popcorn:

Topic: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies (Read 20443 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2875
Hey Dave, you going to badger from this as well?
Going to?

Hell, Bluffy badgered from this long ago. It's forgotten history as far as he's concerned. Except for the part he remembers about his showing us all what fools we are and how BRILLIANT he is and how amazingly his mind is as it runs circles around ours. That part is not forgotten, not by Bluffy, he remembers it as clearly as Trump remembers seeing those "thousands and thousands of Muslims" celebrating the fall of the towers on 9/11.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2876
I've got mine done.

It was actually quite tricky, as some of the branches have only really been determined by DNA analysis and I was trying to find morphological features.  And I deliberately chose some ones I knew might be tricky, like "shrew" and "orca".

But I've come up with a reasonable stab at it.

When Dave posts his own cladogram of his vehicles (mine isn't very good) I'll post the one for my mammals.

As a substitute, I'll accept a commentary on my cladogram for Dave's vehicles - explaining why it is nested, and what the remaining problems are.

Then we will start Stage Two.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2877
I've got mine done.

It was actually quite tricky, as some of the branches have only really been determined by DNA analysis and I was trying to find morphological features.  And I deliberately chose some ones I knew might be tricky, like "shrew" and "orca".

But I've come up with a reasonable stab at it.

When Dave posts his own cladogram of his vehicles (mine isn't very good) I'll post the one for my mammals.

As a substitute, I'll accept a commentary on my cladogram for Dave's vehicles - explaining why it is nested, and what the remaining problems are.

Then we will start Stage Two.
:rofl:  meanwhile, the sun will have gone red giant.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2878
I've got mine done.

It was actually quite tricky, as some of the branches have only really been determined by DNA analysis and I was trying to find morphological features.  And I deliberately chose some ones I knew might be tricky, like "shrew" and "orca".

But I've come up with a reasonable stab at it.

When Dave posts his own cladogram of his vehicles (mine isn't very good) I'll post the one for my mammals.

As a substitute, I'll accept a commentary on my cladogram for Dave's vehicles - explaining why it is nested, and what the remaining problems are.

Then we will start Stage Two.

You mean lying about lying? That Stage Two?
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2879
I've got mine done.

It was actually quite tricky, as some of the branches have only really been determined by DNA analysis and I was trying to find morphological features.  And I deliberately chose some ones I knew might be tricky, like "shrew" and "orca".

But I've come up with a reasonable stab at it.

When Dave posts his own cladogram of his vehicles (mine isn't very good) I'll post the one for my mammals.

As a substitute, I'll accept a commentary on my cladogram for Dave's vehicles - explaining why it is nested, and what the remaining problems are.

Then we will start Stage Two.
:rofl:  meanwhile, the sun will have gone red giant.
I was thinking purple giant. With frustration.
Are we there yet?

  • JonF
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2880
I've got mine done.

It was actually quite tricky, as some of the branches have only really been determined by DNA analysis and I was trying to find morphological features.  And I deliberately chose some ones I knew might be tricky, like "shrew" and "orca".

But I've come up with a reasonable stab at it.

When Dave posts his own cladogram of his vehicles (mine isn't very good) I'll post the one for my mammals.

As a substitute, I'll accept a commentary on my cladogram for Dave's vehicles - explaining why it is nested, and what the remaining problems are.

Then we will start Stage Two.
OK, dave, ball's in your court.  As  it has been for months.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2881
Bump the nested hierarchy thread that you are talking about and... If I get in the mood  and if you're nice to me ... I will teach you - again - about nested hierarchies.  Voxrat always says you don't get to grade your own paper... Which is true... So I will be grading yours!
The person who says this cannot be the same person who said:
Quote
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.
Could it?

Because that person quite clearly has not the first fucking clue what he is talking about.

What did Linnaeus discover, Dave?

  • Faid
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2882
Bump the nested hierarchy thread that you are talking about and... If I get in the mood  and if you're nice to me ... I will teach you - again - about nested hierarchies.  Voxrat always says you don't get to grade your own paper... Which is true... So I will be grading yours!
The person who says this cannot be the same person who said:
Quote
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.
Could it?

Because that person quite clearly has not the first fucking clue what he is talking about.

What did Linnaeus discover, Dave?
Um....
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.

