• Cdesign proponentsist JoeG loses $10,000 bet and chickens out – UPDATE

    Before reading this, or if you have already read it, please note a third update here and a fourth one here.

    A few days ago, Cdesign proponentsist JoeG  challenged me to a $10,000 bet over which one of us understands the concept of nested hierarchies better. I accepted his challenge and won and he decided to chicken out and lie about the bet.

    Let me recapitulate. Joe G. made a number of claims (and posted many links to sources he doesn´t understand, which in his opinion supports his ideas). Let´s start at the beginning. our disagreement started with Joe G´s claims that “everything could be placed into nested hierarchies”, that evolution from a common ancestor does not predict a nested hierarchy of similarities because “with gradual evolution we would expect to see a smooth blending of defining traits” and that the existence of transitional form demonstrates that a classification of organisms cannot correspond to a nested hierarchy because “if you have a mix of traits then a nested hierarchy is violated”.

    His precise claims were:

    1.

    An Army is a nested hiearchy [sic]. Just about anything can be placed into a nested hierarchy. However with gradual evolution we would expect to see a smooth blending of deining [sic] traits, and that would ruin a nested hierarchy based on traits.

    Source.

    2.

    And I am correct- transitional forms, by their very nature, contain a MIX of defining characteristics. THAT violates a nested hierarchy. Obvioulsy [sic] you don’t know anything about nested hierarchies and you think that your ignorance refutes me.

    If you have a mix of traits then a nested hierarchy is violated. period. End of story.

    Source.

    3.

    Then there is the FACT that prokaryotes do NOT fit into a strict nested hierarchy.

    Geez Dr Denton went over that in “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.
    ….
    that is obvious by the total lack of nested hierarchy wrt prokaryotes.

    While he made these claims, he challenged me to the following bet: I will put up $10,000 US to prove that I understand nested hierarchies better than you. . Which I obviously accepted, given how transparently and spectacularly wrong he was.

    So I explained how he was wrong about claim Nr. 1, that “everything could be placed into a nested hierarchy”. His claim is true to the degree that software for phylogeny inference (or other software that classifies data in a hierarchical way) will return a hierarchy, no matter what the data looks like (with some exceptions, datasets where all elements are identical or completely dissimilar cannot be classified hierarchically). However, whether a dataset can be objectively assigned to a nested hierarchy is a different question, and one that can be answered using mathematical measurements of hierarchical structure coupled with associated test statistics (a frequently used measurement in this context is the consistency index). Datasets could be significantly hierarchical, anti-hierarchical, or anything in between. Phylogenetic classifications happen to correspond to statistically highly significant hierarchical structures (for an elaborate discussion see Talk Origins) while this is usually not true for “designed” objects. I gave the examples of cars, watches, cell phones and computers. For these objects, technological innovations (like navigation systems or airbags for cars) can and are routinely included in almost all models that are still sold. Their presence in a model thus usually reflects the date when the car was manufactured or the price of the car, and can not be explained by relationships like “common manufacturer / designer”, “common inspiration” or anything like that.

    I´ll get to the “with gradual evolution we would expect to see a smooth blending of defining traits” claim (which is surprisingly not completely wrong) later, because it can be nicely discussed together with one of his follow-up claims.

    On to claim Nr. 2. This one is not only wrong, it is as wrong a statement as one could possibly make about nested hierarchies. As I explained to him, his misconceptions, if true, would prove that nested hierarchies (or any kind of hierarchical classification for that matter) are a logical impossibility!

    He claimed that “mixing traits would ruin a nested hierarchy”, but the only entities for which there is no mixing of traits / features / characters whatsoever, are entities that are identical or totally dissimilar! However, a hierarchical classification for identical or completely dissimilar objects doesn´t even make sense, because you would have objects that all have the same similarity to each other (which would be 1 and 0 respectively on a scale where 1 represents that ALL features are shared and 0 that NO features are shared). So, if no mixing of traits is ever allowed, a hierarchical classification is a logical impossibility!

    For a classification like a phylogenetic tree, traits are of course shared between different organisms, but not arbitrarily. For such a tree, the distribution of traits should be explained by the relationship of a node to it´s parent node as much as possible, if these relationships explain 100% of the variation in traits and all traits emerge just once, then the consistency index I mentioned above would be maximal (=1) and the tree would correspond to a perfectly hierarchical structure. What reduces the degree of hierarchical structure are things like the multiple independent emergence of traits (convergent evolution) and horizontal gene transfer (transfer of genetic material from one organism to another that is not it´s offspring).

    Regarding, transitional forms, JoeG seems to be unable to understand that those show transitions between an ancestral form and that of it´s descendants and do not represent a mix of traits from distinct groups on the same level of classification. Meaning that they obviously do not “ruin” a nested hierarchy.

    Claim Nr. 3 was addressed as well – horizontal gene transfer (which is very widespread among many prokaryotes) indeed does reduce the degree of hierarchical structure for phylogenies, but since vertical transfer of genetic material is still more common than horizontal and since „hierarchical structure“ is not a binary attribute (something which Joe G. had a very hard time understanding…), prokaryotic phylogenies still have a highly significant hierarchical structure (see here and here for example).

    So, JoeG was as wrong as he could possibly be and obviously (since we are dealing with a Cdesign proponentsists here) did not admit that, but rather chose to ignore the bullshit he wrote and make new claims – that a phylogenetic tree does not correspond to a nested hierarchy, that evolution doesn´t even predict a nested hierarchy and that Charles Darwin himself supports his IDiotic ideas.
    His claims were:

    4. A quote from a 1998 paper by Eric Knox:

    The fact that speciation ends with two species, not two halves of a species, is an indication that this hierarchy lacks summativity, and therefore, is non-nested.

    – with the attempt to demonstrate that phylogenetic trees are not nested hierarchies. Source.

    5.

    First things first- Linnean taxonomy, ie the observed nested hierarchy with animals, has nothing to do with evolution, guided or unguided. It was created to exemplify a common design. Evolutionists stole it, changed the headings and said theirs can also explain it. Note- NOT predict it, explain it.

    Source.

    6. A quotes from chapter 14 of  “On the Origin of Species”:

    Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible

    Preceded by JoeG claiming  “However, Darwin agrees with me.”
    Source.

    Note how his comments evolved and how he no longer claims most of the bullshit from the previous three claims (without acknowledging that he was wrong of course). On to his new bullshit:

    Claim 4: he is not completely wrong about the Knox paper. Knox is trying to refine the terminology in systematics and distinguish between “nested”,  “semi-nested” and “non-nested” hierarchies in classification, based on what “nested” exactly means in the respective context.

    A classifcation where the sum of all parts at one level of organization is equal to (or rather “fully encompassed in”) the higher level of classification, would be “fully nested”, while a classification where one level of classifcation is encompassed in the next higher level, but not equal to it (because the next higher level is more general) would be “semi-nested”. And finally, a classification where the entities at one level of classification are more than the next higher level of classification (i.e. not fully encompassed by the next higher level of classification) would be non-nested.

    Which effectively means that he would refer to a phylogenetic tree as “non-nested”, to a cladogram as “semi-nested” and to a structure as he shows in figure 5 as “fully-nested”. It has to be pointed out though, that there is an extreme amount of nitpicking involved in this distinction and it is not established and in practice virtually never used. And, more importantly, since most phylogenetic trees (all that would be relevant for our disagreement) can trivially be converted to a cladogram and to a structure as he shows in figure 5 (without loosing any information that would be relevant for this discussion – all that is lost is an explicit representation of time) and since this would make no difference whatsoever for our disagreement (the degree of hierarchical structure could be measured for all three and would yield the exact same result) – this supports JoeG´s claims in no way shape or form. Especially considering that he had no clue about what he was even reading because this is the claim he tried to support by citing the paper:

    The point is that I had claimed that transitional forms, by their very definition, would violate a nested hierarchy scheme. Ya see they have a mix of characteristics of two or more other species, and that means you would have to create a new set, which means redefining all the old sets.

