Evidence for Front Loading
by BradfordRecently Guts posted the blog entry Guardian of the Genome. It refers to another blog entry posted by Mike Gene called You too, p53? The term p53 references a protein that is important to issues like DNA damage and apoptosis; essential to health concerns. Quoting Mike:
Let’s add this up. We’ve seen that the Alu element, which was in effect contained within the SRP (a device that is as ancient as the ribosome), has played an important role in primate and human evolution. It has likely reformatted the genome, spreading REST binding sites around to help facilitate brain evolution. And with the help of the most common mutation in mammals, cytosine deamination, it has spread and created binding sites for two transcription factors crucial to development, the retinoic acid receptor and Pax6, and now we see the Alu elements spreading and creating p53 sites to fine tune the genomic surveillance pathways of primate cells. It’s no wonder the authors of the p53 study conclude that “deamination of CpGs constitutes a universal mechanism for generation of different transcription-factor-binding sites in Alus.”
Guts makes this observation relevant to a front loading perspective:
It looks like p53/p63/p73 is reported in Monosiga brevicolli, which is a unicellular organism considered to be a "surrogate" of the common ancestor of all animals, so it's an interesting candidate for considering apoptosis front-loaded. Other proteins involved in the process are also currently inferred to have been present much earlier than believed.
Members of the Bcl-2 family are important to this process because they act as pro-apoptotic and anti-apoptotic regulators. They are important checkpoints that ultimately determine what happens to the cell. Thus, if the apoptosis machinery was front-loaded, I predict that members of the Bcl-2 family will also be found in unicellular lineages.
Predictions about finding members in ancient unicellular lineages flow from the front loading concept itself. They are not mainstream post ad hoc observations included within theories after surprise findings are encountered. The FL predictions and findings are distinguished by their alignment with ideas leading to the predictions.
At this point let us humor those whose ideological apple carts are upset at the idea that empirical evidence could result from an ID based concept. Certain ideas are too upsetting for some people.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Is there anything that would count as evidence against front-loading?
Comment by Mung — November 1, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 am
A pattern indicating genetic novelties as the predominant theme marking differences between species would counter FL. The deeper the homology the better the support for ID and of course the reverse would apply in the other direction.
In fact mainstreamers adopt a form of front loading in analyzing natural history although they are loathe to call it that. They presume a viable existing self-replicating organism(s) as a prerequisite to advancing their theories. IOW, they front load the ToE conceptually while contending that an unknown atelic process did it naturally.
Comment by Bradford — November 2, 2009 @ 1:34 am
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:39 am
Bradford,
If front loading is done via software, as opposed to hardware- there wouldn't be anything to prevent differences from popping up.
Comment by ID guy — November 2, 2009 @ 9:39 am
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:48 am
Front loading depends on Common Descent.
Comment by Zachriel — November 2, 2009 @ 9:48 am
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
If anything "Common Descent" depends on front loading.
Comment by ID guy — November 2, 2009 @ 10:26 am
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
You may want to reconsider this statement.
Comment by chunkdz — November 2, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
ID guy
If common descent is a consequence of front loading, then any disconfirmation of common descent would also count against front loading, true?
Comment by Mung — November 2, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Mung,
All I am saying is that the only way "Common Descent" has a chance- that is from single-celled populations to the diversity observed (dead or alive)- is via some front-loaded genetic algorithm that has specified targets/ goals.
Also "Common Descent" from some communal pool of single-celled organisms does not guarantee that things cannot change so much as to provide a "natural" discontinuity.
(Zachriel is saying that "Common Descent" is a consequence of front-loading.)
Comment by ID guy — November 2, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I find it interesting that the last universal common ancestor is thought to be a thermophile, thermophilic enzymes carry out the same catalytic functions as their mesophilic homolog, but they have to perform the task at fairly high temperature. Many thermophilic enzyme tends to form oligomers to obtain enhanced thermo-stability. For example, dihydrofolate reductase in a hyper-thermophilic bacteria Thermotoga maritima (J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 297, 659) forms a homo-dimer, which is expected to be more rigid structurally.
Comment by Guts — November 2, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Mung:
Zachriel:
I didn't take this to mean Zachriel was claiming that Common Descent counts as evidence against front loading. I took this to be a somewhat vague reference to a discussion taking place in another thread, but the inference I made from his comment is that he believes that if front-loading is true, then common descent is true.
ID guy:
So ID guy doesn't think common descent has a chance of being true, unless front loading is true.
here
I had asked:
So I suppose the next question has to be, can front loading be true, if common descent is false?
Comment by Mung — November 2, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
"If common descent is a consequence of front loading, then any disconfirmation of common descent would also count against front loading" is true. Front Loading is meaningless outside of Common Descent.
Trivially so, as Front Loading is a conjecture built on Common Descent.
