|
|
|
definition of hoc Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
|
|
|
such as admitting an intent to promote atheism, or claiming that Paul's writings are corrupt, this might be what you think but it's what you wrote. If you don't think that, admit that you misspoke, and thank Dana for the correction; refusal to admit that your wrong in all circumstances leads you into deeper and deeper holes.) Ad hoc or contrived anger that has no correspondence to anything truthful. Ray: Major said the agency of natural selection (and other processes) is responsible for modification evolution. I said nothing about modification of individuals by natural selection. Natural selection modifies populations, not individuals. [More ad hoc nonsense serving a hidden agenda. Of course Ernest knows the population is changed after one organism is modified who then breeds that modification into the population. See how viciously dishonest any given evolutionist is? But since Ernest has an ulterior motive for his willful ignorance we have an explanation.] False. An entire population is not modified, one orgainism is, who then breeds the modification into the population; this is how a modification enters a population, which is then changed, as a population, in the next generation. You have confused populational thinking (as a general concept) or you are undoubtedly engaged in deliberate equivocation since I know you know that I am right. In any case you are a lying scum bag if you are not confused, explained by the agenda motive. Your agenda of opposing a creationist, no matter how silly, like Dana, demonstrates the real agenda of attempting to misrepresent every little and simple thing I say because you have made the decision that I represent a grave threat to your theory. This is a classic and sustained ad hom howler attack and a great compliment in view of its motive. For someone who boasts that he's writing a paper that will refute evolution you are remarkable lacking in an understanding of what evolution is. The motive of this sustained and silly ad hom attack via the deliberate clowning and denial of everything said, even to the point of denying the undisputed and basic claims of evolution, is admitted. This attack, like I said, is a great compliment, which is a recognition that the paper I am writing can only be defeated this way. Ray SNIP irrelavant text....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
definition of hoc Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
|
|
|
Ray: Major said the agency of natural selection (and other processes) is responsible for modification evolution. I said nothing about modification of individuals by natural selection. Natural selection modifies populations, not individuals. For someone who boasts that he's writing a paper that will refute evolution you are remarkable lacking in an understanding of what evolution is. In Ray's defense (am I really saying that?) it's hard to divorce the concept of individual from population . After all, a population is composed of individuals. Genetic modifications happen to individuals, do they not? I understand that those modifications get passed on to the population. But the modification starts in an individual, right? But from what you and Dana are saying (and I'm not disputing this, just pointing out my confusion) is that modifications happen in a population. To me that sounds like some magic force is changing a bunch of organisms at once. Obviously, this isn't so, but what's happening?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
definition of hoc Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
|
|
|
[snip] Ray, most people, reading the above, see the tell-tale signs of paranoia and megalomania. You cannot even consider that the reason most posters here stand by Dana rather than by you is that Dana is right and you are wrong. Your entire epistemology is _base_d on the idea that you are infallible and that anyone who agrees with you is a scholar, and that anyone who disagrees is a liar. Your idea of evidence is Ray Martinez thinks so. Three little words: narcissistic personality disorder. Either that, or Ray is the single most dedicated troll on usenet. Maybe both. Could we expect two Atheist evolutionists to say anything else about a Christian creationist? Despite how many times I ask this question it goes unanswered. I didn't realize that it wasn't a rhetorical question. Here's your answer: Why, yes. Yes, we could. For your further information, the two Atheist evolutionists weren't speaking about a Christian creationist. They were speaking about Ray Martinez. That you are a Christian creationist is incidental.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
definition of hoc Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
|
|
|
Well, I think so, Brain, but I can't memorize a whole opera in Yiddish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
definition of hoc Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
|
|
|
[False: NS modifies an individual who then breeds and passes said modification into its population]. If you can't understand the difference between those two simple statements above, I'll explain it to you. Just ask. Subject: Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance? At least with you, Ray, we never have to ask. Lee Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
definition of hoc Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
|
|
|
On 5/1/2008 12:31 AM, Ernest Major went clickity clack on the keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text: Ray: Major said the agency of natural selection (and other processes) is responsible for modification evolution. I said nothing about modification of individuals by natural selection. Natural selection modifies populations, not individuals. For someone who boasts that he's writing a paper that will refute evolution you are remarkable lacking in an understanding of what evolution is. In Ray's defense (am I really saying that?) it's hard to divorce the concept of individual from population . After all, a population is composed of individuals. Genetic modifications happen to individuals, do they not? I understand that those modifications get passed on to the population. But the modification starts in an individual, right? But from what you and Dana are saying (and I'm not disputing this, just pointing out my confusion) is that modifications happen in a population. To me that sounds like some magic force is changing a bunch of organisms at once. Obviously, this isn't so, but what's happening? What Ray is really arguing for (as far as I can tell) is the passing on of acquired traits (i.e. Lamarkism). I think he essentially believes that a mutation in an individual that that individual is not born with will change the phenotype of the individual. Which is of course false. That probably only answers part of your question. In order for a mutation to be heritable it has to be in the germline, which means the original organism with the acquired mutation will not be expressing that trait. NS is only happening if and when that mutation gives the thing a better shot at reproductive success which means it spreads to others throughout the population. I think thats mostly right... Thank you. Evolution is a very complex science and I barely know the details of it, nor do I think I'm qualified learn about the really deep details. (I'm surprised I passed high school chemistry with a B.) So I'm happy for any explanations I can get which will help me understand it better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