    Source.

    The paper has literally nothing to do with this claim whatsoever.

    Claim 5:
    Evolution did not predict a nested hierarchy? Of course it did. Let´s look at chaper 14 of the sixth edition of !On the Origin of Species“!(and the only figure in this book):

    I request the reader to turn to the diagram illustrating the action, as formerly explained, of these several principles; and he will see that the inevitable result is, that the modified descendants proceeding from one progenitor become broken up into groups subordinate to groups. In the diagram each letter on the uppermost line may represent a genus including several species; and the whole of the genera along this upper line form together one class, for all are descended from one ancient parent, and, consequently, have inherited something in common. But the three genera on the left hand have, on this same principle, much in common, and form a subfamily, distinct from that containing the next two genera on the right hand, which diverged from a common parent at the fifth stage of descent. These five genera have also much in common, though less than when grouped in subfamilies; and they form a family distinct from that containing the three genera still further to the right hand, which diverged at an earlier period. And all these genera, descended from (A), form an order distinct from the genera descended from (I). So that we here have many species descended from a single progenitor grouped into genera; and the genera into subfamilies, families and orders, all under one great class. The grand fact of the natural subordination of organic beings in groups under groups, which, from its familiarity, does not always sufficiently strike us, is in my judgment thus explained. No doubt organic beings, like all other objects, can be classed in many ways, either artificially by single characters, or more naturally by a number of characters. We know, for instance, that minerals and the elemental substances can be thus arranged. In this case there is of course no relation to genealogical succession, and no cause can at present be assigned for their falling into groups. But with organic beings the case is different, and the view above given accords with their natural arrangement in group under group; and no other explanation has ever been attempted.

    So, JoeG was wrong again. What a surprise…

    Finally Claim 6 (and partly claim 1 as well):

    What Darwin tried to communicate in this quote was, that demarcation criteria between groups of related organisms have been created by extinction. Think about it, if we assume that all organisms are descendants of a shared common ancestor and modifications happened gradually – how would we classify organisms if every organism that ever lived were still alive today?

    There would only be one meaningful classification, one group that encompasses all life, because there would be smooth gradual transitions from every form to a closely related form. That´s what we would get with universal common descent + gradualism + ubiquitous immortality. We could still arrange species by similarity within ONE group that encompasses all life, but objective distinctions between different groups (or any form of hierarchical classification) would be impossible.

    I still have no clue why JoeG thinks that this supports any of his arguments in any way, shape or form however since he must have noticed that organisms are in fact not immortal and that the overwhelming majority of all species that ever lived are extinct.

    Joe G. owes me $10,000. And instead of putting his money where his mouth his, he rather lies about the matter. I offered to have this matter settled by judges and even granted him to choose the judges:

    Btw, maybe you didn´t get it, but I accepted your challenge.

    We could also have this settled by judges if you prefer. And, since I´m absolutely confident that I am right and you are as wrong as you could possibly be (since your hilarious misconceptions about nested hierarchies are so ridiculous that they would demonstrate that nested hierarchies are a logical impossibility if they were accurate), I let you choose the judges. Hell, they could even be Cdesign proponentsists for all I care.

    All that matters to me is that they can speak with authority about the matter – professional Mathematicians (or Computer Scientists) working on classification / clustering problems, Mathematicians working on Markovian processes, Biomathematicians, Bioinformaticians working on phylogeny inference and / or Markov models, Taxonomists etc. – and that they are willing to go on the record with their name and professional affiliation (and thus risking their reputation should they lie about the subject).

    Source.

    Maybe JoeG is just too stupid to understand (or look up) the words and phrases “judges”, “qualified” and “go on the record”, but this is what he made out of it:

    Oops. Andy sez I can use any judges I want. Well Andy I will take Darwin and Denton.
    You lose.

    Source.

    A dead man who can´t tell Joe G. that he doesn´t understand his writings and his interpretation of a book written by a Biochemist with no training in and no contributions to the subjects we are talking about… You can´t make this shit up.

    So, brave Sir Joe did not put his money where his big fat mouth is and ran away instead, who would have guessed?

    [UPDATE –

    Unless I missed it, it seems like there is a rather obvious flaw with Joe G’s arguments that even a non-scientist should be able to note, yet no one has pointed it out.

    Joe G claimed that “everything could be placed into nested hierarchies.” However, he also says that evolution does not predict nested hierarchies, and that transitional species destroy nested hierarchies. He also said things about prokaryotes don’t fit into the nested hierarchies either. But these statements are direct contradictions: anything can be placed into such a hierarchy, and there are biological trees that cannot be put into such hierarchies. So never mind the technicalities, Joe G doesn’t even have a coherent idea to stand against the facts.

    Now, being an honest person, I don’t make shit up about things I don’t know about. However, I at least know rule #1 about bullshitting: keep your story straight. So not only is Joe G a bullshitter, he isn’t even good at it.

    Aaron Adair, below]

    [UPDATE 2:
    Joe G. has an amazing ability to repeat the same Bullshit over and over and over again without ever actually addressing the explanations and refutations he is replying to. On his blog, he claims that Douglas Theobald (of Talk Origins fame) agrees with him, he quotes Theobald´s Talk Origins essay on nested hierarchies:

    It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings. Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not. Gymnosperms (e.g. conifers or pines) occasionally could be found with flowers, but they never are. Non-seed plants, like ferns, could be found with woody stems; however, only some angiosperms have woody stems. Conceivably, some birds could have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers (they are an excellent means of insulation). Certain fish or amphibians could have differentiated or cusped teeth, but these are only characteristics of mammals. A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies. Unlike organisms, cars do have a mix and match of characters, and this is precisely why a nested hierarchy does not flow naturally from classification of cars.

    If it were impossible, or very problematic, to place species in an objective nested classification scheme (as it is for the car, chair, book, atomic element, and elementary particle examples mentioned above), macroevolution would be effectively disproven. More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified.

    And he thinks that this supports his Bullshit IDeas in any way, shape or form. The funny thing is that he made the exact same idiotic claim three days ago and it was already refuted by me:

    No, he doesn´t [support your ideas] Genius, Theobald says:

    “It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings.”
    => Note that he is talking about extant species with combined characteristics of different nested groups and not about transitional forms (because those show transitions between an ancestral form and it´s descendants. Also, note that he is talking about “many”, which means that those characteristics must have emerged “many” times independently (homoplasy).

    And now, go back to my earlier comment, read it again, and note where I say:

    “Which means that the distribution of features in the leaves should be explained as much as possible by their relationship to their parent nodes (if the relation to parent nodes explains 100% of the variation in features at the leaves and all features emerge just once (Hint: all features that DO exist actually must emerge somewhere at least one time…), the consistency index would be 1). What reduces the degree of hierarchical structure is the independent (i.e. not explainable by relation to parent node) emergence of features.

    => You really should work on your reading comprehension. And if you were not lying about having attended college level Biology courses – print out this exchange and ask for a refund on your tuition fees.

    So, he´s repeating the exact same Bullshit, pretends he wasn´t already refuted (his IDiotic misconceptions do not even need a refutation, reading comprehension would be all that is required) and he still doesn´t understand what a transitional form is (and he seems to be incapable of grasping the difference between the words “bold” / “bald” and “boldly” / “baldly”…).]

