Sunday, December 12, 2010

Back to School Part IX

We continue to examine the work of authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos in their biology textbook, The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008). In their chapter on evolution and natural selection, these accomplished evolutionists begin by (1) misrepresenting the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation here, (2) making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that just happens to mandate the truth of evolution here, (3) making the grossly false statement that the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred here and here, (4) making a series of misrepresentations by carefully selecting the evidence to provide to the student and protecting it with circular reasoning here, (5) misrepresenting the molecular evidence here, (6) presenting the student with a blatantly false history of evolutionary theory here, (7) introducing the usual if-and-only-if evolutionary reasoning here, (8) repeating the centuries old religious argument that bad design proves evolution here, and (9) making a fallacious argument that evolution’s low probability events are not actually low probability after all here.

After this incredible litany of evolutionary canards one might wonder when the lies are going to stop. Unfortunately not yet. Johnson and Losos’ next move is to address the question of mechanism. We have discovered phenomenally sophisticated mechanisms that allow organisms to adapt to challenging conditions. And we know how breeders can produce different plant varieties and animal breeds. But how does macroevolution come about? How do new designs and body plans arise? The answer given by Johnson and Losos is problematic:

Is microevolution (evolution within a species) the mechanism that has produced macroevolution (evolution among species)? Most biologists that have studied the problem think so. [302]

This logic is so riddled with problems it is difficult to know where to start. What Johnson and Losos have in mind when they refer to “most biologists” is, of course, evolutionists. Evolution skeptics certainly do not think it is obvious that adaptation mechanisms also produce entirely new designs.

But evolutionists are people who dogmatically insist that evolution is an obvious fact—beyond a shadow of a doubt. It would be perverse and irrational, they say, to doubt it. Thus there is a credibility problem, for Johnson and Losos are using the testimony of people who insist the unlikely must be a fact. This evolutionary mandate is driven by metaphysical concerns, so immediately there is the question of tainted testimony.

This question also arises for a second reason. Setting aside evolution’s metaphysical undermining of science, the mere fact that the testimony is from evolutionists means Johnson and Losos argument is circular. The problem is that arguments between evolutionists about mechanism are based on the assumption evolution is true in the first place.

In other words, the question for evolutionists is not whether known biological mechanisms explain the large-scale change evolution requires. The question, rather, is given the fact of evolution, do known mechanisms explain the large-scale change needed? If the answer is “no,” then the premise that evolution is a fact is undermined. Obviously evolutionists have a motive to answer “yes.”

So Johnson and Losos base their argument on testimony from people with questionable scientific credibility in general, and strong potential bias on this particular question. Right from the start we have problems.

But let’s set these problems aside for the moment and examine the argument. According to Johnson and Losos, most evolutionists think microevolution mechanisms are also the mechanisms behind macroevolution.

This is probably true, but it is by no means a given, even amongst evolutionists. There certainly are evolutionists who conclude that macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.

This sentiment may not be held by the majority of evolutionists, but it certainly is a legitimate position within evolutionary thought. And importantly, the majority seems to rely more on inertia than data.

Stephen Jay Gould often complained about a textbook orthodoxy that uncritically passes on the doctrine of microevolutionary mechanisms as sufficient to explain all of evolutionary history, without support. The rapid appearance of biology’s new designs, Gould elaborated, cannot simply be explained as extrapolations from Darwinian changes which we observe in modern populations.

Evolutionists don’t necessarily agree, but then again they don’t have a convincing explanation of just how such extrapolations occur. It is convenient to point to the results of breeders and the adaptations we observe in nature, but even the complex mechanisms behind these changes do not provide us with scientific evidence that they also can produce entirely new designs and body plans.

All of this is well known and that fact makes Johnson and Losos’ argument particulary stunning. Yes, the majority of evolutionists probably would agree that microevolutionary mechanisms are all sufficient. But that is hardly a sufficient rebuttal to the problem as Johnson and Losos present it to be.

How could Johnson and Losos possibly present such a misleading argument to the unsuspecting student? How could the small army of reviewers allow for this misrepresentation, and how can educators allow for such stilted logic, while teaching the student that critical thinking is paramount?

The answer is that evolution has substantially damaged science, and the teaching of science. Religion drives science and it matters.

130 comments:

  1. Poor poor Cornelius. Stuck in a dead end job, doing no scientific research, producing no scientific results, reduced to throwing snowballs at the scientific establishment that has long since passed him by.

    Oh well, if posting his raving anti-science nonsense on this blog is his way of coping, who are we to tell him no? It's not like his angry fluff will affect the real scientific community.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius Hunter:

    "How could Johnson and Losos possibly present such a misleading argument to the unsuspecting student?
    ====

    Truthfully it's their version of endoctrinating the young at an early age to guarantee a strong group of loyal parishioners. This is almost identical to the Catholic's "Catechism" or a Lutheran's "Comfirmation" programs.
    ----

    Cornleius Hunter:

    "How could the small army of reviewers allow for this misrepresentation, . . "
    ====

    This is exactly why the term "Peer Review" should be changed to what it truthfully is, "Peer Approved".
    ----

    Cornelius Hunter:

    " and how can educators allow for such stilted logic, . . . "
    ====

    Because either they go along with the game or risk lose their employment in this field forever.
    ----

    Cornelius Hunter:

    " . . while teaching the student that critical thinking is paramount?"
    ====

    This is where parents should have stepped up to the plate and taken care of business as early as infancy. Unfortunately for our failed modern world, parents gave up long ago, feeling that their tax dollars are at work for babysitting purposes only.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter:

    "Stephen Jay Gould often complained about a textbook orthodoxy that uncritically passes on the doctrine of microevolutionary mechanisms as sufficient to explain all of evolutionary history, without support."
    ====

    But this is the very purpose of inserting FACTOIDS in textbooks. Repeat and chant it loud and long enough and eventually all will assume it to be true without actually having to use their own brain to validate anything.

    Interestingly I was reading a passage from the bible where the Apostle Paul related his experience with this very thing. It was the total lack of correct understanding on the part of the Jews, though they were zealous in their pursuit of their own educational system.

    Romans 10:2 (Amplified Bible)

    2) "I bear them witness that they have a [certain] zeal and enthusiasm for God, but it is not enlightened and according to [correct and vital] knowledge."

    You could almost delete the term/title "God" and insert "Science" which most materialists revere as a god anyway for it to read this way:

    "I bear them witness that they have a [certain] zeal and enthusiasm for the scientific study of the natural world, but it is not enlightened and according to [correct and vital] knowledge."

    Hmmmmmmmm!!!
    ----

    Cornelius Hunter:

    "The answer is that evolution has substantially damaged science, and the teaching of science."
    ====

    As you should be already well aware, nothing short of a biblical Armageddon is going to turn anything around with this modern human society for the benefit of true unadulterated education. That's why the bible says that endurance is called for.

    BTW, good points as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In this case, I agree with Dr Hunter. The quote of Johnson and Losos oversimplifies a complicated issue. (I am trusting that their two sentences were not taken out of context.)


    As David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklef wrote in Nature in 2009,

    Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan.

    This is a challenge that shouldn’t be minimized. Nor should it be taken as insurmountable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pedant:

    "As David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklef wrote in Nature in 2009,

    "Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan."
    ====

    I can even agree with their conclusions here. I believe Cornelius has also stated this on and off in the past as a huge problem which get's swept under the rug of Assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pedant said...

    In this case, I agree with Dr Hunter. The quote of Johnson and Losos oversimplifies a complicated issue. (I am trusting that their two sentences were not taken out of context.)


    I'll respectfully disagree. The Living World was not written to be an in-depth advanced graduate level text. It was written as an intorductory freshman level text for non biology majors. As such, it cannot be expected to delve into depth in every last topic in modern evolutionary biology.

    Certainly there are many additional external selection pressures that come into play when discussing evolution at the species level and above - geographic distributions, behavioral differences, population vs. population interactions, etc. Still, the basic steps of small genetic variations that accumulate in each subsequent generation remain exactly the same.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thorton:

    The Living World was not written to be an in-depth advanced graduate level text.

    Yes, I see that there is a pedagogical angle here, and Johnson/Losos may be justified in wanting to avoid potentially confusing technicalities in their general biology text.

    Still, at more advanced levels, understanding mechanisms of macroevolution seems to be a major challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pedant said...

    Yes, I see that there is a pedagogical angle here, and Johnson/Losos may be justified in wanting to avoid potentially confusing technicalities in their general biology text.

    Still, at more advanced levels, understanding mechanisms of macroevolution seems to be a major challenge.


    Agreed. But as comedian Dara Obrian noted: "Science doesn't know everything, and it knows it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it would stop."

    ReplyDelete
  9. With holidays approaching let me be first to wish everyone Merry Christmas.

    To our atheist friends I wish Merry Darwinmas.

    To my buddy Pedant a special bonus Happy Festivus !

    ReplyDelete
  10. Zachriel,

    You were explaining in a previous post how uncrossed branches form a tree. I'm assuming that you are going somewhere with this in regards to evidence for evolution.

    The problem with your "tree" and forming a nested hierarchy of the "leaves" is not that a tree can't be organized into a nested hierarchy structure with group labels showing containment.
    The problem is that the evolutionary tree itself is a conjecture.

    If you give the branches artifical labels, then the tree structure is transformed into a nested hierarchy. How is the tree determined? By a tautology between assuming descent and homology based on an assumption of parsimony. It's all conjecture.

    Evolution is not the only reason for an "objective" nested hierarchy. You gave the Russian doll illustration.

    At best you have a weak position on this. Evolution gives a nested hierarchy structure, except when the lines are crossed. And, design is not capable of forming an objective nested hierarchy, except when it does. Such is the foundation of the mountain of evidence for evolution. Folks this is the best that evolutionary evidence gets.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thorton:

    "Science doesn't know everything, and it knows it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it would stop."
    ====

    Ah yes, science just thrives on controversy. Why science is just the ever self-correcting mechanism and champion of all that is truth. Science is only self-correcting in the light of individual scientists loaded with all the same imperfections that are common to all the majority of mankind and are willing and able to be corrected and change their minds for the benefit of not repeating the same stupid mistakes that have plunged our planet into almost complete ruin. Unfortunately history indicates such behavioral changes won't be coming anytime soon. Hence change for the better will have to be forced upon humankind one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Evolutionism is proved fact. Period. Both tedious and really should be a hate crime to try and cast doubt here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pedant says:
    ---------
    In this case, I agree with Dr Hunter. The quote of Johnson and Losos oversimplifies a complicated issue. (I am trusting that their two sentences were not taken out of context.)
    ---------

    I also disagree, besides the reasons given by Thorton, Cornelius is not saying that micro-macroevolution is a complicated issue. He's saying that Johnson and Losos are being somehow dishonest about the micro-macro argument.

    Cornelius says:
    ---------
    This logic is so riddled with problems it is difficult to know where to start. What Johnson and Losos have in mind when they refer to “most biologists” is, of course, evolutionists. Evolution skeptics certainly do not think it is obvious that adaptation mechanisms also produce entirely new designs.
    ---------

    Really? Please show how "evolution skeptics" represent a significant part of biologists. Do they represent "most of biologists"? Half of biologists? Even a tenth?

    Cornelius says:
    ---------
    This question also arises for a second reason. Setting aside evolution’s metaphysical undermining of science, the mere fact that the testimony is from evolutionists means Johnson and Losos argument is circular.
    ---------

    Where is the argument? They are making a factual statement on the opinion of a group of scientists. There is no argument at all in that fragment! You're not supposed to read every sentence of the book as an attack to creationism.

    In fact, the rest of Cornelius' rant may be answered simply repeating that: You're not supposed to read every sentence of the book as an attack to creationism. They are just discussing aspects of evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Actually, geoxus, to be fair to Dr Hunter, his quotation was taken from Section 15.3 Evolution's Critics of the Johnson/Losos book, where, in the subsection entitled Arguments Advanced by Darwin’s Critics, they answer the objection “No scientist has come up with an experiment where fish evolve into frogs and leap away from predators.”

    Here is the full quote:

    Is microevolution (evolution within a species) the mechanism that has produced macroevolution (evolution among species)? Most biologists that have studied the problem think so. The differences between breeds produced by artificial selection—such as Chihuahuas, dachshunds, and greyhounds—are more distinctive than differences between wild canine species. Laboratory selection experiments with insects easily create forms that cannot interbreed and thus would in nature be considered different species. Thus, production of radically different forms has indeed been observed, repeatedly. To object that evolution still does not explain really major differences, like between fish and amphibians, simply takes us back to point 2—these changes take millions of years, and are seen clearly in the fossil record.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hat tip to RobertC, who said on this blog (November 9, 2010 5:56 AM):

    The PDF of Chapter 15 is available online:
    (Massive link, GOOGLE: "McGraw Hill Chapter 15 Evolution and Natural Selection" yields it as the first hit).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Pedant, you consider "Chihuahuas, dachshunds, and greyhounds" radically different forms? Dog breeds and fruit fly's are evidence for macroevolution? The only evidence this points to is how skimpy the evidence for macroevolution is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rhod said...

    Evolutionism is proved fact. Period. Both tedious and really should be a hate crime to try and cast doubt here.

    ========================

    How dare they question evolution! A hate crime, perhaps you think they should be sentenced to death?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Neal Tedford: You were explaining in a previous post how uncrossed branches form a tree. I'm assuming that you are going somewhere with this in regards to evidence for evolution.

    Yes, once we are sure of our foundation.

    Neal Tedford: The problem is that the evolutionary tree itself is a conjecture.

    It's the scientific hypothesis (tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its empirical consequences) under discussion.

    This might be consider off-topic for this thread, but the historical divergence is actually directly relevant to understanding the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pedant: The quote of Johnson and Losos oversimplifies a complicated issue.

    Next thing you know they'll be teaching students that the Earth is an oblate sphere that follows an elliptical orbit.

