|
|
|
definition of hoc Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
|
|
|
responsible for common descent by modification. He did not say modification evolution . I have no problem with that. What Steven, and myself have been trying to get you to understand is that your definition of evolution, ie. modification of an individual by natural selection is wrong. Natural selection, and variation, causes changes in populations, not individuals [False: NS modifies an individual who then breeds and passes said modification into its population]. Evolution itself does not require natural selection. It can happen by genetic drift, and other factors. [Note bracket containing my rebuttal in Dana's comment above showing error or ignorance. Also notice blatant and deliberate contradictions above: Dana talking about my definition: 'modification of an individual by natural selection' is wrong yet it is exactly right, the same which Major testified to, I have testified to, and every evolutionary scientist I have ever read.] Above, in this post, I re-paste your last comment: Dana: Actually, Ray, that's not what you said. You were trying to define evolution as modification due to natural selection. That's not the definition that anyone recognizes. That has been my definition and when I saw Major say it I brought it to your attention. You had denied up and down the veracity of this simple definition of evolution and you have done it again here. Like I said you are deliberately misrepresenting the simple and uncontested and undisputed. You are caught red handed again. You either did not know the definition of evolution, which is what I suspect, or you were howling, that is, deliberately posting nonsense attempting to frustrate everything I say for well known reasons. How all these honest and intelligent evolutionists can stand by and say nothing about your dishonesty or willful refusal to admit error is, not surprising. Shows how un_object_ive the ordinary evolutionist is to stand by and watch your howler show and say nothing. Finally, let it be established that Dana Tweedy has implied above that he does not know what modification evolution is, nor has he heard the term. Ray SNIP endless convoluted distortions, or howler tactic (same as above).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
definition of hoc Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
|
|
|
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. Dana: What he said was that natural selection and other processes are responsible for common descent by modification. He did not say modification evolution . I have no problem with that. What Steven, and myself have been trying to get you to understand is that your definition of evolution, ie. modification of an individual by natural selection is wrong. Natural selection, and variation, causes changes in populations, not individuals [False: NS modifies an individual who then breeds and passes said modification into its population]. Evolution itself does not require natural selection. It can happen by genetic drift, and other factors. [Note bracket containing my rebuttal in Dana's comment above showing error or ignorance. Also notice blatant and deliberate contradictions above: Dana talking about my definition: 'modification of an individual by natural selection' is wrong yet it is exactly right, the same which Major testified to, I have testified to, and every evolutionary scientist I have ever read.] Above, in this post, I re-paste your last comment: Dana: Actually, Ray, that's not what you said. You were trying to define evolution as modification due to natural selection. That's not the definition that anyone recognizes. That has been my definition and when I saw Major say it I brought it to your attention. You had denied up and down the veracity of this simple definition of evolution and you have done it again here. Like I said you are deliberately misrepresenting the simple and uncontested and undisputed. You are caught red handed again. You either did not know the definition of evolution, which is what I suspect, or you were howling, that is, deliberately posting nonsense attempting to frustrate everything I say for well known reasons. How all these honest and intelligent evolutionists can stand by and say nothing about your dishonesty or willful refusal to admit error is, not surprising. Shows how un_object_ive the ordinary evolutionist is to stand by and watch your howler show and say nothing. Finally, let it be established that Dana Tweedy has implied above that he does not know what modification evolution is, nor has he heard the term. Ray SNIP endless convoluted distortions, or howler tactic (same as above).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
definition of hoc Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
definition of hoc Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
[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. Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
definition of hoc Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
|
|
SNIP.... Now, you are free to say that you were misunderstood, and that you accept this, and we can stop arguing. But neither Dana nor I have ever stated that natural selection is not a major mechanism of evolution, but only that evolution can occur without natural selection being involved. This does not seem a terribly difficult concept to grasp, That is what I just said. Actually, Ray, that's not what you said. You were trying to define evolution as modification due to natural selection. That's not the definition that anyone recognizes. A few days ago we already had exchanges concerning something that Ernest Major had written, here: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/adaae5f5f095ab16 Ernest Major writes: You correct it's not earth-shattering - apart from the creation of new pecies being almost routine in agronomy, the voluminous evidence for common descent with modification though the agency of natural selection put together by Charles Darwin and subsequent workers means that the actual observation of cladogenesis is no great surprise. I responded here: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/91522c5dbd160c7b Ray Martinez writes: Hello Dana! Are you there? Have you read what Ernest Major just wrote? Major said the agency of natural selection (and other processes) is responsible for modification evolution. [I said this because I had defined evolution recently exactly the same way, which Dana denied up and down and insulted as ignorance.] Dana says he is present here: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/71a53619d3fe80dc Ray: Hello Dana! Are you there? Dana: Yes, I'm here. Ray: Have you read what Ernest Major just wrote? Dana: Yep, he's right. You, however are still wrong in defining evolution as change due to natural selection. [But that is exactly what Major has said too. Dana cannot possibly be this thick. He is deliberately misrepresenting by nit picking, to be kind about it. Dana cannot admit that he was and is wrong.] You're being an idiot. You claimed that natural selection changed an individual. [Ad hoc, Ernest knows this is a basic claim, he is not serious. NS does not change an entire population, which is what Ernest is saying by implication.] That is what evolution claims: NS modifies an organism, then the modified organism breeds passing the modification into the population. The next generation inherits the modification (= gradualism). Ray, I don't know enough about evolution to defend it, but even I know that natural selection doesn't modify an individual organism. Mutation creates variation between individuals; natural selection selects from the available variations. Natural selection does not create new variations. If your paper is intended to defeat the idea that NS causes variation, then well done! You've defeated an idea that no one accepts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