    [UPDATE 3 –
    Joe. G continues to show off his amazing ignorance at his blog. It´s amazing how much his answers evolve as he keeps frantically googling stuff (note how he has completely given up on his earliest bullshit claims – he´s making it up as he goes along).
    Joe:

    But anyway, as I told Andy, nested hierarchies are constructed by making sets. Those are specified, well-defined sets in a specified well-defined order. The more characters you can use to define your sets, the better for your nested hierarchy.

    That is complete bullshit. The only thing that counts is that the variation in the lower levels of the classification is explained by them being nested in the next higher level of classification (in evolutionary terms, this translated to variation between organisms being explained by their ancestry).

    What reduces the degree to which living species and their ancestors can be modelled by a nested hierarchy, is variation that cannot be explained by nodes being nested in the next higher level of classification (in evolution – this would correspond to convergent evolution or horizontal gene transfer).

    Joe:

    First things first- Linnean taxonomy, ie the observed nested hierarchy with animals, has nothing to do with evolution, guided or unguided. It was created to exemplify a common design. Evolutionists stole it, changed the headings and said theirs can also explain it. Note- NOT predict it, explain it. If anything nested hierarchies are evidence for our cleverness, nothing more.

    This is a verbatim copy of a bullshit claim he already made days ago (see above) has already been debunked (which Joe, as always, simply ignored) – is Joe G. just an idiot or is he lying ? You decide.

    Btw, evolutionists didn´t steal linnean taxonomy, linnean taxonomy is a tool for classification of living species, it has nothing to do with modelling ancestor-descendant relationships.

    All species are on the SAME level. Andy didn’t seem to understand that. But that is because he notion of a nested hierarchy is a non-nested hierarchy with one species giving rise to two (or more).

    He´s referring to the Knox paper again which suggests a refinement of taxonomic terminology that has merits, but is neither established nor used in practice (see above). The term “nested hierarchy” is used in Biology (and virtually all other fields exactly as I explained it (or as Douglas Theobald explained it at Talk Origins).

    See also:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0469.2002.00211.x/abstract

    and:

    http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/strauss/Phylogenetics/Readings/deQueirozGauthier1992.pdf (seminal review that has been cited over 500 times already, this provides the definitions of taxonomic terms as they are accepted and used in practice.)

    All species are on the SAME level.

    Transitional forms are species too. They are defined as having a mix of defining characteristics from two other species. A mammal-like reptile doesn’t qualify as a mammal (not enough defining characteristics), nor does it qualify as a reptile (not enough defining characteristics). So you would either have to throw it out OR make more “branches” by redefining everything and using fewer and fewer defining characteristics for each set. You would have to do this for each alleged transitional form. And your scheme would become a mess very quickly. And its objectivity would diminish as more “branches” are added.

    This is simply unbelievable. This has been explained to him at least a dozen times now.

    He seems to believe that all species, alive or extinct, have to go to the lowest level of classification (apparently because he now combines his misconceptions about Linnean taxonomy (where a species, alive or extinct, would always be at the lowest level of classification (this was a time when no one even thought of the idea that entire species could go extinct for fucks sake) and which has nothing to do with modelling common ancestry because no common ancestry between species was assumed) with his misconceptions about phylogenetics (where common ancestry is explicitly modelled).

    Extinct species correspond to internal nodes (not the entities at the leaves / tips of the tree) or to extinct lineages in a phylogenetic tree (which shows ancestor-descendant relationships). And in a cladogram, explicit ancestor-descendant relationships are not shown, it shows how monophyletic groups (groups that include an ancestral entity (which could be a single organism, a species, or a group of species (it´s not specified)), all their descendants and nothing else, are related to each other. A cladogram still implies ancestor-descendant relationships (unlike a linnean classification) and descendants branch of from their ancestors.

    And even if all ancestral forms were still around, both phylogenetic trees and cladograms would still correspond to nested hierarchies because it would still be true that descendants are more similar to their ancestors than to any randomly selected other taxon and that the relationships to ancestral nodes explains the variation in descendants!

    What would change is, that the groups we are used to (e.g. “Mammals”) would no longer be meaningful, because all transitional forms that connect a putative group to it´s most closely related group would still be around – you could simply replace both groups by a new one that combines them, and continue doing that until you are left with just one group – none of these groups would be any more meaningful than the others.

    What would not change is, that any two sister taxa at the tips of the hierarchy are more similar to each other and to their ancestor than to other randomly selected taxa (and the same obviously applies to all higher levels in the hierarchy), it would still be a nested hierarchy. This is the inevitable outcome of descent with gradual modification from a common ancestor as I tried to explain to Joe G. *many* times.]

    [UPDATE 4-

    Joe G. just can´t stop showing off how much of an IDiot he is.
    He´s still complaining that I misrepresented his words, which is funny, given how I quoted him exactly and always linked to his original posts.

    Then he lies about never having claimed to say:

    that evolution from a common ancestor does not predict a nested hierarchy of similarities

    Joe says:

    Nope, I never said, thought nor impled such a thing. IOW Andy thinks I am wrong because he is too stupid to grasp the English language.

    Oh really Joe ? Never said or implied ?
    I already quoted him above:

    An Army is a nested hiearchy [sic]. Just about anything can be placed into a nested hierarchy. However with gradual evolution we would expect to see a smooth blending of deining [sic] traits, and that would ruin a nested hierarchy based on traits.

    Source.
    He seems to be embarrassed of what he wrote and now tries to lie about it.

    He proceeds by demonstrating that he still doesn´t understand how phylogenetics works:

    What a moron. All species are on the SAME level. Linnean taxonomy is the nested hierarchy. Phylogenetic trees are non-nested hierarchies. Our bet pertains to nested hierarchies only.

    Phylogenetic trees are non-nested hierarchies because they do not display summativity. In a phylogenetic tree we have one giving rise to two or more.

    This has now so often explained to him that I´m getting bored. He just doesn´t understand that Linnean classification and phylogenetics are two different things, Linnean classification has nothing to do with common ancestry, phylogenetics does – cladograms and phylogenetic trees do not treat extant species like extinct ones because they DO model common ancestry. This shouldn´t be that hard to understand but we are dealing with an IDiot here.

    And he still thinks that the Darwin quote mentioned above supports his Bullshit because he is to stupid to understand this explanation:

    What Darwin tried to communicate in this quote was, that demarcation criteria between groups of related organisms have been created by extinction. Think about it, if we assume that all organisms are descendants of a shared common ancestor and modifications happened gradually – how would we classify organisms if every organism that ever lived were still alive today? There would only be one meaningful classification, one group that encompasses all life, because there would be smooth gradual transitions from every form to a closely related form. That´s what we would get with universal common descent + gradualism + ubiquitous immortality. We could still arrange species by similarity within ONE group that encompasses all life, but objective distinctions betweendifferent groups (or any form of hierarchical classification) would be impossible.

    As already explained above, if this thought experiment were true, nothing would change about the fact that cladograms and phylogenetic trees would still be nested hierarchies. What would change is, that we could no longer objectively cut off any branch in these trees and treat it like an objective classification (e.g. “Mammals”) – all such putative groups would be equally subjective and you could always simply combine a putative group with it´s most closely related group into one bigger group, and keep doing that until only one group is left (which encompasses all life).
    And a further pragmatical problem, if this thought experiment were true, would be, that phylogenetics studies based on morphological traits would be incredibly hard (even impossible in some cases) while phylogenetics studies based on molecular characters would be MUCH easier (even individuals if the same species, which are morphologically indistinguishable, still have detectable differences on the genetic level in virtually all cases).
    The funny thing is, that Darwin explains this clearly after Joe´s quote (what ? did you expect that creationists actually read their sources ?

    And finally, he tries to argue that Douglas Theobald (yes, the same guy that wrote a long essay on evolution and nested hierarchies) supports his idiotic ideas – you can´t make this shit up.

