A while ago AV has claimed the nested set of life (the classification of life) is a "false positive". This is a quite interesting claim. Perhaps AV can clarify what he means when he says the nested set of life is a "false positive"?
Does it mean:
and
and
or
or
or
?
I suspect AV really cant put a finger on where this "false positive" actually is expected to exists. I suspect the claims the nested set of life is a "false positive" actually is a modification of, or can be derived from, the claims that living things cannot evolve beyond their "kinds".
However, I fail to see how one can make such inference. It is a well established observational fact that life is a nested set since at least Carl Linnaeus established his classification of life. This facts is unrelated to the theory of evolution. However, Darwin's theory is base on this observational fact. In other words, it is because of the very special classification of life (the nested set) that the theory of evolution has its validity in the first place, in fact any validity at all.
However, this is something I know AV is aware of. So that cant be the reason, or? In any case, since the nested set of life is direct observational evidence for evolution I can understand why AV tries to deny, misrepresent or discredit it, but I fail to see his line of thoughts here. Can AV, or anyone, try to clarify what these false positives are supposed to be or exists?
I.e are dogs really dogs or do they just by coincident (which is what "false positive" means) look like dogs?
By observational facts dogs are dogs by inheritance. Just like dogs are mammals, vertebrates and animals by inheritance. Inheritance implies relatedness. Relatedness implies common ancestor.
If you claim the nested set of life (which is an observational proof of evolution - i.e. evolution is an observed fact) is a false positive then you also indirectly claims that dogs somehow not are dogs, mammals, vertebrates or animals by inheritance. Since you, AV, denies observational facts then it begs the question how you believe dogs become all these things if not by inheritance - do you believe dogs can be "created" or "Intelligent Designed" (which are keywords for "magically poffed into existence") and if so why would they share all these inherent characteristics with all other life? What is the purpose of sharing all these nested traits with other animals if it was not due to uniquely inherent traits and characteristics (i.e. evolution)? Is it a deliberate made deception by the "creator" to fool us to believe dogs has evolved from other mammalian forms, or what does all this mean?
In short, what are your evidence to support your claim with?
Or, isn't it the case that your "evidence" is the usual denial of evidence?
Does it mean:
and
and
or
or
or
?
I suspect AV really cant put a finger on where this "false positive" actually is expected to exists. I suspect the claims the nested set of life is a "false positive" actually is a modification of, or can be derived from, the claims that living things cannot evolve beyond their "kinds".
However, I fail to see how one can make such inference. It is a well established observational fact that life is a nested set since at least Carl Linnaeus established his classification of life. This facts is unrelated to the theory of evolution. However, Darwin's theory is base on this observational fact. In other words, it is because of the very special classification of life (the nested set) that the theory of evolution has its validity in the first place, in fact any validity at all.
However, this is something I know AV is aware of. So that cant be the reason, or? In any case, since the nested set of life is direct observational evidence for evolution I can understand why AV tries to deny, misrepresent or discredit it, but I fail to see his line of thoughts here. Can AV, or anyone, try to clarify what these false positives are supposed to be or exists?
I.e are dogs really dogs or do they just by coincident (which is what "false positive" means) look like dogs?
By observational facts dogs are dogs by inheritance. Just like dogs are mammals, vertebrates and animals by inheritance. Inheritance implies relatedness. Relatedness implies common ancestor.
If you claim the nested set of life (which is an observational proof of evolution - i.e. evolution is an observed fact) is a false positive then you also indirectly claims that dogs somehow not are dogs, mammals, vertebrates or animals by inheritance. Since you, AV, denies observational facts then it begs the question how you believe dogs become all these things if not by inheritance - do you believe dogs can be "created" or "Intelligent Designed" (which are keywords for "magically poffed into existence") and if so why would they share all these inherent characteristics with all other life? What is the purpose of sharing all these nested traits with other animals if it was not due to uniquely inherent traits and characteristics (i.e. evolution)? Is it a deliberate made deception by the "creator" to fool us to believe dogs has evolved from other mammalian forms, or what does all this mean?
In short, what are your evidence to support your claim with?
Or, isn't it the case that your "evidence" is the usual denial of evidence?
Last edited:
