Mini-thought experiment about the nested hierarchy

The assertion kid strikes again :slight_smile:

since there is nested hierarchy in designed objects then nested hierarchy in biological objects cant prove common descent.

1370539886395

3 Likes

He’s showing he doesn’t flounce off like an irresponsible pixie by flouncing off like an irresponsible pixie.

2 Likes

You need to a list of features to go along with your tree. I have also shown you multiple times how features of automobiles break that nested hierarchy. You are beating a dead horse.

i also showed you that we can find the same thing with evolution, with many cases of non-hierarchy.

Then that would falsify design as you have already stated that design would produce a nested hierarchy.

1 Like

so its also falsify common descent by that criteria.

For the genes coming from bacteria, yes. For the genes shared with other animals, no.

As an IT professional, I’d just like to point out:

Wrong. They contain many cross-linking shortcuts that break the nesting.

Artificially so. There are many works that could be classified on multiple places, and which are classified purely subjectively.

Completely and utterly wrong. Relational databases aren’t nested. Nor are stacked data, graph databases, flat files, Cloud storage, distributed code repositories, tierra programs, binary data, and many, many others.

2 Likes

Ouch, ouch, OUCH – that’s pretty wrong. I appreciate the corrections.

Given what you wrote, you’ll be interested in this:

http://acacia.atspace.eu/Tutorial/Tutorial.html

Hey, look. He momentarily decloaked. He is reading this.

2 Likes

There are two sorts of nested hierarchy classifications done by humans.

  1. Arbitrary divisions and subdivisions of a continuum. Consider the geologic time scale, with its division into eons, eras, periods, and ages, or the divisions of igneous rock types by composition into felsic, mafic, and intermediate, with finer divisions within each.

  2. Recognition of real patterns in nature, as in biological classification.

And of course there are plenty of systems that are neither. The periodic table is at least two-dimensional, for example. Life naturally fits a nested hierarchical system as other phenomena do not. Other methods of biological classification have been tried — quinarianism, for example — but they don’t work well. And this is what needs to be explained. Nominalism is not an explanation but a denial that there is anything in need of explanation. It doesn’t work either.

So how do we explain the real, discoverable nested hierarchy of life? I think we all know how.

1 Like

While scd is wrong, yours is not a good argument against his claim. Technically he did not claim that design would necessarily entail a nested hierarchy, merely that designers can produce nested hierarchies. As such, countering that some attributes of the sorted entities in question don’t yield a nested hiearchy doesn’t constitute a falsification of his claim.

His mistake is at least twofold. One is he incorrectly believes that the objects in his tree naturally sort hierarchically, the other is he doesn’t appear to understand the difference between an imposed and arbitrary sorting, and one the data naturally sorts into. That is why he thinks showing an imposed hierarchy removes the need to explain why biological organisms so readily sort into essentially the same one by multiple independent attributes and methods, and therefore he doesn’t understand why the nested hiearchy of life really is evidence of common descent.

Imposed and rather arbitrary. It’s not like the actual attributes of the files can be used to reproduce the hiearchy. Take line 20 from every file in every folder, then use the sorting algorithm of your choice to make a tree. Does it reproduce the actual file system structure? Very unlikely. Take line 21, does it reproduce the file system structure? Probably not. Does it yield the same or a highly similar tree to line 20? Probably not. File dates? Probably not. File names? Probably not. File sizes? Probably not. File extensions? Probably not. I don’t need to go on.

2 Likes

They can also produce non-nested hierarchies, and the number of possible non-nested hierarchies far outweighs the nested ones. Therefore, there is no reason to expect a nested hierarchy from design.

1 Like

Allow me to quibble. The geological time scale is no more arbitrary than the division of a 24 hour period in day and night. There are real distinctions between the classified units (even if sometimes the boundaries have a degree of fuzziness), and there is nesting because much of the classification stems from paleontological developments, which themselves of course are a consequence of nested evolution.

Take the Mesozoic - this is basically an Era bounded by two major mass extinctions, and was recognised by the distinctive fossil content of the strata laid down during that time. Within that Era, further subdivision in Periods again stems originally from observed paleontological changes.

The divisions in the geological time scale are not arbitrary, they reflect real underlying changes in the biosphere.

1 Like

Try this with the operating system of compatible computers.

De-cloaking again…

I’m a nominalist with respect to a single (terrestrially) universal nested hierarchy. But are there genuinely discoverable patterns at lower scales? You bet – the living world is not a bloomin’ buzzin’ anarchy.

But notice that the replies to my thought experiment (including yours) availed themselves of some heaping servings of evolutionary theory to get around the anomalous molecular data. That’s my real worry: that the “discoverable hierarchy” isn’t so much discovered as selected, from a much larger and messier ocean of data where hierarchy isn’t the main signal.

Here’s a slide from a talk I gave a few months ago; one can substitute “nested hierarchy explained by common ancestry” for UCD (i.e., universal common descent):

1 Like

Since it was originally “discovered” by Lavoisier and co, decades before Darwin put pen to paper, the idea that the hierarchy is “selected” because of a belief in common descent must be bunk.