[Text under editorial evaluation for accuracy check]
It is not controversial that evolution is a religious theory, but evolutionists have always been in denial about this. Now there is hope.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
An Evolutionist Changes His Ways
It is always good to see an evolutionist turn away from his religious fanaticism. This recent paper, well written and obviously well edited, is particularly remarkable because the evolutionist not only rejects his old ways, but shines a light on them for all to see. Consider these excerpts:
It is not controversial that evolution is a religious theory, but evolutionists have always been in denial about this. Now there is hope.
It is not controversial that evolution is a religious theory, but evolutionists have always been in denial about this. Now there is hope.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow, who would have expected that level of honesty from a dyed in the wool evolution promoter like Nick Matzke! But seeing is believing...
ReplyDeleteAnd here I've been doubting your brilliant thesis all these weeks, Dr Hunter.
Great forensic research, but shouldn't you have kept it close to your vest until next April 1?
Hilarious, Cornelius, hilarious. Truly spectacular.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet I expected nothing less.
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested.
ReplyDeleteCornelius -
ReplyDeleteI am genuinely at a loss...
Why exactly do you think it is clever to take an article and simply exchange the words 'creationism' for 'evolution'? This is not the first time you have done this, and it remains one of your more bizarre, childish and sleazy tactics. What exactly do you think you are accomplishing?
I can only guess you want people to take your post at face value and believe that Nick Matzke has 'converted' and now rejects evolution. What an underhand tactic!
Dr. Hunter, do you understand that citing a paper, then deliberately attributing words to the author that he never wrote is lying, plain and simple?
ReplyDeleteYou should.
Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Effective Satire, but a little stronger nod to that prospect would have helped. (I'm a little slow, so I didn't catch on till I read the comments)
ReplyDelete"The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
ReplyDeleteMany of the claims of evolution lack empirical support and can not be tested. In addition evidence that contradicts evolution is handled with smoke and mirrors.
Why????
"for evolutionists, the meaning of life, the universe, and everything is on the line..."
Ritchie said...
ReplyDeleteCornelius -
I am genuinely at a loss...
Why exactly do you think it is clever to take an article and simply exchange the words 'creationism' for 'evolution'?
Gives you some insight into just how low Creationists are willing to sink in order to attack the science they don't understand and can't explain. Once a cdesign proponentist always a cdesign proponentist it seems.
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteMany of the claims of evolution lack empirical support and can not be tested. In addition evidence that contradicts evolution is handled with smoke and mirrors.
Pastor Neal, on other threads I have provided you with multiple scientific research papers with detailed empirical evidence. You said you wanted to discuss them, but instead you cowardly fled from every one.
You'll never be able to see the evidence when you've got your back turned running away at full speed.
Lol- Thorton has proven that he doesn't understand the theory of evolution nor can he explain any of it.
ReplyDeleteSo he is forced to project his shortcomings onto others...
Too funny...
I am at a loss to understand why you posted this as you did or, more to the point, why I went back and forth trying to find the (mis)quotes you cited. It was only when I came here to the comments that I sorted it out - maybe.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am at a loss to understand why the author devoted so much time to writing an article about creationism I am more at a loss to understand why you adopted this tactic. Those who are not familiar with you or your style will take this as gospel, as it were, and via search engines this will be carried all over the Internet to be misconstrued time and again.
Truth does not need lies to serve it.
I think I just read my last Hunter blog.
If you wanted to show that evolutionism and creationism could almost be interchangeable in that article(I'm not saying they are I didn't read the whole thing) at the very least an obvious disclaimer at the end would have been appropriate.
ReplyDeleteFil,
ReplyDeleteWe all know that evolutionism and creationism could never be interchangable.
Only one side actually does science.
The other side lacks sufficient faith to do anything empirical, and deals only in deliberately misleading rhetoric.
Smokey:
ReplyDeleteOnly one side actually does science.
It isn't evolutionism, that is for sure...
If evolutionism did science then there would be some science to support it.
However it is obvious that Smokey cannot even produce a testable hypothesis for his position...
Thorton:
ReplyDeletePastor Neal, on other threads I have provided you with multiple scientific research papers with detailed empirical evidence.
Yet not one paper supported the premise of bluind, undirected chemical processes.
IOW giving lip service to "evolution" is not positive data.
However odd it comes off, I don't think the satire is even logical.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the author's straightforward definition of creationism as the belief in supernatural intervention:
"In summary, while creationism has evolved diverse labels and strategies for legal and rhetorical purposes, its fundamental essence remains unchanged. That essence is advocacy of miraculous divine intervention, i.e., special creation, in the history of life...."
Has been changed to:
"[evolution's] essence is rejection of miraculous divine intervention"
Which is, of course, false. The essence of evolutionary biology is empirical investigation into the nature of nature. Evolutionary science rejects miraculous divine intervention as a testable hypothesis, or as a subject for science education-the divine is not a research subject. However, it does not reject the divine, hence theistic evolution, Francis Collins, etc.
Apart from being fascinated by this article on its own "un-satirized" format, the name of the journal caught my eye. "Evo Edu Outreach"
ReplyDeleteIn my country the word outreach is almost always used in terms of a religious effort to "connect" with unreached communities. To me their is irony to read this article in a journal with that name.
I am sure the evo teachers are safe behind the soothing words from their evo priest that reached out to them in this journal.
Michael said...
ReplyDeleteApart from being fascinated by this article on its own "un-satirized" format, the name of the journal caught my eye. "Evo Edu Outreach"
In my country the word outreach is almost always used in terms of a religious effort to "connect" with unreached communities. To me their is irony to read this article in a journal with that name.
I have no idea what country you live in but in the United States (where the article was written and published) "outreach" is a common term for any community based volunteer or educational effort. It is not specifically connected with religion.
A good example is the Outreach public service organization:
As a non-profit, public benefit organization, OUTREACH is committed to the mission of supporting older adults, individuals with disabilities and low-income families with their efforts to lead independent and self-sufficient lives. From our origins as a War on Poverty program over 30 years ago, OUTREACH has grown to be one of the nation's premier ADA Paratransit and community transportation providers. OUTREACH's service model is unique because it combines human service values with a transportation system that incorporates cutting-edge technologies and custom software solutions to increase program efficiency and cost effectiveness.
But as always with you Michael, you tend to spout off your ignorance without doing the slightest bit of research.
Smokey and Thorton,
ReplyDeleteSo much of what is hyped as evidence for evolution really is not. It is that evolution has accommodated it. Like by drawing target circles around bullet holes and then claiming victory accuracy. So much that passes as evidence could just as easily be used to support Design. Nested Hierarchies, when they exist, is simply accommodation by evolution.
What do you have? A theory that is constantly changed in order to accommodate new findings.
RobertC,
ReplyDeleteIn artifically taking "divine intervention" off the table evolutionists have substituted Natural Selection and given it miracle working powers that defy scientific explanation.
It is a massive group think to pretend that Natural Selection can do all these things that it is alleged to do. Shame on evolutionists for hyping the evidence for evolution beyond the empirical evidence. It is a sorry, shameful thing.
Neal Tedford: So much of what is hyped as evidence for evolution really is not.
ReplyDeleteNearly every scientific paper, whether in evolutionary biology or some other field, tests specific hypotheses.
Neal Tedford: Nested Hierarchies, when they exist, is simply accommodation by evolution.
Nested hierarchies are directly predicted from uncrossed lines of descent.
Neal Tedford: A theory that is constantly changed in order to accommodate new findings.
That's how it is supposed to work. Indeed, the Theory of Evolution is substantially different from what it was in Darwin's day.
Neal Tedford: In artifically taking "divine intervention" off the table evolutionists have substituted Natural Selection and given it miracle working powers that defy scientific explanation.
ReplyDeleteNatural selection is a directly observed phenomena. We can also show how complex structures can evolve through incremental and selectable changes. The Theory of Evolution leads to specific and testable empirical predictions.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteNested hierarchies are directly predicted from uncrossed lines of descent.
That is false.
Also evolution doesn't predict uncrossed lines of descent.
Zacxh:
Indeed, the Theory of Evolution is substantially different from what it was in Darwin's day.
Its grand claims couldn't be tested then and they cannot be tested today.
Darwin couldn't provide a testable hypothesis and neitehr can today's evolutionsists.
Still pretty similar...
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteNatural selection is a directly observed phenomena.
Observed to reduce variation, nothing more than that.
Zach:
We can also show how complex structures can evolve through incremental and selectable changes.
That is a lie.
You can't even show two new protein-to-protein binding sites evolving via blind, undirected chemical processes.
Zachriel,
ReplyDelete"A theory that is constantly changed in order to accommodate new findings.
That's how it is supposed to work. Indeed, the Theory of Evolution is substantially different from what it was in Darwin's day."
Really? That's convenient to tell the world it is a fact that all life evolved from a common ancestor and to constantly change the story as to "how" it happened.
Gravity can be observed. Bigger Tomatoes can be grown by artifical selection, etc. But theory of universal common descent is not observable, it is a historical assumption. Explanations for gravity can change, but we still know gravity exists regardless of whether we fully understand it. Universal Common descent is not at that level of observation and to give Natural Selection the powers that evolutionists have given it is a shame on them.
Zachriel: Nested hierarchies are directly predicted from uncrossed lines of descent.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: That is false.