No, as Front Loading is devised as a telic explanation of Common Descent whereby the primordial cell was Front Loaded with the information somehow or other that allowed it to diversify into the myriad of organic forms in the world today. (Front Loading has no empirical support, but that's not relevant to discussing it in the abstract.)
Comment by Zachriel — November 2, 2009 @ 11:24 pm
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 pm
zach:
Of course it does. If you don't think so, you'd have to respond point by point to all of the posts that shows empirical support for front-loading.
Comment by Guts — November 2, 2009 @ 11:29 pm
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 pm
You may want to resolve the issue of Common Descent before delving any farther.
Comment by Zachriel — November 2, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Are you actually an antievolutionist zach? That wouldn't be surprising.
Comment by Guts — November 2, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Guts has nothing to resolve. His positions are well known having been repeatedly stated in this forum. But since you're on record as taking a zero evidence stance fill us in on how the issue alluded to by the OP counts as zero.
Comment by Bradford — November 2, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
There's zero evidence that Zachriel has designed a substantial response to any FLE claims.
Comment by nullasalus — November 2, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:03 am
Can Zachriel support any of his claims?:
and
Now I know he thinks that just because he posts it- whatever it is- it must be true, but we all know that doesn't make it so.
Comment by ID guy — November 3, 2009 @ 7:03 am
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:29 am
Sure he does—as can be seen from other comments on this forum. Indeed, I should think that many IDers on this forum would strongly disagree with Front Loading as it entails Common Descent which states that humans are related by descent to monkeys are related to toads are related to tuna are related to sponges are related to pond scum. He can choose not to engage that discussion, but it adds nothing to the credibility of his argument.
Comment by Zachriel — November 3, 2009 @ 8:29 am
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
That would depend on how many genomes were initially front-loaded.
If it was one then yes.
If it was the Cambrian Explosion then no.
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 3, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
After repeated requests for a description of the so-called Theory of Front Loading, I was provided this:
And you might well wonder why I asked.
It would still depend on the common descent of all vertebrates, for instance, meaning humans and toads are cousins. If there is a continual process of tampering with the genomes at each of the various radiations in the vertebrate line, then it wouldn't be Front Loading.
Comment by Zachriel — November 3, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I think Mike Gene’s on to something there. I would only encourage him to pursue his cytosine deamination theory. I think its fascinating and he’s making a very good case for his theory. (Which, of course, he would be the first to deny it’s a “scientific” theory. LOL)
I had to mention it, because it seems to have gotten lost in all that silly haggling over “common descent.”
Here’s some related material
http://evogen.molgen.mpg.de/publications/index.shtml
Btw, about "common descent":
If IDers cannot recognize the pattern that might lead one reasonably to infer common descent, then how much confidence can I have about their ability to recognize a pattern indicating intelligent design?
Comment by Rock — November 3, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I find it interesting that the genetic circuits that regulate transcription seem to have all found an optimal solution even though they share little or no common ancestry.
Convergent Evolution of Gene Circuits
Comment by chunkdz — November 3, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
If I don't have a problem being related to dust why should I have a problem being related to pond scum or tuna?
This is just another of your stereotypes, Zachriel. Stereotypes are antithetical to critical thinking. And unfortunately, those with a strong propensity to rely on stereotypes are often physically incapable of recognizing their own irrational thought processes. Kind of a little catch-22 you got going on, Zach.
God can change that though.
Comment by chunkdz — November 3, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
What pattern might lead one to reasonably infer common descent?
I ask because it may be the same pattern that leads one to reasonably infer common design.
And I haven't seen any patterns that would lead one to infer the transitions can be accomplished by altering genomes- and that is why I ask because I know I haven't covered everything. So I usually assume that those who so staunchly defend the claim of Common Descent can help me out.
However it always ends up like it has with Zachriel- more claims without a genetic base for support.
Comment by ID guy — November 3, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
"What pattern might lead one to reasonably infer common descent?"
Children resemble their parents.–Charles Darwin LOL
"I ask because it may be the same pattern that leads one to reasonably infer common design."
Maybe. If there was such a thing as a theory of "common design."
"So I usually assume that those who so staunchly defend the claim of Common Descent can help me out."
Not bloody likely! LOL
Comment by Rock — November 3, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Many years ago I asked someone who knows if phylogenetic models are truly “Darwinian”? Aren’t they more properly characterized as Markovian? (Or Bayesian, or even Viterbian?)
http://evogen.molgen.mpg.de/publications/Squartini2008p175.pdf
Interesting paper.
Comment by Rock — November 3, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
So if I find a child that doesn't resemble either parent the "theory" is falsified?
Ever seen a child with downs syndrome?
Or did the storks just miss Mongolia by a half of planet?
And if a child born in Mongolia has downs, would anyone know?
Comment by ID guy — November 3, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Rock
You might be interested in the criteria Mike Gene gives for common design:
Comment by Guts — November 3, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Go fuck yourself, ID guy.