    You're right, of course. They do oversimplify. They should mention that there are some distinctions between mechanisms of microevolution and macroevolution. They include everything from how new species form to giant comets impacting the Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks Pedant, and sorry Cornelius for the second point. I stay corrected. Though a little more context wouldn't have hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Zachriel, evolutionists don't get past the generalizations... except when it comes to microevolution.

    Evolution is not just oversimplified for the high school books, it stays oversimplified at all levels of education and study.

    The fairy tale stuff in the high school books is still fairy tale stuff in the evolutionary post graduate studies at Harvard. Lots of detail on the microevolution stuff, but its the same old assumptions based on subjective views of the data that are the backbone of the theory itself. Even your nested hierarchy argument is completely subjective in its assertions.

    It is sad that evolutionists try to prop up even the weakest of arguments. Any thinking person can see through the smoke screen and it takes away any scientific credibility. But the weakest of arguments is really all evolutionists have, so I guess it makes sense that they bar the door and are so sensitive to skepticism. Evolutionists have less credibility than global warming proponents trying to hold a conference during a blizzard.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Neal Tedford: Evolution is not just oversimplified for the high school books, it stays oversimplified at all levels of education and study.

    Hardly. Nor would you be a good judge. Our previous discussion showed that you have troubles with basic concepts children learn in secondary school.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tedford the idiot said...

    Zachriel, evolutionists don't get past the generalizations... except when it comes to microevolution.

    Evolution is not just oversimplified for the high school books, it stays oversimplified at all levels of education and study.


    How would you know Tedford? What undergrad and graduate level courses on biology or genetics have you taken?

    Did they teach you to lie about things you don't know in your pastor training?

    ReplyDelete
  24. There certainly are evolutionists who conclude that macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.

    Here's link to the full paper by DH Erwin that Cornelius refers to:

    Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

    Erwin explores some of the same ideas in a short essay in the NY Times here:

    Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologists Dream of a Paradigm Shift

    This is his concluding paragraph from the NY Times essay:

    Does all this add up to a new modern synthesis? There is certainly no consensus among evolutionary biologists, but development, ecology, genetics and paleontology all provide new perspectives on how evolution operates, and how we should study it. None of these concerns provide a scintilla of hope for creationists, as scientific investigations are already providing new insights into these issues. The foundations for a paradigm shift may be in place, but it may be some time before we see whether a truly novel perspective develops or these tensions are accommodated within an expanded modern synthesis.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Johnson and Losos: "Is microevolution (evolution within a species) the mechanism that has produced macroevolution (evolution among species)? Most biologists that have studied the problem think so." [302]

    Cornelius: "This logic is so riddled with problems it is difficult to know where to start. What Johnson and Losos have in mind when they refer to “most biologists” is, of course, evolutionists."

    Seeing as how most biologists accept evolution, what is the problem with this statement?

    ReplyDelete
  26. CH: "The answer is that evolution has substantially damaged science, and the teaching of science."

    This is a common mantra from CH that evolution has significantly damaged science. He has also stated at various times that evolution is not "good" or "proper" science.

    What has been missing though from this argument is any attempt to provide an example or benchmark of what CH considers is good science. I know I've asked before but CH has never provide a satisfactory response. If we have this info, it would help us better understand how evolution is faulty by comparing it to a more robust example of science.

    So how about it CH? As a special gift for the season can you direct us to what you consider is good science? Or, as you like to say with your catchphrase, has it all been tainted by religion?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Neal Tedford, in reference to your complaint about the relevance of the variation achieved by artificial selection to variation of forms occuring by natural selection, consider this classic analysis by Darwin in Origin of Species, First Edition, Chapter 1 (Here, he is discussing the variations in pigeons under domestication; the same could be said about dogs.):

    In the skeletons of the several breeds, the development of the bones of the face in length and breadth and curvature differs enormously. The shape, as well as the breadth and length of the ramus of the lower jaw, varies in a highly remarkable manner. The number of the caudal and sacral vertebræ vary; as does the number of the ribs, together with their relative breadth and the presence of processes. The size and shape of the apertures in the sternum are highly variable; so is the degree of divergence and relative size of the two arms of the furcula. The proportional width of the gape of mouth, the proportional length of the eyelids, of the orifice of the nostrils, of the tongue (not always in strict correlation with the length of beak), the size of the crop and of the upper part of the œsophagus; the development and abortion of the oil-gland; the number of the primary wing and caudal feathers; the relative length of wing and tail to each other and to the body; the relative length of leg and of the feet; the number of scutellæ on the toes, the development of skin between the toes, are all points of structure which are variable. The period at which the perfect plumage is acquired varies, as does the state of the down with which the nestling birds are clothed when hatched. The shape and size of the eggs vary. The manner of flight differs remarkably; as does in some breeds the voice and disposition. Lastly, in certain breeds, the males and females have come to differ to a slight degree from each other.

    Altogether at least a score of pigeons might be chosen, which if shown to an ornithologist, and he were told that they were wild birds, would certainly, I think, be ranked by him as well-defined species. Moreover, I do not believe that any ornithologist would place the English carrier, the short-faced tumbler, the runt, the barb, pouter, and fantail in the same genus; more especially as in each of these breeds several truly-inherited sub-breeds, or species as he might have called them, could be shown him.

    ReplyDelete
  28. geoxus:

    ===
    Thanks Pedant, and sorry Cornelius for the second point. I stay corrected. Though a little more context wouldn't have hurt.
    ===

    Thank you geoxus, and good point about adding context. I did add more context in earlier posts in this multi-part series on this textbook. But it won't hurt to repeat some of that.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Janfeld:

    ===
    CH: "The answer is that evolution has substantially damaged science, and the teaching of science."

    This is a common mantra from CH that evolution has significantly damaged science. He has also stated at various times that evolution is not "good" or "proper" science.

    What has been missing though from this argument is any attempt to provide an example or benchmark of what CH considers is good science.
    ===

    Well I think it is hardly controversial that good science should include (i) reasonably plausible explanations, (ii) forthright assessment of how one's theory compares with the evidence, and (iii) acknowledgement of one's metaphysics. Evolution lacks all three of these attributes.

    ===
    I know I've asked before but CH has never provide a satisfactory response. If we have this info, it would help us better understand how evolution is faulty by comparing it to a more robust example of science.

    So how about it CH? As a special gift for the season can you direct us to what you consider is good science? Or, as you like to say with your catchphrase, has it all been tainted by religion?
    ===

    I hope my explanation suffices. But was it necessary? When evolutionists propose an unlikely explanation, insist that it is a fact, motivate and justify their ideas with religion, and then deny any such influence, then isn't it obvious there is something wrong with the "science" ?

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Zachriel, your nested hierarchy argument didn't get off the ground for the simple reason that it can not be anything more than weak and subjective evidence for evolution, because the nested hierarchy is not always a property of evolutionary patterns and the patterns found in nature do cross.

    If A causes X
    and B causes X
    Then it can not be stated that the cause X is only A.

    By the way, the earth is an oblate sphere all the time. Your analogy is flawed.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. CH: "I hope my explanation suffices. But was it necessary? When evolutionists propose an unlikely explanation, insist that it is a fact, motivate and justify their ideas with religion, and then deny any such influence, then isn't it obvious there is something wrong with the "science" ?"

    No, your explanation doesn't suffice much at all, mainly because you haven't provided any examples.

    Yes, it is necessary because you are constantly telling us that evolution is "bad" science but never illustrate your point with examples of good science. Sure, the characteristics you list are helpful, but what scientific theory or disciple do you think embraces these? Answering this would go a long way to understanding and appreciating your POV.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Neal Tedford: By the way, the earth is an oblate sphere all the time. Your analogy is flawed.

    There is a prolate aspect associated with the Moon's tidal pull, plus some hypsometric variation. You just made Zachriel's point for him.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Neal Tedford: your nested hierarchy argument didn't get off the ground ...

    We didn't present an argument. We stated and tried to illustrate some simple facts about the relationship between trees and nested hierarchies. This occurred over several weeks across several threads, and the last we looked, you were confused by Banyan trees.

    Neal Tedford: for the simple reason that it can not be anything more than weak and subjective evidence for evolution, because the nested hierarchy is not always a property of evolutionary patterns and the patterns found in nature do cross.

    You had claimed there was a single, objective nested hierarchy for iPods. When pressed, you never provided that nested hierarchy.

    Neal Tedford: If A causes X
    and B causes X
    Then it can not be stated that the cause X is only A.


    And perhaps one day we can have that discussion, but that discussion will continue to elude us for as long as you continue to hem and haw about nested hierarchies.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Pedant: The quote of Johnson and Losos oversimplifies a complicated issue.

    Zachriel: Next thing you know they'll be teaching students that the Earth is an oblate sphere that follows an elliptical orbit.

    Neal Tedford: By the way, the earth is an oblate sphere all the time.

    John: There is a prolate aspect associated with the Moon's tidal pull, plus some hypsometric variation. You just made Zachriel's point for him.

    Ah, creases and bumps called "mountains," and tugs and pulls on its orbit, by Jove.

    ReplyDelete
  37. John:

    "There is a prolate aspect associated with the Moon's tidal pull, plus some hypsometric variation. You just made Zachriel's point for him."
    ====

    Oh that's right, Scientists have recently claimed Astrology is a fact. Sorry, I meant the newest terminology "Seasonal Biology" LOL
    ----

    ReplyDelete
  38. John and Zachriel, the earth is always an oblate sphere regardless of tides and mountain building. Living organisms do not always fit into an "objective" nested hierarchy (as evolutionists like to use that word "objective"). Sorry your analogy is still flawed.

    Evolutionists are always saying stuff like "such and such overwhelingly confirms evolution, with few exceptions". Funny, in other fields of science the "exceptions" tend to be called contradictions to the evidence. ONLY in evoluton... well maybe CLIMATEGATE also.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Neal Tedford: the earth is always an oblate sphere regardless of tides and mountain building.

    An oblate sphere has rotational symmetry. The Earth does not have perfect rotational symmetry along any axis, hence it is only an approximate oblate spheroid.

    ReplyDelete
  40. An 'approximate' oblate spheroid.... LOL

    Your being redundant to cover your flawed analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Neal Tedford: An 'approximate' oblate spheroid.

    To avoid confusion, we said oblate sphere, as did you.

    Neal Tedford: the earth is always an oblate sphere regardless of tides and mountain building.

    In any case,

    Spheroid: A spheroid, or ellipsoid of revolution is a quadric surface obtained by rotating an ellipse about one of its principal axes; in other words, an ellipsoid with two equal semi-diameters.

    Ellipsoid: x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 + z^2/c^2 = 1
    Spheroid: (x^2 + y^2)/a^2 + z^2/c^2 = 1

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Tedford the idiot said...

    Zachriel, give it up.


    Why should he Tedford? Zachriel has been doing an excellent job of dismantling your ignorance based jibbering. That it makes you look like a complete fool is just a byproduct.

    If you don't want scientifically knowledgeable people showing up your ignorance and stupidity, maybe you should stop posting ignorant and stupid claims.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Neal: "Zachriel, give it up."

    Neal, does it hurt to be that dense?

    Or do you genuinely not realize you're making Zachriel's point for him?

    And how's that iPod nested hierarchy coming along? 31.

    ReplyDelete
  44. CH: "Well I think it is hardly controversial that good science should include (i) reasonably plausible explanations, (ii) forthright assessment of how one's theory compares with the evidence, and (iii) acknowledgement of one's metaphysics. Evolution lacks all three of these attributes."

    Still waiting for examples of good science from CH, not just generalizations. Since CH thinks good science can so easily be classified using the scheme above, it shouldn't be difficult to illustrate with actual examples.

    It would also be interesting to know whether CH also acknowledges his own metaphysics and what they might be.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Derick,

    The IPOD product hierarchy is right on the Apple web page. Whenever you get the idea that this question was not answered then go to apple.com. You can save time by making it a favorite in your Internet browser. If you can't accept the best fit that they use and millions of customers agree with, then nothing will meet your inconsistent expectations.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Tedford the idiot said...

    Derick,

    The IPOD product hierarchy is right on the Apple web page. Whenever you get the idea that this question was not answered then go to apple.com. You can save time by making it a favorite in your Internet browser. If you can't accept the best fit that they use and millions of customers agree with, then nothing will meet your inconsistent expectations.


    Poor Tedford. Still too stupid to understand that having an 'accepted convention' out of many equally weighted possibilities and having a single 'best' fit are two different concepts, scientifically and mathematically speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And Neal, again, it's not like I'm asking you to do anything I wouldn't be willing to do. Name any four (or five) species of vertebrate, and I'll give you a 'best fit' nested hierarchy of them. Here's an example:

    {fish {penguin {cat, dolphin}}}

    ReplyDelete
  48. Derick,

    {fish {penguin {cat, dolphin}}}


    This in itself is not a nested hierarchy because this group does not show containment. We've been down this road before and how you and Zachriel explain it by implying that the entities are summative. Summative groups are arbitrary and trival to form. No wonder you find any examples I give as inadequate, because you do not know how to present a proper nested hierarchy.

    Chordata(mammals) is a basic example of a nested hierarchy. What you are trying to show for purposes of evolution is a basic pattern found in nature of organisms being grouped into increasingly inclusive sets. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Neal Tedford: fish {penguin {cat, dolphin}}}

    This in itself is not a nested hierarchy because this group does not show containment.


    Oh really? Cats and dolphins aren't contained in a class like 'mammals'? Penguins, cats, and dolphins aren't contained in a class like 'tetrapods'?

    Then tell me Neal, how do you classify iPods in a way that does show containment? Thirty Three.

    ReplyDelete
  50. {fish {penguin {cat, dolphin}}}

    Neal Tedford: This in itself is not a nested hierarchy because this group does not show containment.

    Of course it does. The notation is subsumptive (the elements of the subset are also elements of the superset), but we can also show it in standard, wordy form as follows:

    {cat, dolphin} ⊂ {penguin, cat, dolphin} ⊂ {fish, penguin, cat, dolphin}.