After repeated attempts, you continue to refuse to follow the argument. It begins with a simple definition.
Pattern X is an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset. Unbranched descent forms Pattern X when each ancestor is grouped with all of its descendents.
Joe G: Also evolution doesn't predict uncrossed lines of descent.
The only diagram in Darwin's Origin of Species shows just that.
Neal Tedford: That's convenient to tell the world it is a fact that all life evolved from a common ancestor and to constantly change the story as to "how" it happened.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's the scientific method. The evidence strongly supports the origin of the Solar System from the collapse of a nebula. Gravity can be observed, but the details of how the Solar system formed is still under investigation.
Neal Tedford: But theory of universal common descent is not observable, it is a historical assumption.
Common Descent is a strongly supported theory that leads to specific and testable empirical consequences.
Neal Tedford: Explanations for gravity can change, but we still know gravity exists regardless of whether we fully understand it.
Explanations for evolution can change, but we still know evolutionary exists regardless of whether we fully understand it.
Neal Tedford: Common descent is not at that level of observation and to give Natural Selection the powers that evolutionists have given it is a shame on them.
The way these sorts of disputes are resolved in science is by proposing and testing hypotheses. For instance, if whales evolved from land mammals, then they should have passed through intermediate stages, such as having reduced hind limbs. And that is a testable claim.
From Theobald's 29 evidences, specifically 1.2 A Nested Hierarchy of Species: " Certain fish or amphibians could have differentiated or cusped teeth, but these are only characteristics of mammals"
ReplyDeleteSure. How about the Colossoma macropomum - Black Pacu? A fish with cusped teeth.
So this falsifies Theobald's 1.2 Prediction about Nested Hierarchy of Species.
Perhaps there was horizontal gene transfer when a piranha bit its fish tank owner and had babies!!! How's that for a fish (evolution) story.... and it was 2, no 3 feet long!
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteZachriel,
"A theory that is constantly changed in order to accommodate new findings.
That's how it is supposed to work. Indeed, the Theory of Evolution is substantially different from what it was in Darwin's day."
Really? That's convenient to tell the world it is a fact that all life evolved from a common ancestor and to constantly change the story as to "how" it happened.
The overall 'story' hasn't changed in 150 years. All that is happening is that more of the specific details are being uncovered. You know, those specific details like genetic SNPs that you're too cowardly to discuss.
Gravity can be observed. Bigger Tomatoes can be grown by artifical selection, etc. But theory of universal common descent is not observable, it is a historical assumption.
Phenomenon don't have to be observed in real time to understand and verify what happened you idiot. Historical events can be determined with a high degree of confidence from the evidence left behind by the events. And we do have a huge amount of evidence left behind by common descent, in both the fossil and genetic records. Do you think the FAA has to eyewitness a plane accident in person to understand what caused the plane to crash?
Have you ever taken a single science class in your life? Ever?
There are shark that have cusped teeth, as well. And didn't the placodonts have cusped teeth?
ReplyDeleteDarwinists are the biggest bunch of hypocritical crybabies I have ever seen. They have no problem mischaracterizing ID and ID proponents but when someone points out the vacuity of their fairytales and arguments in a clever pose they scream bloody murder. I don’t see any Darwinists jump down the throat of that lying Matzke.
ReplyDeletenatschuster,
ReplyDeleteI believe so... more evidence against Theobald's 29 accommodations (i.e. predictions).
Thorton,
How does the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion support universal common descent? The theory is falling all over itself to try to accommodate this contradiction written in stone for 150 years. I know all the accommodates so save yourself the bytes. The Cambrian Explosion fossil record was and is a contradiction to the theory of evolution to the honest observer.
teleological blog:
ReplyDelete"I don’t see any Darwinists jump down the throat of that lying Matzke."
Please point out a lie by Matzke, and prove it's a lie.
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteAre you sure you want to talk about the nested hierarchy of species as support for evolution? Two words blows your whole accommodated support away... cusped teeth.
Some sharks feed their fetuses with something that is very similar to the mammalian placnta.
ReplyDeletesorry, typo:
ReplyDeleteshould be "placenta"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteZachriel: Nested hierarchies are directly predicted from uncrossed lines of descent.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: That is false.
Zachriel:
After repeated attempts, you continue to refuse to follow the argument. It begins with a simple definition.
Actually you refuse to provide valdi examples to support your nonsense.
You jhave also said that pattern X is not a nested hierarchy.
Zachriel:
Pattern X is an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset. Unbranched descent forms Pattern X when each ancestor is grouped with all of its descendents.
That is a partially ordered set.
tree (set theory)
Also evolution doesn't predict uncrossed lines of descent.
Zachriel:
The only diagram in Darwin's Origin of Species shows just that.
It shows groups subordinate to groups, which isn't a nested hierarchy.
Also just because a diagram shows it doesn't make it a prediction of the theory.
Please present the prediction that says evolution predicts uncrossed lines of descent when we observe that lines of descent can be crossed.
Or do you not understand HGT?
Good one CH
ReplyDeleteA very good laugh at good ol blind leader of the blind nicky m!
But see now, the NAS is also now among the deviants!!
NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES: "The theory of flat earth has become the central unifying concept of cosmology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of Galileo and followers lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."
Which is, of course, what they WOULD HAVE written if they'd been around back in the day.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteThe evidence strongly supports the origin of the Solar System from the collapse of a nebula.
That is false.
There is a reason we still call it the nebula hypothesis.
Zach:
Common Descent is a strongly supported theory that leads to specific and testable empirical consequences.
The same evidence for Common Descent can be used as evidence for common design and convergence.
There isn't any way to test Common Descent- that is all you can do is throw father Time at all issues.
That ain't science.
As for whales with hind limbs- I would expect that if the original whales had hind flippers.
There isn't any genetic data to support the premise whales evolved from land animals.
Joe G: Actually you refuse to provide valdi examples to support your nonsense.
ReplyDeleteWe can't even get past a simple definition, which you claimed was ambiguous, but can't say why.
Zachriel: Pattern X is an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset. Unbranched descent forms Pattern X when each ancestor is grouped with all of its descendents.
Joe G: That is a partially ordered set.
A partially ordered set is a type of ordered set, i.e. a partially ordered set is a subset of all ordered sets. It's ironic that you would be mixed up about a subset in a discussion of sets.
Joe G: There is a reason we still call it the nebula hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteThe reason it's called a hypothesis is because it leads to testable predictions.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeletePlants- lines can be crossed.
And your definition is ambiguous if you acnnot provide a real-life biological example.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteThe reason it's called a hypothesis is because it leads to testable predictions.
The reason it is still called the nebula hypothesis is because it doesn't have the required supporting data to be called a theory.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteA partially ordered set is a type of ordered set
Right, one that is PARTIALLY ordered...
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteThorton,
Are you sure you want to talk about the nested hierarchy of species as support for evolution?
Sure idiot, let's talk! Suppose you start by explaining the observed nested hierarchial pattern of SNPs in the canid lineages I showed you
Two words blows your whole accommodated support away... cusped teeth.
Of course it doesn't you idiot. At worst it shows Theobald wasn't aware that cusped teeth are conserved much earlier in the vertebrate lineage than he thought.
A Curriculum Vitae of Teeth: Evolution, Generation, Regeneration
Koussoulakou DS, Margaritis LH, Koussoulakos SL.
Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:226-243
Abstract: The ancestor of recent vertebrate teeth was a tooth-like structure on the outer body surface of jawless fishes. Over the course of 500,000,000 years of evolution, many of those structures migrated into the mouth cavity. In addition, the total number of teeth per dentition generally decreased and teeth morphological complexity increased. Teeth form mainly on the jaws within the mouth cavity through mutual, delicate interactions between dental epithelium and oral ectomesenchyme. These interactions involve spatially restricted expression of several, teeth-related genes and the secretion of various transcription and signaling factors. Congenital disturbances in tooth formation, acquired dental diseases and odontogenic tumors affect millions of people and rank human oral pathology as the second most frequent clinical problem. On the basis of substantial experimental evidence and advances in bioengineering, many scientists strongly believe that a deep knowledge of the evolutionary relationships and the cellular and molecular mechanisms regulating the morphogenesis of a given tooth in its natural position, in vivo, will be useful in the near future to prevent and treat teeth pathologies and malformations and for in vitro and in vivo teeth tissue regeneration.
Mammals are still the only family know to have differentiated teeth - multiple different kinds of teeth (incisors, canines, premolars, molars) at the same time.
You could try reading the primary literature and learning about the topic, but you won't. You're an idiot happy with regurgitating things from Creto sites you don't understand and can't defend.
Thorton,
ReplyDeleteHow does the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion support universal common descent? The theory is falling all over itself to try to accommodate this contradiction written in stone for 150 years. I know all the accommodates so save yourself the bytes. The Cambrian Explosion fossil record was and is a contradiction to the theory of evolution to the honest observer.
1. There are earlier known precursors to the Cambrian fauna. See the Ediacaran biota.
2. Several forms first seen in the Cambrian have been identified as the earliest ancestors of known phyla, i.e. Pikaia is the earliest known chordate.
3. The case for common descent does not rest on the Cambrian fossils. They are but one small piece in a huge mountain of evidence. Hand waving away one piece doesn't make the rest (your favorite SNPs) go away.
4. You're an idiot.
I think that about covers it.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteThe dimorphodons and heterodontosaurs had differentiated teeth. That what their name mean.
Teeth can be explained by epigenetics.
ReplyDeletePikaia just appeared out of nowhere.
And there isn't any genetic data which demonstrates a non-chordate can evolve into a chordate.
The case for Universal Common Descent rests in the imaginations of people who refuse to accept alternative explanations.
SNPs? Convergence explains them just fine.
And you are such an imbecile you don't know what a nested hierarchy is.
port jackson sharks have differentiated teeth. And they change as the shark grows. Kinda like mammals.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: Plants- lines can be crossed.
ReplyDeleteYes. So can animals species. Hybridization is an important aspect of Darwin's theory. Can you explain why?
Joe G: And your definition is ambiguous if you acnnot provide a real-life biological example.
A mathematical definition, like Pattern X, does not require "real-life" examples to be unambiguous.
Joe G: The reason it is still called the nebula hypothesis is because it doesn't have the required supporting data to be called a theory.
NASA: The nebular theory indicates that particles within the flattened disk then collided and stuck together to form asteroid-sized objects called planetesimals ...
natschuster: The dimorphodons and heterodontosaurs had differentiated teeth. That what their name mean.
ReplyDeleteNo single trait can be considered conclusive due to convergence. It requires a look at the entire suite of characteristics to discern the pattern. Nevertheless, there is definitely a clear nested hierarchy across most taxa, a pattern consistent with Common Descent. We need to start there.
natschuster: The dimorphodons and heterodontosaurs had differentiated teeth.
ReplyDeleteIf you find a lower jaw comprised of a single bone with heterodont dentition, then you can predict that the organism cared for its young.
natschuster said...
ReplyDeleteport jackson sharks have differentiated teeth. And they change as the shark grows. Kinda like mammals.
Neither port jackson sharks nor dimorphodons nor heterodontosaurs have teeth even remotely close to the four distinct varieties of teeth found in mammals.
Plants- lines can be crossed.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
Yes.
So nuch for your nested hierarchy.
Zach:
So can animals species. Hybridization is an important aspect of Darwin's theory.
Then a nested hierarchy is not a prediction of the theory.
can you explain why?
Zach:
Can you explain why?
Because the theory accomodates just about any observation.
And your definition is ambiguous if you acnnot provide a real-life biological example.
Zach:
A mathematical definition, like Pattern X, does not require "real-life" examples to be unambiguous.
You are using pattern X to describe a biological pattern.
If you cannot provide a real-life biological example that means you are lying.
Wow!
ReplyDeleteThe OP just changed from the words dishonestly attributed to Dr. Matzke to
"[Text under editorial evaluation for accuracy check]"
...the plot thickens.
As for the nebula (ahem) theory- well we now know that our solar system is not typical.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't any scientific data which demonstrates our solar system is the result of multiple cosmic collisions- an accident.
If you think otherwise then please provide the testable hypothesis for such a claim.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, there is definitely a clear nested hierarchy across most taxa, a pattern consistent with Common Descent.
1- You don't know what a nested hierarchy is
2- I have provided plenty of evidence to refute your nonsense
Joe G: Because the theory accomodates just about any observation.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you've never bothered to read or understand the theory you are bent on criticizing. Darwin devotes an entire chapter to hybridization. Why?
Joe G: And your definition is ambiguous if you acnnot provide a real-life biological example.
Pattern X is defined in terms of sets. Mathematical concepts do not require examples to be unambiguously defined. Do you understand sets?
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteIn other words, you've never bothered to read or understand the theory you are bent on criticizing.
Obviously I understand it better than you do.
Zach:
Darwin devotes an entire chapter to hybridization. Why?
Because he wanted to explain his views on hybridism and degrees of sterility.
Creationists have such explanations too. Do you know why?
Zach:
Pattern X is defined in terms of sets.
You are using pattern X to describe a biological pattern.
If you cannot provide a real-life biological example that means you are lying.
Joe G: Because he wanted to explain his views on hybridism and degrees of sterility.
ReplyDeleteWhy would Darwin consider degrees of sterility to be important to his argument.
Joe G: You are using pattern X to describe a biological pattern.
In fact, we are still stuck on the definition, which you have claimed is ambiguous. Defining a set pattern does not require examples. That's the whole point of using sets!
Toothed whales have non-differentiated teeth sorta like reptiles.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: There isn't any genetic data to support the premise whales evolved from land animals.
ReplyDeleteThere are numerous articles detailing the strong genetic evidence for whales being descendants of more typical, terrestrial cetartiodactyls.
Graur and Higgins. 1994. Molecular Evidence for the Inclusion of Cetaceans
within the Order Artiodactyla. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/11/3/357.pdf
Ursun and Arnason. 1998. Analyses of mitochondrial genomes strongly support a hippopotamus-whale clade. Proc. R. Soc. Lon. B http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689531/pdf/9881471.pdf
Nikaido et al. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based oninsertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales. PNAS http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10261.full.pdf
O'Leary, 1999. Parsimony Analysis of Total Evidence from Extinct and Extant Taxa and the Cetacean-Artiodactyl Question (Mammalia, Ungulata). Cladistics http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119079702/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Lum et. al 2000. Consistency of SINE Insertion Topology and Flanking Sequence Tree:
Quantifying Relationships Among CetartiodactylsConsistency of SINE Insertion. Molecular Biology and Evolution. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/17/10/1417
Murphy et al. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6820/abs/409614a0.html
Price et al. 2005. A complete phylogeny of the whales, dolphins and even-toed hoofed mammals (Cetartiodactyla) Biol. Rev. http://blackbear.ecology.uga.edu/gittleman/pdfs/Priceetal2005.pdf
Gatesy et al. 2009. Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and Character Evolution. PLoS One
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007062
Joe G: As for whales with hind limbs- I would expect that if the original whales had hind flippers.
ReplyDeleteThe first whales in the fossil record had hindlimbs (pakicetids, ambulocetids).
natschuster: Toothed whales have non-differentiated teeth sorta like reptiles.
ReplyDeleteAssuming you were responding to this statement, ...
Zachriel: If you find a lower jaw comprised of a single bone with heterodont dentition, then you can predict that the organism cared for its young.
... Then you have your inference backwards. Many organisms that care for their young do not have a lower jaw comprised of a single bone with heterodont dentition, e.g. bees.
In any case, there are a vast number of very strong correlations that we call (everyone but Joe G, of course) the nested hierarchy. These correlations are so strong that we can often predict from the fossilized remains of an ancient jaw bone the organism's maternal behavior; or the molecular structure of its cells.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNatschuster: Toothed whales have non-differentiated teeth sorta like reptiles.
ReplyDeleteConvergence, of course, happens. As you noted, there are homodont mammals and there are heterodont non-mammals. Tooth morphology is strongly correlated with diet. Phylogenetic analyses of vertebrates based solely on dental characters will have less consistency (more convergence) than analyses that include cranial and post-cranial skeletal traits. Nevertheless, most mammalian lineages have such complex molar teeth that there is much phylogenetic information in their morphology. Darwin himself noted that characters related to mode of life are typically among the less useful in taxonomy, and that this would result from natural selection's role in the evolutionary process. Due to character convergence, modification, and loss, a one-character taxonomy is not worth the paper its written on, as Zach noted.
Theobald clearly erred in his discussion of mammal dentition. Any lengthy treatise is bound to have an error or two, and this section could have benefited from additional editing. Of course, evolution is not invalidated by the existence of convergence, it's to be expected. What would falsify evolution is if consistency indices for phylogenetic analyses were no better than those constructed from objects with multiple origins.
This is part of the problem inherent with any one person trying to explain all of the evidence for the theory. Evolutionary evidence includes findings from the anatomy and physiology of the great diversity of living organisms, molecular biology, paleontology, and embryology. Theobald is a biochemist, so you would expect the mistakes that do occur to be in areas distant from his specialty.
John:
ReplyDeleteThe first whales in the fossil record had hindlimbs (pakicetids, ambulocetids).
Neither one is a whale.
There isn't any genetic data to support the premise whales evolved from land animals.
ReplyDeleteJohn
There are numerous articles detailing the strong genetic evidence for whales being descendants of more typical, terrestrial cetartiodactyls.
The "evidence" deals with genetic similarities.
There is no way to test for how the anatomical and physiological differences observed arose.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteIn any case, there are a vast number of very strong correlations that we call (everyone but Joe G, of course) the nested hierarchy.
You are a butthead Zach.
You don't know what a nested hierarchy is.
So do not project your shortcomings onto me.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteYou are using pattern X to describe a biological pattern.
If you cannot provide a real-life biological example that means you are lying.
Joe G: Pikaia appears out of nowhere.
ReplyDeletePikaia hails from the ~505 m.y. old Burgess Shale, famous for its exquisite preservation of soft-bodied organisms. Only a few localites worldwide preserve animals without hard parts from such an ancient time. Prior to that, the next rocks preserving soft tissues are those of the Emu Bay Shale in Australia which is more than 10 million years older and (then as now) half a world away.
Pikaia is, however, preceded by even older chordates, including the more primitive Haikouella of the Chengjiang Biota. (The Smithsonian site Thorton cited in an earlier post listing Pikaia as the as the oldest chordate is well out of date.)
So Pikaia was found in Canada, Haikouella was found in China.
ReplyDeleteThere still isn't any genetic evidence that a non-chordate can evolve into a chordate via an accumulation of genetic accidents...
John:
ReplyDeleteThe first whales in the fossil record had hindlimbs (pakicetids, ambulocetids).
Joe G: Neither one is a whale.
Neither are part of the Neoceti (crown cetaceans, descendants of the LCA of living dolphins and baleen whales), but Cetacea is defined as a stem group of species more closely related to the Neoceti than to Indohyus. They are part of a sequence of transitional fossils Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurs, Durodon, Georgiacetus that brings us from semiaquatic walkers that appear very different from the Neoceti to ocean-crossing whales much closer in morphology to the surviving crown clade.
Joe G:
ReplyDelete"There still isn't any genetic evidence that a non-chordate can evolve into a chordate via an accumulation of genetic accidents... "
What is a "genetic accident"? Sounds like you might be one, or perhaps more likely an ontogenetic accident.
Joe G: There still isn't any genetic evidence that a non-chordate can evolve into a chordate via an accumulation of genetic accidents...
ReplyDeleteScientists are actively working to learn how mutations lead to changes in development that yield novel morphologies. Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful is a good place to start.
The emergence of Chordata from non-chordate deuterostomes is also supported by the survival of Hemichordata, which possess some but not all of the traits used to diagnose Chordata.
ReplyDeleteThorton,
ReplyDeleteCusped teeth... just shows how gumby-like flexible evolution is. Theobald lays out a prediction, I show his example is false, but no big deal because there is always an escape clause to every evolution prediction.
This shows how arbituary the evolutionary nested hierarchy structure is. Cusped teeth don't matter and really neither do differentiated teeth, do they??? Do you really think that if I showed you an example of differentiated teeth in a fish it would change your view??? No, because it really doesn't matter, does it?
Regarding your near irrelevant and wordy quote:
A better route for preventing congenital tooth problems is researching NUTRITION in pregnant women rather than using a crystal ball to divine the evolutionary lineage that never existed.
A theory that predicts nothing is worth nothing. Insert evolution.
John:
ReplyDeleteThe emergence of Chordata from non-chordate deuterostomes is also supported by the survival of Hemichordata, which possess some but not all of the traits used to diagnose Chordata.
You call that support?
Could it be that Hemichordata is a devolved version of some chordate?
John:
Scientists are actively working to learn how mutations lead to changes in development that yield novel morphologies. Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful is a good place to start.
Read it- and his other "new" book too- "The Making of the Fittest".
And I fully understand that evo-devo is pretty much your last hope and to tell you the truth, it isn't looking so good for you guys.
John:
ReplyDeleteNeither are part of the Neoceti (crown cetaceans, descendants of the LCA of living dolphins and baleen whales), but Cetacea is defined as a stem group of species more closely related to the Neoceti than to Indohyus.
the relationship is assumed.
There isn't any way to test the premise.
John:
They are part of a sequence of transitional fossils Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurs, Durodon, Georgiacetus that brings us from semiaquatic walkers that appear very different from the Neoceti to ocean-crossing whales much closer in morphology to the surviving crown clade.
So all you really have is "it looks like common ancestry because that is what I already accept".
OK...
Neal Tedford: Theobald lays out a prediction, I show his example is false, but no big deal because there is always an escape clause to every evolution prediction.
ReplyDeleteYour argument appears to be that because someone was wrong once, that you can ignore the vast amount of evidence supporting the nested hierarchy. You've been pointed to that evidence, but keep ignoring it.
Zachriel,
ReplyDelete"Your argument appears to be that because someone was wrong once, that you can ignore the vast amount of evidence supporting the nested hierarchy. You've been pointed to that evidence, but keep ignoring it."
And you ignore evidence that contradicts evolution. You can find support for anything that you want to if you look hard enough. What makes a good theory is that you do not find evidence that contradicts it. Every piece of contrary evidence is a Red Flag that something is wrong.
Neal Tedford: And you ignore evidence that contradicts evolution.
ReplyDeleteThat someone somewhere is wrong about something is not an argument. No one claims that a single trait is necessarily definitive.
Let's try again. This is the claim: There is a correlation between traits called the nested hierarchy. It is not a 100% correlation, but that there is such a pattern is unambiguously true across a large number of taxa. That allows us to make specific empirical predictions. Because the correlation is not 100%, it means these predictions are often probabilistic, but if we examine the panoply of traits, the nested hierarchy is beyond reasonable dispute. For instance,
If an organism has mammary glands, we can predict it will have a complex eukaryote cell structure with organelles, ingest other organisms for nourishment, have bilateral symmetry, integument, an alimentary canal, a bony head at one end with an array of sense organs, vertebrae protecting a nerve cord, jaws, ribs, four limbs during at least at some stage of life, neck, neocortex, endothermic, internal fertilization, four-chambered heart, lungs with alveoli and a muscular diaphragm, two eyes, three ear bones in each of two ears, hair or at least hair follicles at some stage of life, sebaceous glands, most will have heterodont dentition, etc.
All that from teats. It's not a trivial correlation, but one of the most important patterns in biology.
Neal Tedford said...
ReplyDeleteZachriel,
"Your argument appears to be that because someone was wrong once, that you can ignore the vast amount of evidence supporting the nested hierarchy. You've been pointed to that evidence, but keep ignoring it."
And you ignore evidence that contradicts evolution. You can find support for anything that you want to if you look hard enough. What makes a good theory is that you do not find evidence that contradicts it. Every piece of contrary evidence is a Red Flag that something is wrong.
You haven't presented any evidence that contradicts evolution. Not a single piece. All you've done when shown the positive evidence common descent is cowardly run away.
Still waiting for you to explain the nested hierarchical pattern of ERVs and SNPs there Neal. "Common design" isn't an explanation, it's another cowardly dodge.
A theory that predicts nothing is worth nothing.
ToE predicted and discovered that common genetic markers like ERVs and SNPs would be found in a nested hierarchical pattern. What has IDC predicted (not postdicted and dishonestly claimed) that has been confirmed?
Pastor Neal wrote:
ReplyDelete"So much of what is hyped as evidence for evolution really is not."
How would you know?
"It is that evolution has accommodated it."
Evolution is a phenomenon. Modern evolutionary theory is much more complex than Darwin's; for example we know of non-Darwinian mechanisms. This is why your side repeatedly violates the Ninth Commandment by bleating "Darwinists!"
"Like by drawing target circles around bullet holes and then claiming victory accuracy. So much that passes as evidence could just as easily be used to support Design."
So you say, but your side is afraid to go into the lab or the field and produce new evidence. You have no faith; actions speak more loudly than words.
"Nested Hierarchies, when they exist, is simply accommodation by evolution."
You're clueless, Pastor Neal, and you're violating the Ninth Commandment. What is THE ONLY FIGURE in The Origin of Species?
Let me guess—you're so busy trashing Darwin that you can't even be bothered to read an important book.
"And you ignore evidence that contradicts evolution."
Did evolutionary biologists ignore evidence for non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms?
How can biologists be ignoring evidence when they are the side that is producing evidence every day? All your side produces is cowardly word salad.
"You can find support for anything that you want to if you look hard enough."
But no one on your side is looking in the lab or in the field. That speaks volumes as to the absence of their faith.
"What makes a good theory is that you do not find evidence that contradicts it."
What makes a good theory is that it makes empirical predictions that are found by hard work (which your side lacks sufficient faith to do) to be correct.
Do you take everything in the Bible literally?
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteI understand that some ERV's in humans are closer to those in Rhesus monkeys than in chimps. This is not what evolution predicts.
natschuster: I understand that some ERV's in humans are closer to those in Rhesus monkeys than in chimps.
ReplyDeleteYou're may be thinking of ERV-K, but that doesn't refer to the structure of ERV-K itself, which does support the nested hierarchy, but the copy number. Hominins and rhesus monkeys have undergone several bottlenecks that have reduced ERV-K copy number when compared to chimpanzees.
Romano, et al., Demographic Histories of ERV-K in Humans, Chimpanzees and Rhesus Monkeys. PLoS ONE 2, 2007.
Keep in mind that a single characteristic can't be considered determinative, but the pattern is very real nonetheless.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteToE predicted and discovered that common genetic markers like ERVs and SNPs would be found in a nested hierarchical pattern.
That is a lie.
The ToE did not predict ERVs and the what is observed is not evidence for common ancestry for the many reasons provided.
smokey:
ReplyDeleteWhat makes a good theory is that it makes empirical predictions that are found by hard work (which your side lacks sufficient faith to do) to be correct.
Your position doesn't even have a testable hypothesis so forget about predictions.
As for the figure in "On the Origins of Species..." it is not of a nested hierarchy.
IOW smokey you have proven that you don't know what a nested hierarchy is.
thorton:
ReplyDeleteYou haven't presented any evidence that contradicts evolution.
You haven't presented any positive evidence for blind, undirected chemical processes.
You are a coward- both intellectually and physically.
Smokey: What is THE ONLY FIGURE in The Origin of Species?
ReplyDeleteJoe G: As for the figure in "On the Origins of Species..." it is not of a nested hierarchy.
Joe G is making the pedantic distinction between a tree diagram (the trunk does not 'contain' the limbs), and the nested hierarchy comprised of twigs grouped by branch and stem. Even that he muddles, because he confuses a nested hierarchy (based on sets) with a taxonomy (based on characteristics).