Sorry, TTers, but that is about as dignified a response as I can muster to such stupidity.
It's your business Bradford, or whoever is in charge of this asylum, but if that's what its going to be, then this is a waste of my time.
Comment by Rock — November 3, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
November 4th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Remedial measures for incivility have been relaxed of late. To some extent this can be attributed to a tendency by some to take their more uncivil comments off-list and direct them at other TT commenters.
Be advised that closer scrutiny will be directed at comments as of this morning. Direct your comments at the OP or at an argument being made by a commenter. Do not get personal. If you do not like uncivil comments directed at you, minimize the sarcasm and mocking tones in your own comments. Focus on issues, not people. Nuff said.
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2009 @ 7:09 am
November 4th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Wow Rock- is that how you react to every joke you hear?
You were "laughing" in your response to me and I was just trying to continue in that vein.
Oh well go evolve a sense of humor…
Comment by ID guy — November 4, 2009 @ 7:54 am
November 4th, 2009 at 11:02 am
And Rock, FYI, I am from Nantucket…
Comment by ID guy — November 4, 2009 @ 11:02 am
November 4th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
There are patterns that could lead one to assume common descent, there are also patterns that don't seem to fit. A theory must be verified – it should stand up to close scrutiny. Just pointing to similarities between organisms and saying "see" does not count as verification. If common descent is valid, it must also account for the differences between organisms – including detailed evolutionary pathways that have been experimentally verified. Nothing even close to that exists right now.
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 4, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
November 4th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
The primary pattern is a nested hierarchy. Common Descent leads to non-trivial predictions in everything from molecular genetics to what is buried in the rocks.
You might try to be a bit more specific.
But we have more than just similarities. We have a nested hierarchy of traits, a pattern that is the natural consequence of divergence along uncrossed lines.
That is incorrect. One doesn't have to have a theory of genetics to be able to determine hereditary relationships.
Comment by Zachriel — November 4, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
November 4th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Traits? Like eyeballs? Show me the nested hierarchy of eyeballs.
Determine? Or hypothesize? I think you obviously mean the latter.
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 4, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Except that Common Descent does not predict a nested hierarchy.
The fossils- those things found in the rocjks- don't support Common Descent.
And only design predicts a nested hierarchy.
That is false.
There isn't any nested hierarchy built on descent.
Birds are warm blooded. Their alleged ancestors were cold bloooded.
The containment is broken.
However seeing that Zachriel is cluelss as to nested hierarchies he will continue to make this same mistake.
If one is claiming that alterations to the genome can account for all the transitions then it is up to that person to show such a thing is possible.
The $20,000 challenge still stands Zach-
You and I in front of a panel of experts to end this once and for all.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2009 @ 8:18 am
November 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Zachriel:
ID guy:
IS guy:
And how about the genetic code, how does it show a nested pattern?
Comment by Mung — November 5, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
…
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
This channel has a very high noise-to-signal ratio that might make such an extended discussion difficult. In an attempt to make it tenable, I'll just post a few comments so we can see where we differ and if such a discussion can be productive.
When we group organisms according to traits, they natural fall into a nested hierarchy pattern. This is not a trivial statement. For instance, if an organism has mammary glands, this is strongly correlated with the organism also having a four-chambered heart, vertebrae, and a cranium with an array of senses including three ear bones.
Comment by Zachriel — November 5, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
And eyeballs? Let's see how organisms "naturally fall into a nested hierarchy pattern" based on the trait 'eyeballs'!
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 5, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
What Zach is sayin' is that when we construct a nested hierarchy based on defining traits it forms a nested hierarchy based on those defining traits.
It is also worth noting that Zach is finally understanding that it is those defining traits which determine the categories and not descent- and that is because descent is not a defining trait.
Notice Zach is now telling it as I have been telling him- characteristic traits are what define the categories- ie sets- of a nested hierarchy, not descent.
IOW finally something has made its way through Zach's signal-to-noise problem.
Glad to see I could help you figure it out. Well actually I had to spoon feed you but it looks like you ingested and digested it.
Good job.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
And despite your noise it appears my signals have finally gotten through to you.
Comment by ID guy — November 5, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
November 5th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Zachriel:
Zachriel:
Is "common descent" an inference based on the pattern?
Comment by Mung — November 5, 2009 @ 11:01 pm
November 6th, 2009 at 7:04 am
I want to make sure we are clear on the pattern first. This is the definition we are using for a nested hierarchy: an ordered set such that each subset is contained in its superset. The leaves on an archtypal tree form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and limb. If you seriously object to the term, we can call it Pattern X. Consider this:
Excellent example. Eyes do fall into a nested hierarchy when we group by traits. Eyes are common throughout Bilateria. Eyes found in cephalopods and insects can be shown to have a much different structure than those found in vertebrates, with vertebrate eye-structure being different in modern fish, birds and mammals. Further divisions are possible when viewed in sufficient detail, for instance, color receptors in primates. (Even superficially significant differences, such as those between owl monkey eyes and those of the capuchin can be shown to be due to small changes in development.)