  • fredbear
  • Militantly Confused
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2883
Bump the nested hierarchy thread that you are talking about and... If I get in the mood  and if you're nice to me ... I will teach you - again - about nested hierarchies.  Voxrat always says you don't get to grade your own paper... Which is true... So I will be grading yours!
The person who says this cannot be the same person who said:
Quote
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.
Could it?

Because that person quite clearly has not the first fucking clue what he is talking about.

What did Linnaeus discover, Dave?
Um....
At least he found the quote button.
"...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

  • Faid
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2884
He still has issues with the reply one, it seems.

Down and to your left, dave.
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.

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2885
Bump the nested hierarchy thread that you are talking about and... If I get in the mood  and if you're nice to me ... I will teach you - again - about nested hierarchies.  Voxrat always says you don't get to grade your own paper... Which is true... So I will be grading yours!
The person who says this cannot be the same person who said:
Quote
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.
Could it?

Because that person quite clearly has not the first fucking clue what he is talking about.

What did Linnaeus discover, Dave?
It's a complete inventory of his understanding.  :smug: :smug:
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

  • Pingu
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2886
Bump the nested hierarchy thread that you are talking about and... If I get in the mood  and if you're nice to me ... I will teach you - again - about nested hierarchies.  Voxrat always says you don't get to grade your own paper... Which is true... So I will be grading yours!
The person who says this cannot be the same person who said:
Quote
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.
Could it?

Because that person quite clearly has not the first fucking clue what he is talking about.

What did Linnaeus discover, Dave?

Cat got your tongue?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2887
I can't find which 8 vehicles I'm supposed to be nesting, but it doesn't matter ... ANY 8 vehicles can be arranged into a nested hierarchy.  For example ...

WATER
-Engine powered
-Wind powered
--Sunfish sailboat
-Human powered
--Bicycles
---Schwinn Tempest (made up name)

LAND
-Wheeled
--Horse powered
--Engine powered
---Diesel
---Gas
----Volvo S80
-Non wheeled

AIR
-Fixed wing
--Jet
--Recip
---Cessna 152
-Rotorcraft
--Helicopter
---Bell Jet Ranger

That's not 8 but I got bored adding items so I think you can finish it up on your own ... you get the idea.

  • Pingu
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2888
I can't find which 8 vehicles I'm supposed to be nesting, but it doesn't matter ...

Yes it does fucking matter.  You've clearly forgotten the entire issue, which is that you were going to choose eight vehicles a priori, then nest them, as deeply as you could, in nests defined in terms of features possessed by ALL the items downstream of the branch and NONE of the items upstream or in any other branch.

That is the DEFINITION of a nested hierarchy.  You had your own, but that is irrelevant - the one that is EVIDENCE for common descent is the one defined as I just did.

So you picked eight vehicles and I picked eight animals. You didn't like that - you said "animals" was too broad.  So I picked eight mammals.

I've nested my eight mammals.

When you have nested your eight vehicles as deeply as you can, we will go on the next stage, as you agreed.


ANY 8 vehicles can be arranged into a nested hierarchy.  For example ...

WATER
-Engine powered
-Wind powered
--Sunfish sailboat
-Human powered
--Bicycles
---Schwinn Tempest (made up name)

LAND
-Wheeled
--Horse powered
--Engine powered
---Diesel
---Gas
----Volvo S80
-Non wheeled

AIR
-Fixed wing
--Jet
--Recip
---Cessna 152
-Rotorcraft
--Helicopter
---Bell Jet Ranger

That's not 8 but I got bored adding items so I think you can finish it up on your own ... you get the idea.

Re-read the part of the thread where we discussed the problem with this.

It's dead easy to think of categories into which you can fit vehicles.  I'm asking you to start with the vehicles and produce the categories.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2889
I can't find which 8 vehicles I'm supposed to be nesting, but it doesn't matter ... ANY 8 vehicles can be arranged into a nested hierarchy.  For example ...

WATER
-Engine powered
-Wind powered
--Sunfish sailboat
-Human powered
--Bicycles
---Schwinn Tempest (made up name)
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
[/quote]
Cool.  So there aren't sailboats with motors, then?
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2890
I can't find which 8 vehicles I'm supposed to be nesting, but it doesn't matter ... ANY 8 vehicles can be arranged into a nested hierarchy.  For example ...