    We might names the sets like this:

    Mammals ⊂ Amniotes ⊂ Vertebrates.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Zachriel,

    "Mammals ⊂ Amniotes ⊂ Vertebrates."

    Yes this is a nested hierarchy!!! Naming the sets is NOT optional. Either name them or your not correctly showing containment.

    Derick, do you see Zachriels nested hierarchy? "Mammals ⊂ Amniotes ⊂ Vertebrates."

    ReplyDelete
  52. 4th time posting. Should have been after first post from today:

    Neal Tedford: "The IPOD product hierarchy is right on the Apple web page. Whenever you get the idea that this question was not answered then go to apple.com. You can save time by making it a favorite in your Internet browser. If you can't accept the best fit that they use and millions of customers agree with, then nothing will meet your inconsistent expectations."

    I'm sorry Neal, but you must have found a hidden page on Apple's site. All I see at apple dot com is: {shuffle, nano, classic, touch, Apple TV} That's a list, not a nested hierarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Neal Tedford: Derick, do you see Zachriels nested hierarchy? "Mammals ⊂ Amniotes ⊂ Vertebrates."

    Yes, I do see it. Tell me Neal, what would that nested hierarchy look like if you switched out the names of animal groups for names of iPod models?

    Thirty Four.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Neal Tedford: Yes this is a nested hierarchy!!! Naming the sets is NOT optional. Either name them or your not correctly showing containment.

    Mammals = {cat, dolphin}. Do you know what equality means? They are just different representations of the same thing.

    In mathematics, especially in set theory, a set is a subset of a set B if A is "contained" inside B... The set {1, 2} is a proper subset of {1, 2, 3}.

    {cat, dolphin} is a subset of {penguin, cat, dolphin}, that is, {cat, dolphin} is contained in {penguin, cat, dolphin}.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Derick,

    "Mammals ⊂ Amniotes ⊂ Vertebrates."

    Shuffles ⊂ iPODS ⊂ iDevices

    A "best fit" nested hierarchy follows the pattern of grouping entities based on shared characteristics with the least inclusive group on the left (Shuffles or Mammals) and the most inclusive group on the right side (iDevices or Vertebrates). The example here is based on the current Apple product line. The idevices share many things in common (often the same iOS, IC's, look and feel,etc) so they are easily grouped from least inclusive to most inclusive based on shared characteristics.

    There are of course differences between iDevices and living organisms. Living organisms tend to have more overall crossing of traits between groups and each individual organism possesses more unique traits (size, strength, colors, DNA, etc).

    ReplyDelete
  56. Zachriel,

    That's all fine, but you need to show the containment groups if you are to illustrate a proper nested hierarchy. Why be imprecise and sloppy when you don't have to?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Neal Tedford: Shuffles ⊂ iPODS ⊂ iDevices

    You were asked for a nested hierarchy of iPods, not iDevices; in particular, shuffles, nanos, touch and classic. All you have provided is a single subset, Shuffles ⊂ iPODS.

    Neal Tedford: That's all fine, but you need to show the containment groups if you are to illustrate a proper nested hierarchy. Why be imprecise and sloppy when you don't have to?

    {cat, dolphin} ⊂ {penguin, cat, dolphin} ⊂ {fish, penguin, cat, dolphin} is precise and unambiguous.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Neal Tedford:
    "Mammals ⊂ Amniotes ⊂ Vertebrates.

    Shuffles ⊂ iPODS ⊂ iDevices"

    What a spectacular failure, again.

    Uh, Neal, you left out some devices. Your claim was that iPods can be arranged into a single 'best fit' nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits. Plural. So where do the nano, touch, classic, and Apple TV, fit in? (my recent inclusion of the Apple TV is based on your criteria of the iPod page on apple dot com.)

    Shuffles ⊂ iPODS ⊂ iDevices

    would be like me saying:

    Cats ⊂ Animals ⊂ Life

    ...after claiming that I could arrange cats, dolphins, fish, and penguins into a nested hierarchy.


    Incredible. Thirty five times and you're still avoiding backing up your assertion with an example. An example that consists of 4 or 5 words. It was humorous at first watching you squirm. Now it's just sad. You claim that iPods can be arranged in a single best fit nested hierarchy without providing an example of said hierarchy, while at the same time lecturing us about the definition of nested hierarchies.

    When someone picks a bad example of a point they're trying to illustrate and are subsequently shown just how bad the example is and why, most people usually relent. They don't even have to concede the point that they were trying to make, just that they picked a bad example. You, Pastor Tedford, are fighting tooth and nail to defend an absurd claim you made. All the hand waving in the world isn't going to change the fact that you've painted yourself into a corner. I think you know it, too. I had a friend in middle school like you who would never back down from anything he said, no matter what, even if he simply misspoke. You're trying to save face, but it's having the opposite effect. Far from looking infallible, you look foolish. You've got three options:

    1. Continue to flail about, finding creative ways to try to distract people from noticing that you've failed to back up your assertion several dozen times now.

    2. Admit that iPods are just a bad example of designed objects that can be organized into a single, objective, 'best fit' nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits.

    3. Or, finally, once-and-for all, prove us wrong and shut us up by providing a single, objective, 'best fit' nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits for the following objects: iPod shuffle, iPod nano, iPod Classic, iPod Touch, and Apple TV. You may present your nested hierarchy in any commonly accepted form, either with brackets: {object 1 {object 2 {object 3, object 4}, the '⊂' sign, or you can draw them out like I've done several times now.

    My money is that you'll continue to pursue option 1.

    Thirty Five.

    ReplyDelete
  59. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Derick and Zachriel,

    Since all the iPod devices are grouped under the iPod group, I'll need to include the iPhone to illustrate clearly an additional rank in the hierarchy.

    As a comparison to your biological sets above, a sample of the current Apple product line is illustrated as the following sets:

    {itouch,nano} ⊂ {itouch, nano, iphone}

    Illustrating it as a nested hierarchy would be:

    iPODS ⊂ iDevices

    Nano's and itouch are grouped together and contained within the iPOD group (they are all PMP's) and the more inclusive group as iDevices. iPhones are grouped under iDevices but not as iPods. We could also include iPad,

    The terms Nano, Shuffle, iPhone, etc are containment or parent names in the nested hierarchy. The actual devices come in a limited number of color and memory options. Other than that the units are precisely the same (within their family group) other than perhaps serial numbers on the chips and minor markings like that.

    As a rough comparison to biological rankings, the terms Shuffle and Nano could be likened to "family" or "order". The term iPod and iPhone would be likened to "Class" and iDevices perhaps as "Phylum".

    The Apple.com web page was structured around a basic and easy nested hierarchy organizational structure of its product lines. Within living organisms the hierarchical structure points easily to a common designer. It really is an incredible design concept to be able to take a basic form and tweak it into a variety of land, air and sea animals. On a smaller level Apple takes the basic OS and technology platform and chips and utilizes it throughout the iDevice product line bringing benefits to the company and consumers by doing so (the synergy concept). Evolutionists have often asked, "why did God make things look like they evolved"? But I could easily ask, "why did God create many distinct forms of life to give evolutionists such a hard time"?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Neal, your last post was 314 words - exactly 310 words longer than is necessary to provide a nested hierarchy of the following 4 devices: nano, shuffle, classic, touch.

    Neal: {itouch,nano} ⊂ {itouch, nano, iphone}

    Well, you've worked your way up to listing two iPods out of the four. But how do the shuffle and the classic fit in? And wait a second - are you saying that an iPod touch is grouped more closely with an iPod nano than with an iPhone? An iPod touch is essentially an iPhone minus one radio component, a slightly different rear facing camera, and a metal back instead of glass.

    Neal: Illustrating it as a nested hierarchy would be:

    iPODS ⊂ iDevices


    Again, that's like saying.:

    {cat, fish, dolphin, penguin} ⊂ Animals

    That's not very specific. How would you group the iPod nano, shuffle, shuffle, classic, and touch into a hierarchy?

    Neal: Nano's and itouch are grouped together and contained within the iPOD group (they are all PMP's) and the more inclusive group as iDevices. iPhones are grouped under iDevices but not as iPods. We could also include iPad,

    Neal, where are you getting the term 'iDevice'? It's not on Apple's website anywhere. It's not a classification that any reseller uses. Are you coining it yourself or have you heard it somewhere else? (similarly, Apple doesn't make a product called an 'iTouch') If you're calling anything Apple makes with an 'i' in the name an 'iDevice', where do iMacs fit in? Are they grouped in the 'iDevices' category, or are they grouped with other Macs?

    Neal: As a rough comparison to biological rankings, the terms Shuffle and Nano could be likened to "family" or "order". The term iPod and iPhone would be likened to "Class" and iDevices perhaps as "Phylum".

    We agreed before that 'nano' and 'shuffle' would be analogous to 'species', but whatever, we'll go with family. It is easy to group by family in the animal kingdom. Let's take some families that our previous examples belong to: fish-specifically salmon, housecats, bottlenose dolphins and Gentoo Penguins:

    (salmonidae {spheniscidae {felidae, delphinidae}}}

    That could also be represented:

    {felidae, delphinidae} (mammals) ⊂ {felidae, delphinidae, spheniscidae}(amniotes) ⊂ {salmonidae, spheniscidae, felidae, delphinidae} vertebrates

    continued below:

    ReplyDelete
  62. ...continued from above:

    Neal: The Apple.com web page was structured around a basic and easy nested hierarchy organizational structure of its product lines.

    Again Neal, you'll have to be more specific as it seems you've stumbled upon a secret page. Apple dot com currently has a picture of the Beatles, and some links to product pages. As of this writing, the only reference to an iPod is the link to the iPod product page, which doesn't have this 'basic and easy' nested hierarchy you're referring to. If it's so darned basic and easy, why haven't you been able to type it into one of the text fields on this blog and click 'submit'?

    Neal: On a smaller level Apple takes the basic OS and technology platform and chips and utilizes it throughout the iDevice product line bringing benefits to the company and consumers by doing so (the synergy concept).

    BZZZZZZZZZZZT!!! Wrong. iPods don't all run the same OS or have the same chips. One iPod (the touch) runs the same OS as three other non-iPod devices: The iPhone, the iPad, and the Apple TV. No two lines of iPod to my knowledge have the exact same processor, and each may run a different OS, depending on what generation you're talking about. The original OS that ran the first iPods was bought from a third-party company, and iOS, which runs the current iPod touch, is a scaled down version of Mac OS X, an OS whose core technologies were developed at NeXT, not Apple.

    Neal, this is getting ridiculous. You've repeatedly made the claim that the four lines of iPods can be grouped into a single, objective, 'best fit' nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits; yet you have repeatedly failed to present this hierarchy. Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, put this argument out of its misery by either admitting that iPods were a bad example of your point, or simply type out this nested hierarchy that you claim is so easy to make.

    Thirty-six.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Neal Tedford:
    {itouch,nano} ⊂ {itouch, nano, iphone}

    So, this?

    I'm gonna have to ask you why you'd group the iPod touch as being more similar to the iPod nano than the iPhone. Is it the fact that it's labeled 'iPod'?

    And how do the shuffle and classic fit in?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Derick,

    As I said many times before, the Shuffle and Classic are in the IPOD group along with the Nano and Touch (correction noted on the name).

    I didn't include them last time in the sets simply to save space on the line, but as I said earlier several times, they are all grouped as iPods. As far as the term "i device", it is not something original with me, but has been used previously to refer to these Apple products (MC Marketing Charts, etc). Fascinating though, Zachriel gave simple letter names to animals groups previously and you did not object. Your inconsistency and bias is clearly showing. Yes, you are grossly inconsistent.

    {touch, nano, shuffle, classic } ⊂ {touch, nano, shuffle, classic iphone}

    The iphone is very much like a Touch with the main exception being the phone. The phone hardware is not a minor 3rd wheel on the Touch, though. Leave it up to an evolutionist to minimize something in order to try to make a weak point. Maybe you could have made the "one radio component" in your garage during high school and beat Steve Jobs to it. Perhaps middle school. The reason for classifying the iPods together is that they are all PMP's and not phones. The Phone hardware is distinct enough from the PMP iPod line to give it a separate rank... at least the rest of the world does.

    The iPODS do share similar technologies with each other. For example, the Shuffle and Nano both use the same flash device and Audio Codec. While the Nano doesn't have an iOS, what is does have are parts of the iOS adapted to it.

    However, each member of an iPod product group or family is similar enough to be logically grouped together. For example a blue Shuffle is definitely closer to another Shuffle than it is to a blue Nano. It would not make any more sense to group a blue Shuffle closer to a blue Nano than it would be to group animals by hair color. Neither would they logically be classed by memory size dispite your previously weak argument to do so. You raised this objection previously and it is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

    You seriously should evaluate your
    inconsistency. Some of the things you say make it appear that you are a bit confused about what a nested hierarchy is.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Neal Tedford: As I said many times before, the Shuffle and Classic are in the IPOD group along with the Nano and Touch (correction noted on the name).

    So you can't show that Ipods form an objective nested hierarchy. That's all you had to say.

    Neal Tedford: Fascinating though, Zachriel gave simple letter names to animals groups previously and you did not object.

    You were provided a tree and shown that the leaves form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch — by necessity.

    V = {D, C}
    W = {P, R}
    X = {D, C, P, R}
    Y = {A}
    Z = {A, D, C, P, R}

    Please note that

    V ⊂ X
    W ⊂ X
    X ⊂ Z
    Y ⊂ Z

    The sets are also summative.

    V ∪ W = X
    X ∪ Y = Z

    Or we might represent it like this:

    {A, {{D, C}, {P, R}}}

    When you claimed that iPods formed an objective nested hierarchy, then that means some iPods group more closely than others, just like D and C are more closely related in our tree than either are to A or P. Now you say iPods are just a list under a larger classification.

    In other words, you were confused and are still confused.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Neal Tedford: As I said many times before, the Shuffle and Classic are in the IPOD group along with the Nano and Touch (correction noted on the name).

    So, is that a concession that iPods cannot be grouped into a nested hierarchy, only listed together? It's hard to tell by your tone. On one hand, you haven't provided this mysterious nested hierarchy over 36 exchanges, and you seem to say here that they can only be listed together. On the other hand, you blather on for a few more paragraphs as if you're presenting some kind of argument that backs up your ridiculous claim. Which is it?

    Neal Tedford: I didn't include them last time in the sets simply to save space on the line, but as I said earlier several times, they are all grouped as iPods.

    So, in a 314 word post, you left off two words only to save space? Two of the four you were supposed to present in a nested hierarchy? Riiiight.

    Neal Tedford: As far as the term "i device", it is not something original with me, but has been used previously to refer to these Apple products (MC Marketing Charts, etc). Fascinating though, Zachriel gave simple letter names to animals groups previously and you did not object. Your inconsistency and bias is clearly showing. Yes, you are grossly inconsistent.

    I did not object to Zachriel's examples because his were precise and well defined. I asked you to precisely define 'iDevice' and you have not. It is not a term that shows up on the MC Marketing Charts website. Simple letter names are sufficient if they are precise. For example, I could abbreviate 'mammals' as 'm', 'amniotes' as 'a', and 'vertebrates' as 'v', and provide the grouping:

    m ⊂ a ⊂ v

    Show me an error in Zachriel's example and we'll ask him about it.

    Neal Tedford: {touch, nano, shuffle, classic } ⊂ {touch, nano, shuffle, classic iphone}

    So, this?* AGAIN, this is not a nested hierarchy of iPods. Surely you must see this, because it looks like you've done at least some reading on nested hierarchies. {iPhone {touch, nano, shuffle, classic }} is simply not a nested hierarchy of iPods; it's merely a list.

    continued below:

    ReplyDelete
  67. ...continued from above:

    Neal Tedford: The iphone is very much like a Touch with the main exception being the phone. The phone hardware is not a minor 3rd wheel on the Touch, though. Leave it up to an evolutionist to minimize something in order to try to make a weak point. Maybe you could have made the "one radio component" in your garage during high school and beat Steve Jobs to it.

    Uh, Neal, I didn't say the phone components were simple, I said they were absent on the touch. Reading comprehension fail. The iPone came first; the touch is essentially an iPhone without the phone hardware. The phone hardware isn't a 'minor 3rd wheel' on the touch because it doesn't exist on the touch. If you meant to say 'iPhone' instead of 'touch' there, that's not relevant either; I didn't comment on the complexity of the phone hardware, just the absence of it on the touch.

    Neal Tedford: The reason for classifying the iPods together is that they are all PMP's and not phones. The Phone hardware is distinct enough from the PMP iPod line to give it a separate rank... at least the rest of the world does.

    Neal, the iPhone is different from the iPod touch; but the iPhone is less different from the iPod touch than the iPod touch is from the shuffle. Yet you still insist that iPods can be classified into an objective 'best fit' nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits for some reason. (Without providing that nested hierarchy, of course.)

    Neal Tedford: The iPODS do share similar technologies with each other. For example, the Shuffle and Nano both use the same flash device and Audio Codec. While the Nano doesn't have an iOS, what is does have are parts of the iOS adapted to it.

    Exactly: a mix-and-match, like designers often do. A mix-and-match that in this case destroys the ability to make an objective nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits.

    Neal Tedford: However, each member of an iPod product group or family is similar enough to be logically grouped together. For example a blue Shuffle is definitely closer to another Shuffle than it is to a blue Nano. It would not make any more sense to group a blue Shuffle closer to a blue Nano than it would be to group animals by hair color.

    Neal, we've already been over this several times. We agreed that variation within each 'kind' of iPod could be treated as analogous to individuals within species, to simplify things. But you've said several dozen times now that you can group the following 'kinds' of iPods into a nested hierarchy: iPod shuffle, iPod nano, iPod classic, iPod touch.

    continued below:

    ReplyDelete
  68. continued from above:

    Neal Tedford: We agreed that Neither would they logically be classed by memory size dispite your previously weak argument to do so. You raised this objection previously and it is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

    Neal, you've been visiting bizarro world again. I didn't argue that iPods could be logically classed by memory size or color; I argued the opposite - that they couldn't. I even made a chart showing why grouping by color vs size would be arbitrary. It was a response to your claim that iPods could be organized into a best fit nested hierarchy. Until you later excluded color and size variations within each line, making a claim about 'iPods can be...' is taken to mean all iPods, unless otherwise stated. You later clarified that you didn't mean that every single iPod variant could be organized in a nested hierarchy, just the different lines. After you clarified, I stopped asking you about that.

    Neal Tedford: You seriously should evaluate your
    inconsistency. Some of the things you say make it appear that you are a bit confused about what a nested hierarchy is.


    You seriously should evaluate your incompetence on this subject. Almost everything you say makes it clear that you are utterly and completely confused about what a nested hierarchy is.

    Even if Zachriel had gotten a detail wrong about nested hierarchies, (which he hasn't as far as my memory serves) I'm not discussing his claims; I'm discussing your claim that the different types of iPods, (shuffle, nano, classic and touch) can be arranged into a single, objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits. Almost 40 times now you've failed to back up this unambiguous assertion by actually providing this 'simple, straightforward, easy, obvious' hierarchy consisting of four words and some symbols. Vacuous excuses like "Oh, I didn't provide it because I was trying to save space on the line," and "Oh, It's on Apple dot com somewhere" don't cut it. You've made a claim, you were called out on the veracity of that claim, and now, instead of conceding that the claim was inaccurate, you're *trying* (and failing) to save face by seeing how long you can doge questions.

    Neal, let me help you out. If you're at a loss for words, just copy and paste the following, free of charge: "O.k., I picked a bad example of designed objects that fit into a 'best fit' nested hierarchy; iPods don't because their designers were free to mix and match components, and in this case had an incentive to do so, so they did. However, this was merely a bad example; it has no bearing on my overall point that designers can make things that can be grouped into a 'best fit' hierarchy if they so choose. With that settled, we can move on to the next point..."

    Again, hopefully for the last time: (though I doubt it)

    Neal, what is the single, objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits for the following objects: shuffle, nano, classic, & touch?

    My bet is that in your next response, you will again fail to present this hierarchy you claim not only exists, but is , 'easy, straightforward, and obvious', and that you will continue to dodge the question. Prove me wrong.

    THIRTY SEVEN.

    ReplyDelete
  69. * had to remove link to get text to post:

    Neal Tedford: {touch, nano, shuffle, classic } ⊂ {touch, nano, shuffle, classic iphone}

    derickchildress dot com slash ipodexample6.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  70. Neal Tedford: I didn't include them last time in the sets simply to save space on the line, but as I said earlier several times, they are all grouped as iPods.

    ...So all iPods are grouped as iPods. Astounding. Next you'll be telling us that all animals are grouped as animals.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Zachriel,

    All the Shuffles group together as Shuffles under the iPod group.... Nanos group together as Nanos, etc. For example, a blue Shuffle is grouped with a red Shuffle rather than a blue Nano. They are all grouped under iPods. Not tough. Easy.

    Not only do YOU have to group the "leaves" on your tree and illustrate containment in order to SHOW a nested hierarchy and NOT an implied one, the "leaves" themselves are a manmade organization. My problem with your argument is not transforming the tree structure to a nested hierarchy it's with you pretending that a tree is somehow already a nested hierarchy. For some reason you feel ranking labels are not necessary. The bigger problem is the grand assumptions that evolutionists use to arrive at their cladograms. It's all based on a tautology.



    Do you understand that nested hierarchies are organized according to forming groups from most to least inclusiveness?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Derick,

    Regarding your link... do you understand that your diagram is missing group names? Without group names you have no nested hierarchy. It seems to be a common evolutionist corruption of a simple organization structure.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Neal Tedford: do you understand that your diagram is missing group names? Without group names you have no nested hierarchy.

    Uh, Neal, that diagram is of your failed attempt at a nested hierarchy:

    Neal Tedford: {touch, nano, shuffle, classic } ⊂ {touch, nano, shuffle, classic iphone}

    ...I simply illustrated it for you. Are you saying that If I put the group names in, it will magically become a nested hierarchy? Ok:

    www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample7.jpg

    Neal Tedford: Without group names you have no nested hierarchy. It seems to be a common evolutionist corruption of a simple organization structure.

    Neal, take a look at the bottom four options here: www.derickchildress.com/ipodexample4.jpg

    One of those 4 is the correct best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits. All of the species represented have names, but the names are left off for sake of simplicity. Is it enough to label the cat 'cat' or do I have to include its full species name felis catus? Does it cease to be a visual representation of a nested hierarchy if I just label it cat? Does it cease to be one if I label it with illustrations instead of words?

    As predicted, no nested hierarchy from you, just more dodging. If you don't like my charts of your 'hierarchies', why don't you produce your own? Why don't you produce anything? What is the nested hierarchy of iPods, Neal?


    THIRTY EIGHT

    ReplyDelete
  74. I said: "..So all iPods are grouped as iPods. Astounding. Next you'll be telling us that all animals are grouped as animals."

    Neal Tedford: All the Shuffles group together as Shuffles under the iPod group.... Nanos group together as Nanos, etc. They are all grouped under iPods. Not tough. Easy.

    Neal, thanks for confirming a second time that all iPods are iPods. But let me get this straight - all shuffles group together as shuffles? Nanos group together as nanos? Your insight on these matters is spectacular. The world would be lost without you. Can you also confirm that all animals group together as 'animals'?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Derick: So all iPods are grouped as iPods. Astounding. Next you'll be telling us that all animals are grouped as animals.

    Hard to argue with that!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Neal Tedford: They are all grouped under iPods. Not tough. Easy.

    Yes, all iPods are iPods. So can you arrange touch, nano, shuffle, classic into an objective nested hierarchy? You're the one who used this as an example of how artifacts fit into an objective nested hierarchy.

    Neal Tedford: Not only do YOU have to group the "leaves" on your tree and illustrate containment in order to SHOW a nested hierarchy and NOT an implied one, the "leaves" themselves are a manmade organization.

    An oak tree is an instance of a rooted tree structure. The leaves on an oak tree are not manmade, and the organization is due to its branching growth. With the given example, D and C are more closely related than either are to A or P.

    Neal Tedford: My problem with your argument is not transforming the tree structure to a nested hierarchy it's with you pretending that a tree is somehow already a nested hierarchy.

    A tree is a tree. The leaves when grouped by branch and stem form a nested hierarchy, by necessity.

    Neal Tedford: For some reason you feel ranking labels are not necessary.

    Labels are not required to show containment. {1, 2} is contained in {1, 2, 3} without the benefit of labels.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Derick and Zachriel,

    Derick, none of your pictures are in nested hierarchy format... your ranks are empty. Yes they are branching, but it is incomplete.

    You guys are trying to bend the rules to make a meaningless statement anyway. Ready to give up?

    I picked the iPod product line because it was very simple and straightforward. For example, it is not arbitrary to group the various Shuffles together. A blue Shuffle is grouped closer with a red Shuffle than a blue Nano. Do you see the simple hierarchy here?

    Blue Shuffle ⊂ Shuffles ⊂ iPods

    Blue 16gb Nano ⊂ Nanos ⊂ iPods

    Within each product category (Shuffle, Nano, Classic, Touch) the units are manufactured within precise specs and have a very limited number of options (some color and a couple memory sizes).

    At the higher ranking of "iPod" they all still share the most basic of materials: plastic, silicon, copper, flash and codec technologies, file compatibilities, etc. And very importantly, they are all PMP's. It is a logical and objective grouping based on similarity of components and function.

    This is not tough... very basic and elementary on purpose. Grouping Shuffles with Shuffles and Nano's with Nano's is something a preschooler could do. Like putting squares with squares and circles with circles.

    The evolutionists whole argument, popularized by Theobald, that designed products are not able to be grouped into an objective nested hierarchy is ungrounded. The evidence for evolution because of the nested hierarchy pattern is weak on several points.

    I understand what you are doing with the tree illustrations and we are not going to come to an agreement on the proper format of a nested hierarchy. I'm just taking the standard format and definition and simply going with that. You guys have some other kind of an interpretation beyond the standard format. You are good with that and I'm not.

    Shall we move on and discuss the pattern itself and not continue to beat on this discussion about format?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Neal Tedford: I picked the iPod product line because it was very simple and straightforward.

    Yes, and you've been unable to show how the major groupings of iPods; touch, nano, shuffle, classic; form a nested hierarchy.

    Neal Tedford (Nov 15): The APPLE IPOD product line easily fits into a "singular", "best", nested hierachy. It is a very successful product line.

    You've apparently abandoned that claim without acknowledging it.

    Neal Tedford (Nov 19): the IPOD product line would look like this in a fully nested hierarchy: IPOD(Shuffles,Nanos,Classic,Touch)

    That's a list, not a nested hierarchy.

    Neal Tedford: The evolutionists whole argument, popularized by Theobald, that designed products are not able to be grouped into an objective nested hierarchy is ungrounded.

    That's not the claim — as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. However, nested hierarchies of artifacts are the exception, not the rule.

    Neal Tedford: Blue 16gb Nano ⊂ Nanos ⊂ iPods

    Your latest claim is that nanos form an objective nested hierarchy when considering memory, color, touch, and other such traits? Is that correct?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Neal Tedford: I'm just taking the standard format and definition and simply going with that.

    No, you're not. This the standard definition: A nested hierarchy or inclusion hierarchy is a hierarchical ordering of nested sets.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Neal: Derick, none of your pictures are in nested hierarchy format... your ranks are empty. Yes they are branching, but it is incomplete.

    Astounding. Now you've made it up to a 323-word post without providing the 4 you claim you can. And Neal, for the second time, my illustration is of YOUR example. If you don't like my graph of what you said, nothing is stopping you from presenting your own. Simplified is not always the same thing as incomplete or inaccurate. Do I have to write felis catus, or will the word 'cat' suffice, or will a picture of a cat suffice? Is the earth an oblate spheroid?

    Neal: You guys are trying to bend the rules to make a meaningless statement anyway. Ready to give up?

    What meaningless statement are we trying to make? What rules are we bending? Again, I'm willing to bet you won't back up those assertions either.

    Neal: I picked the iPod product line because it was very simple and straightforward. For example, it is not arbitrary to group the various Shuffles together. A blue Shuffle is grouped closer with a red Shuffle than a blue Nano. Do you see the simple hierarchy here?

    Neal, we've already been over this. It IS arbitrary to group the shuffles by size rather than color, or color rather than size. Remember derickchildress.com/ipodexample3.jpg? Or do you now think you can pick the 'right' way to categorize shuffles? Is a blue 8GB shuffle grouped closer to a blue 16GB shuffle or a green 8GB shuffle? If all you're saying is that all shuffles group with all shuffles rather than with some nanos, then Duh. That's like saying all cats group with all cats rather than with some fish. That's not what you claimed, and that's not what you're being asked to explain.

    Neal: Blue Shuffle ⊂ Shuffles ⊂ iPods

    ...is like saying: brown cat ⊂ cats ⊂ animals after claiming you can make categorize cats, dolphins, penguins, and fish into a nested hierarchy. And then saying:

    Neal: ⊂Blue 16gb Nano ⊂ Nanos ⊂ iPods

    ... Is like saying: light grey dolphin ⊂ dolphin ⊂ animal. You're leaving out the other things you've claimed you can group.

    continued below:

    ReplyDelete
  81. ...continued from above:


    Neal: This is not tough... very basic and elementary on purpose. Grouping Shuffles with Shuffles and Nano's with Nano's is something a preschooler could do. Like putting squares with squares and circles with circles.

    Yet, it's all you've been able to do thus far.

    Neal: The evolutionists whole argument, popularized by Theobald, that designed products are not able to be grouped into an objective nested hierarchy is ungrounded. The evidence for evolution because of the nested hierarchy pattern is weak on several points.

    That's not the argument; In fact, I agree with you completely that a designer could make a large group of objects that fall into a single, objective nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits if they wanted to. The problem is, designers usually don't want to. There are few reasons to do so, and many reasons not to. And really, that's the evolutionist's whole argument? Nothing about the fossil record or comparative genetics or anatomy or anything else? Is that what you really meant to say?

    Neal: Shall we move on and discuss the pattern itself and not continue to beat on this discussion about format?

    I'm not arguing format; I'm arguing content. I've told you before, you can present your nested hierarchy any way you wish: with brackets, the '⊂' symbol, or a diagram. I'm not picky. What you've provided thus far, whether grouped like {shuffle, nano, classic, touch} or (shuffle, nano, classic, touch) ⊂ iPods or in a chart, aren't nested hierarchies of iPods.

    It's no use moving on in the discussion of nested hierarchies with you if you can't understand why iPods don't make one. (or if you can't present that hierarchy by typing in four words and some symbols if they do.)

    Neal, this conversation is beyond comical. If I claimed that I could provide a single, objective nested hierarchy of cats, dolphins, penguins, and fish, and spent over 40 posts finding ways to avoid actually doing so, you'd think there was something wrong with me, wouldn't you? (especially if I gave excuses like "I didn't provide it because I was trying to save space on the line," or "It's just so obvious, I don't have to list it," or "Just look it up on this website."

    Either concede that iPods (shuffle, nano, classic, touch) cannot be organized into an objective, single, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, or present said hierarchy. It's as simple as that. You claim that you can present four words in a particular order. Just do it, or concede that you can't.

    THIRTY NINE

    ReplyDelete
  82. And Neal, I tried my best several times to give you an easy out. It's not like anyone expected you to say "Hey, I'm an idiot for making a mistake." All you had to say was something like "O.k., the point I was trying to make was that designers can make their designs in such a way that they fit into nested hierarchies, if they wanted to; iPods were just a bad example that I picked off the top of my head, but my point still stands."

    But it is a free country, so you're more than welcome to post another 300+ word response without presenting the 4 word pattern you keep claiming you can.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Derick, LOL. It looks like at least two evolutionists disagree with Theobald. Good, we're making progress.

    Zachriel,


    Neal Tedford said: The evolutionists whole argument, popularized by Theobald, that designed products are not able to be grouped into an objective nested hierarchy is ungrounded.

    Zach said : That's not the claim — as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. However, nested hierarchies of artifacts are the exception, not the rule.

    ---


    Me: It is refreshing to see that there at least two evolutionists who disagrees with Theobald on something. I hope you won’t go squishy on this. It would, however, be nice if you actually made a point in the near future that was relevant to evidence for evolution.

    ----

    Neal Tedford said: Blue 16gb Nano ⊂ Nanos ⊂ iPods

    Zach said: Your latest claim is that nanos form an objective nested hierarchy when considering memory, color, touch, and other such traits? Is that correct?

    --

    Me: No. I did not think I needed to break the categories down further to explain this, but here goes:

    The lowest entity in the hierarchy would be the actual device with its own unique serial numbers. The physical unit itself is not a group. It resides at the bottom of the hierarchy. Directly above this would be the kind of device it is, for example: Blue 16gb Nano. Another would be Blue 8gb Nano. The available options are quite limited to a few colors and a couple memory options. These would be the lowest level groupings. So, all blue 16gb Nano’s would be grouped together (though they have unique serial numbers). Blue 8gb Nano’s would be in their own group. Red Shuffles would in their own group (their only option is colors). Blue Shuffles would in their own group. The same can be done with the Touch and Classic. Directly above this would be the iPod family name (Shuffle, Nano, Touch, Classic). At this level all the Nano’s would be grouped together, all Shuffles grouped together, all Touch’s grouped together, and all Classics grouped together. Above this you could add further groupings based on a comparison of components and functions. I have not done this previously but have grouped them directly under the ”iPod” name product line (as Apple does). I’m not an Apple engineer and haven’t taken iPods apart for comparison, but based on a some research, they could be grouped closer together based on components as I suspected. The Shuffle is the most basic unit and is the same as the Nano at its core in its flash drive and audio codec. It’s bare bones compared to the others. The Nano has the very distinguishing feature of a touch screen and uses portions of the iOS software that the Touch uses. The Touch also uses flash drive technology and the touch screen and the full blown iOS. Based on component and functional characteristics then, the first group above the family name would be Shuffle and Nano. After this, group the Shuffle, Nano and Touch. After this group the Shuffle, Nano, Touch and Classic under the “iPod” name. Also, unless I give those new groups labels, they cannot be properly illustrated in a nested hierarchy organizational model.


    Perhaps Derick and Zachriel could join forces and write a response to Theobald's 1.2 Evidence for evolution and point out why this evidence is wrong. It is refreshing to actually hear from evolutionists who do more than copy and paste from his web site.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Remember derickchildress.com/ipodexample3.jpg?

    Do you see that there are two equally consistent nested hierarchies based on the criteria you mentioned above?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Neal Tedford: It is refreshing to see that there at least two evolutionists who disagrees with Theobald on something.

    Not sure where you see the problem with Theobald's essay. Please be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Zachriel,

    More inconsistency, empty rhetoric and then to top it off you got squishy on Theobald's. As I said, evidence 1.2. We discussed this before. I suppose it has to do with what the word "can" means based on a scale of 1 to 10. Perhaps it an oblate "can"?

    When a theory depends more on rhetorical skill, abusing language and organization models, that theory has a big problem.

    It is apparent that evolutionists do not like to follow the plain meaning of language nor standard organizational models. Par for the course.

    The grouping of the iPods was based on core components and technology. You choose to ignore these and choose your own analysis based on whatever point you want to make.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Neal: Derick, LOL. It looks like at least two evolutionists disagree with Theobald. Good, we're making progress.

    Yes, evolutionists should model themselves after Christians, who of course, never disagree about anything. And exactly where did Theobald say that designers couldn't produce nested hierarchies? (I'm not saying he didn't, I'm just asking if you have a reference.)

    Neal: The lowest entity in the hierarchy would be the actual device with its own unique serial numbers. The physical unit itself is not a group.

    But it can be grouped of course: It could fall into a group like: (blue 8GB iPod nanos with serial # 89724z45a4d) which would consist of only one member. But as we agreed before, that would like be comparing individuals within a species, and could not be grouped into a nested hierarchy. (at least, I hope you're not claiming that you can group iPods into nested hierarchies even when taking serial numbers into account.)

    Neal: It resides at the bottom of the hierarchy. Directly above this would be the kind of device it is, for example: Blue 16gb Nano. Another would be Blue 8gb Nano. The available options are quite limited to a few colors and a couple memory options. These would be the lowest level groupings.
    So, all blue 16gb Nano’s would be grouped together (though they have unique serial numbers).


    So, all blue 16GB nanos are blue 16GB nanos. Wow.

    Neal: Blue 8gb Nano’s would be in their own group.

    So, blue 8GB nanos are blue 8GB nanos. Ladies and Gentlemen, Sherlock Holmes.

    Neal: Red Shuffles would in their own group (their only option is colors).

    So, red shuffles are red shuffles. Neal you must have a big bowl of Genius every morning for breakfast.

    continued below:

    ReplyDelete
  88. continued from above:

    Neal: Blue Shuffles would in their own group. The same can be done with the Touch and Classic. Directly above this would be the iPod family name (Shuffle, Nano, Touch, Classic). At this level all the Nano’s would be grouped together,

    Hold on a second. All nanos would be grouped together? How? By color, or capacity? You just said that blue shuffles would be in their own group. Are you saying that blue nanos would be in their own group? Why is that? Why wouldn't you group by capacity? Grouping by color over capacity or vice versa is arbitrary, as I already pointed out: derickchildress.com/ipodexample3.jpg.

    Neal: all Shuffles grouped together, all Touch’s grouped together, and all Classics grouped together.

    Uh, so all shuffles are shuffles, all touch's are touch's, and all classics are classics. Neal, you're like a modern day Linnaeus.

    Neal: Above this you could add further groupings based on a comparison of components and functions. I have not done this previously but have grouped them directly under the ”iPod” name product line (as Apple does).

    Apple lists the shuffle, nano, classic, touch, and Apple TV together on the iPod page. This is a list, not a best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits.

    Neal: I’m not an Apple engineer and haven’t taken iPods apart for comparison,

    No kidding.

    Neal: but based on a some research, they could be grouped closer together based on components as I suspected. The Shuffle is the most basic unit and is the same as the Nano at its core in its flash drive and audio codec. It’s bare bones compared to the others. The Nano has the very distinguishing feature of a touch screen

    Distinguishing? You mean the iPod touch doesn't also have a touch screen? Who knew?

    Neal: and uses portions of the iOS software that the Touch uses. The Touch also uses flash drive technology and the touch screen and the full blown iOS. Based on component and functional characteristics then, the first group above the family name would be Shuffle and Nano. After this, group the Shuffle, Nano and Touch. After this group the Shuffle, Nano, Touch and Classic under the “iPod” name. Also, unless I give those new groups labels, they cannot be properly illustrated in a nested hierarchy organizational model.

    Again Neal you fail to provide-- Wait a second! Is that what I think it is!? Did you actually propose a nested hierarchy based on traits after all these weeks of flailing about? I think you did! Let's see, from what you just said, it looks like you're saying the single, objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits for iPods is:

    {classic {touch {shuffle, nano}}}

    or alternately:

    (shuffle, nano) ⊂ (shuffle, nano, touch) ⊂ (shuffle, nano, touch, classic)

    Am I right in that interpretation? I don't know why it took you over a month to provide your hierarchy (and I still don't know why you couldn't have just written it out like I just did -- it took about 30 seconds.)

    Neal: Also, unless I give those new groups labels, they cannot be properly illustrated in a nested hierarchy organizational model.

    Wrong. The groups don't have to have labels, they just have to be grouped.

    Neal, it looks as if we may be moving forward after over a month of trying to wring that out of you. Can you confirm that I've understood you correctly?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Derick said "(shuffle, nano) ⊂ (shuffle, nano, touch) ⊂ (shuffle, nano, touch, classic).

    Yes. This is part of the grouping I described. Keep in mind that these are group names and they all fall under the more inclusive or general group name of "iPods". Also underneath these groups are the least inclusive or more specific groups. These groups would be all the groups that would exist in the Apple distribution warehouse ready for picking and shipping. Groups of 16gb blue Nano's, groups of 8 gb blue Nano's, etc. No grouping by capacity and then subgroups of color or color and then capacity subgroups.

    I'll ignore your other questions for now since it looks like you figured it out.

    ReplyDelete
  90. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I said to Neal: ...it looks like you're saying the single, objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits for iPods is:

    {classic {touch {shuffle, nano}}}

    or alternately:

    (shuffle, nano) ⊂ (shuffle, nano, touch) ⊂ (shuffle, nano, touch, classic)

    Am I right in that interpretation? ... Can you confirm that I've understood you correctly?


    Neal Tedford: Yes.

    Super, Neal. Glad that's finally over with. Now that you've actually presented what you think is a single, objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, we get to the fun part: Determining if you're right.

    So, the thing about an objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits is that it has to be, well, objective. We can't just take your word for it and call it quits. Let's look at the two iPods that group closest together in your hierarchy, the shuffle and the nano. Wait - Neal, I'm confused. When I asked you which two iPods grouped closest together back on November 22 in the "Ethics and Evolution of the Synapse" post, your answer was that the nano and the touch would be grouped together as most similar. I take it you've changed your mind since then? Why? Anyway, let's evaluate your most current answer. You group the nano and shuffle closest together based on a panoply of traits. I find that odd, for several reasons, as you said you've done some research. While the nano may look like the shuffle on the outside, (like a dolphin looks like a fish on the outside) the nano shares an extraordinary number of features with the touch:

    The nano and touch both have color displays; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both support photos; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both support Nike + iPod; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both lack physical play/navigation buttons; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both have touch navigation; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both have visual clock features; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both have two small, close together volume buttons on the side, the shuffle has them far apart on the front.
    The nano and touch both can emit light; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both have dock connectors; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both are available in 8GB configurations; the shuffle is only available in 2GB
    The nano and touch both have the ability to listen to audio over the air; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both can change the orientation of their playback controls; the shuffle can't
    The nano and touch both have accelerometers; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both have user configurable maximum volume limits; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both have the iTunes Genius feature; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both have a battery life indicator; the shuffle does not.
    The nano and touch both work with standard iPod car chargers; the shuffle does not.

    So with that many features that the nano and touch have in common, why did you group the nano and shuffle as being most similar? Because they look similar on the outside? If that's the case, why not group dolphins and fish together?

    So, at the first level, it doesn't look like your proposed hierarchy is holding up very well. Perhaps you can defend it by explaining what traits you used to group the shuffle and nano together, and importantly, why your list of traits is more 'important' than the list I just gave.

    Can't wait to hear from you.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Derick, after researching the iPod components it became obvious to group the Shuffle and Nano together because the Shuffle is bare bones compared to the rest and most of the Shuffle consists of a flash drive and the audio codec. And these are the same as the Nano.

    Here's a link to someone that actually did the teardown... http://tehloft.com/2010/09/10/6th-gen-ipod-nano-stripped-similar-to-shuffle/

    My first look at the Nano made me think that because it had a screen it grouped first with the Touch (Fish and Dolphin's have fins). As you point out the Nano shares many features with the Touch, but the Touch is quite an extraordinary, full featured PMP and is much bigger and runs the full blown iOS. This is why it is grouped next with the Nano and Shuffle.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Tedford the idiot said...

    It is apparent that evolutionists do not like to follow the plain meaning of language nor standard organizational models. Par for the course


    See Tedford, that's why we know you don't understand the workings of science, even a little.

    Science uses very precise technical terms to minimize uncertainties and promote accuracy in its descriptions of physical reality. Using layman's sloppy "plain meaning" language is inadequate and guaranteed to confuse the ignorant. You're example 1A.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Neal Tedford: Derick, after researching the iPod components it became obvious to group the Shuffle and Nano together because the Shuffle is bare bones compared to the rest

    What does 'bare bones' have do do with anything? Is a 'bare bones' Mac mini grouped with a 'bare bones' Dell laptop with the same specs, or with a decked out Mac mini Server with much higher specs? (Or is the question moot because you can't make hierarchies of these two objects because the designers have mixed and matched components?)

    Neal Tedford: and most of the Shuffle consists of a flash drive and the audio codec. And these are the same as the Nano.

    BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!! Wrong again. The shuffle and nano don't use the same flash module: The shuffle uses a Samsung chip (model # K9GA6, which is a 16GB chip of which only 2GB is accessible) while the nanos use Toshiba chips (model # TH58NVG6E2FLA4C for the 8 GB model.) The shuffle and nano don't use the same audio chip. The shuffle uses the APPLE 338S0860, while the nano uses the Apple 338S0783-B1. (if by 'audio codec' you meant the software component, all the iPods support AAC and MP3) They don't use the same processors, either. The shuffle is run by an ARM N2N63MQ1, while the nano is run by an ARM N2HXHZMP. They don't even have the same battery. * Now, feel free to correct me If I'm wrong on this, but as far as I can tell, the nanos and the shufflles don't share a SINGLE HARDWARE COMPONENT.

    Neal Tedford: Here's a link to someone that actually did the teardown... http://tehloft.com/2010/09/10/6th-gen-ipod-nano-stripped-similar-to-shuffle/

    I think the author of your link did about as much 'research' as you did: They glanced at a teardown and said "looks the same to me."

    Neal Tedford: My first look at the Nano made me think that because it had a screen it grouped first with the Touch (Fish and Dolphin's have fins). As you point out the Nano shares many features with the Touch, but the Touch is quite an extraordinary, full featured PMP and is much bigger and runs the full blown iOS. This is why it is grouped next with the Nano and Shuffle.

    Wait a second, why is the touch grouped next after the shuffle and nano if you're considering operating system, as the classic has a more similar OS to the nano than the touch does? Actually, that may be getting ahead of the discussion. You still haven't presented a case as to why the first two items in your group should be grouped together other than the fact that they're a similar size. (should a pug be grouped more closely with a skunk or with a great dane?) I listed almost twenty features that the nano shares in common with the touch but not the shuffle, and you haven't listed any features or components that the nano and shuffle share. (or that they don't share with all the other iPods) Of the two things you did propose that they had in common, flash memory and audio components, you got them both wrong. The following bears repeating: as far as I can tell, the nanos and the shufflles don't share a SINGLE COMPONENT. So why did you group them closest? Because you felt like it? You can't leave out the 'objective' part in an objective nested hierarchy.

    Try again Neal. After all, isn't it "obvious" that the shuffle and nano group closest together?

    (and Neal, if you hadn't already guessed, I happen to know a thing or two about iPods. If you say things like "shuffles have the same flash drive and audio components as the nano," around me, you'd better be prepared to back it up.)

    *All these specs can be confirmed on ifixit.com

    ReplyDelete
  95. Derick, keep pulling covers off...

    http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/reports-and-subscriptions/investigative-analysis/apple-ipod-shuffle/

    ReplyDelete
  96. Neal Tedford: Derick, keep pulling covers off... http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/reports-and-subscriptions/investigative-analysis/apple-ipod-shuffle/

    Neal, you got me. When I typed that the shuffle uses a Samsung K9GA6 flash chip, I should have typed that the shuffle uses a Samsung K9GAG. I mistook a 6 for a G; guilty as charged. (and if you want to get really picky about it, the full model name is K9GAG08U0E) I also said that it was a 16GB chip when I should have typed 16Gb, with a lowercase b instead of a capital one. Oh, the perils of typing fast. But I hope it's not patronizing to point out that my point still stands: the nano uses a completely different brand of memory than the shuffle. The shuffle uses a Samsung chip; the nano a Toshiba.

    I said: you haven't listed any features or components that the nano and shuffle share. (or that they don't share with all the other iPods) (new emphasis mine)

    Neal, I should have learned by now that when I'm speaking with you, I need to be so explicit in my terms that a 5 year old could understand them. If I were to say that soda cans and iPod shuffles don't share any of the same components, I wouldn't mean that they both aren't made out of aluminum. So, I guess we have to define what we mean by component, since technically, everything could be a component. (the iPod shuffle and touch both contain atoms) Pop open an iPod shuffle, and inside you'll find a chip labeled Apple 338S0860 that acts as the audio controller. Pop open an iPod nano, and its audio controller is labelled Apple 338S0859. (and for the fun of it, pop open a touch and note that it's audio controller is also labeled Apple 338S0859, just like the nano.) Next, tear open the Apple chips. Grab a magnifying glass, (or a microscope) an you'll see that all three of them contain a Cirrus Logic CLI1544C0 audio codec. (The iPod classic also contains a Cirrus Logic codec, but I'm not able to confirm the model at this time; it may well be the CLI1544C0 as well.) So when I said that "as far as I can tell, the nanos and the shufflles don't share a single hardware component." I forgot to re-state the caveat that I expressed earlier that the nano and shuffle don't share a single hardware component that they don't also share with other iPods. That was a genuine error of omission on my part, to which I fully confess.

    But again, I hope it's not patronizing to point out that this point still stands as well: You haven't named a single component (or sub-component, if you will) that is present in the shuffle and nano, but isn't present in other iPods.

    Keep digging.

    So far, I've named 17 features/components that the nano shares with the touch, but not the shuffle, and 3 components that are unique to the shuffle and nano in the iPod line: The flash memory, the battery, and the cpu. You still haven't named one thing that they have in common with each other but not other iPods.
    (hint: There are some, you just haven't named them yet.)

    Try again Neal. After all, isn't it "obvious" that the shuffle and nano group closest together?

    ReplyDelete
  97. A clarification of my last paragraph:

    So far, I've named 17 features/components that the nano shares with the touch, but not the shuffle, and 3 components different in both the shuffle and nano: The flash memory, the battery, and the cpu. You still haven't named one thing that they have in common with each other but not with other iPods.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Derick, my original intent was to show that a best grouping can be made based on the panoply of traits. Let's assume for arguments stake that you are correct and the Nano and Touch are closer after a careful comparison of similar and dissimilar components. In refutting my grouping, you establish a grouping based not a subjective opinion but on hard criteria (component A matches component A, etc). In refutting my grouping, you are supporting my larger point that designed objects can be grouped into an objective nested hierarchy based on the panoply of traits. Our arguments here are centered on correctly identifying and comparing those traits to determine the best grouping. Not on arbitrary and subjective groupings. Excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  99. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Neal Tedford: Derick, my original intent was to show that a best grouping can be made based on the panoply of traits.

    ...a task at which you've failed miserably, multiple times. For nearly a month, you wouldn't even show a grouping.

    Neal Tedford: Let's assume for arguments stake that you are correct and the Nano and Touch are closer after a careful comparison of similar and dissimilar components.

    Hold on there, Teddy. I didn't say a nano was more similar to a touch than a shuffle. I was asking why you grouped nanos with shuffles rather than with touches. Remember, you're the one making the positive claim that an objective hierarchy of iPods exists. I'm saying it doesn't. For all you know, I may be able to list just as many differences between nanos and touches as I did similarities. You claim that your grouping of nanos and shuffles is objective. 'Objective' means it can stand up to scrutiny. So far, your hierarchy doesn't seem to be standing up very well. You didn't just say that the nano and the shuffle group together, but that it is obvious that the nano and shuffle group together. I was asking you to back up your assertion. (like talking to the wall, I know,) and you didn't even give one feature that the shuffle and nano have in common that they don't share with other iPods. So much for objective and 'obvious'. Even if you could name 25 similarities between the two, that doesn't get you anywhere. If you have roughly the same amount of similarities of differences, It's arbitrary to pick which ones carry the most weight. I feel patronizing having to explain this.

    Neal Tedford: In refutting my grouping, you establish a grouping based not a subjective opinion but on hard criteria (component A matches component A, etc).

    I see your extra chromosome is acting up again. Again, I wasn't refuting your grouping, I was merely asking you to defend your assertion that the objective, best fit nested hierarchy of traits of iPods is: {classic {touch {shuffle, nano}}} And please explain which 'grouping based on hard criteria' I established. Do tell.

    Neal Tedford: In refutting my grouping, you are supporting my larger point that designed objects can be grouped into an objective nested hierarchy based on the panoply of traits.

    Oh yeah? Then what is that objective nested hierarchy based on the panoply of traits? (I knew we'd make it to 40!) And let me get this straight: refuting your grouping proves your point? Oh, please explain how that works.


    Neal Tedford: Our arguments here are centered on correctly identifying and comparing those traits to determine the best grouping. Not on arbitrary and subjective groupings. Excellent.

    I love how you end on "Excellent", as if you're genuinely under the impression that you've proved a point. Neal, you're a walking example of the Dunning Kruger Effect in action. Thus far, you've failed to give even a rudimentary defense of even the first group in your 'objective' nested hierarchy of iPods, (that took you a month to post) and to top it all off, you accuse me of refuting your grouping (which I didn't) and that that refutation somehow proves your point.

    So Neal, why is {classic {touch {shuffle, nano}}} the correct best fit nested hierarchy of iPods based on a panoply of traits? Why did you group shuffle and nano closest together instead of nano and touch (or shuffle and touch, or touch and classic...) And why do you continue to make a fool of yourself by continuing to defend such a ridiculous position despite the fact that many people here have have told you many times why you're wrong? Do you really think you're doing your other positions (ID, Christianity) any favors by flaunting your idiocy on this subject?

    I await your response with morbid curiosity.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Derick, I gave links were technical sites that supported the similarities between the Shuffle and Nano so it wasn't only my opinion. But in evolutionist fashion you disparage anyone who does not agree with you.

    Grouping the Shuffle and Nano together is obvious....

    External box package is nearly identical.
    Model numbers are very close A1373 and A1366. Touch is MC544LL/A.
    Size difference of the units in cubic inches is merely .264 cu inches. Width is only .01 inch difference. The touch is three times in height than either.
    Both have similar external clips
    All the Shuffles come in the exact 5 same colors (exact matched paint color) as available for the Nano. Nano has a couple more colors. Touch comes in one color which is similar but not an exact match with the Nano.
    Same battery Lithium ion battery 3.7 volts. Both have only two wires (black and red) coming from battery to circuit board.
    Battery and circuit board positioning in both units is side by side very similar.

    It is obvious which ones Apple groups together by the simple observation of their model numbers. Add to that the similar packaging and overall look and any unbiased observer would agree.

    Grouping in biology is not always as clear cut... For example, would you group Marsupial Mice with the Koala before the placental Mice? Why? Does it really make sense to you that these supposedly evolved independently?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Neal Tedford: Derick, I gave links were technical sites that supported the similarities between the Shuffle and Nano so it wasn't only my opinion. But in evolutionist fashion you disparage anyone who does not agree with you.

    No, I don't disparage you because you don't agree with me, I disparage you because you continually make demonstrably false and absurd claims, you don't check your facts, you make baseless assertions that you refuse to substantiate when asked, you don't think your arguments through, you don't concede points when others point out your unambiguous fallacies and mistakes, and often your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance. That's why I disparage you.

    Neal Tedford: Grouping the Shuffle and Nano together is obvious....

    Oh goody. I love it when you say things like that.

    Neal Tedford: External box package is nearly identical.

    Uh, we're counting packaging as a feature? That's like saying fish and dolphins group together because their environments are nearly identical. Counting packaging as a feature would be like counting cases or stickers as a feature. I don't think so.

    Neal Tedford: Size difference of the units in cubic inches is merely .264 cu inches. Width is only .01 inch difference. The touch is three times in height than either.

    Dolphins are the about the same size and shape as some sharks. Pugs are about same size as some wild cats. Is size a more important distinguishing feature than, say, the capacity and manufacturer of flash memory?

    Neal Tedford: Both have similar external clips

    Finally, you've named a real, objective similarity. Well done.