    Joe provides this quote from Theobald:

    Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme. Based on shared derived characters, closely related organisms can be placed in one group (such as a genus), several genera can be grouped together into one family, several families can be grouped together into an order, etc

    And then claims:

    LINNEAN CLASSIFICATION is the nested hierarchy you stupid fuck. That means that Theobald agrees with what I said.

    And if the IDiot would have kept reading, he might have noticed what Theobald says just three sentences after that:

    Most importantly, the standard phylogenetic tree and nearly all less inclusive evolutionary phylogenies have statistically significant, high values of hierarchical structure (Baldauf et al. 2000; Brown et al. 2001; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Klassen et al. 1991).

    Theobald was pointing out that the fact that Linnean classification works, means that a hierarchical classification works. And the nested hierarchies that Theobald goes on to discuss are not ones that have nothing to do with ancestor-descendant relationships but rather phylogenetic trees. That´s the entire point of his essay – Joe G. managed to ignore pretty much every context that comes before, or after this quote

    And that´s why you should never trust a quote coming from a creationist.]

    Category: Evolution

    Tags:

    Article by: Andreas Schueler

    One Pingback/Trackback

    • Unless I missed it, it seems like there is a rather obvious flaw with Joe G’s arguments that even a non-scientist should be able to note, yet no one has pointed it out.

      Joe G claimed that “everything could be placed into nested hierarchies.” However, he also says that evolution does not predict nested hierarchies, and that transitional species destroy nested hierarchies. He also said things about prokaryotes don’t fit into the nested hierarchies either. But these statements are direct contradictions: anything can be placed into such a hierarchy, and there are biological trees that cannot be put into such hierarchies. So never mind the technicalities, Joe G doesn’t even have a coherent idea to stand against the facts.

      Now, being an honest person, I don’t make shit up about things I don’t know about. However, I at least know rule #1 about bullshitting: keep your story straight. So not only is Joe G a bullshitter, he isn’t even good at it.

      • Andy_Schueler

        Joe G doesn’t even have a coherent idea to stand against the facts.

        Absolutely true, he was making stuff up as he went along and never cared if it contradicted any of his other Bullshit claims.

      • SmilodonsRetreat

        Joe often makes “own goals”. It’s the only thing that keeps me entertained by him.

      • frisbee_kid

        Aaron, CONTEXT- Just about anything can be placed into a nested hierarchy but that does NOT mean it is going to be a neat and orderly nested hierarchy. If I said “everything” I was wrong. My bad.
        As I said the very existence of transitional forms ruins an orderly and objective nested hierarchy.

        • Andy_Schueler

          but that does NOT mean it is going to be a neat and orderly nested hierarchy

          Funny. You never mentioned that until I explained it to you several times (if you want to prove me wrong, just quote the exact comment and the timestamp of where you first said this and everyone can see that it was AFTER I explained this to you ;-) ).

    • Guest
    • Rich Hughes
      • Andy_Schueler

        :-D

        If I can sue him I do not need those judges, moron.

        And as soon as I hear back from a lawyer, I have emailed several, I will know what I can do.

        This is so adorable…

        • I’d love to see the emails joey allegedly sent to several lawyers, and the looks on the lawyers’ faces when they read them.

          I wonder why he doesn’t just get barry arrington (ambulance chaser, bill collector, UD proprietor, and fellow IDiot) to represent him?

      • Andy_Schueler

        Is there anyone following his blog who is not just reading it to laugh at his Dunning-Kruger-on-steroids and internet-tough-guy (sitting in his Momma´s basement) attitude ?

        • Sam Harris

          As you probably know, Joey has a history of making threats toward people that expose his stupidity. And like your bet, he also tends to chicken out when his bluff is called.

    • NoCrossNoCrescent

      That’s “Cdesgin proponentsist”. Fascinating transitional fossil.

      • Clare45

        I think technically it should read C.Desgin Proponentsis. Could be a form of Clostridium related to C.Difficile.

    • John Grove

      This is a clear cut case where a challenge was made, and the challenge was decisively defeated.

    • Pingback: Creationism and Biases | Smilodon's Retreat()

    • JohnM

      Pretty silly bet. First of all, because judges are experts in law, not in scientific theories. Secondly, because judges are human beings, who can be wrong. And last but not least, because only silly, arrogant, republican presidential candidates, would every bet that amount of money.

      • Andy_Schueler

        JohnM, you are objectively too dumb to participate in this discussion, Proof.

        First of all, because judges are experts in law, not in scientific theories.

        Of course! Because that is obviously the definition of “judge” that I implied when I said:

        We could also have this settled by judges if you prefer. And, since I´m absolutely confident that I am right and you are as wrong as you could possibly be (since your hilarious misconceptions about nested hierarchies are so ridiculous that they would demonstrate that nested hierarchies are a logical impossibility if they were accurate), I let you choose the judges. Hell, they could even be Cdesign proponentsists for all I care.

        All that matters to me is that they can speak with authority about the matter – professional Mathematicians (or Computer Scientists) working on classification / clustering problems, Mathematicians working on Markovian processes, Biomathematicians, Bioinformaticians working on phylogeny inference and / or Markov models, Taxonomists etc. – and that they are willing to go on the record with their name and professional affiliation (and thus risking their reputation should they lie about the subject).

        I obviously didn´t mean one of the other meanings of “Judge”, like “an alternative name for an adjudicator in a competition in theatre, music, dance, sport, animal fancy, policy debate, etc.”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_(disambiguation)

        • JohnM

          Oh, so you guys plan on settling the bet, by committing the argument from authority fallacy?

          You’re right.. I really didn’t see that one coming.

          • Andy_Schueler

            Still don´t understand what an argument from authority is and when it is fallacious eh ?
            No surprise, since you are mildly retarted, Proof:
            http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/03/31/original-sin-answering-thomas-l-mcdonald/#comment-852308833

            In case you were not aware of that, referring to a panel of judges who are experts in the respective fields is indeed the way that such a bet is settled (hint: we don´t have to do research, that has already been done – we have to settle a bet)

            • JohnM

              You’re clearly confused….

              You 2 fools made a bet about the truth. And the truth cannot be settled by judges.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Of course! Let the guy who wrote this:
              http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/03/31/original-sin-answering-thomas-l-mcdonald/#comment-852308833

              explain how to best settle a bet!

            • JohnM

              Thank you for all the free promotion of my previous posts. You know, I didn’t write them, hoping that they would be lost in the void.

            • Andy_Schueler

              It´s all the same one, the one that best demonstrates the fact that you are mentally retarded.

    • frisbee_kid

      I did NOT chicken out. YOU owe me $10,000 asshole. YOU still haven’t demonstrated any understanding of nested hierarchies.
      The Knox paper I used only to refute your ignorant diagram was a nested hierarchy. Again you are a moron who cannot follow along.
      And Darwin said “GROUP UNDER GROUP”, nested hierarchies are “groups within groups”. Darwin was NOT talking about a nested hierarchy. His diagram does NOT represent a nested hierarchy.
      Again you would have known that had you any knowldge of nested hierarchies.

      • Andy_Schueler

        You did chicken out and now you lie about it, has all been documented (try reading the post).

        What you used the Know paper for and how it relates to your IDiotic arguments has also been documented in the post (hint: I quoted you exactly and linked to your words, the internet doesn´t forget)

        And Darwin said “GROUP UNDER GROUP”, nested hierarchies are “groups within groups”.

        Cute, the troll is getting desperate :-D. Because Groups under groups are obviously something different than groups within groups… (hint: they are not).

        His diagram does NOT represent a nested hierarchy.

