Sandbox (1)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

1,772 thoughts on “Sandbox (1)”

  1. Joe G: Each clade, note- not the entire cladogram, can be a nested hierarchy…

    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.

    …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.

    That’s patently wrong, Joe. Descendents need not share characteristics of ancestors. Closely related taxa do, those that are farther apart need not.

    However each clade is also a non-nested hierarchy in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.

    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!

  2. Joe G: However each clade is also a non-nested hierarchy in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.

    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:

    Understanding phylogenies

    A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor. Using a phylogeny, it is easy to tell if a group of lineages forms a clade. Imagine clipping a single branch off the phylogeny — all of the organisms on that pruned branch make up a clade.

    Clades are nested within one another — they form a nested hierarchy. A clade may include many thousands of species or just a few. Some examples of clades at different levels are marked on the phylogenies below. Notice how clades are nested within larger clades.

    Look it up, Joe. The page contains color figures. They are fun! 🙂

  4. olegt:

    Joe, you look as cute as a fifth-grader doing science. Keep up the good work!

    To me he looks like a big fat fluffy Fozzie Bear.

    Let’s all give Fluffy a hug!

    SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

  5. Of course each clade is a nested hierarchy!

    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.

    That’s patently wrong, Joe.

    The references says I am right.

    Descendents need not share characteristics of ancestors.

    I know that. However in a clade all descendents will have the defining characteristics of that clade, which are defined by the common ancestor.

    A clade is not just an ancestor.

    I never said nor implied that it was. Obvioulsy you have reading comprehension issues.

    It’s the ancestor and all of its descendants!

    LoL! That is what I said.

  6. 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.


  8. However each clade is also a non-nested hierarchy in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.

    This if course plainly contradicts what reputable biologists say.

    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…

  9. Joe G: The clade is not constructed based on ancestor-descendent relationships, those are assumed. And ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy- see Eric B Knox, “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (1998), 63: 1–49

    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:

    Figure 3a is a modified Venn diagram that depicts a nested hierarchy. As mentioned above, a fully nested hierarchy displays the property of summativity… In Figure 3b, ‘stem species’ 1 (for convenience, Species 1) is the ancestor of Species 2 and Species 5, which are in turn ancestors to their descendants. In Figure 3a, the numbers associated with Species 1 through 5 indicate the monophyletic groups of terminal species derived from various ancestral species. Although Species 1 may have given rise to the terminal species, the ancestral Species 1 is clearly not the same as the set of (or not equal to the sum of ) the terminal species.

  10. Joe G: Name ONE biologist that says an ancestor consists of and contains all of its descendents.

    LOL! I am not claiming that! Show where I do. 🙂

  12. 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…

  13. Joe G: How can an ancestor consist of and contain all of its ancestors?

    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? 🙂

  14. Yes, oleg- I have told you what a clade is and how they are formed. OTOH you are still bumbling around.

  15. Joe G:
    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.”

  16. 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:

    This if course plainly contradicts what reputable biologists say.

  18. Joe G:
    1-a clade is apopulationand 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:

    I responded to the claim in the first half of your sentence, namely

    However each clade is also a non-nested hierarchy

    That, of course, plainly contradicts what reputable biologists say.

    The second half of your sentence,

    in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.

    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.

    🙂

  19. I responded to the claim in the first half of your sentence, namely

    Out-of-context quote-mining is for losers, oleg. And here you are.

    Clades, on the other hand, do consist of and contain other clades, so they form a nested hierarchy.

    By design. 😛

  20. Joe G:
    How are clades formed, oleg? IOW how do scientists know what population belongs to what clade?

    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.

  21. Clades are formed through common descent, Joe.

    Nope. Clades are formed via shared characteristics with ancestor-descendent relationship being assumed.

  23. Joe G: Out-of-context quote-mining is for losers, oleg. And here you are.

    By 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. 🙂

  24. Joe G: Nope. Clades are formed inferred via shared characteristics with ancestor-descendent relationship being assumed.

