Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
Joe discovers the wheel! 🙂 Of course each clade is a nested hierarchy! And the entire cladogram is a clade, too, so it is a nested hierarchy.
That’s patently wrong, Joe. Descendents need not share characteristics of ancestors. Closely related taxa do, those that are farther apart need not.
Oh, you still don’t understand clades! A clade is not just an ancestor. It’s the ancestor and all of its descendants! And, of course, a taxon + all all its descendant consists of itself and its descenants and contains said descendants. 🙂
Joe, you look as cute as a fifth-grader doing science. Keep up the good work!
This if course plainly contradicts what reputable biologists say. Here is an excerpt from the Berkeley web site, which Joe has been reading for years, with no apparent benefit:
Look it up, Joe. The page contains color figures. They are fun! 🙂
I EXPLAINED why they are not the same, oleg. What is wrong with you?
To me he looks like a big fat fluffy Fozzie Bear.
Let’s all give Fluffy a hug!
SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
By design!
…based on shared characteristics in that each descendent node will consist of and contain, ie share, a set of defined characteristics present in the alleged common ancestor.
The references says I am right.
I know that. However in a clade all descendents will have the defining characteristics of that clade, which are defined by the common ancestor.
I never said nor implied that it was. Obvioulsy you have reading comprehension issues.
LoL! That is what I said.
oleg-
How can an ancestor consist of and contain all of its ancestors?
Eric B Knox, “The use of hierarchies as organizational models
in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49
Any hierarchy based on descent with modification will be a non-nested hierarchy that fits the example having “first-life” at the sarting point.
oleg cannot counter that with anything but spewage.
And another ignoramus chimes in…
However each clade is also a non-nested hierarchy in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.
Name ONE biologist that says an ancestor consists of and contains all of its descendents.
I have provided a reference that says ancestor-descendent relationships form non-nested hierarchies. What do you have oleg? That is beyond avoiding everything I posted taht refutes your nonsense…
You don’t even understand what Knox is saying. He is saying that while taxa do not form a nested hierarchy, clades do. Numbered objects in his Figure 3a are clades containing one or more species. Numbered objects in Figure 3b are species themselves. Species do not form a nested hierarchy, but clades do. Here is Knox himself:
LOL! I am not claiming that! Show where I do. 🙂
Clades are designed to form a nested hierarchy, oleg.
LoL!!!11!!!
You can’t even follow your own nonsensical responses. It was all right there in the post you just responded to oleg.
Do TRY to follow along…
An ancestor does not consist of and contain all of its descendents. A clade consists of and contains other clades. Do you know what a clade is, Joe? 🙂 After all these years? 🙂
Yes, oleg- I have told you what a clade is and how they are formed. OTOH you are still bumbling around.
1. What is a clade, Joe?
2. Cite my comment where I said that “an ancestor consists of and contains all of its descendents.”
1- based on shared characteristics a clade is a population and all of its descendents
2- Again try to follow along:
I said:
However each clade is also a non-nested hierarchy in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.
YOU responded with:
How are clades formed, oleg? IOW how do scientists know what population belongs to what clade?
I responded to the claim in the first half of your sentence, namely
That, of course, plainly contradicts what reputable biologists say.
The second half of your sentence,
is sheer nonsense. No biologist claims that an ancestor consists of and contains all of its descendents. Clades, on the other hand, do consist of and contain other clades, so they form a nested hierarchy.
🙂
Out-of-context quote-mining is for losers, oleg. And here you are.
By design. 😛
Clades are formed through common descent, Joe. 🙂
If you want to find out how scientists reconstruct clades, that’s an entirely different question. Which is explained for the lay audience by Berkeley scientists, whom you have read many times, but without much effect: Building the tree.
Nope. Clades are formed via shared characteristics with ancestor-descendent relationship being assumed.
Clades can easily be formed by a common design.
That was not quote-mining. Your claim’s statement remains the same with or without the justification. In any event, I have every right to point out that the claim contradicts mainstream biology. As a bonus, I have now pointed out that the justification is silly.
Don’t thank me. 🙂
Fixed it for ya.
Scientists do not form clades just like they do not form species. They infer the relationships between species and thus build theoretical models.
Yes, it is.
No, it doesn’t.
I supported my claim with a paper you misunderstand. Ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy.
Anything can be formed by a (powerful enough) designer. That is why this hypothesis is unfalsifiable and is thus beyond science.
A clade is a man-made construct, oleg.
Yes they do.
That isn’t what Know said. His point is that species do not form a nested hierarchies, but clades (containing those same species) do. Care to dispute that?
And obvioulsy anything can be formed by mother nature, just give her enough time.
Design, especially common design, can be tested. OTOH we are still waiting to see how to test materialism and evolutionism.
Ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy.
Page 10, pages 11-12 and more
You lose, again
I have already quoted that passage above. Knox affirms that clades form a nested hierarchy? Do you wish to dispute that?
Hierarchy I in the Knox paper, is a non-nested hierarchy based on ancestor-descendent relationships.
oleg,
Clades form a nestecd hierarchy because that is how they are designed.
So what? A species is also a man-made construct. Biologists do not form species and they do not form clades.
Biologists could form a species and scientists do form clades.
Look at Figure 3a and then read on p. 10:
So, according to Knox, clades form a nested hierarchy. Do you wish to dispute that, Joe?
oleg said:
Reality check-
intro to cladistics
cladistics:
And also what is cladistics?
The common theme is that they all agree with me.
Go figure…
MY claim refers to figure 4 on page 12
By design. Clades form a nested hierarchy because that is how they are designed.
Hierarchy I (Fig. 4) is a hierarchy of species. Figures 6 is a hierarchy of clades. The claim is that clades form a nested hierarchy. Clades, Joe! How many times does this need to be said? 🙂
Well oleg, it is NOT my fault that you are arguing the wrong thing, as usual.
Clades form a nested hierarchy because that is how they are designed. Not because that is how evolution works.
No one cares about your claim. Biologists claim that clades form a nested hierarchy. Knox says that. The Berkeley site says that. Joe builds a straw man version and objects to it. LOL!
What a moron. In order to refute my claim you first have to understand it.
But thanks for proving that you are a dick…
I know a clade forms a nested hierarchy. That is because that is how it was designed.
Oh, no, I am arguing the right thing. All along, I have been saying that clades form a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, you claimed (several times!) that clades form a non-nested hierarchy. Do you still stand by that or do you take it back?
oleg, I explained that and provided a reference. You choose to ignore that and press on anyway. You are an asshole, period.
However each clade is ALSO a non-nested hierarchy in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.
But you previously wrote the exact opposite:
Which is it, Joe?
You can’t have it both ways, Joe. A hierarchy is either nested or non-nested, but not both.
It is BOTH. It all depends on how you look at it.
IOW you have serious reading comprehension issues- and you are as dense as a singularity…
It all depends on how you look at it, oleg. Read the paper you continue to misunderstand. Figure 4, page 12…