        It does represent a “nested hierarchy” as the term is commonly used in taxonomy. The refinement that Knox proposed has it´s merits, but is neither established nor used in practice. Biologists define and use nested hierarchies exactly as I explained to you, see:

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0469.2002.00211.x/abstract (behind paywall but I´ll happily send you the article)

        or:

        http://www.faculty.biol.ttu.edu/strauss/Phylogenetics/Readings/deQueirozGauthier1992.pdf (a seminal review that has been cited over 500 times, which describes and defines taxonomic terms in the way that is commonly accepted in the community and used in actual research).

        All of your claims are wrong, as exhaustively demonstrated in the OP (which you did not even try to rebut in any way, shape or form). You prefer to lie about not having chickened out, so let me repeat:

        Maybe JoeG is just too stupid to understand (or look up) the words and phrases “judges”, “qualified” and “go on the record”, but this is what he made out of it:

        Oops. Andy sez I can use any judges I want. Well Andy I will take Darwin and Denton.
        You lose.

        A dead man who can´t tell Joe G. that he doesn´t understand his writings and his interpretation of a book written by a Biochemist with no training in and no contributions to the subjects we are talking about… You can´t make this shit up.

        So, brave Sir Joe did not put his money where his big fat mouth is and ran away instead, who would have guessed?

        • JohnM

          Andy said : You did chicken out and now you lie about it, has all been documented

          I think frisbee_kid is a joke. But so is your “documentation”.

          Wake up. You haven’t documented or proven anything. It’s a tie in epic fail.

          What were you thinking, even accepting his bet? That’s only giving this attention-addict, what he wants.

          • Andy_Schueler

            I think frisbee_kid is a joke. But so is your “documentation”.

            Wake up. You haven’t documented or proven anything. It’s a tie in epic fail.

            What a useful comment! Kind of like Kim Kardashian listening to a physicist who explains the evidence for dark matter, and then proceeding to claim that dark matter is all bogus – without giving any argument beyond “it´s like totally stupid and stuff!!11!”
            *Slow clap*

            What were you thinking, even accepting his bet?

            Providing yet another piece of evidence that Cdesign proponentsists are either ignorant, deluded or lying (or any mix of those categories).

            That’s only giving this attention-addict, what he wants.

            Please stop using commas – you don´t understand how they work.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : What a useful comment!

              What an epic fail comeback.

              Andy said : Please stop using commas – you don´t understand how they work.

              Lies. They are used for indicating a division or a pause in a sentence

            • Andy_Schueler

              What an epic fail comeback.

              Right! Let the guy who wrote this:
              http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/03/31/original-sin-answering-thomas-l-mcdonald/#comment-852308833
              be the judge on what constitutes an epic fail!
              And since you dishonestly ignore everything after the first sentence, here it is again:

              Kind of like Kim Kardashian listening to a physicist who explains the evidence for dark matter, and then proceeding to claim that dark matter is all bogus – without giving any argument beyond “it´s like totally stupid and stuff!!11!”
              *Slow clap*

              Lies. They are used for indicating a division or a pause in a sentence

              First google hit, good one! Now you only have to understand what that means and you might figure out how to actually use them productively instead of making your inane thoughts even more confusing.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : And since you dishonestly ignore everything after the first sentence, here it is again…

              It was both a straw man and a red herring. Of course I ignore it. Why would I shoot you in the foot, when you have already taken care of that yourself?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Aww, it´s soo adorable when creationists drop the names of random logical fallacies that have nothing to do with what was being said.
              Cute :-).

            • JohnM

              Another weak comeback..

            • Andy_Schueler

              Let me stoop down to your level for a second:
              NO, U!!

            • JohnM

              Orly?!

            • Andy_Schueler

              And let me recapitulate your “point”:
              1. “You haven´t proven anything” (evidence omitted).
              2. Both of you are an epic fail (evidence omitted).
              3. Your reply is an epic fail (evidence omitted).
              4. Your reply constitutes both a straw man and a red herring (evidence omitted).

              And I gave you exactly the reply you deserved, which I happily summarize again:
              You are a fucktard.

            • JohnM

              “You are a fucktard.” – (evidence omitted)

              “No I proved that. Look in posts above”. ( Not! )

              You are so predictable. At least find something more original to say.

            • Andy_Schueler

              “You are a fucktard.” – (evidence omitted)

              No, unlike you, I support my statements with evidence. You are a fucktard. Proof:
              http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/03/31/original-sin-answering-thomas-l-mcdonald/#comment-852308833
              More proof:

              “No I proved that. Look in posts above”. ( Not! )

              List of proofs could be expanded arbitrarily (roughly a third of all your comments on this blog (basically everything where you are not just trolling)), the first link is more than sufficient though.

            • JohnM

              Nothing that you and I say, can be establish to be something, without taking on a certain interpretation. But since everything we write, is interpreted, as the reader sees fit, linking posts, proves nothing. And I do think, that it’s a bit embarrassing, that you haven’t realized that yet…

              Think about it… It’s only because we have set up rules, that dictate the result of 2+2, that I can prove, that 2+2=4. On the other hand, if the result had to be interpreted, it could be anything, depending on the reader.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Wow, I think that replaces this one:
              http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/03/31/original-sin-answering-thomas-l-mcdonald/#comment-852308833

              as your single dumbest statement.

              Did you try this stunt in school ?
              “No, Mr. Teacher, WWII starting in 1939 requires a certain interpretation and I can interpret it differently as I see fit! My answer that it started yesterday and lasted 4 1/2 minutes is just as valid as your fancy textbook mumbo-jumbo and I do think it´s embarrassing that you didn´t realize that!”

              I know why your teachers hated you (hint: it has nothing to do with asking difficult questions).

            • JohnM

              I’m not sure I follow, Andy.

              Are you suggesting that we can prove WWII starting in 1939, by linking forum posts?

              And are you challenging, that statements made by people can be interpreted in multiple ways?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Are you suggesting that we can prove WWII starting in 1939, by linking forum posts?

              No, but by arguments based on reasoned logic and evidence. As I did in the OP, which you didn´t read.

              And are you challenging, that statements made by people can be interpreted?

              No, I´m pointing out that your idiocy:
              “But since everything we write, is interpreted, as the reader sees fit, linking posts, proves nothing.”
              logically entails absurdity like:
              “since everying we write is interpreted, an anthology about the historical Jesus could be interpeted as the reader sees fit and proves nothing – the interpretation that Jesus was a preacher in 1st century Palestine is just as valid as the interpretation that he was an alien from alpha centauri who gave a lecture on postmodernism in Seattle last week.”

            • Andy_Schueler

              Btw, has the creationist community now adopted this Pomo crap or are you again just being a moron – even if creationist standards are applied ?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Oh, and to further proof that you don´t understand what the OP was even about, but still feel confident enough to claim that “nothing” was demonstrated in the OP (i.e. Dunning-Kruger on steroids):

              Answer the following question within the next ten minutes:

              What exactly is “horizontal gene transfer” in contrast to vertical gene transfer and what would it mean for the subject that was discussed in the OP if horizontal gene transfer were much more frequent than vertical gene transfer ? (and why ?)

            • JohnM

              Oh my!! The time is up already, and I’ve only just noticed this question.

              Great proof, Andy.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You have another ten minutes.
              Go.

      • JohnM

        frisbee_kid said : YOU owe me $10,000 asshole.

        The following quotes comes to mind..

        “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.”

        “Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless.”

        “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

      • Rich Hughes

        Oh you admit you’re wrong. Great, pay up $10k, Chubbs.

      • Hey frisbee_joey, have you heard back from all those lawyers that you allegedly emailed? Why don’t you post the emails you allegedly sent and the responses so that we can all see them? I’m anxious to see when and where the lawsuit (LOL) is going to take place.

    • frisbee_kid

      Andy lied. I did NOT say “everything can be placed into a nested hierarchy”.
      You are pathetic andy. Pay up you loser.

