Andy Schueler, Schooled on Nested Hierarchies

-
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. 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).

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. And obvioulsy Andy Schueler and his evoTARD minions, think differently.