Keep in mind, we're only establishing a pattern. The pattern exists regardless of any explanatory theory. You should be satisified that biological organisms do form a nested hierarchy of morphology and embryology, and that you are clear on what we mean by this before we proceed.
Comment by Zachriel — November 6, 2009 @ 7:04 am
November 6th, 2009 at 7:49 am
It- the superset- has to consist of and contain all subsets.
No, that is false.
The leaves on one branch are identicle to the leaves on any other branch of the same tree,
There aren't any defining characteristic traits which would allow someone to take a leaf that has fallen and put it back on the correct branch in the correct location on thta branch.
As for eyes there isn't any genetic data which links the transitions to the genes.
We can't even link the genes in development to the type of eye.
You shouldn't be satisfied as your position wouldn't expect to see a nested hoerarchy.
That one exists should be evidence against your position.
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2009 @ 7:49 am
November 6th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Dr Tim Allen, author of A SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY THEORY, has told me that leaves on a tree do not form a nested hierarchy. And that trees do not form such a structure.
Now what does Zachriel have to say?
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2009 @ 7:58 am
November 6th, 2009 at 8:30 am
To Mung and Daniel,
Stop listening to Zachriel pertaining to nested hierarchies.
Send an email to Dr Allen- his email addy can be found at the link to hiearchies above- ask him if leaves on a tree form a nested hierarchy when grouped by branch and limb.
Comment by ID guy — November 6, 2009 @ 8:30 am
November 9th, 2009 at 8:29 am
I've noticed that you've posted on this forum, as well as making related statements over at Uncommon Descent. Did you forget?
Comment by Zachriel — November 9, 2009 @ 8:29 am
November 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
???
I sagree that you can take just about any collection you could think of and arrange it into a hierarchy. So what?
Comment by Mung — November 9, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
November 9th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
That's correct. A taxonomy is such a classification, but based on character traits. When we group organisms according to traits, they natural fall into a nested hierarchy pattern. This is not a trivial statement. For instance, if an organism has mammary glands, this is strongly correlated with the organism also having a four-chambered heart, vertebrae, and a cranium with an array of senses including three ear bones.
So are we okay with this?
Comment by Zachriel — November 9, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
November 9th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
And a complex placenta?
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 9, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
November 9th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Are we to guess at your meaning?
Assuming you are referring to analogous traits, are you trying to say that because dolphins swim and fish swim that we can't reliably place dolphins with mammals? Or that because other taxa have structures similar to (but not identical with) mammalian placentas that the nested hierarchy can't be discerned?
Comment by Zachriel — November 9, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
November 9th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
All you are saying is that when we construct a nested hierarchy based on characteristic traits it forms a nested hierarchy based on those traits.
It is really a vacuous statement.
You tend to have quite a few of those.
But what does THAT have to do with Common Descent?
To me that is evidence that organisms were designed via some template.
And that is why the nested hierarchy of organisms was first evidence for a common design.
Any classification based on characteristic traits is irrelevant when it comes to descent with modification, ie Common Descent.
So now the question is what is Zachriel's deception this time?
Comment by ID guy — November 9, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
November 9th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Yes, but as ID guy points out, it seems rather trivial.
Things which have more things in common, can be grouped with things which have more things in common.
What does this have to do with a hierarchy?
And what does it have to do with the claim that common descent predicts a hierarchy?
Comment by Mung — November 9, 2009 @ 11:43 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 9:05 am
By the same token, a soldier from one part of the army is identical to the soldiers in any other part of the army. There aren't any defining traits that would allow someone to take a soldier that has fallen and place him or her back in the correct unit of the army. Following your logic, we conclude that the army does not form a nested hierarchy.
Oops.
Comment by Tom MH — November 10, 2009 @ 9:05 am
November 10th, 2009 at 9:12 am
That's right.
Because most organisms fall neatly into a singular nested hierarchy across almost any number of traits or structures. I'm surprised you are not familiar with this; or perhaps you are, but familiarity has led to overlooking the profound nature of these relationships.
We just need to consider cases. It's the observable facts that matter, not the names, after all.
sparrow, hawk, frog: Which two group together?frog, dog, fish: Which two group together?rose, fish, salamander: Which two group together?And so on. And if you do this for most taxa, they fall neatly into a nested hierarchy. If you are still unclear on this, then I would be happy to delve into more detail.
Hardly trivial. For instance, if an organism has mammary glands, this is strongly correlated with the organism also having a four-chambered heart, vertebrae, and a cranium with an array of sense organs including three ear bones. Why should having tits predict the number of bones in the middle ear? Well, we'll get to that, but the fact is that it does!