      • JohnM

        No, you’re pathetic.

      • Andy_Schueler

        Your words:

        An Army is a nested hiearchy [sic]. Just about anything can be placed into a nested hierarchy.

        Which I quoted exactly as you phrased them with a link to the source.

    • frisbee_kid

      And AGAIN, a hierarchcal structure does NOT = a nested hierarchy. They are two different arrangements. the fact that Andy keeps bouncing back and forth between the two is evidence that he conflates them.

      • Andy_Schueler

        I don´t. I´m referring to measuring the degree of hierarchical structure of a cladogram or a phylogeny (i.e. nested hierarchies (if you want to quote the Knox paper again, read the OP and see the comment below)).

    • frisbee_kid

      Information technology- the creating of network topologies, computer file directories, network and file access privileges in a network, all require the knowledge of tree creation, hierarchal structure and nested hierarchies. I have been doing that for over 30 years. I understand trees, hierarchies and nested hierarchies. I had to in order to survive in the field of information technology.

      But anyway, as I told Andy, nested hierarchies are constructed by making sets. Those are
      specified, well-defined sets in a specified well-defined order. The more
      characters you can use to define your sets, the better for your nested
      hierarchy. Each set on one level has to be distinct from the others on that
      level. For example all the similarities each species may have with another are
      taken care of on higher levels, such as Genera, Family, on up to the top. See the summary of the principles of hierarchy theory. 

      First things first- Linnean taxonomy, ie the observed nested
      hierarchy with animals, has nothing to do with evolution, guided or unguided.
      It was created to exemplify a common design. Evolutionists stole it, changed
      the headings and said theirs can also explain it. Note- NOT predict it, explain
      it. If anything nested hierarchies are evidence for our cleverness, nothing
      more. 

      That said each species belongs to a well defined set. That
      set, in turn, belongs to a larger set, Genera. 
      Each Genera belongs to a Family (another set), which belongs to an Order
      (another set), which belongs to a Class (yup, another set), which belongs to a
      Phylum (another set), which belongs to a Kingdom, then we have a domain and
      finally “the” superset, all living organisms. I call it “the” superset because
      every subset has to have all of the attributes of that superset. All the sets exhibit summativity.

      All species are on the SAME level.

      Transitional forms are species too. They are defined as
      having a mix of defining characteristics from two other species. A mammal-like
      reptile doesn’t qualify as a mammal (not enough defining characteristics), nor
      does it qualify as a reptile (not enough defining characteristics). So you
      would either have to throw it out OR make more “branches” by redefining
      everything and using fewer and fewer defining characteristics for each set. You
      would have to do this for each alleged transitional form. And your scheme would
      become a mess very quickly. And its objectivity would diminish as more
      “branches” are added.

       

      It is a very simple concept- the more points that have to be connected, you need more lines to connect them. And in any classification scheme, more lines mean more definitions. And when you have more definitions you will have fewer defining characteristics for each organism. And that would make each set less distinguishable from the others. Species will blend as opposed to being separate distinct categories. But that is the nature of gradual evolution. We would expect a blending of characteristics. And anyone who thinks differently is the fool.

      • Andy_Schueler

        Your stupidity continues to amaze. Transitional forms that connect ancestral forms to extant forms are not part of a cladogram and correspond to internal nodes in a phylogeny (or correspond to extinct lineages).
        This can´t be that hard to understand. Moron.

        Try reading chapter 13+14 of the Orgin of Species or at least think for a few seconds about the paragraph you quotemined. Moron.

        • JohnM

          All those “Moron” comments, really make your comments look so intelligent.

          • Andy_Schueler

            Maybe you think it´s an insult, I can assure you that at least for you – it´s not intended as one. I rather point out that you are mildly retarted.

            Proof: http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/03/31/original-sin-answering-thomas-l-mcdonald/#comment-852324197

            Although I have to admit that I cannot rule out that you are not of significantly below average intelligence, but rather completely and utterly deluded.

            • JohnM

              Well my last IQ test was about 80. That had something to do with with not getting drafted into the armed forces.. But since this is how IQ works, I guess it’s correct to say, that I’m not very intelligent.

              Ahh.. The wonders of making something as complex as intelligence, as simple as a number. Now even retarded people can understand it. And everyone else can go around bragging about their imaginary intelligence.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : “Is Pepsis better than Cola ??”

              Pepsi is Cola (Pepsi Cola). I think you mean Coca Cola.

            • Andy_Schueler

              No one says “Pepsi Cola” and “Coca Cola” – people say “Pepsi” or “Cola”. Google it, genius.

            • JohnM

              Did someone just delete their post?

              Anyway, do you want a coke?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Nope, I´m also wondering where it went, but if it cheers you up – DISQUS already swallowed two of my replies to Joe G.

      • Rich Hughes

        You spelled ‘Fridge repairman’ wrong, Walter Mitty.

      • I have seen some of your claims about what jobs you have done. Somewhere along the lines, it seems you have been lying.

      • Hmm, it’s interesting that you brought up “sets”, joey, especially since you said this on your blog:

        SUNDAY, DECEMBER 31, 2006

        Why Set Theory is irrelevant when discussing Nested Hierarchy

        When talking about set theory any sets and subsequent subsets, apart from nested hierarchy, you can have items from one set by included with items from another set on the same level.

        With set theory in general anything can be a set. Just put whatever you want in {} and you have a set. Or if you can’t find {} just declare what you want to be in a set. Then all subsets are just that set and/ or that set minus any number of items.

        For example with Zachriel’s paternal family tree I can make a set of {Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Abdul Ilah,Faisal}. A subset would then be {Sharif Hussein bin Ali, Failsal}. It is a valid set and it is a valid subset. However neither make sense in a nested hierarchy.

        In a nested hierarchy we can NOT have two sets on the same level that contain items that can exist in either set. Also all subsets must be strictly contained within the set above it.

        In nested hierarchy each set and each level are specifically defined by several criteria. This is done such that a person can pick an item from one set, hand it to another person, and from the specifications be able to replace the item in its original set.

        That is why when you are talking about nested hierarchy and someone tries to divert the attention to set theory they are up to nothing but deception.

        posted by Joe G @ 11:22 PM

        ——————————————————————————-

        To see that post and others that demonstrate joey’s ignorant opinions about nested hierarchies and other things, follow these links:

        http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

        http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html

        http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

        Oh, and does everyone remember that joey said that he has NEVER argued that Tiktaalik is not a transitional form? Let’s take a look at joey’s own words:

        Joe G October 8, 2010 at 5:25 AM

        Zachriel:
        Tiktaalik exhibits intermediate characteristics between fish and tetrapods.

        (joey) Great now all you have to do is take fish embryos and mutate them and see if such a transitional form will arise.

        In the absence of such a test all you have is wishful thinking.

        That’s from here:

        http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-school-part-v.html?showComment=1286467945896#c8136616312634243508

        And there’s this from his blog:

        “Why would anyone predict that fish would leave the water other than a preconceived bias that the fish did leave the water? What would the first fish to do so eat?

        What- the first fish to climb out of water just happened to do so in “walking” distance of food? What the heck (on land) would satisfy Tiki’s hunger?”

        http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17489641&postID=115789556626951761

    • frisbee_kid

      Andy sez:

      Regarding, transitional forms, JoeG seems to be unable to understand that those show transitions between an ancestral form and that of it´s descendants and do not represent a mix of traits from distinct groups on the same level of classification.

      They are all SPECIES, Andy. They would be all on the same level.
      As I said you don’t seem to be able to grasp simple concepts.

      • Andy_Schueler

        OMFG, how stupid are you ?! Transitional forms that connect ancestral forms to extant forms are not part of a cladogram and correspond to internal nodes in a phylogeny (or correspond to extinct lineages).
        This can´t be that hard to understand. Moron.