    Neal Tedford: All the Shuffles come in the exact 5 same colors (exact matched paint color) as available for the Nano. Nano has a couple more colors. Touch comes in one color which is similar but not an exact match with the Nano.

    Ok, but why is color a more distinguishing feature than say, a touchscreen? (and the aluminum is anodized, not painted.) Some cats are the same color as some fish. Some lizards are the same color as some cacti. Do we group green lizards closer to green cacti than to brown lizards?

    Neal Tedford: Same battery Lithium ion battery 3.7 volts. Both have only two wires (black and red) coming from battery to circuit board.

    Wrong. The battery model numbers are different. And car batteries have a black and red wires coming out of them. For a battery to have a positive and negative connection is not an unusual feature.

    Neal Tedford: Battery and circuit board positioning in both units is side by side very similar.

    Wrong again. If you think the positioning is similar, that means you're looking at one of them upside down. The battery layouts are the exact opposite. In the shuffle, the battery is at the bottom, below the logic board; in the nano, the battery is at the top, above the logic board - just like in the iPod classic.

    Thus far in response to my list of 20 differences you've listed three real similarities: the nano and touch are about the same size and shape, they're about the same colors, and they have similar clips on the back. So please explain why your 3 similarities outweigh my 20 differences so heavily that it can be considered obvious that the nano and shuffle group together. After all, some sharks and dolphins are about the same size and shape, they're about the same color and they have similar fins on their backs. Yet, for some mysterious reason, every taxonomist in the world groups dolphins more closely to cats and sharks more closely to fish. Neal, by your standards of classification, it seems that sharks and dolphins would obviously be grouped closer together than either would be to other members of their own genus.

    continued below...

    ReplyDelete
  103. ontinued from above.

    Neal Tedford: It is obvious which ones Apple groups together by the simple observation of their model numbers. Add to that the similar packaging and overall look and any unbiased observer would agree.

    Neal, I'll take that quote as your christmas present to me. That quote is so good, It deserves its own post. I'll quote it again:

    Neal Tedford: "It is obvious which ones Apple groups together by the simple observation of their model numbers."

    Neal Tedford: [shuffle and nano] model numbers are very close A1373 and A1366. Touch is MC544LL/A.

    Ok then. Let's look at some model numbers. I mean, we can't argue with Apple's own classification, can we? First of all, MC544LL/A is not the model number of the touch, it's the order number. (important difference) The model number of the touch is... A1367. Wait a second. That's one digit away from the nano's model number. You literally couldn't give two products more similar model numbers under Apple's naming convention than what were given the nano and the touch! That means when grouping by model number, the touch is by far closer to the nano than the shuffle! But let's not throw in the towel just yet; like you said before, it may be that an objective hierarchy exists, but that you just incorrectly grouped the shuffle and nano together. So in keeping with your idea of grouping by model number, let's look at the shuffle. (A1373) In scanning through other Apple product numbers, we find that the shuffle is most similar to.... the 11" MacBook Air? (A1370) What the heck? Ok, so the shuffle is more similar to the 13" MacBook Air than to any other iPod, but surely the 13" MacBook Air is more similar to either the 13" MacBook(A1342) or the 13" Macbook Pro(A1278) than to the shuffle... Er... Nope. In fact, the 13" Macbook air is grouped closer to the shuffle than to not only any other Laptop, but any other Mac. Oy vey! Last but not least, we have the Classic, which groups closest to...the Apple TV. Let's not forget the iPhone, since it immediately follows your iPod grouping in the 'iDevices' category. The device that the iPhone groups closes to is... the Macbook? (1342) Not even the iPod touch? (A1367) Wow. Just, wow. So, not only is the nano not grouped closest to the shuffle when making a simple observation of the model numbers, the nano is grouped closer to the touch and both models of the MacBook Air than the shuffle. And for purposes of model number comparison, I'm not even including all Apple products like bluetooth headsets and wireless keyboards, which also have the AXXXX naming convention. Neal, that's one of your most Epic Fails yet, and that's saying something.

    continued below...

    ReplyDelete
  104. continued from above:

    Neal Tedford: Grouping in biology is not always as clear cut... For example, would you group Marsupial Mice with the Koala before the placental Mice? Why? Does it really make sense to you that these supposedly evolved independently?

    Neal, with this statement, you're a shoe-in for the QQOQQ Award. the QQOQQ Award is given for a creationist question made in the confident expectation that there can be no possible answer.

    The first winning quote was made by a YouTuber name 'stonedcommander' who said "You [atheists] have no idea why [the planets} are all perfectly round. You stupid [atheists], you don't know nothin'. You don't know anything about anything." (He has since conceded that gravity makes the planets round.)

    Neal Tedford: Grouping in biology is not always as clear cut... For example, would you group Marsupial Mice with the Koala before the placental Mice?

    YES. And so does EVERY TAXONOMIST IN THE WORLD. UNAMBIGUOUSLY.
    I can't fathom how little you'd have to know about biology to ask a question like that in such an imperious way. The idiocy of that question is just staggering. In the same way that dolphins look like fish, but share a panoply of traits with other mammals, the marsupial mouse looks like a placental mouse (for the same reason a dolphin resembles a fish - they live in similar environments) but it nonetheless shares a panoply of traits with other marsupials. The fact that you consider your vacuous iPod hierarchy more 'clear cut' than the grouping of two marsupials together by every taxonomist in the world is icing on the cake. It's simply astounding.

    Neal, are you done? I'm getting embarrassed for you. But I must admit, your inane tenacity never ceases to amaze me.

    ReplyDelete
  105. A short poetic interlude.

    Neal de Valvert: I'll treat him to. . .one of my quips!. . .See here!. . . Sir, your nose is. . .hmm. . .it is. . .very big!

    Derick de Bergerac: Is that all?. . .

    Neal de Valvert: What do you mean?

    Derick de Bergerac: Ah no! young blade! That was a trifle short!
    You might have said at least a hundred things
    By varying the tone. . .like this, suppose,. . .
    Aggressive: 'Sir, if I had such a nose
    I'd amputate it!' Friendly: 'When you sup
    It must annoy you, dipping in your cup;
    You need a drinking-bowl of special shape!'
    Descriptive: ''Tis a rock!. . .a peak!. . .a cape!
    —A cape, forsooth! 'Tis a peninsular!'
    Curious: 'How serves that oblong capsular?
    For scissor-sheath? Or pot to hold your ink?'
    Gracious: 'You love the little birds, I think?
    I see you've managed with a fond research
    To find their tiny claws a roomy perch!'
    Truculent: 'When you smoke your pipe. . .suppose
    That the tobacco-smoke spouts from your nose—
    Do not the neighbors, as the fumes rise higher,
    Cry terror-struck: "The chimney is afire"?'
    Considerate: 'Take care,. . .your head bowed low
    By such a weight. . .lest head o'er heels you go!'
    Tender: 'Pray get a small umbrella made,
    Lest its bright color in the sun should fade!'
    Pedantic: 'That beast Aristophanes
    Names Hippocamelelephantoles
    Must have possessed just such a solid lump
    Of flesh and bone, beneath his forehead's bump!'
    Cavalier: 'The last fashion, friend, that hook?
    To hang your hat on? 'Tis a useful crook!'
    Emphatic: 'No wind, O majestic nose,
    Can give THEE cold!—save when the mistral blows!'
    Dramatic: 'When it bleeds, what a Red Sea!'
    Admiring: 'Sign for a perfumery!'
    Lyric: 'Is this a conch?. . .a Triton you?'
    Simple: 'When is the monument on view?'
    Rustic: 'That thing a nose? Marry-come-up!
    'Tis a dwarf pumpkin, or a prize turnip!'
    Military: 'Point against cavalry!'
    Practical: 'Put it in a lottery!
    Assuredly 'twould be the biggest prize!'
    Or. . .parodying Pyramus' sighs. . .
    'Behold the nose that mars the harmony
    Of its master's phiz! blushing its treachery!'
    —Such, my dear sir, is what you might have said,
    Had you of wit or letters the least jot:
    But, O most lamentable man!—of wit
    You never had an atom, and of letters
    You have three letters only!—they spell Ass!
    And—had you had the necessary wit,
    To serve me all the pleasantries I quote
    Before this noble audience. . .e'en so,
    You would not have been let to utter one—
    Nay, not the half or quarter of such jest!
    I take them from myself all in good part,
    But not from any other man that breathes!

    ReplyDelete
  106. Derick de Bergerac: Ay, poet, Sir! In proof of which,
    While we fence, presto! all extempore
    I will compose a ballade.


    Neal de Valvert: A ballade?

    Derick de Bergerac: Belike you know not what a ballade is.

    Neal de Valvert: But. . .

    Derick de Bergerac (reciting, as if repeating a lesson):
    Know then that the ballade should contain
    Three eight-versed couplets. . .


    Neal de Valvert: (stamping): Oh!

    Derick de Bergerac (still reciting):
    And an envoi
    Of four lines. . .


    Neal de Valvert: You. . .

    Derick de Bergerac: I'll make one while we fight;
    And touch you at the final line.


    Neal de Valvert: No!

    Derick de Bergerac (declaiming): No?

    The duel in Hotel of Burgundy—fought
    By De Bergerac and a good-for-naught!


    Neal de Valvert: What may that be, an if you please?

    Derick de Bergerac: The title.

    THE HOUSE (in great excitement):
    Give room!—Good sport!—Make place!—Fair play!—No noise!

    Derick de Bergerac (shutting his eyes for a second):
    Wait while I choose my rhymes. . .I have them now! (He suits the action to each word):
    I gayly doff my beaver low,
    And, freeing hand and heel,
    My heavy mantle off I throw,
    And I draw my polished steel;
    Graceful as Phoebus, round I wheel,
    Alert as Scaramouch,
    A word in your ear, Sir Spark, I steal—
    At the envoi's end, I touch!


    (They engage):
    Better for you had you lain low;
    Where skewer my cock? In the heel?—
    In the heart, your ribbon blue below?—
    In the hip, and make you kneel?
    Ho for the music of clashing steel!
    —What now?—A hit? Not much!
    'Twill be in the paunch the stroke I steal,
    When, at the envoi, I touch.

    Oh, for a rhyme, a rhyme in o?—
    You wriggle, starch-white, my eel?
    A rhyme! a rhyme! The white feather you SHOW!
    Tac! I parry the point of your steel;
    —The point you hoped to make me feel;
    I open the line, now clutch
    Your spit, Sir Scullion—slow your zeal!
    At the envoi's end, I touch.


    (He declaims solemnly):
    Envoi.
    Prince, pray Heaven for your soul's weal!
    I move a pace—lo, such! and such!
    Cut over—feint!


    (Thrusting):
    What ho! You reel?

    (Neal de Valvert staggers. Cyrano salutes):
    At the envoi's end, I touch!

    (Acclamations. Applause in the boxes. Flowers and handkerchiefs are thrown
    down. The officers surround Cyrano, congratulating him.)

    ReplyDelete
  107. The officers surround Cyrano, er Derick de Bergerac, congratulating him.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Zachriel and Derick, the rumors of a evolutionist victory have been greatly exaggerated.

    Derick, you got me on the model numbers. But your other attempts at making a point fall far short. Comparing packaging to environment is a huge leap. Your going to find whatever you want to find... and that is the problem with evolutionist thinking. The colors of the Shuffle are a perfectly matched subset of the Nano colors. Your analysis of the 3.7 lithium ion batteries shows your straining to make your point.

    The Shuffle has less components than the other iPods, the Nano is next. It is basically a flash drive, audio codex and click wheel. The Touch is much larger and complex than both of these. The Nano possesses nearly everything the Shuffle has with the exception of the click wheel hardware (as far as similar technology). Yes the flash drives have different manufacturers, but its still flash technology.

    Yes the Touch has a flash drive, but the Touch possesses so many more features than either of these it is obvious that the Shuffle and Nano are grouped together.

    Whoever designed the colors, cases and packaging of the Apple iPods, had these two grouped together. It wouldn't surprise me if both units were developed within the same kind of structural and ascetic guidelines (something that Apple takes very seriously).


    Your a thinking man, doesn't it strike you as odd that scores of Marsupial animals should have supposedly evolved independently of the placental animals, yet many look strikingly the same? Mice for example. Do you really buy into the notion that the environment and RANDOM mutation and natural selection could do this?

    The marsupial and placental traits point to a pattern of design based on typology. The mixing and matching of traits throughout the immense mosaic of life.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Neal Tedford: Zachriel and Derick, the rumors of a evolutionist victory have been greatly exaggerated.

    Neal, who's talking about evolution? I don't think I've discussed evolution with you in weeks. Maybe months. I'd like to, but for now we're talking classification of objective, verifiable traits; traits in iPods, traits in animals. We haven't even begun to apply this to ancestry yet; you're still stuck on the basics. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Are you just too terrified to concede anything, no matter how irrelevant it is to the main subject? I have a lingering suspicion that you know full well that iPods can't be grouped into a single, objective best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits, but you're continuing to argue for other reasons. If it's to show everyone how smart you are, then, well, it's time to pick a new strategy.

    Neal Tedford: Derick, you got me on the model numbers.

    Actually Neal, I've gotten you on pretty much everything so far. I can't take all the credit though; you do make it pretty easy. And how did that happen, by the way? I thought grouping by model number was OBVIOUS because it was based on simple observation?

    Neal Tedford: But your other attempts at making a point fall far short. Comparing packaging to environment is a huge leap.

    A bigger leap than considering it a feature? Explain why. (betcha won't)

    Neal Tedford: Your going to find whatever you want to find...

    EXACTLY. That's because grouping iPods together is subjective, because they have so many mixed-and-matched features. It's amazing how many times you've demonstrated my point without intending to, and apparently without realizing it.

    continued below:

    ReplyDelete
  110. continued from above:

    Neal Tedford: The colors of the Shuffle are a perfectly matched subset of the Nano colors.

    Neal, I'll let you answer your own point:

    Neal Tedford: It would not make any more sense to group a blue Shuffle closer to a blue Nano than it would be to group animals by hair color.