First, we have to establish our taxonomy.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2009 @ 9:12 am
November 10th, 2009 at 9:19 am
That is false.
I take it you have never served in the Army.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2009 @ 9:19 am
November 10th, 2009 at 9:25 am
And that is unexpected given descent with modification.
And that is strongly correlated to design.
There isn't anything in the theory of evolution which states mammaory glands equals a 4-chambered heart.
Taxonomy has already been established- and it isn't based on descent.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2009 @ 9:25 am
November 10th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Hence the term G.I. "galvanized iron" or "government issue" to refer to soldiers, as if stamped out in a factory. The advantage of such a nested hierarchical system is the clear lines of command and control. Also, soldiers can be reassigned to any unit, such as if a unit is destroyed in combat, the remaining soldiers can be absorbed into other units, possibly including intact sub-hierarchies (i.e. platoons).
(To be precise, military rank is not a nested hierarchy. Every enlisted soldier better salute every general, regardless of which division the general commands. Nor do direct reports constitute a nested hierarchy; orders typically follow a pecking order; general to colonel to captain to lieutenant to sergeant to private. However, if we include an officer and every report directly under the officer down to the enlisted soldiers, then it forms a nested hierarchy. As usual, it depends on the level of analysis.)
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2009 @ 10:25 am
November 10th, 2009 at 11:41 am
So an Army infantry rifleman is the same as an Army tanker is the same as an Army pilot?
According to Zachriel and Tom we should be able to take a soldier from the infantry and stick him into an airplane without a hitch- oh and expect him to pilot that airplane.
The Army is sooo cooool. I mean to think that every Private can do the jobs to every other person in the Army is truly amazing!
Need pilots? No problem we have plenty of Privates!
Need Generals? No problem, still plenty of Privates left.
Need someone to fill the void left in the front line? Go get a General.
Plug-n-play, mix-n-match- Today's Army brought to you by the know-nuthin's Zach & Tom!
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2009 @ 11:41 am
November 10th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
ID guy, if you are troubled by my oversight of the importance of military specialties, fine — I'll amend my comment:
*MOS = military occupation specialty.
But you have not addressed my central point:
Per your logic, an army is not a nested hierarchy.
Comment by Tom MH — November 10, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Apparently Tom has never heard of dog tags or military insignias.
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 10, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Information content of a US Army dog tag: name, social security number, blood type, religion. What will help us with unit assignment here?
Shoulder insignia might get you to the brigade level, or lower for specialized units (Rangers, Special Forces, etc.). Assuming the insignia was not deceptive (as was used in WWII). Assuming the insignia was not removed.
Try again.
Comment by Tom MH — November 10, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Just keep moving the goalposts Tom.
With leaves it is one rule from top to bottom.
Then again you have the email address of the expert- you could just write to him with your nonsense.
The great Tom MH knows more about nested hierarchies than the expert from the ISSS.
Generally we bury the fallen.
And yes if you want to strip-down a soldier then there isn't any way of knowing he/ she is a soldier, so we wouldn't care.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
In the archetypal army, you're in whatever unit they say you are in. There is no intrinsic trait of a soldier that says a soldier is in Company A rather than in Company B. At least the twigs on a tree are uniquely assigned to their place when grouped by branch and limb.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Stripped or uniformed, there are no "defining characteristic traits" that tell us what unit a soldier is assigned to, nor restrict what unit a soldier can be assigned to. So apparently you concede my point: per your logic, the army is not a nested hierarchy. Perhaps you would care to restate your argument?
Comment by Tom MH — November 10, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Tom MH,
I have exposed your "point" as nonsense.
When you say:
You are just ignorantly running around with the goalpost.
I take it you also didn't understand what I said:
With leaves it is one rule from top to bottom.
Zachriel has proven that he is unable to learn.
It appears you have the same issue.
olegt was kind enough to leave a link that proves Zachriel is a dolt:
A Paternal Family Tree is NOT a Nested Hierarchy!
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
So you are sayin' it's all arbitrary.
So you're sayin' their "defining characteristic trait" is their location?
Excuse me but-
BWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA
Absolutely unbelievable- yet here it is..
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I note that Joe G, the owner of that website, calls Professor Allen a crack whore. Did you confuse Joe G with Zachriel?
Joe G also posts part of an email exchange with Professor Allen, including a snippet containing the Professor's apparent reaction to a .gif that will no longer load. The Professor looks at {something} and states that "this" is not nested. "There is a single rule that applies top to bottom, not nesting". This is rather cryptic, and without seeing the antecedant to "this" I don't see how any conclusion can be drawn about nested hierarchies.
Oddly, you seem to be basing your argument on that snippet:
Are you Joe G?
I explored that website and found additional discussion of paternal family trees, and Zachriel offers one that looks to be of the King of Jordan. Ignoring the debate as to whether a paternal family tree is the same as a patrilineage, if we assume that we are referring to a man and all his male descendants, then yes, that can form a nested hierarchy.
Seems like a useful concept for cladistics.
I think you have added a number of criteria to the NH definition that are neither needed nor useful, and you are doing a good job of not explaining what you mean or why.
Comment by Tom MH — November 10, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I didn't note that.
Perhaps you can link to the exchange between Joe G and Dr Allen that reflects that.
According to Dr Allen it does not.
So if we ignore the expert and all the rules then sure you can make a nested hierarchjy out of whatever you want.
Also the nested hierarchy of the Army is not dependent on the soldiers.
The nested hierarchy structure is set up and then filled.
As for the .gif that no longer exists- it was of a man and his male descendents.
Keep grasping Tom it is really amusing.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Here is the permalink. Joe G responds to Dr. Allen's views under the erroneous assumption that he is responding to Zachriel. To make it easy for the readers:
Joe G did not understand what Professor Allen was trying to say, and he attributed the qualities of "loser" and "crack whore" to anyone who would hold the opinions that Professor Allen just gave. Essentially, then, he called Dr Allen a crack whore.
Friend of yours?
Comment by Tom MH — November 10, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Tom,
It appears that Joe G was responding to Zachriel.
Here is a link to Zachriel's post-
It says:
Nothing in what Zachriel posted indicates Dr Allen is saying anything.
Therefore it is obvious that Joe G was not responding to Dr Allen.
All you did was put Dr Allen in after.
Is that how you have to "argue"? Change the facts after?
So to make it easier for readers it was necessary for you to change what actually took place?
Does being such a loser make you feel better?
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
To make it real easy for the readers:
Where's Dr Allen?
All I can see is Zachriel, anonymous internet loser at large.
Comment by ID guy — November 10, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I went back and checked the original email (Friday, December 29, 2006 1:34 PM). The attributions and context are correct. In the same email, Allen attached several papers, and we discussed some unrelated matters.
Allen is primarily concerned with the relationship between the observed and the observer; when patterns are real and when are they imposed by the mind. For instance, most people know that planets form elliptical orbits—except none of them actually do.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
November 10th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
This is the exact exchange:
Joe G responds directly to Allen's comments.
Come on, ID guy. Even you have to admit Joe G's comments are beyond the Pale.
Comment by Zachriel — November 10, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Terminate this and stay on topic.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Yes Bradford, it's amazing what these clowns will do in order to try to distract from the fact that they are talking out of their arses.
Comment by ID guy — November 11, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
ID guy, calm down. I'm well aware of the arrogance of some but nothing you can say will remove it. Move on to another topic if this one is a dead end.
Comment by Bradford — November 11, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
The Army keeps records that correlate all that stuff and will tell you exactly what unit the fallen soldier came from.
I guess I'm missing the point of this argument because I don't understand how someone can make the claim that there's no way of identifying a fallen soldier's place in the Army. It's done every time a soldier dies. In fact it's done when there's not even a physical soldier to ID.
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 11, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
The point is that those records are required: there's nothing intrisic about the soldier that identifies his location in the army.
You have to go back to the original comments to understand this. It has to do with leaves on branches. Tom MH was equating soldiers to fallen leaves, and for that reason he was ignoring the possibility of an external database. But your approach is a second way of invalidating ID guy's original point, in that the hierarchy of the leaves on a tree would not be lost if we IDed each leaf and remembered where it was.
Comment by don provan — November 11, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
I carried parallelism too far in my original phrasing. It's not about fallen soldiers (although today of all days is a good day to remember them, and their brothers in arms who are still with us). It is about ID guy's claim that leaves cannot form a nested hierarchy because
My argument, speaking plainly, is that soldiers likewise have no defining characteristic traits that would place them in one part of the army vice another. Thus if ID guy's argument is valid against tree leaves as a nested hierarchy (it isn't) then it is equally valid against soldiers in an army as a nested hierarchy. He must abandon either one position or the other.
don provan shows an additional way of highlighting the flaw in ID guy's argument.
Comment by Tom MH — November 11, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
November 11th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
And had I been wrong, I am certain you would have pointed that out.
Comment by Tom MH — November 11, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
November 12th, 2009 at 8:35 am
don provan,
Your ignorance is preventing you from seeing what is going on. Tom MH seems to have the same issue.
The nested hierarchy of the Army is NOT dependent on the soldiers, nor their location.
It is constructed before-hand.
Now you guys can either address that or keep ignoring it.
BTW Zachriel sez that the defining characteristic of the leaves is their location.
That you have failed to correct him proves you two are clueless dolts.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 8:35 am
November 12th, 2009 at 8:38 am
The nested hierarchy of the Army is NOT dependent on the soldiers, nor their location.
And according to Zachriel the alleged NH of a tree is solely dependent on the location- as if location is a defining characteristic.
Now what?
I predict more hand-waving and distractions.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 8:38 am
November 12th, 2009 at 9:29 am
If X is made up of Y, then I would think X is pretty damned well dependent on Y.
If the soldiers in the army are not located in (assigned to) units such that each soldier reports to only one unit, and each of those units reports to only one higher echelon unit, and so on up the chain of command until we reach the level of Army, then the set is not a nested hierarchy. But singularity of command responsibility is adhered to in this archetypal army (though not always in the Real World), so we have a nested hierarchy.
The location (unit assignments) of the soldiers thus helps determine whether or not the Army forms a nested hierarchy.
In the abstract, we can construct a nested hierarchy of any set of objects. All we need to do is make sure that the set involves levels which consist of and contain lower levels ("hierarchy"), and that each subset has one and only one superset ("nested").
Thus the canopy of leaves on a tree forms a nested hierarchy (an archetypal tree, that is — one whose limbs and branches, once divided, do not merge). Large branches subdivide to smaller branches, and eventually to leaves ("hierarchy"); no leaf is attached to more than one twig, nor is any smaller branch attached to more than one large branch ("nested").
Thus a partilineage forms a nested hierarchy. Fathers have sons ("hierarchy"); no son has more than one father ("nested"). (Some fathers in the patrilineage might not have sons, and some sons might never become fathers, but this does not alter the observation.)
Comment by Tom MH — November 12, 2009 @ 9:29 am
November 12th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Keep grasping at straws Tom.
Yes an Army is made up of soldiers.
Yes an Army consists of and contains soldiers.
That does not have anything to do with what I said.
The soldiers do not determine the nested hierarchy.
Their location does not determine the nested hierarchy.
That is nonsense Tom.
I know I could give you a set of objects that you could not construct a nested hierarchy with.
There are other rules too.
A patriLINEAGE cannot form a nested hierarchy by definition. That being a lineage cannot form a nested hierarchy.
Also a father does not consist of nor contain his sons.
In order for a patrilineage to meet the rules of a NH a father would have to consist of and contain his sons.
Descent is not a defining characteristic.
Location is not a defining characteristic.
Your ignorance is a defining characteristic.
Tell you what Tom, I will add my challenge to include you seeing that the other cowards have declined:
You put up $20,000 and I will put up $20,000.
You will try to "prove" that a patrilineage and a tree form nested hierarchies.
I will try to "prove" that they do not.
Dr Allen will be a panel member- oh and the loser has to pay the panel members.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 9:49 am
November 12th, 2009 at 9:53 am
It is on their uniform and also their skill-set.
You cannot take a Private and make him a tanker by declaration.
And if you take off their uniform then they are no longer soldiers and do not matter to our discussion.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 9:53 am
November 12th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Patrilineage is probably more precise, but paternal tree is often used, such as when discussing the y-chromosome or the inheritance of titles. In the blog, I explicitly defined the term as a male and all his male descendents, so it shouldn't have been subject to confusion.
And with regards to officers, in the nested hierarchy of the army on the ground, an officer is just another soldier. This is not a difficult concept, of course, but IDers often confuse words with the concepts they represent and think that semantics constitutes an argument.
Comment by Zachriel — November 12, 2009 @ 10:21 am
November 12th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Dr Allen, the expert on nested hierarchies, has already determined that a patrilineage is a not a nested hierarchy.
Tom ignores the expert and declares a patrilineage is a nested hierarchy.
Tom defends his choice with ignorant ramblings.
Who should we believe?
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 10:22 am
November 12th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Do you even know what a paternal tree is?
And we know that is not a nested hierarchy.
So what is your point?
All officers are soldiers.
Do you have a point?
IOW you have no clue what you are sayin'.
Thought so.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 10:24 am
November 12th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Zachriel is talking about the actual physical location.
So if soldiers can move around then there isn't any comparison as by Zach's logic the movement will change the nested hierarchy.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 10:27 am
November 12th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Neither tells us what rifle platoon an infantryman is assigned to.
Of course you can. This was done commonly towards the end of WWII, when the US Army's field maintenance shops were able to restore damaged Sherman tanks to service faster than the replacement depots could deliver new crews. To maximize the number of tanks available for battle, crews were filled out with non-tankers.
Besides, we are not talking about what the soldier does, only what unit he is assigned to. I wouldn't put an infantry private in the seat of an F-15 and expect him to fly it (or even be able to get the engines going) but there is nothing in principle that prevents him from being assigned to the squadron. Quit changing the subject.
Comment by Tom MH — November 12, 2009 @ 10:51 am
November 12th, 2009 at 10:51 am
You have no proof of that claim.
Comment by Tom MH — November 12, 2009 @ 10:51 am
November 12th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Show me the definition that states that a patrilineage cannot form a nested hierarchy.
The set "a father and all male descendants" contains his sons.
Furthermore, the set "a father and all his male descendants" contains the subset "a father's son and all that son's male descendants".
Nested, and hierarchical.
Comment by Tom MH — November 12, 2009 @ 10:59 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Dr Allen, the expert on nested hierarchies, has already determined that a patrilineage is a not a nested hierarchy.
You linked to it.
Also a father does not consist of nor contain his sons.
The founding father is alone at the top of a patrilineage.
The challenge stands and it appears we have another coward.
$20,000 Tom- put up or prove you are a coward.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 11:06 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:09 am
A lineage is a line of descent.
Descent is not a defining characteristic.
Nested hierarchies are built on characteristics.
IOW Tom still thinks his ignorance means something.
Strange…
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 11:09 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:10 am
You cannot take a Private and make him a tanker by declaration.
It wasn't done by declaration Tom.
There was training involved.
And again Zachriel is talking about the physical location of the branches, twigs and leaves.
You don't appear to be capable of getting that through your thick skull.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 11:10 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Thus far I've provided two links on this thread:
The first was to the ISSS discussion on nested hierarchies, which doesn't mention patrilineages.
The second was to Joe G's blog where he declared the opinions of Professor Allen to be demonstrable of the credibility of a crack-whore. Earlier on that thread, Joe G posted what he claimed to be an email response from Professor Allen, in which the Professor claimed "This is not nested" in reference to something we can no longer see.
Is that your proof?
Comment by Tom MH — November 12, 2009 @ 11:20 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Again Tom displays his dishonesty.
Nowhere in any of your links did Joe G declare anything about Dr Allen's opinion.
The link you provided shows Joe G responding to Zachriel.
There isn't anything that shows Joe G responding to Dr Allen.
So thank you for continuing to prove that you are a liar.
Also the .gif was of a patrilineage- which Zachriel the ignorant thought was a paternal family tree.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 11:33 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:35 am
I suspect that Joe G was hanging his entire rebuttal argument on the difference in interpretation bewtween the terms "patrilineage" and "paternal family" (or "paternal tree"). Here is another "Joe" asking online questions about this, coincidentally around the same time as the Joe G blog entry. Hmmm…
Comment by Tom MH — November 12, 2009 @ 11:35 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:39 am
So it depends on the level of analysis. If we trace male ancestry, we have a line; if we trace male descent, we have a tree; if we group each male with all his male descendents, then we have a nested hierarchy.
(It's interesting how a cite to authority has such currency with some, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of biologists strongly support the Theory of Evolution.)
Comment by Zachriel — November 12, 2009 @ 11:39 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Is that what Dr Allen said?
You had better produce a reference otherwise you are still lying.
Science is not done via a majority and not one in that majority can substantiate the claims made by the theory.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 11:44 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:45 am
How would you know? That .gif doesn't load.
Comment by Tom MH — November 12, 2009 @ 11:45 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Those are defined words- there isn't anything to interpret.
A neither expects a nested hierarchy. That is because nested hierarchies are determined by characteristics and descent is not a characteristic.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 11:47 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I had thought abandoning the term nested hierarchy would advance the discussion. I tried containment, aggregating and inclusion hierarchy. Then I tried Pattern X. Nothing seemed to move the discussion back towards the evidence for Common Descent.
Z: Let X be the a set such that ...J: Never! Aristotle says heavy object falls faster!
Z: Huh? Just suppose that X is a set such that ...
J: Aristotle was a great scholar. Who are you to argue with Aristotle?!
Z: I studied with Aristotle, I knew Aristotle, Aristotle was a friend of mine. J, you're no Aristotle!
Comment by Zachriel — November 12, 2009 @ 11:48 am
November 12th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Also the .gif was of a patrilineage
Because Zachriel has used that more than once and in more than one location.
It is a .gif of Sharif Hussein bin Ali, his sons and their sons.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 11:59 am
November 12th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I recommend sticking with "nested hierarchy" then, since that is what it is.
It is his goal to avoid that discussion.
Comment by Tom MH — November 12, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
November 12th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
You also abandoned logic, reason and honesty.
You thought that would also advance the discussion.
Strange.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
November 12th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Nested hierarchy is not evidence for Common Descent.
I have provided the reasoning and logic for that.
You seem to think that ignoring the reasons and logic help your claim.
The $20,000 challenge stands and it is very telling that neither of you will accept it.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
November 12th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
And it is your goal to lie and deceive.
But that is all you have.
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
November 12th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Then you must be looking at it now. Why have you not posted a link to it?
Comment by Tom MH — November 12, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
November 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Why don't you ask Zachriel what is was of? He is the one who posted it as support for his claim.
He is also most likely responsible for its removal- that is once Dr Allen shot it down…
Comment by ID guy — November 12, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
November 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I'm closing this thread. Too much acrimony. Take heed though. I will not make thread closings the norm. Make some attitude adjustments. Also do not continue this in the open thread.
Comment by Bradford — November 12, 2009 @ 12:27 pm