    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.

  25. That was not quote-mining.

    Yes, it is.

    Your claim’s statement remains the same with or without the justification.

    No, it doesn’t.

    In any event, I have every right to point out that the claim contradicts mainstream biology.

    I supported my claim with a paper you misunderstand. Ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy.

  26. Joe G: Clades can easily be formed by a common design.

    Anything can be formed by a (powerful enough) designer. That is why this hypothesis is unfalsifiable and is thus beyond science.

  27. Scientists do not form clades just like they do not form species.

    A clade is a man-made construct, oleg.

    They infer the relationships between species and thus build theoretical models.

    Yes they do.

  28. Joe G: I supported my claim with a paper you misunderstand. Ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy.

    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?

  29. Anything can be formed by a (powerful enough) designer.

    And obvioulsy anything can be formed by mother nature, just give her enough time.

    That is why this hypothesis is unfalsifiable and is thus beyond science.

    Design, especially common design, can be tested. OTOH we are still waiting to see how to test materialism and evolutionism.


  30. Ancestor-descendent relationships form a non-nested hierarchy.

    That isn’t what Know said.

    Page 10, pages 11-12 and more

    You lose, again

  31. Joe G:

    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?

  32. Hierarchy I in the Knox paper, is a non-nested hierarchy based on ancestor-descendent relationships.

  34. Joe G: A clade is a man-made construct, oleg.

    So what? A species is also a man-made construct. Biologists do not form species and they do not form clades.

  36. Joe G:
    Hierarchy I in the Knox paper, is a non-nested hierarchy based on ancestor-descendent relationships.

    Look at Figure 3a and then read on p. 10:

    Figure 3a is a modified Venn diagram that depicts a nested hierarchy… In Figure 3a, the numbers associated with Species 1 through 5 indicate the monophyletic groups of terminal species derived from various ancestral species.

    So, according to Knox, clades form a nested hierarchy. Do you wish to dispute that, Joe?

  37. oleg said:

    Joe, give it up already. We’ve been talking about clades for ages and you still don’t understand what a clade is! It is not defined by shared characteristics, it is defined by common ancestry.

    Reality check-

    intro to cladistics

    The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are “closely related,” more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.

    cladistics:

    Cladistics can be distinguished from other taxonomic systems, such as phenetics, by its focus on shared derived characters (synapomorphies).

    And also what is cladistics?

    The common theme is that they all agree with me.

    Go figure…

  38. Look at Figure 3a and then read on p. 10:

    MY claim refers to figure 4 on page 12

    So, according to Knox, clades form a nested hierarchy.

    By design. Clades form a nested hierarchy because that is how they are designed.

  39. Joe G:
    Hierarchy I in the Knox paper, is a non-nested hierarchy based on ancestor-descendent relationships.

    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? 🙂

  40. 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.

  41. Joe G: MY claim refers to figure 4 on page 12

    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!

  42. No one cares about your claim.

    What a moron. In order to refute my claim you first have to understand it.

    But thanks for proving that you are a dick…

  43. Biologists claim that clades form a nested hierarchy.

    I know a clade forms a nested hierarchy. That is because that is how it was designed.

  44. Joe G: Well oleg, it is NOT my fault that you are arguing the wrong thing, as usual.

    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?

  45. oleg, I explained that and provided a reference. You choose to ignore that and press on anyway. You are an asshole, period.

  46. However each clade is ALSO a non-nested hierarchy in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.

  47. Joe G: I know a clade forms a nested hierarchy.

    But you previously wrote the exact opposite:

    However each clade is also a non-nested hierarchy in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.

    Which is it, Joe?

  48. Joe G:
    However each clade is ALSO a non-nested hierarchy in that the alleged common ancestor does not consist of nor contain all descendents.

    You can’t have it both ways, Joe. A hierarchy is either nested or non-nested, but not both.

  49. 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…

  50. It all depends on how you look at it, oleg. Read the paper you continue to misunderstand. Figure 4, page 12…

Comments are closed.