    Blam. I can't argue with that. So why did you bring up color again? Neal, you're arguments are so absurd, you can't even convince yourself.

    Neal Tedford: Your analysis of the 3.7 lithium ion batteries shows your straining to make your point.

    Another assertion. I can say the same thing, that your analysis of the batteries shows you're straining to make your point. The only difference is, I can explain why: You said that the batteries were the same. The shuffle's battery has a capacity of .19 Watt-hours, while the nano's has a capacity of .39 Watt-hours. Unless by "the same" you mean "different," That statement is just plain wrong. Maybe you are getting the definitions of 'same' and 'different' mixed up; after all, you did say the nano and shuffle had the same flash drive even though their drives are not only a different capacity, but a different manufacturer as well. If I say: "Hey, you've go the same car as me," do I most likely mean: "Hey, you've got the same color car as me," or "Hey, you've got the same model car as me?" Both the batteries and the flash storage in the nano and shuffle are different models.

    Neal Tedford: The Shuffle has less components than the other iPods, the Nano is next. It is basically a flash drive, audio codex and click wheel. The Touch is much larger and complex than both of these.

    So your newest claim is that when you take shuffle components (x), nano components (y), and touch components (z), the result: is x < y < z. What are the values for x, y, and z, and what definition of 'components' did you use to calculate them? And even if that equation is correct, why does the number of components outweigh the 20 things I listed? And where does the classic fit in? My hunch is that it has less components (however you're defining them) than the touch, dismantling your argument once again.

    Neal Tedford: The Nano possesses nearly everything the Shuffle has with the exception of the click wheel hardware (as far as similar technology). Yes the flash drives have different manufacturers, but its still flash technology.

    ...flash technology which they share with the touch as well. How many times to I need to point out that in order to group the shuffle and nano together by features, you have to pick features that they don't also share with other iPods?

    continued below...

    ReplyDelete
  111. continued from above"

    Neal Tedford: Yes the Touch has a flash drive, but the Touch possesses so many more features than either of these it is obvious that the Shuffle and Nano are grouped together.

    Have I mentioned how much I love it when you call something obvious? It's usually an indicator that I'm going to have an especially easy time demolishing your argument. When you say something is 'obvious' it usually means it is 'demonstrably false.' Again, where does the classic fit in? What if it's closest to the nano in number of components? They both have screens, storage, cases, batteries, but the nano has a few features that the classic doesn't: FM tuner, pedometer, Nike + iPod support. So, it may be that in listing number of components, you have: shuffle, classic, nano, touch. Every criteria you've picked so far has yielded a different result. Do you really not understand how thoroughly this eviscerates your argument?

    Neal Tedford: Whoever designed the colors, cases and packaging of the Apple iPods, had these two grouped together. It wouldn't surprise me if both units were developed within the same kind of structural and ascetic guidelines (something that Apple takes very seriously).

    Neal, I take it you've never been in an Apple Store. Almost all Apple packaging looks similar. Not only do the nano, shuffle, and touch containers have a nearly identical look, (adjusting for size) they're similar to the Magic Mouse packaging as well: clear plastic shell that opens into two parts, product displayed prominently, accessories/documentation in opaque white partition, info and specs on the back. (or bottom, depending on how they're stacked) The shuffle, nano, and touch all three have the product names on the side in grey, and the Apple logo on top in grey. (http://bit.ly/gmWXLM) So whoever designed the colors, cases, and packaging of the the shuffle, nano, and touch had those three 'grouped' together.

    Neal Tedford: Do you really buy into the notion that the environment and RANDOM mutation and natural selection could do this?

    Neal, you put the emphasis on the wrong word. I do buy into the notion that the environment and random mutation and natural SELECTION could do this, because that's where all lines of evidence seem to point. But even if I didn't, that wouldn't have any bearing on the fact that marsupial mice are objectively categorized as being more similar to koalas than placental mice, by every single taxonomist in the world. Not just the 'evolutionist' taxonomists; all of them. The whole modern classification system was even created by a Creationist. That's what we mean when we talk about objective nested hierarchies. So far, out of nearly 7 billion people, you're the only one I've encountered so far who believes iPods can be classified in the same way, based on a panoply of traits. And given your dearth of intelligible arguments on this thread, and the ease at which I've pulled them apart, t seems to be for good reason that no one seems to agree with you.

    Neal Tedford: The marsupial and placental traits point to a pattern of design based on typology. The mixing and matching of traits throughout the immense mosaic of life.

    Neal, what credibility do you have say what marsupial and placental traits point to if you can't even understand what those traits ARE?

    Pastor Tedford, you keep bringing marshmallows to the gunfight. Reading your responses is entertaining enough, but I'm really starting to feel guilty letting you humiliate yourself with the ridiculous things you keep saying.

    Which one of your arguments for a single, objective nested hierarchy of iPods based on a panoply of traits have I not completely and thoroughly dismantled?

    Again, I await your response with morbid curiosity.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Derick,

    Marsupial mice were categorized as being more similar to koalas than placental mice because men wanted to find common ways to group and organize them. They agreed on the criteria. If taxonomist's were as opposed to categorizing organisms as you are to designed objects no one would agree on anything. Mammals have about a half dozen traits that distinguish them. How about Chordates? A couple?

    Derick said, "So far, out of nearly 7 billion people, you're the only one I've encountered so far who believes iPods can be classified in the same way, based on a panoply of traits."

    That's about as scientific as the rest of your reply.

    ReplyDelete
  113. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Neal Tedford: Mammals have about a half dozen traits that distinguish them.

    You mean distinguishing between marsupial and placental mammals? First, it's important to note that they share a huge number of characteristics; a complex cell structure with mitochondria, ingest food for nourishment, alimentary canal, vertebrae, nerve cord, a cranium with complex sensory organs, similarities in skeleton, nerve, organ and musculature, and nurse their young with a proteinous secretion produced by special glands.

    The most obvious difference is that marsupials have a pouch (marsupium) and give birth very early during development resulting in extended lactation. But there are actually a number of strongly correlated traits. In marsupials, the brain case is smaller with a less-developed neocortex and no corpus callosum. The female and male reproductive organs exhibit bifurcation. The auditory bulla is usually absent, and if present, it's formed primarily from the alisphenoid rather than the tympanic. The skeleton includes epipubic bones. Teeth have well-defined stylar shelves, entoconid and hypoconulids, and a basic pattern of 5/4, 1/1, 3/3, 4/4 = 50, the last premolar being the only deciduous tooth. They have a large jugal bone which articulates with dentary bone in mandibular fossa. Et cetera.

    The correlations are sufficient that an expert can recognize a marsupial from just part of a skull, or even a tooth. Imagine, being able to determine that an animal cares for its young in a pouch from a tooth.

    ReplyDelete
  115. And so it ends not with a bang, but with a whimper.

    Neal, what happened to that Tedford tenacity? Was there nothing in my last post worthy of a rebuttal? Of a comment? Just a few lines whining about classifying mice?

    Me: " [is comparing packaging to environment] a bigger leap than considering it a feature? Explain why."

    Neal: "..."

    Me: "What are the values for x, y, and z, [number of iPod components] and what definition of did you use to to calculate them?"

    Neal: "..."

    Me: "Why does the number of components outweigh the 20 things I listed? And where does the classic fit in?"

    Neal: "..."

    Me: "Which one of your arguments for a single, objective nested hierarchy of iPods based on a panoply of traits have I not completely and thoroughly dismantled?"

    Neal: "..."

    Maybe you're working on responses to these questions, so I shouldn't consider them unanswered, just not answered yet.

    Or maybe you've realized that you just simply can't make a single, objective, best fit nested hierarchy based on a panoply of traits of iPods, for the reasons given in this thread and others. Is that the case?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Derick Childress: Neal, what happened to that Tedford tenacity?

    To be fair, it is the Christmas season. Neal may be spending some time with his family. We await his response.

    (Note to selves: Avoid arguing iPod taxonomy with Derick.)

    ReplyDelete
  117. Yes, I was just giving Neal food for thought for when he returns. (And I was mostly commenting on his reply from the 23rd)

    ReplyDelete
  118. Must have been the snow storm. {puts watch to ear, taps it, sighs}

    ReplyDelete
  119. Derick and Zachriel, as I said previously... "If taxonomist's were as opposed to categorizing organisms as you are to designed objects no one would agree on anything."

    When taxonomists can agree that scarce dolphin hairs are sufficient to meet the criteria for mammals, but Derick fusses over the differences in 3.7 volt lithium ion batteries and such what reasonable discussion is possible? Taxomomists spent much time and work in finding common criteria to group organisms. If their motive is to take issue with slight differences in order to derail the classification project they could find lots of evidence. For example, the extinct marsupial lion apparently did not have the epipubic bone. Some of the higher classification ranks are generously inclusive of many diverse characters.

    So unless you bring some reasonable consistency to your analysis your fail in your argument against grouping the iPod product line.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Neal Tedford: When taxonomists can agree that scarce dolphin hairs are sufficient to meet the criteria for mammals...

    Mammals exhibit a large number of shared traits.

    Note first that dolphins are members of the Animal Kingdom, that is, like sponges, they ingest food for energy and for protein, the building blocks of their structure. In addition, they have an alimentary canal, where food passes from one end, the mouth, to the other, just like earthworms. They are also vertebrates, that is, like fish, they have a bony spine which protects a nerve cord, and a head at one end which has an array of sense organs. They share a large number of skeletal, musculature, and nervous structures, including vestigial hind limbs during embryonic development, with land vertebrates.

    More particular to mammals, they have special glands which they use to feed their young. This involves a number of behavioral characteristics we know as "mothering". Dolphins have hair follicles during embryonic development. They have three middle ear bones, and a single lower jaw bone. Like other vertebrates, they have an occipital condyle, but double-faced. Being placental mammals, they have a highly developed neocortex with a corpus callosum.

    Now, what's interesting about this is the strong correlations in traits. So, close examination of a hair follicle or jaw or brain may be enough to predict the patterns of all the other traits. Imagine being able to accurately predict mothering behavior from an ear bone.

    Neal Tedford: but Derick fusses over the differences in 3.7 volt lithium ion batteries ...

    Indeed, without a battery, an iPod wouldn't work. Nor is a battery a single trait, but an array of related structures, as a close examination would reveal.

    Neal Tedford: So unless you bring some reasonable consistency to your analysis your fail in your argument against grouping the iPod product line.

    It was *your* claim that there existed a single, objective classification of iPods. When pressed, you haven't been able to support your claim.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Zachriel,

    You and Derick should turn an objective and critical eye towards the problems with evolution. You are certainly capable of finding even trivial issues with a topic. Why do you not turn your attention towards some of the glaring problems with evolutionary theory?

    It is the "happy faced... problems?... No problems here" attitude of evolutionists that screams your loyality to Darwinism at any cost. Any hope of having an honest discussion is spoiled because evolutionists gloss over glaring problems. For example, rather than saying that the fossils from the Cambrian eon present serious problems, you trivialize the gaps and play up the potential of the supposed ancestors. Just the opposite of what you and Derick are doing here with the examples of Designed product lines. Do you see your inconsistency?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Neal Tedford: You and Derick should turn an objective and critical eye towards the problems with evolution.

    Does this mean you have abandoned your claim concerning iPods? It was *your* claim that there existed a single, objective classification of iPods. When pressed, you haven't been able to support your claim.

    The observed nested hierarchy, and its relationship to trees, is essential evidence for the Theory of Evolution. You have shown repeatedly that you don't understand the patterns, much less their relevance to evolutionary biology.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Zachriel, are you kidding? You have shown repeatedly how inconsistent you are in looking at designs objectively. Of course the iPods can be objectively classified. Any group of objects that share various numbers of similar components can be arranged in an "objective" nested hierarchy from least inclusive grouping to the most inclusive grouping.

    They are grouped by comparing parts and the ones that have the most matches of similar parts are grouped closer to together. Do you understand this? It is a very simple process if one is able to evaluate each component.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Neal Tedford: Any group of objects that share various numbers of similar components can be arranged in an "objective" nested hierarchy from least inclusive grouping to the most inclusive grouping.

    The question is whether there is an objective, best fit. Specifically, you claimed an objective, best fit for iPods, {classic {touch {shuffle, nano}}, then repeatedly evaded when Derick Childress pressed for details.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Neal Tedford,

    when you examine artifacts, you will nearly always see crossings. A battery (which is actually a very complex structure with multiple components) may be found in many different devices. That's the nature of design. But life isn't like that. Traits are inherited from the supergroup. Even when traits superficially appear to violate the nesting pattern, such as dolphin fins and fish fins, close examination reveals this not to be the case. On the other hand, close examination of the battery shows just the opposite: The exact same battery, with all its structural peculiarities, may be used in entirely different devices.

    You're also still confused on the simple statement that the leaves on a tree (whether an oak tree or an abstract tree) *necessarily* form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and stem.

    Finally, you seem impervious to understanding these simple concepts.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Neal Tedford: Of course the iPods can be objectively classified.

    They are grouped by comparing parts and the ones that have the most matches of similar parts are grouped closer to together. Do you understand this? It is a very simple process if one is able to evaluate each component.


    Amazing. Neal, what is this objective classification again? You still haven't been able to give even the most rudimentary defense of the one you first proposed.

    Neal Tedford: If taxonomist's were as opposed to categorizing organisms as you are to designed objects no one would agree on anything."

    Neal, do you really think that a taxonomist couldn't defend the decision to group marsupial mice with koalas rather than placental mice or dolphins with cats rather than fish? Isn't it odd that it is the complete consensus of essentially all taxonomists (even the creationist ones) that marsupial mice group closer to koalas than to placental mice? Do you really think it's only because no one thought to critically question it? That all taxonomists got together behind closed doors and decided to agree for the sake of agreeing?

    Your inanity on this subject is staggering.

    ReplyDelete
  127. @Thorton

    Nice ad hominem attacks. Now point out where Cornelius went wrong in a level-headed manner.

    http://physicalismisdead.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete