Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies (Read 13675 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • 7,305

  • 1092

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #50
Lizzie is in full "Bass" mode this morning.  Small ears, large mouth. "Dave's wrong.  No matter what!"

 She probably didn't even bother to read what Martin B wrote
good god you are an idiot
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #51
He's so like Trump.  If he feels attacked he comes straight back with a "counterpunch" as they both see it aka IKYABWAI

  • 8,803

  • 49

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #52
He didn't.

Therefore he can't.

Excellent logic.

:notworthy:

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 4,565

  • 874

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #53
True to form, Hawkins declines to cite, quote, link to, or otherwise identify the point he's "rebutting".

Sort of a hybrid of  two characters from the Wizard of Oz:  The Cowardly Strawman
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #54
You going to address my response to your question, Dave?  Or are you scared?

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #55
Bringing it forward....
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. 

  • 8,803

  • 49

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #56
Ya  I'm scared.

That's it.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #57
Certainly looks like it. 

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,017

  • 315

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #58
Dave has really deteriorated. He started this thread and has nothing to say.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #59
He asked some questions, but has no response to the answers.


  • 8,803

  • 49

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #60
"The sky is blue. Therefore, evolution."

"The grass is green. Therefore, evolution."

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #61
Are you going to respond to my post, Dave?  Or are you just going to continue to gibber?

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #62
Here it is again:

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. 

  • Photon
  • Needs a Life
  • I interfere with myself
  • 875

  • 283

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #63
Fuck, even for Dave this is childish.  And that's saying something.

If you have a point, Dave, or an rational rebuttal, or an intelligent sequence of reasoning that supports your objection to mainstream theory, then by all means articulate it.

This bluffing and bloviating is very transparent.  You don't have anything, and don't want to embarrass yourself, or otherwise lower your bloated self-assessment of your competence with this material, so bluffing is all you have.  It's sad, and pathetic behaviour for an ostensibly adult person to conduct themselves this way.  You aren't alone, however, the GOP nominee for President also functions in a narcissistic fantasy world where the things he wants to be true need not be defended, only claimed.

  • 7,305

  • 1092

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #64
Dave is like Warren buffett and Donald Trump.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • JonF
  • Needs a Life
  • 3,017

  • 315

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #65
Fuck, even for Dave this is childish.  And that's saying something.

If you have a point, Dave, or an rational rebuttal, or an intelligent sequence of reasoning that supports your objection to mainstream theory, then by all means articulate it.

This bluffing and bloviating is very transparent.  You don't have anything, and don't want to embarrass yourself, or otherwise lower your bloated self-assessment of your competence with this material, so bluffing is all you have.  It's sad, and pathetic behaviour for an ostensibly adult person to conduct themselves this way.  You aren't alone, however, the GOP nominee for President also functions in a narcissistic fantasy world where the things he wants to be true need not be defended, only claimed.
It's really amazing. One wonders if he's fooling himself. He certainly isn't fooling anyone else.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • 8,803

  • 49

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #66
Are you going to respond to my post, Dave?  Or are you just going to continue to gibber?
I keep hoping the lightbulb will come on without my help.

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 4,321

  • 897

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #67
IOW, you haven't got any response.
Truth is out of style

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
  • 4,321

  • 897

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #68
See the problem you have here is your history. If you were some random bloke appearing from nowhere, people might be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, in your case, it is very well established that whenever you try to maintain a pretense of being the clever one, it is invariably because you are a fuckwit.
Truth is out of style

  • fredbear
  • Needs a Life
  • Militantly Confused
  • 502

  • 96

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #69
Reporting this in the forlorn hope that Dave will attempt a coherent response to a simpler question:
Then why do you  say that nested hierarchies are evidence for the ToE?
... 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

  • 8,803

  • 49

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #70
:facepalm:

You guys just have no clue what you're talking about at all.

  • 1,448

  • 215

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #71
And at any point are you going to explain why?


I didn't think so.....
Why do I bother?

  • 2,930

  • 747

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #72
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.
Hey, people can change! My mother became an activist for the first time in her life in her late sixties, went to conferences and everything, to try to stop her church from allowing homosexuals to become ministers and to get married in the church. She was way riled up over it. Then around eighty she did a complete reversal, told me she didn't care how other people interpreted the scriptures, she had come to the conclusion that gay people were just people and had a right to fully participate in the church and be happy like anyone else and surely God had no objections to any kind of real love.

Might have helped that a gay couple in a thirty-some year relationship had moved into the community, become really close friends with my sister  and family, and were always available to help out with house painting and door fixing and stuff. And she was utterly charmed by them because they were an adorable couple. :D

  • 8,803

  • 49

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #73
And at any point are you going to explain why?


I didn't think so.....
Maybe after I get back up off the floor ...

  • fredbear
  • Needs a Life
  • Militantly Confused
  • 502

  • 96

Re: Revisiting Nested Hierarchies
Reply #74
And at any point are you going to explain why?


I didn't think so.....
Maybe after I get back up off the floor ...
I seem to remember someone complaining about people wasting bandwidth on content-free objections. Now who was it ????
"...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