Nested sets of life and AV's "false positive"

[In situ]

How were the angels able to circumvent evolution?

And how was the earth suddenly populated with so many animals who never had parents?

Zebras, giraffes, serpents, fish, even plants -- all came on the scene without one act of procreation ever having occurred anywhere.

I do not understand your question(s) nor your claim. Can you explain why this is relevant to support your claim of a false positives, and what are the evidence which support this claim? Are you saying magic did occur?

I have presented the evidence (the observed unique inherent characteristic) for the nested set which is observational evidence that the nested set is real and not a coincident! In other word, since living things are observed, and as such is a fact, to be born by parents with inherent unique characteristic then all these facts, in themselves, implies, as an inferred fact, that living beings, which is part of a single nested set, shares a common ancestor.

Hence, all the observed evidence does not suggest nor support the idea that any living being has ever been created by magic which you seams to suggest i.e. you are in fact denying that living things only comes from living things. .

That unless you can you please explain why the nested set should be regarded as a coincidental observation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your create a scenario that demands magic, not a rational approach.

The science clearly show that no magic is necessary to explain biodiversity.

And I submit "magic" is confusing you.

Why aren't you saying "miracle" instead?

Or would that force you to understand the Biblical pov?

 

[AV1611VET]

you are in fact denying that living things only comes from living things.

Frankly, you're wrong.

I have a thread that says abiogenesis can take a hike.

QV please: Abiogenesis is a Lie

 

[In situ]

And I submit "magic" is confusing you.

Why aren't you saying "miracle" instead?

Miracle is fine as well - it means the same thing to me but if you want to make a distinction I am fine with that as well.

Anyway, are you then saying a miracle did happen? If so, was the creation of a unified single nested set of life a coincident or done by purpose?

Or would that force you to understand the Biblical pov?

What anyone's understanding of the bible has do with your denial that the observed fact that life is a nested set, a nested set that is a objectively verifiable observation which has been demonstrated and vindicated from multiple lines of independent evidence time after time is a false positive is unclear to me. Please explain.

 

[In situ]

Frankly, you're wrong.

I have a thread that says abiogenesis can take a hike.

QV please: Abiogenesis is a Lie

Firstly and more important, we are talking about your specific claim. The claim that the observation that life is nested set is a false positive, a coincident. In other words you claim there exists living beings that are not related by inheritance but came to exist separately somehow (and the only suggested alternative I know of is from non-life which is against the tenet of biology that says that life only comes from life) - that means we do not have to draw the line of common ancestor at top level (i.e. the cell) but anywhere we see fit, say felines v.s. carnivores. Humans are not apes, etc etc.

Therefore abiogenesis is irrelevant for your claim that the nested set is a false positive and cannot be used to support your claim that humans are not related to all other apes or that felines are not related to carnivores via a common ancestor.

This, unless your claim is that the false positive is the last common ancestor, i.e. the single cell, and that God by a miracle created this cell which then evolved into all the living beings we see today, i.e. you would then have to accept theistic evolution if you want to use abiogenesis as an argument for the false positive - but that was not your original claims so in fact you are not only shifting the goals post here but you are also bringing in a red herring.

 

[Loudmouth]

How were the angels able to circumvent evolution?

The same way leprechauns do.

 

[VirOptimus]

And I submit "magic" is confusing you.

Why aren't you saying "miracle" instead?

Or would that force you to understand the Biblical pov?

Magic and miracle are the same thing. Most people who are christians have no problem with physical reality (science) so my guess is that the "biblical pov" for most christians isnt what you belive.

 

[In situ]

The same way leprechauns do.

I know what you mean, but to relabel the claimed cause to the false positive does not provide us with an answer to help us understand how to identify what AV's claimed false positives in the observed nested set of life is supposed to be.

 

[In situ]

Magic and miracle are the same thing.

I agree, but if AV wants to make a distinction I don't have a problem with accepting a distinction since the conclusion will still be the same anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyway, are you then saying a miracle did happen? If so, was the creation of a unified single nested set of life a coincident or done by purpose?

God did not create a nested hierarchy.

The animals He created in Genesis 1 are not linked in any way, shape or form.

 

[AV1611VET]

The same way leprechauns do.

I was under the impression leprechauns were angels.

 

[AV1611VET]

Magic and miracle are the same thing.

No, they aren't.

And even if they were, "magic" is misleading, as it dilutes the divine aspect of the equation.

 

[AV1611VET]

I know what you mean, but to relabel the claimed cause to the false positive does not provide us with an answer to help us understand how to identify what AV's claimed false positives in the observed nested set of life is supposed to be.

If you see a link (which is always on paper) between apes and man, you're seeing a false positive.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was under the impression leprechauns were angels.

Are they magically delicious?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you see a link (which is always on paper) between apes and man, you're seeing a false positive.

Why? Because you say so?

 

[In situ]

If you see a link (which is always on paper) between apes and man, you're seeing a false positive.

Nested set does not have "links" they are sets. But they implies links.

The link is real and called a parent-child relation - the link is an observed fact and it exist! If something forms a nested set, and we know parent-child relations are responsible (i.e. a transmission of unique inherent characteristic from parent to child), then you have common ancestor per definition because, and I think you are aware of this somehow, a 'nested set' is just another way of saying 'common ancestor'.

Again, starting with the OP, I have asked you several time to substantiate your claim the parent-child relation does not exist (i.e. the claim that unique inherent characteristic is a false positive). Can you motivate your claim or do I need to guess it for you? Does the stork deliver kids perhaps? Or can two identical twins been born by complete different parents? What do you mean with it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why? Because you say so?

Boolean standards and all.

 

[AV1611VET]

The link is real and called a parent-child relation -

I'll post my favorite example in this now-getting-old discussion yet again:

I believe the term he used was "cousins," not "parent-child."

Parent-child is microevolution, which I believe in.

 

[Loudmouth]

Boolean standards and all.

That would be a double standard.

 

[VirOptimus]

No, they aren't.

And even if they were, "magic" is misleading, as it dilutes the divine aspect of the equation.

Yes they are.

I see that you didnt adress the rest of my post? Why?