Joe G: As for the figure in "On the Origins of Species..." it is not of a nested hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
Joe G is making the pedantic distinction between a tree diagram (the trunk does not 'contain' the limbs), and the nested hierarchy comprised of twigs grouped by branch and stem.
Zachriel is making the huge error that he thinks he knows something.
The diagram in "On the Origins of Species..." is not that of a nested hierarchy.
Darwin said "groups subordinate to groups", which is not a nested hierarchy- a non-nested hierarchy, yes.
Zachriel:
Even that he muddles, because he confuses a nested hierarchy (based on sets) with a taxonomy (based on characteristics).
Said the muddle-man-
The sets of a nested hierarchy are based on characteristics.
Ya see nested hierarchies are manmade constructs- totally artificial- as a way of classifying things.
We classify things based on their characteristics.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteRegarding your evidence about the nested hierarchy of species... two words cusped teeth.
Anyways here's a quote from Denton: "In the final analysis the hierarchic pattern is nothing like the straightforward witness for organic evolution that is commonly assumed. There are facets of the hierarchy which do not flow naturally from any sort of random undirected evolutionary process. If the hierarchy suggests any model of nature it is typology and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature's divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity. (Denton 1986, 136-137.)
Exactly, the real proof of evolution is that all of nature should be blurred and indistinct. Evolutionary rhetoric has muddled the expectations of what we really should find as evidence. Instead it cherry picks evidence and draws targets around the evidence after the discover and claims victory. The dog can't hunt.
Joe G: The sets of a nested hierarchy are based on characteristics.
ReplyDeleteThat's a taxonomy. A nested hierarchy is defined in terms of sets, though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in biology.
Neal Tedford: Regarding your evidence about the nested hierarchy of species... two words cusped teeth.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, Neal Tedford? It's as if you didn't bother to read the comment your responded to.
This is the claim: There is a correlation between traits called the nested hierarchy. It is not a 100% correlation, but that there is such a pattern is unambiguously true across a large number of taxa. That allows us to make specific empirical predictions. Because the correlation is not 100%, it means these predictions are often probabilistic, but if we examine the panoply of traits, the nested hierarchy is beyond reasonable dispute.
How do we know these correlations are real and not an artifact of our classifications? Because we can make predictions. From part of a jaw and a few teeth, we can predict all those other characteristics listed above, including behavioral characteristics.
The sets of a nested hierarchy are based on characteristics.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
That's a taxonomy. A nested hierarchy is defined in terms of sets, though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in biology.
The sets of a nested hierarchy are based on characteristics, even your link supports that.
IOW yes a nested hierarchy is based on sets and yes those sets are defined by some set of defining characteristics.
Perhaps Zachriel can produce a nested hierarchy that is not based on characteristics.
ReplyDeleteMy prediction is he will produce more evasion and deception...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeal Tedford: Anyways here's a quote from Denton: "In the final analysis the hierarchic pattern is nothing like the straightforward witness for organic evolution that is commonly assumed. There are facets of the hierarchy which do not flow naturally from any sort of random undirected evolutionary process. If the hierarchy suggests any model of nature it is typology and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature's divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity. (Denton 1986, 136-137.)
ReplyDeleteDenton was a biochemist and here (like Theobald) he shows his ignorance of biology at the organism level. Denton also, however, unlike Theobald, shows deep misunderstanding concerning how evolution works. His idea of evolution as "random" is a common creationist misunderstanding. Further, there would be blurred boundaries throughout the taxonomy of life only if every population that ever lived was fossilized (or something close to that). As Darwin noted, termination of lineages yields the gaps we see in the modern world. Not that we don't see blurriness at the species level. Is there one orangutan species or two? Is there one giraffe species or multiple? These are real questions that systematists are answering today.
Had Denton consulted any systematists, he would have found that indeed the taxonomic hierarchy of Linnaeus was crumbling all around us in the 1980s. To cite an example that might be familiar to you, not only does Archaeopteryx blur the boundary between Linnaean "Reptilia" and Aves, but so does the alligator. It shares, for example, a mandibular fenestra and unidirectional pulmonary system with birds, but not with squamates ("lizards" & snakes) or turtles. Unlike the pacu and it's superficially primate-like "incisors," this is not a case of convergence. Both the fossil record and the genetics of living species show that alligators share a more recent common ancestor with birds than they do with lizards. It's just that alligators retain some primitive traits (scaly skin lacking feathers, five fingers on the hand, teeth, etc.) that were later modified in the lineage leading exclusively to birds. In modern taxonomy, Aves (birds) is now recognized to be a subclade within Archosauria (along with alligators), which in turn is a subclade within Reptilia (along with turtles and squamates).
Reworking taxonomy to fit the branching pattern of the tree of life has pulled taxonomy out of the realm of the arts and placed it into the realm of the sciences.
Neal Tedford: Anyways here's a quote from Denton: "In the final analysis the hierarchic pattern is nothing like the straightforward witness for organic evolution that is commonly assumed. There are facets of the hierarchy which do not flow naturally from any sort of random undirected evolutionary process. If the hierarchy suggests any model of nature it is typology and not evolution. How much easier it would be to argue the case for evolution if all nature's divisions were blurred and indistinct, if the systema naturalae was largely made up of overlapping classes indicative of sequence and continuity. (Denton 1986, 136-137.)
ReplyDeleteUm, Pastor Neal, Denton changed his mind since then. Perhaps you should read his second book.
Oh, and I mean read it, not cut/paste quotes from it.
Why are you afraid to jump into biology with both feet and DO it?
Where's your faith that you are right? If it's there, why not follow it with action?
After all, you have clearly claimed that you understand Lee Hood's work better than Lee Hood!
Joe G: The sets of a nested hierarchy are based on characteristics, even your link supports that.
ReplyDeleteActually, it states "Nested hierarchies are the organizational schemes behind taxonomies and systematic classifications."
Joe G: Perhaps Zachriel can produce a nested hierarchy that is not based on characteristics.
{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
John:
ReplyDeleteNeither are part of the Neoceti (crown cetaceans, descendants of the LCA of living dolphins and baleen whales), but Cetacea is defined as a stem group of species more closely related to the Neoceti than to Indohyus.
Joe G: the relationship is assumed.
There isn't any way to test the premise.
Phylogenetic analyses test hypotheses of common ancestry. That Rodhocetus is more closely related to living whales than is Pakicetus is output, not input. That all taxa under consideration ultimately share common ancestry is an assumption, but it's not one that causes consternation among systematists. As scientists, they accept the massive evidence supporting universal common descent.
John
ReplyDeleteThere are numerous articles detailing the strong genetic evidence for whales being descendants of more typical, terrestrial cetartiodactyls.
Joe G: The "evidence" deals with genetic similarities.
These genetic similarities involve high levels of genetic identity that make common ancestry far more likely than massive convergence of all taxa from separate origins. We understand the inheritance pattern of genetics quite well and have for some time now.
Siblings are closer genetically to one another than random pairs selected from a village because ... they share more recent common ancestry.
Two individuals from the same small hunter-gatherer community are closer genetically to one another than random pairs selected from the world at large because ... they share more recent common ancestry.
Humans and chimpanzees are closer genetically than random pairs of primate species because ...
(so simple, even a creationist could get it if he/she chose to use the brain that evolution gave them)
John:
ReplyDeleteThe emergence of Chordata from non-chordate deuterostomes is also supported by the survival of Hemichordata, which possess some but not all of the traits used to diagnose Chordata.
Joe G: You call that support?
It preserves intermediate morphology between ancestral bilaterians with none of the typical chordate traits and true chordates. Under evolution, we would expect that such an organism lived at some time in the past, at the very least. It might not have survived to the present, but it did. Nice bonus. Confirmed.
Could it be that Hemichordata is a devolved version of some chordate?
That's actually an interesting idea, but the evidence is against it. Genetically, hemichordates lie outside Chordata, within a broader clade (Ambulacraria) that is the sister group to Chordata.
John:
ReplyDeleteScientists are actively working to learn how mutations lead to changes in development that yield novel morphologies. Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful is a good place to start.
Joe G: Read it- and his other "new" book too- "The Making of the Fittest".
And I fully understand that evo-devo is pretty much your last hope and to tell you the truth, it isn't looking so good for you guys.
This tells me (and anyone else still reading at this point) that, although you read it, you really didn't grasp it.
Perhaps Zachriel can produce a nested hierarchy that is not based on characteristics.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
Emnpty sets cannot form a nested hierarchy.
Thank you for proving your ignorance pertaing to this discussion.
And I fully understand that evo-devo is pretty much your last hope and to tell you the truth, it isn't looking so good for you guys.
ReplyDeleteJohn
This tells me (and anyone else still reading at this point) that, although you read it, you really didn't grasp it.
That tells me that you are a clueless evo.
Carroll seems to be a firm believer that evo-devo is the key.
He thinks small changes in developmental genes can account for the physical differences observed.
However he has not been able to produce any data for that.
John:
Humans and chimpanzees are closer genetically than random pairs of primate species because ..
There isn't any evidence that changes in the genome can account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed.
John:
ReplyDeletePhylogenetic analyses test hypotheses of common ancestry.
Common ancestry is assumed.
No aklternative is considered.
That Rodhocetus is more closely related to living whales than is Pakicetus is output, not input.
No genetic data to make that leap of faith.
As scientists, they accept the massive evidence supporting universal common descent.
Because they refuse to consoder anything else.
They still cannot test the premise.
All you have is to throw deep time at small changes.
That isn't science John.
John:
ReplyDeleteHis idea of evolution as "random" is a common creationist misunderstanding.
Actually the claim that evolution is non-random is a common evotard misunderstanding.
And Denton is correct- perhaps you should read what he said about nested hierarchies.
"There still isn't any genetic evidence that a non-chordate can evolve into a chordate via an accumulation of genetic accidents... "
ReplyDeletetroy:
What is a "genetic accident"?
You are.
But I digress- in your scenario- the theory of evolution- all mutations are genetic accidents.
That said, thank you for continuing to expose your ignorance of your position.
The sets of a nested hierarchy are based on characteristics, even your link supports that.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
Actually, it states "Nested hierarchies are the organizational schemes behind taxonomies and systematic classifications."
All the examples wikipedia provided are based on characteristics.
Therefor the article supports what i have posted.
Joe G: Carroll seems to be a firm believer that evo-devo is the key.
ReplyDeleteHe thinks small changes in developmental genes can account for the physical differences observed.
However he has not been able to produce any data for that.
He and others have produced confirmatory data illuminating the significance of toolkit genes, and that mutations to them can produce significant morphological change.
Antennapedia, Ultrabithorax, Shh frameshifts
do they mean anything to you?
Joe G: Emnpty sets cannot form a nested hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteThis is not an empty set:
{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
Nor is this:
{{ }}
(The latter even has a name in standard construction.)
Joe G: There isn't any evidence that changes in the genome can account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed.
ReplyDeleteNo one witnessed any miracles as wolf became Chihuahua. If you want to imagine deities are necessary for the change, you can. It's not science.
There isn't any evidence that changes in the genome can account for the anatomical and physiological differences observed.
ReplyDeleteJohn:
No one witnessed any miracles as wolf became Chihuahua.
All change was directed by humans.
And the differences really are not that much.
If you want to imagine deities are necessary for the change, you can.
Well all you have is imagination.
Emnpty sets cannot form a nested hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
This is not an empty set:
{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
They are all empty.
John:
ReplyDeleteHe and others have produced confirmatory data illuminating the significance of toolkit genes, and that mutations to them can produce significant morphological change.
Toolkit genes are evidence for ID.
And there isn't any data which demonstrates changes to them can account for the changes required for UCD.
Putting legs where antennae should be?
That doesn't help you.
Joe G: They are all empty.
ReplyDeleteNo, Joe G. This is the empty set:
{ }
But
{ } ≠ {{ }}
They are all empty.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
No, Joe G.
A set that contains an empty set and nothing else, is an empty set.
IOW if the subset is the same as the superset, then the subset is irrelevant and can be discarded.
You do that all the way up until there is a difference.
IOW Zachriel- you are an empty set.
Joe G: A set that contains an empty set and nothing else, is an empty set.
ReplyDeleteThat is incorrect. A set that contains the empty set has one element. The empty set has zero elements.
A set that contains an empty set and nothing else, is an empty set.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
That is incorrect.
That is quite correct
Zachriel:
A set that contains the empty set has one element.
You posted an empty set containing an empty set.
Just because you can put {} around {} is meaningless.
Zachriel:
The empty set has zero elements.
By your logic there isn't any such thing as an empty set...
How many unique sets have zero elements?
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
ReplyDeleteHow many unique sets have zero elements?
And away we go- down another road to more distractions.
One- the answer to your question is 1.
Zachriel: How many unique sets have zero elements?
ReplyDeleteJoe G: One- the answer to your question is 1.
So the set of unique sets that have zero elements has one element.
{{ }}
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteSo the set of unique sets that have zero elements has one element.
{{ }}
{{ }} = {}
basics of set theory
4- Natural numbers
To define number 0, we choose a representative of all sets having no elements. But this is easy, since there is only one such set. We define 0 = ∅. Let us proceed to sets having one element (singletons): {∅}, {{∅}}, {{∅, {∅}}}; in general, {x}. How should we choose a representative? Since we already defined one particular object, namely 0, a natural choice is {0}.
You lose, again, as usual.
Joe, you fail to understand the information on the website you linked to.
ReplyDelete∅ (by itself) is the symbol for the empty set.
∅ = {}. It has zero elements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set
{∅} = {{}}. It has one element, as mentioned in the website. That particular element is the empty set.
When the author writes: Let us proceed to sets having one element (singletons): {∅}, {{∅}}, {{∅, {∅}}}; in general, {x}., he's not saying that all three sets are equal, they just have the same number of elements, 1. That's just his way of defining the number one: it's the number of elements in {∅}.
Joe G: All change was directed by humans.
ReplyDeleteChange results from variation and selection, followed by more variation and more selection. There is ample reason to think (unless we are contrarian just to be so) that the variation was supplied and maintained by mutations.
Early stages of selection, although mediated by humans, were likely unconscious (at least not directed by long term goals). Intermediate stages of selection still would have been unconscious in the sense that no one would have forseen that a Chihuahua would one day arise from the lineage.
Joe G: And the differences really are not that much.
ReplyDeleteGenetically, the differences between wolf and chihuahua are not a huge chasm, but morphologically and behaviorally, a vast gulf separates them. Here's an article from the primary literature with a fact that you might not have known: there is more cranial shape variation in domestic dogs than in all wild members of Carnivora (canids, felids, mustelids, hyaenids, mustelids ..., walruses!, seals,...) combined.
http://www.flywings.org.uk/PDF%20files/AmNat2010.pdf
Joe G: Toolkit genes are evidence for ID.
ReplyDeleteThe Rube Goldberg that consists of regulatory cascades, promoters, and inhibitors is evidence of unintelligent design or blind mutation and selection.
John:
ReplyDeleteGenetically, the differences between wolf and chihuahua are not a huge chasm, but morphologically and behaviorally, a vast gulf separates them.
All brought about via artificial selection.
No artificial selection no chihuahuas.
Here's an article from the primary literature with a fact that you might not have known
Knew it- I'm a dog person.
John:
ReplyDeleteJoe, you fail to understand the information on the website you linked to.
Doubtful.
{∅} = {{}}. It has one element, as mentioned in the website.
I didn't see it there on the empty set site- what website?
When the author writes: Let us proceed to sets having one element (singletons): {∅}, {{∅}}, {{∅, {∅}}}; in general, {x}., he's not saying that all three sets are equal, they just have the same number of elements, 1.
The author is saying {∅} ={{∅}}
Toolkit genes are evidence for ID.
ReplyDeleteJohn:
The Rube Goldberg that consists of regulatory cascades, promoters, and inhibitors is evidence of unintelligent design or blind mutation and selection.
Too bad the only known cause of regulation is via agency involvement.
Ya see such a thing requires knowledge.
Joe G: Too bad the only known cause of regulation is via agency involvement.
ReplyDeleteYa see such a thing requires knowledge.
Promotion and inhibition of gene expression are just a case of more general chemical catalysis and inhibition. We see this regulation in the physical chemical world all the time. Catalysts induce reaction. Inhibitors impede reaction. That's regulation. There's no intelligence involved. Just one molecule latching on to another (as is the case with genetics, truth be known). Even Dembski has said that snowflakes "look designed" but are not. He views God as a micromanager of biology, but not of the inorganic. Do your views go farther than Dembski's?
John:
ReplyDeleteJoe, you fail to understand the information on the website you linked to.
Joe G: Doubtful.
John: {∅} = {{}}. It has one element, as mentioned in the website.
Joe G: I didn't see it there on the empty set site- what website?
The math prof's site you cited says {∅} has one element. Read again below, carefully:
Stanford Math Prof: Let us proceed to sets having one element (singletons): {∅}, {{∅}}, {{∅, {∅}}}; in general, {x}.
Joe G: The author is saying {∅} ={{∅}}
No, the author is saying both {∅} and {{∅}} are singletons; they both have one element.
John:
ReplyDeletePromotion and inhibition of gene expression are just a case of more general chemical catalysis and inhibition.
It requires knowledge of what a gene is, when to start, stop and how much to produce.
He (Dembski) views God as a micromanager of biology,
No he doesn't.
Targeted searches do the trick- set it and forget it.
It is all about the starting point(s), targets, processes and resources to achieve the goals.
John:
ReplyDeleteNo, the author is saying both {∅} and {{∅}} are singletons; they both have one element.
When he says "in general, {x}." it means {∅} = {{∅}}
Power set
ReplyDelete"The power set of X, P(X), is the set whose elements are all the subsets of X. Thus P(A) = {{}, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}}. The power set of the empty set P({}) = {{}}." (bold added)
Power Set
ReplyDeleteIOW Zachriel's use of :
{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
as an example of a nested hierarchy is totally bogus.
All this time ole Zach has taunted me with accusations that I didn't know anything about sets and all the time he proved that he didn't know anything.
This proves he doesn't understand nested hierarchies nor set theory.
And John thank you for not correcting ole Zach.
He goes to great lengths to falsely claim I am being protected somehow- as if I need it.
Joe G: When he says "in general, {x}." it means {∅} = {{∅}}
ReplyDeleteThe measure being used is cardinality, the number of elements. So, {∅} and {{∅}} each have the same cardinality, which is one. But ∅ has a cardinality of zero.
Joe G: "The power set of the empty set P({}) = {{}}."
Notice it doesn't say {} = {{}}.
It says P({}) = {{}}, an entirely different statement.
Joe G: This proves he doesn't understand nested hierarchies nor set theory.
ReplyDeleteThe number of elements in ∅ is zero.
The number of elements in {∅} is one.
Hence ∅ ≠ {∅}.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteWith empty sets you only get {{}}- anything more than that is pure BS imaguination.
Set theory does not allow for it.
And you keep harping on set theory being key to understanding nested hierarchies.
You have proven you don't understand set theory.
You lose, again, as usual.
Stop being a baby...
IOW Zachriel's use of :
ReplyDelete{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
as an example of a nested hierarchy is totally bogus.
All this time ole Zach has taunted me with accusations that I didn't know anything about sets and all the time he proved that he didn't know anything.
This proves he doesn't understand nested hierarchies nor set theory.
I had challenged Zachriel
ReplyDeletePerhaps Zachriel can produce a nested hierarchy that is not based on characteristics.
Zachriel said
{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
However the Power Set of an empty set- {}- is {{}}.
That's it. That is as far as it goes.
You didn't know that because you don't understand set theory.
You thought you could just try to slide one by.
I bet your buddies were fooled...
Power Set
ReplyDeleteIf S is the set {x, y, z}, then the subsets of S are:
{} (also denoted , the empty set)
{x}
{y}
{z}
{x, y}
{x, z}
{y, z}
{x, y, z}
and hence the power set of S is
P(S)={{},{x},{y},{z},{x,y},{x,z},{y,z},{x,y,z}}
IOW {} = {{}} if {{}} is the power set of {}, and {{}} is the power set of {}.
Stanford Math Prof: Let us proceed to sets having one element (singletons): {∅}, {{∅}}, {{∅, {∅}}}; in general, {x}.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: When he says "in general, {x}." it means {∅} = {{∅}}
He EXPLICITLY states that these are sets with one element. That's all he is saying. I don't know how you could be reading into this that the sets in this list are equal. His variable x doesn't just stand for a number, it stands for ANY possible element, including a set.
Notice that he also says that {{∅, {∅}}} has one element. That element is {∅, {∅}}. It's not ∅. But even if it were, ∅ is a SET. A set can be an element in a more inclusive set.
Joe G: However the Power Set of an empty set- {}- is {{}}.
ReplyDeleteThat's it. That is as far as it goes.
That's as far as the power series of {} goes, but that does not mean {{{}}} = {{}}. It might to you in the logic of your everyday world, but not in set theory.
Joe G: IOW {} = {{}} if {{}} is the power set of {}, and {{}} is the power set of {}.
ReplyDelete{{}} is the power set of {}, but the power set of the set S is NOT equal to S. If it were defined to simply be S, it would be a trivial identity operation.
Notice the example you gave from wikipedia:
If S is the set {x, y, z}, then the subsets of S are:
{} (also denoted , the empty set)
{x}
{y}
{z}
{x, y}
{x, z}
{y, z}
{x, y, z}
and hence the power set of S is
P(S)={{},{x},{y},{z},{x,y},{x,z},{y,z},{x,y,z}}
Notice that S has 3 elements and P(S) has 8 elements. A set with 3 elements cannot be equal to a set with 8 elements.
Here it is from a more authoritative source:
ReplyDeletehttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/PowerSet.html
"Power sets are larger than the sets associated with them."
John,
ReplyDelete{x,y,z} = P(S)={{},{x},{y},{z},{x,y},{x,z},{y,z},{x,y,z}}
And yes the power set is larger than the set- just look.
John:
That's as far as the power series of {} goes, but that does not mean {{{}}} = {{}}. It might to you in the logic of your everyday world, but not in set theory.
LoL!
With set theory there isn't any such thing as [[[]]].
John:
ReplyDeleteHe EXPLICITLY states that these are sets with one element. That's all he is saying. I don't know how you could be reading into this that the sets in this list are equal. His variable x doesn't just stand for a number, it stands for ANY possible element, including a set.
I sent an email and asked.
Joe G,
ReplyDelete{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}} has three elements:
{{},{}}
{}
{{},{{},{},{}}}
How many elements are in ∅?
How many elements are in {∅}?
Joe G: However the Power Set of an empty set- {}- is {{}}.
How many elements are in {}?
How many elements are in {{}}?
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteThis:
{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
Is meaningless drivel.
What part of that don't you understand?
IOW Zachriel's use of :
ReplyDelete{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
as an example of a nested hierarchy is totally bogus.
All this time ole Zach has taunted me with accusations that I didn't know anything about sets and all the time he proved that he didn't know anything.
This proves he doesn't understand nested hierarchies nor set theory.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteWith empty sets you only get {{}}- anything more than that is pure BS imaguination.
Set theory does not allow for it.
And you keep harping on set theory being key to understanding nested hierarchies.
You have proven you don't understand set theory.
You lose, again, as usual.
Stop being a baby...
I had challenged Zachriel
ReplyDeletePerhaps Zachriel can produce a nested hierarchy that is not based on characteristics.
Zachriel said
{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
However the Power Set of an empty set- {}- is {{}}.
That's it. That is as far as it goes.
You didn't know that because you don't understand set theory.
You thought you could just try to slide one by.
I bet your buddies were fooled...
Joe G: Just because you can put {} around {} is meaningless.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: However the Power Set of an empty set- {}- is {{}}.
First you say {{}} is meaningless, then you say it is the Power set of {}. Your position is inconsistent.
How many elements are in ∅? Zero.
How many elements are in {∅}? One.
You know the answers. You said it above. If two sets have a different number of elements, then they can't be equal.
∅ ≠ {∅}
Context is very important-
ReplyDeleteJust because you can put {} around {} is meaningless.
However the Power Set of an empty set- {}- is {{}}.
Zachriel:
First you say {{}} is meaningless,
It is in the context of nested hierarchies. And that is what we were talking about at the time of my comment.
then you say it is the Power set of {}.
Because it is.
But anyway you have proven that you don't know what set theory entails.
You can keep whining but that isn't going to change the fact that you have been exposed as a poseur.
Joe G: It is in the context of nested hierarchies.
ReplyDeleteAs nested hierarchies are defined in terms of sets, we can't have that discussion until we are clear on how to form sets.
Joe G: Just because you can put {} around {} is meaningless.
You reiterate your confusion here.
Joe G: With set theory there isn't any such thing as [[[]]].
Of course there is. It's the set that consists of a single element, [[]].
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoe G: {{ }} = {}
ReplyDeleteNo. {∅} ≠ ∅.
I had challenged Zachriel
ReplyDeletePerhaps Zachriel can produce a nested hierarchy that is not based on characteristics.
Zachriel said
{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
However the Power Set of an empty set- {}- is {{}}.
That's it. That is as far as it goes.
You didn't know that because you don't understand set theory.
You thought you could just try to slide one by.
I bet your buddies were fooled...
With set theory there isn't any such thing as [[[]]].
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
Of course there is.
No Zachriel. There is only {{}}- that is as far as it goes.
With empty sets you only get {{}}- anything more than that is pure BS imaguination.
Set theory does not allow for it.
And you keep harping on set theory being key to understanding nested hierarchies.
You have proven you don't understand set theory.
You lose, again, as usual.
Stop being a baby...
Joe G: {{ }} = {}
ReplyDeleteBecause {} broken down is {{}}
That is what a power set is- a set broken down.
Joe G said: That is what a power set is- a set broken down.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that's why it has to be kept together with a pair of extra braces. LOL!
Joe, do us a favor and stay away from both science and math or I will bust a gut reading your ignorant meanderings.
Joe G: {{ }} = {}, ... because {} broken down is {{}}
ReplyDeleteBut you also said this:
Joe G: the Power Set of an empty set- {}- is {{}}.
Joe G: And yes the power set is larger than the set-
As {{}} is the power set of {}, then {{}} > {}, therefore {{}} ≠ {}.
olegt,
ReplyDeleteDo me a favor and actually produce some positive evidence for your position, starting with a testable hypothesis.
I had challenged Zachriel
ReplyDeletePerhaps Zachriel can produce a nested hierarchy that is not based on characteristics.
Zachriel said
{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
However the Power Set of an empty set- {}- is {{}}.
That's it. That is as far as it goes.
You didn't know that because you don't understand set theory.
You thought you could just try to slide one by.
I bet your buddies were fooled...
for oleg:
ReplyDeletePower set:
If S is the set {x, y, z}, then the subsets of S are:
{} (also denoted , the empty set)
{x}
{y}
{z}
{x, y}
{x, z}
{y, z}
{x, y, z}
IOW the set {x,y,z} can be broken down to all of its subsets.
IOW olegt the ignorance is all yours...
Joe G,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't respond. Your position is clearly inconsistent. Instead of trying to divert the discussion, you need to resolve that inconsistency before proceeding with more complex cases.
-
Joe G: {{ }} = {}, ... because {} broken down is {{}}
But you also said this:
Joe G: the Power Set of an empty set- {}- is {{}}.
Joe G: And yes the power set is larger than the set-
As {{}} is the power set of {}, then {{}} > {}, therefore {{}} ≠ {}.
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteYou have already been exposed as an ignorant poseur.
There is nothing else to discuss.
However I will keep exposing your ignorance every time you post your lying nonsense.
BTW do you see that set {x,y,z} that I linked to here?
It equals its power set.
You get the power set by breaking down the set into all of its possible subsets.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteWhat does the power set of the empty set have to do with nested hierarchies?
Hint: empty braces in Zachriel's example do not refer to the empty set.
olegt:
ReplyDeleteWhat does the power set of the empty set have to do with nested hierarchies?
Nothing.
That is the point.
Hint: empty braces in Zachriel's example do not refer to the empty set.
Of course they do- that is the accepted symbol of an empty set.
Ya see when there isn't anything in the {} then it is an empty set.
OK olegt, what is the following a nested hierarchy of?
ReplyDelete{{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}
Please be specific.
Joe G: There is nothing else to discuss.
ReplyDeleteYour position is that {{}} = {} AND {{}} > {}. Your position, then, is incoherent.
Joe G: BTW do you see that set {x,y,z} that I linked to here? It equals its power set.
Sorry that is not correct. If S = {x,y,z} then the power set of S, P(S) = {{},{x},{y},{z},{x, y},{x, z},{y, z},{x, y, z}}. Notice S has three elements, while P(S) has (2^3) 8 elements.
P(S) ≠ S
Joe G: Ya see when there isn't anything in the {} then it is an empty set.
ReplyDeleteBut this isn't the empty set: {∅}. It contains one element.
Joe G: what is the following a nested hierarchy of? {{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}.
Sets.
It's like talking about the number 2, while you keep insisting two of what? Apples? The number of things in Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket? The nested hierarchy is simply a pattern. A taxonomy is a classification that forms a nested hierarchy.
Joe G: what is the following a nested hierarchy of? {{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}.
ReplyDeleteFor clarification, you not merely arguing that it is not a nested hierarchy, but that it is not a valid set construction, at all.
Ya see when there isn't anything in the {} then it is an empty set.
ReplyDeleteZachriel:
But this isn't the empty set: {∅}. It contains one element.
That was not in your example.
So why the lie?
As for power sets- every set can be represented as a power set- evcery time you look at a set you are also looking at its power set- well perhaps not you because you seem too dim to observe such a thing.
what is the following a nested hierarchy of? {{{},{}},{},{{},{{},{},{}}}}.
Zachriel:
Sets.
Only an ignorant fool would say such a thing.
Ya see when there isn't anything in the sets then theuy are empty.
And an empty set can only be represented as {}, ∅ or {{}}.
Zachriel:
For clarification, you not merely arguing that it is not a nested hierarchy, but that it is not a valid set construction, at all.
True- it is not a nestedd hierarchy nor is it a valid construction of empty sets.
And for clarification I have sent your "example" to some experts who think you are off your rocker.
They questioned me as to why I persist with you.
I exaplained that I cannot allow someone to spew mathematical ignorance.
They agreed.
Joe wrote: Of course they do- that is the accepted symbol of an empty set.
ReplyDeleteNo, they don't. Anyone even superficially familiar with the mathematics of sets would immediately realize that {{},{}} does not refer to a set of two empty sets. By the classic definition (Cantor), every element in a set must be unique, so a set does not contain two identical elements.
Zachriel's notation {{},{}} refers to a set that consists of two distinct sets. If it helps you, think of two sets A = {a1, a2, ...} and B = {b1, b2, ...} whose members are distinct, that is no member of set A belongs to set B. His notation {{{},{}},{}} refers to a set {{A,B},C}, where C is another set with distinct members.
Can you see that?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteolegt,
ReplyDeleteThere isn't anything in Zachriel's sets- nothing at all.
Zachriel's use is incorrect.
That you would try to defend him just exposes your agenda.
It is not up to me to imagine what might be in tose sets.
As for distinct sets- how are they distinct? What makes them distinct?
Ya see ole ignorant one my claim is that nested hierarchies are constructed based on characteristics.
Zachriel is the only person I know of who disagrees with that.
Do you agree with Zachriel?
If so then please produce a nested hierarchy not based on characteristics.
Joe G: And an empty set can only be represented as {}, ∅ or {{}}.
ReplyDeleteNo, Joe G. {{}} is not an empty set. It has one element.
Joe G: True- it is not a nestedd hierarchy nor is it a valid construction of empty sets.
This particular set has a name in the standard construction of the natural numbers: {{ }, {{ }}}. It's name is "2".
Joe G: And for clarification I have sent your "example" to some experts who think you are off your rocker.
Great! We can be sure that Cornelius Hunter would welcome their participation on this forum.
olegt:
ReplyDeleteAnyone even superficially familiar with the mathematics of sets would immediately realize that {{},{}} does not refer to a set of two empty sets.
Unless the person who posted the [[],[]], is a complete dolt, like Zachriel...
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteNo, Joe G. {{}} is not an empty set. It has one element.
It is the power set of an empty set.
An empty set ={}
A power set is just a representation of the set.
And no the experts have better things to do than to deal with your ignorance.
Zachriel: It's like talking about the number 2, while you keep insisting two of what? Apples? The number of things in Sam of Ballyvourney's pocket?
ReplyDeleteLet's try filling in the blanks with things chosen haphazardly from a list.
{apple}, {{ball, sand}, {knife, {box, grass}}}}
Zachriel:
ReplyDelete{apple}, {{ball, sand}, {knife, {box, grass}}}}
Are you calling that a nested hierarchy?
Zachriel, Nested Hierarchies and Set Theory- The Ignorance Exposed, Again
ReplyDeleteThat says it all...
Joe G: An empty set ={}. A power set is just a representation of the set.
ReplyDelete|P(S)| > |S|
P(S) ≠ S
Zachriel: {apple}, {{ball, sand}, {knife, {box, grass}}}}
ReplyDeleteJoe G: Are you calling that a nested hierarchy?
Is it a partially ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset?
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteYour ignorance has been exposed.
You need to get an eductaion before we can have a discussion...
An empty set ={}. A power set is just a representation of the set.
ReplyDeletezachriel:
|P(S)| > |S|
P(S) ≠ S
The power set is a representation of the set.
It is the set broken down into all possible subsets.
There isn't any difference in the contents.
Zachriel: {apple}, {{ball, sand}, {knife, {box, grass}}}}
ReplyDeleteAre you calling that a nested hierarchy?
Zachriel:
Is it a partially ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset?
So you refuse to answer a simple question.
You are a dishonest fool who has been exposed.
Joe G: It is the set broken down into all possible subsets.
ReplyDeleteLet S = {x,y,z}. The number of elements in S, |S| = three. But the number of elments in P(S), |P(S)| = eight. They can't be equal!
Joe G: There isn't any difference in the contents.
While {x,y} is a subset of S, {x,y} is not an element of S.
-
This is very basic stuff, Joe G. You really need to set aside your prejudice and try to learn.
Joe,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to see the connection between Zachriel's set notation and nested hierarchies, open the Berkeley web site on evolution (which I'm sure you already know by heart) on the page Understanding phylogenies. Look at the diagrams at the bottom of the page showing ancestry of species A, B, and C.
Species B and C share a common ancestor (blue square) who is not an ancestor to species A. To be sure, all three species share a common ancestor (orange square) but species B and C have a more recent common ancestor, who is not shared with A.
The set-theoretic way of representing it would to list all sets of species that (a) have a common ancestor and (b) do not share that ancestor with anybody else. Such groups in this case would be {A}, {B}, {C}, {{A,B}}, {{{A},{B}},{C}}.
Zachriel: {apple}, {{ball, sand}, {knife, {box, grass}}}}
ReplyDeleteJoe G: Are you calling that a nested hierarchy?
Zachriel: Is it a partially ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset?
Joe G: So you refuse to answer a simple question.
Just asking your opinion.
oleg,
ReplyDeleteYou seem incapable of answering simple questions.
Are nested hierarchies constructed based on characteristics?
Yes or No.
If "No" then please provide an example of a nested hierarchy not based on characteristics.
IOW stop being such a coward...
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteYou really need to set aside your prejudice and try to learn.
The only things I can "learn" from you is how to be a liar, how to be deceptive, and how to never substantiate anything I post.
Joe G,
ReplyDeleteAs pointed out above, your position is incoherent.
Joe G: The only things I can "learn" from you is how to be a liar, how to be deceptive, and how to never substantiate anything I post.
You are a true exemplar of the ID Community.
Joe G wrote: Are nested hierarchies constructed based on characteristics?
ReplyDeleteNo, philogenetic nested hierarchies are based on the assumption of common ancestry. Common ancestry is determined from common morphology and genetics: closely related species have more common features and share more genes.
Are nested hierarchies constructed based on characteristics?
ReplyDeleteolegt:
No, philogenetic nested hierarchies are based on the assumption of common ancestry.
Phylogenies are not nested hierarchies.
And In biology, phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary relatedness among various groups of organisms (for example, species or populations), which is discovered through molecular sequencing data and morphological data matrices.
Common ancestry is determined from common morphology and genetics: closely related species have more common features and share more genes.
So it is based on characteristics.
Zachriel:
ReplyDeleteYou are a true exemplar of the ID Community.
And you are a true exemplar of evotardedness...