        • JohnM

          You’re both wrong. “Transitional forms” only exist in your mind :)

    • JohnM

      Andy said : Oh, and to further proof that…

      Oki, let’s explore the wonderful world, of Andy’s flawed logic.

      First Andy has an opinion. Then he writes a blog post, expressing his opinion. Then, in an attempt to prove his opinion to be the case, he points to that blog post. And then Andy ends, by telling himself, that it must be so, because it say so, in his own blog post. Do you know what we call that, Andy? We call that circular logic. Because it is.

      No, Andy. The fact that you have written something in a blog post, does not prove it to be true. And pointing to it, proves even less than that. So get your act together, and stop falling prey to such self-medicated fallacies.

      JohnM said : Are you suggesting that we can prove WWII starting in 1939, by linking forum posts?

      Andy said : No, but with arguments based on reasoned logic and..

      No, you can’t prove things with arguments, Andy. You can argue from here to the end of the world, it will prove nothing. At least know what you’re talking about.

      JohnM said : And are you challenging, that statements made by people can be interpreted?

      Andy said : No

      Good. Now you just need to realize, that since your posts are statements made by you, they can be interpreted by different people to mean and show different things. And therefore they cannot be proof of anything, as they could point to anything, depending on who you ask. Which is why people tend to read your posts, and make up their own opinion about what you’re saying..

      And while we are at at, think about how ridiculous your claims actually are.. I mean.. If you can prove something, by expressing your personal opinion in a post, and then pointing to it.. I can disprove it, by writing a different opinion in another post. Seriously.. You logic here, is so flawed, that it leads to down-ward spiral, ending in a complete anarchy of irrational discussion.

      Andy said : It is possible to reasonably agree / disagree with an argument…. Reasonably disagreeing requires … more – you also need sound arguments against the proposition

      You’re confusing the rules of a formal debate, with the rules of a normal conversation.

      When engaged in a normal conversation, like this, it is your job to convince me, that you’re not completely full of garbage. If you fail to do so, it’s because you have failed to present a convincing case to me. And therefore you have failed you task, if you were looking to try and convince me of the truthfulness of your claims.

      And no, we don’t live in the dark ages. I’m not required to take your claims on blind faith, until I myself can formulate an argument against your ridiculous claims.

      Keep in mind that even Christopher Hitchens held the view, that: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

      Andy said : everything you think you know about any scientific discipline even remotely related to evolution is demonstrably and utterly wrong

      Everything? And demonstrably wrong? Hmm.. What do I know about evolution? Well, I know that evolution is often defined as : any change in gene frequency in a population.. or… the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

      So if you’re not a slimy dishonest liar, you will now demonstrate this to be utterly wrong.

      But of course, you are a slimy dishonest liar. And therefore you will merely come up with some lame excuse, for that big mouth of yours.

      • Andy_Schueler

        Oki, let’s explore the wonderful world, of Andy’s flawed logic.

        :-D
        Coming from the guy that wrote:
        http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/03/31/original-sin-answering-thomas-l-mcdonald/#comment-852308833
        and:
        http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/04/07/cdesign-proponent-joeg-loses-10000-bet-and-chickens-out/#comment-858001213
        this is more than rich.

        First Andy has an opinion. Then he writes a blog post, expressing his opinion.

        I did not “express an opinion”, I argued. But I wouldn´t expect you to understand the difference (you´ve already demonstrated many times that you don´t understand the difference), because you are mentally retarded.

        No, Andy. The fact that you have written something in a blog post, does not prove it to be true.

        And who ever claimed anything different, shitbag fucktard troll ? I argued based on reasoned logic and evidence, you don´t understand the difference between a mere opinion and an argument based on reasoned logic and evidence.

        No, you can’t prove things with arguments, Andy. You can argue from here to the end of the world, it will prove nothing. At least know what you’re talking about.

        HAHAHAHA :-D
        Says the fucktard that evidently doesn´t even know what an argument is. Look it up, asshole.

        Good. Now you just need to realize, that since your posts are statements made by you, they can be interpreted by different people to mean and show different things. And therefore they cannot be proof of anything, as they could point to anything,

        Awesome, creationist fucktard argues that Jesus being an alien from alpha centauri that gave a lecture on postmodernism in Seattle last week is a perfectly valid interpretation of the new testament and just as valid as ANY other interpretation.
        Maybe you had a small stroke recently, but it is almost as if one could watch you get dumber by the second.

        And while we are at at, think about how ridiculous your claims actually are.. I mean.. If you can prove something, by expressing your personal opinion

        I would tell you to learn the difference between a mere assertion and an argument but since you are mentally retarded, this would be a pointless endeavour.

        When engaged in a normal conversation, like this, it is your job to convince me, that you’re not completely full of garbage. If you fail to do so, it’s because you have failed to present a convincing case to me.

        Please stay within your creationist fucktard logic:
        http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/03/31/original-sin-answering-thomas-l-mcdonald/#comment-852308833
        There can be no such thing as a “convincing case” in your bizzaro-fucktard-world. If a plumber says the world is flat and a physicist argues, based on reasoned logic and physical evidence, that the world is rather spherical and not flat – we can prove, using creationist-fucktard-logic, that both positions are EQUALLY reliable and have a likelihood of 1/2 being true each (and with each additional position that we add, the earth being a cube for example, all previous positon obviously get less reliable!).

        When engaged in a normal conversation, like this

        Me using arguments and referring to scientific results and publications might be a hint for you that this is not a “normal conversation”. But for this, you would have had to know what an argument is and read the OP first – which you don´t know and didn´t do, respectively. Asshole.

        And no, we don’t live in the dark ages. I’m not required to take your claims on blind faith

        I already told you that you are both too ignorant and too stupid to disagree or AGREE with anything that was argued here.

        Everything? And demonstrably wrong?

        Yes, everything, and yes, demonstrably.
        Examples:
        1. “Yeah. Like monkeys typing randomly without a head monkey designer. Or someone spilling ink on a white paper, that happens to arrange itself in such a way, that it precisely match today’s newspaper.”
        2. “The reason why people want to be monkeyboys, is that they are trapped in dogmatic Darwinism. Pigs does not fit the theory. And therefore people wilfully ignore the evidence found by studying pigs…
        I often come across clueless atheist on the internet, boldly proclaiming that we are monkeyboys, because humans are 98 or 99% monkeys, when it comes to genetic information. What such ignorant persons completely fail to realize, is that the same could be said of other animals, such as pigs. And that it’s actually that one or two percent of DNA, making all the difference, between humans and animals.”
        3. “Ok, so Cows have become Whales, in the meantime.. But dinosaurs would still be.. Dinosaurs. Got it..”
        – List could be expanded arbitrarily.

        Well, I know that evolution is often defined as : any change in gene frequency in a population.. or… the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

        Which you just googled and which you don´t understand.

        • JohnM

          Andy said : Yes, everything, and yes, demonstrably.

          Liar…

          Andy said : Awesome, creationist fucktard argues that Jesus being an alien from alpha centauri that gave a lecture on postmodernism in Seattle last week is a perfectly valid interpretation of the new testament and just as valid as ANY other interpretation.

          No, it is not. Because there is no way to interpret the new testament to say that.

          Andy said : There can be no such thing as a “convincing case” in your..

          Sure there is. The case for a creator. And the case for Jesus Christ, just to mention 2 of them.

          Andy said : you are mentally retarded

          Why do you write such gibberish?

          You don’t even believe that yourself.. It’s just another lie, that you’re putting forward. And by doing so, you speak the natural language of the one you willingly or unwillingly serve.

          • Andy_Schueler

            No, it is not. Because there is no way to interpret the new testament to say that.

            Of course there is, you have used creationist logic to demonstrate that this interpretation is just as valid as ANY other one as soon as someone suggests it.

            Sure there is. The case for a creator. And the case for Jesus Christ, just to mention 2 of them.

            You´ve already demonstrated, using creationist logic, that the most thorough investigation imaginable of the evidence relating to the historicity of Jesus Christ, conducted by the most objective and competent scholars imaginable, that reach a consensus after decades of scholarly research and debate, carried out in the most professional way imaginable – is just as likely to yield accurate answers as asking an illiterate five year old from Somalia who has never even heard the name “Jesus Christ”.
            That´s what you get with creationist-fucktard-logic, it´s just hilarious.

            You don’t even believe that yourself.. It’s just another lie, that you’re putting forward.

            No, it´s an empirically very well supported assertion.

    • frisbee_kid

      OK I said that if all the alleged transitional forms still existed that we could NOT form a nice strict, oderly nested hierarchy. Andy Schueler said I was a moron who didn’t understand nested hierarchies.

      So I quoted Darwin:

      Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them;
      for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear,
      though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group
      could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural
      arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

       

      (Never mind the fact that Darwin’s diagram did not depict a nested hierarchy )

      The point being that nested hierarchies require distinct groups. So after a few days Andy finally comes to his senses and posts:

      What Darwin tried to communicate in this quote was, that demarcation criteria
      between groups of related organisms have been created by extinction. Think about
      it, if we assume that all organisms are descendants of a shared common ancestor
      and modifications happened gradually – how would we classify organisms
      if every organism that ever lived were still alive today?
       

      That is the big question. My bet is that we couldn’t form a strict, oderly nested hierarchy. What do you say Andy?

      There would only be one meaningful classification, one group that
      encompasses all life, because there would be smooth gradual transitions from
      every form to a closely related form. That´s what we would get with universal
      common descent + gradualism + ubiquitous immortality. We could still
      arrange species by similarity within ONE group that
      encompasses all life, but objective distinctions between different
      groups
      (or any form of hierarchical classification) would be
      impossible.
       

      Andy agrees with me. Now comes the tricky part:

      I still have no clue why JoeG thinks that this supports any of his arguments in
      any way, shape or form…
       

      Most likely because that is my argument. I would say that is a good indicator of why I think that supports my argument.

      …however since he must have noticed that organisms are in fact not immortal
      and that the overwhelming majority of all species that ever lived are
      extinct.
       

      LoL! This is the ole “why are there still monkeys?” in reverse. Just because organisms within a population/ species, die, that doesn’t mean the entire species goes extinct. There isn’t anything in evolutionism that predicts extinctions- when, where, how, what species- let alone any pattern that may or may not arise from them.

      But nice try with the girly backpeddle flail.

      Evolutionism would not be refuted if all alleged transitional forms still existed- ie if no extinctions took place. And that means it does not predict/ expect a nested hierarchy based on defined characteristics as it would be OK with or without one.

      Alrighty then- Andy agrees with wrt transitional forms ruining a strict, orderly nested hierarchy.

      One point for me.

      • Andy_Schueler

        OK I said that if all the alleged transitional forms still existed that we could NOT form a nice strict, oderly nested hierarchy. Andy Schueler said I was a moron who didn’t understand nested hierarchies.

        Actually, you first said that “transitional forms ruin a nested hierarchy” and then you said “transitional forms would ruin a nested hierarchy if they were still around”.

        So I quoted Darwin:

        Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them;
        for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear,
        though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group
        could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural
        arrangement, would be possible…

        – Charles Darwin chapter 14

        (Never mind the fact that Darwin’s diagram did not depict a nested hierarchy )

        The point being that nested hierarchies require distinct groups.

        1. You seem to be unable to understand that “classification” and “phylogenetics” are different things, one has nothing to do with common ancestry, the other does.
        2. Darwins diagram does depict a nested hierarchy. You rest your entire case here on the Knox paper and simply ignore:
        a) that Knox´s refinement is neither established, nor used in practice
        and more importantly:
        b) that Darwin´s diagram can be interpreted either as a phylogeny (making it “non-nested” in Knox´s suggestion) or as a cladogram (making it “semi-nested” in Knox´s suggestion) – which would require no transformation of the figure whatsoever, only the interpretation of internal nodes and branch-lengths changes. It could also be trivially converted to a figure as shown in Knox´s paper (fig. 5), making it “fully-nested”, without adding any information, but rather by removing information. Meaning that even IF we would accept Knox´s refined terminology, the best case you could make is that Darwin presented an explicit non-nested / semi-nested hierarchy which contains a fully-nested hierarchy within it (that can be highlighted by removing information from the diagram).
        3. Darwin mentions that “groups could no longer be distinguished”, which is true. It would be impossible to define groups objectively – any putative grouping could simply be replaced by a more inclusive group that combines it together with it´s most closely related group into a new one, and keep doing that until only one group is left (which contains all life). This is a problem for classification, it has nothing to do with the diagram that Darwin presented, this one would be identical in a thought experiment where all intermediate forms would still be around. And you might even have noticed that if you looked at the last sentence. Or actually read the chapter (and the one preceding it), this is how the quote continues:

        We shall see this by turning to the diagram: the letters, A to L, may represent eleven Silurian genera, some of which have produced large groups of modified descendants, with every link in each branch and sub-branch still alive; and the links not greater than those between existing varieties. In this case it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which the several members of the several groups could be distinguished from their more immediate parents and descendants. Yet the arrangement in the diagram would still hold good and would be natural; for, on the principle of inheritance, all the forms descended, for instance from A, would have something in common.

        => All organisms that ever lived being revived would change nothing about Darwins diagram (and understanding that requires little more than understanding where Babies come from – I know, challenging for an IDiot…). What would change is, that classification (hint: what Linnaeus did, not what phylogenetics does or what Darwin did in the diagram) as we are used to it, could no longer be done objectively. The whole nested hierarchy would be objective, but no subset could be meaningfully assigned to a group like “mammals” – all such subsets would be equally subjective.
        4. This is all based on a thought experiment that has nothing to do with reality anyway (and before you repeat the Bullshit about evolution not predicting extinction – Darwin devoted an entire chapter to it and it´s a key component of his principle of divergence – not to mention that extinction is, and was, an empirical fact)

        That is the big question. My bet is that we couldn’t form a strict, oderly nested hierarchy. What do you say Andy?

        1. That you first changed the goalposts from “transitional forms ruin a nested hierarchy” to “they would ruin it if they were still around”.
        2. That phylogenetics does produce nested hierarchies, which would still be nested hierarchies if your thought experiment were true.
        3. That you don´t understand the difference between Linnean classification and phylogenetics.
        4. That EVEN IF we accepted Knox´s ideas (which are, AGAIN, neither established nor used in practice), all that would change is that the results produced by phylogenetics would be “non-nested” (phylogenies) and “semi-nested” (cladograms), which contain within them ALL the information of “fully-nested” hierarchies. Meaning that evolution with gradual modification from a common ancestor does produce patterns corresponding to nested hierarchies even if this ridiculous thought experiment were true and even if we´d accept Knox´s ideas.

        Andy agrees with me.

        No. Joe is demonstrating again that he doesn´t know the difference between classification and phylogenetics.

        LoL! This is the ole “why are there still monkeys?” in reverse. Just because organisms within a population/ species, die, that doesn’t mean the entire species goes extinct. There isn’t anything in evolutionism that predicts extinctions- when, where, how, what species- let alone any pattern that may or may not arise from them.

        Actually, Darwin devoted an entire chapter to that + he discussed it extensively in other chapters + it is a key component of his principle of divergence + he knew it was an empirical fact. Moron.

        One point for me.

        You owe me $10,000.