WATER
-Engine powered
-Wind powered
--Sunfish sailboat
-Human powered
--Bicycles
---Schwinn Tempest (made up name)

LAND
-Wheeled
--Horse powered
--Engine powered
---Diesel
---Gas
----Volvo S80
-Non wheeled

AIR
-Fixed wing
--Jet
--Recip
---Cessna 152
-Rotorcraft
--Helicopter
---Bell Jet Ranger

That's not 8 but I got bored adding items so I think you can finish it up on your own ... you get the idea. [/spoiler]
Cool.  So there aren't sailboats with motors, then?
I was kinda wondering about the WATER Bicycles.

And, of course, there's the Osprey, it's both a fixed wing and a rotorcraft.
What about that big Russian Surface Effect vehicle, the Ekranoplan? Is it WATER or AIR.
The Amphicar?
Bikes with electric motors?
Hybrid cars?

Yeah, I get the idea, you haven't a clue what you're going on about. Never have, never will.

Wotta bluffoon.
  • Last Edit: May 12, 2017, 04:45:25 AM by RAFH
Are we there yet?

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2891
That's YOUR definition of a nested hierarchy. So defined to support your agenda of promoting Darwinism (that is, UCA).  Which has been discredited.  And one of the first people to discredit it was Michael Denton. Who actually understands nested hierarchies  properly.

[ I should add that it's not actually "UCA" that has been discredited per se ...  it's the mechanism of RM + NS proposed whereby a UCA could supposedly give rise to all life on earth. ]
  • Last Edit: May 12, 2017, 04:52:55 AM by Dave Hawkins

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2892
I can't find which 8 vehicles I'm supposed to be nesting, but it doesn't matter ... ANY 8 vehicles can be arranged into a nested hierarchy.  For example ...

WATER
-Engine powered
-Wind powered
--Sunfish sailboat
-Human powered
--Bicycles
---Schwinn Tempest (made up name)

LAND
-Wheeled
--Horse powered
--Engine powered
---Diesel
---Gas
----Volvo S80
-Non wheeled

AIR
-Fixed wing
--Jet
--Recip
---Cessna 152
-Rotorcraft
--Helicopter
---Bell Jet Ranger

That's not 8 but I got bored adding items so I think you can finish it up on your own ... you get the idea.
:facepalm:

I can't find which 8 vehicles I'm supposed to be nesting, but it doesn't matter ... ANY 8 vehicles can be arranged into a nested hierarchy categorized.  For example ...
fyp

ETA:
From last November-
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

  • Last Edit: May 12, 2017, 04:57:36 AM by thatsneakyguy

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2893
Dave, words mean things.
I don't know why you feel like you need to change the definitions of words, the VALUE of words is that they convey a common meaning.
 :dunno:
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2894
That's YOUR definition of a nested hierarchy. So defined to support your agenda of promoting Darwinism (that is, UCA).  Which has been discredited.  And one of the first people to discredit it was Michael Denton. Who actually understands nested hierarchies  properly.

[ I should add that it's not actually "UCA" that has been discredited per se ...  it's the mechanism of RM + NS proposed whereby a UCA could supposedly give rise to all life on earth. ]
No, Bluffy. That's not OUR definition, it's the commonly accepted definition for the term. That's how language works. People agree on a definition so that when Bob says "water" the person or persons he's talking to understand he's discussing a colorless, odorless liquid essential to humans and most other life on this planet and not some other substance like cat food. Or should Bob say "bicycle" the folks he's talking to understand he means a vehicle, commonly human powered, with two inline wheels and not an Ekranoplan.

You're speaking Bluffoonic, the rest of us are speaking "human", in this case, English.

Wotta bluffoon.
Are we there yet?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2895
Darwinism (that is, UCA).  Which has been discredited.
No it hasn't.
Quote
And one of the first people to discredit it was Michael Denton. Who actually understands nested hierarchies  properly.
Well, whether he understands nested hierarchies or not, is another question. But he is, as you know, an "unstinting advocate" of common descent.
Quote
[ I should add that it's not actually "UCA" that has been discredited per se ...  it's the mechanism of RM + NS proposed whereby a UCA could supposedly give rise to all life on earth.
Yabbut that's a strawman.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2896
That's YOUR definition of a nested hierarchy. So defined to support your agenda of promoting Darwinism (that is, UCA). 

No, Dave.  What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

It is the definition of a nested hierarchy as used in the claim that nested hierarchies are evidence for common descent.

It is the definition used by Linnaeus when he constructed his taxonomy.

If you use a different definition you will fail to understand the claim. 

Which has been discredited.  And one of the first people to discredit it was Michael Denton. Who actually understands nested hierarchies  properly.

I don't give a flying fuck how Michael Denton defines nested hierarchies.  I am defining them as they are defined by people who construct cladograms.

The fact that such cladograms, defined as I have defined them, are POSSIBLE and produce DEEPLY NESTED TREES is what is evidence for common descent.  Not proof, but evidence.

Cladograms based on any other definitions would not be cladograms.  If common descent were not true, deeply nested cladograms would not be true.

Vehicles are not the result of common descent.  Which is why it is very difficult to produce deep cladograms for vehicles.

Of course it's dead easy if you totally misunderstand the definition of nested hierarchy by which cladograms are constructed.
It's even easier if you clap your hands over your ears and you feet over your eyes and refuse to even learn what the argument for common descent from cladograms even is.

But that is your fucking problem.


[ I should add that it's not actually "UCA" that has been discredited per se ...  it's the mechanism of RM + NS proposed whereby a UCA could supposedly give rise to all life on earth. ]

Which is a different issue.  First, Darwin noted that the Linnaean (and his own) taxonomy was a nested hierarchy.  Which is interesting.  And demands explanation.  Because NOT every set of items readily and consistently forms deep cladograms.

You can arbitrarily group any set of items into clusters, even hierarchical clusters, if you don't define your clusters in terms of unique features.

But if you apply the rule that items downstream of a branch must share a property NOT found above the branch or in other branches then NOT all sets of items can be so clustered.

BUT FOR SOME REASON, LIVING THINGS CAN.

One explanation is common descent. 

Once you get that part, we can discuss descent with modification and natural selection.

But until you get as far as understanding what has to be explained, there is simply no point.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2897
... if you apply the rule that items downstream of a branch must share a property NOT found above the branch or in other branches then NOT all sets of items can be so clustered.

BUT FOR SOME REASON, LIVING THINGS CAN.

One explanation is common descent. 

Once you get that part, we can discuss descent with modification and natural selection.

But until you get as far as understanding what has to be explained, there is simply no point.
After 11 years, it's not looking hopeful. :(
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2898
That's YOUR definition of a nested hierarchy. So defined to support your agenda of promoting Darwinism (that is, UCA). 

No, Dave.  What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

It is the definition of a nested hierarchy as used in the claim that nested hierarchies are evidence for common descent.

It is the definition used by Linnaeus when he constructed his taxonomy.

If you use a different definition you will fail to understand the claim. 

Which has been discredited.  And one of the first people to discredit it was Michael Denton. Who actually understands nested hierarchies  properly.

I don't give a flying fuck how Michael Denton defines nested hierarchies.  I am defining them as they are defined by people who construct cladograms.

The fact that such cladograms, defined as I have defined them, are POSSIBLE and produce DEEPLY NESTED TREES is what is evidence for common descent.  Not proof, but evidence.

Cladograms based on any other definitions would not be cladograms.  If common descent were not true, deeply nested cladograms would not be true.

Vehicles are not the result of common descent.  Which is why it is very difficult to produce deep cladograms for vehicles.

Of course it's dead easy if you totally misunderstand the definition of nested hierarchy by which cladograms are constructed.
It's even easier if you clap your hands over your ears and you feet over your eyes and refuse to even learn what the argument for common descent from cladograms even is.

But that is your fucking problem.


[ I should add that it's not actually "UCA" that has been discredited per se ...  it's the mechanism of RM + NS proposed whereby a UCA could supposedly give rise to all life on earth. ]

Which is a different issue.  First, Darwin noted that the Linnaean (and his own) taxonomy was a nested hierarchy.  Which is interesting.  And demands explanation.  Because NOT every set of items readily and consistently forms deep cladograms.

You can arbitrarily group any set of items into clusters, even hierarchical clusters, if you don't define your clusters in terms of unique features.

But if you apply the rule that items downstream of a branch must share a property NOT found above the branch or in other branches then NOT all sets of items can be so clustered.

BUT FOR SOME REASON, LIVING THINGS CAN.

One explanation is common descent. 

Once you get that part, we can discuss descent with modification and natural selection.

But until you get as far as understanding what has to be explained, there is simply no point.
Given Bluffy will never get that far, or even attempt to do so, there really is no point.

But, in the meantime, there's lols to be had, righteous lols.
Are we there yet?

  • Fenrir
Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #2899
That takes me back to when I was young and stupid and almost lived in the lab.

It's what plants crave.