Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution

On Mar 27, 10:01 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 27, 7:21 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mar 25, 11:04 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip]

Are you
saying that variation does not exist,

No, I am not; nor have I ever denied variation to exist. Even so
called "identical twins" are not identical.

Okay.

or (despite your statement that
you are "not disputing" Howard's statements about mutation) that
mutations are not in fact the cause of variation?

It depends on how one defines "mutation." Said word carries a meaning
that is very misunderstood. IF it means and only means "the cause of
variation" then yes. But please note I have said nothing about
mutation causation.

Do you consider genetic differences between individuals to be
variation?  There are many causes of mutation: radiation, various
chemicals, simple accidents during chemical collisions when DNA
strands are being duplicated, and, of course, deliberate intelligent
action.  You seem to be hinting that a great deal (all?) mutations
fall into the latter class: that mutations (or is it just neutral and
beneficial mutations) are "divinely caused" rather than naturally
caused.

-- [snip]

I pointed out that you offer multiple definitions of microevolution,

But I did no such thing.

Perhaps I should say that you have offered definitions that vary in
completeness;

Finally an admission that you have been misrepresenting. We know
misrepresentation happens because the perpetrator does not like the
truth, or he cannot refute, or he has an agenda of poisoning the well.

the first time you attempted to define "microevolution"
you made no mention of its cause.


Completely false.

Evolutionary authorities almost never discuss evolution apart from
causation. I learned it from them. Your ignorance is undoubtedly
caused by a failure to read what your own authorities have published.


which contradict one another

Completely false.

You stated in one post that you agreed with mainstream biologists
about what "microevolution" means, and then in another post insisted
that only changes in populations caused by natural selection are
"microevolution," and that you care neither for "changes in gene
frequencies" nor for genetic drift.  

Horrible distortion, caricature and misrepresentation.

Do you deny that you have made
both these statements?  Given that biologists routinely DEFINE
"microevolution" to mean "change in gene frequencies in a population
over time,"

I have never denied that some biologists define evolution this way.

whether due to natural selection, genetic drift, or other
causes, your full definition of microevolution contradicts that of
mainstream biologists.  

My definition is from mainstream biologists. The problem here is that
you are under the belief that there is only one correct definition of
evolution. The fact that you do not recognize my definition as correct
is because you already believe that there is only one correct
definition. This belief reveals ignorance or stubborn blind allegiance
to gene-centricism. My guess is that you are willingly ignorant
because you have already spoken up for a gene-centric definition of
evolution. Therefore you must deny all other definitions lest what you
have spoken up for is harmed. In other words your ego is the entire
problem here.

I'd think this was merely eccentric of you,
except, as noted, you said that you went by the mainstream definition.

and, in some cases, the textbook
definition of "microevolution."   The fact that you constantly switch
definitions, and rant about "material causation," "materialism," and
"divine causation" rather than saying whether you think that mutations
actually occur, or whether natural selection actually occurs, or
whether changes in populations over time occur, is a big part of the
problem.  

I have not switched any definitions but remained faithful to one very
simple but very accurate definition. Of course it might do you well to
back up your assertion here and actually list all of these so called
'switched definitions' or drop it and try to understand what I have
been saying.

I am trying to understand you, Ray, but I don't speak in tongues.

I have faithfully defined microevolution by saying what it is and how
it allegedly occurs. This means I have repeatedly stated cause and
effect. In this context I have repeatedly said that microevolution
does not occur nor has it ever occurred on this planet. The reason I
have defined microevolution this way is because since 1859 the claim
and/or concept has never, I repeat never existed in any way, shape or
form, minus causation (not counting the period between c.1900 and the
synthesis). Microevolution means slow change or slight modification
performed on an organism by the causal agent of natural selection.
Eventually said organism breeds and passes said modification into its
population. This is what the general theory of evolution claims; this
is what I reject; and this is what I can disprove.

No, Ray, as a matter of fact, evolutionists hold that microevolution
may be caused by other factors as well.  

I never denied. I was talking about the main but not the exclusive for
the millionth time.

And if you want authority, I
have it going back to 1859, when Charles Darwin stated that natural
selection was (in his opinion) the principle but not the sole cause of
evolution.  

I was the one who first quoted Darwin on this matter in these
discussions. For the millionth time plus one all of my definition
input was made in the context that natural selection is the main but
not the exclusive means of modification.

If you want more recent authority, google "Motoo Kimura,"
an expert in biology of somewhat greater renown than Gene Scott, and a
proponent of the idea that much evolution occurs through genetic
drift, not selection.  

I never denied.

For the millionth time plus two I have written my comments in the
context that natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
of modification.

Oh, and while evolutionists have always assumed
that evolution has "material causes," that's not the same thing as
insisting that it only counts as evolution if it has one particular
"material cause."


I have never denied.


I think it is important at this point to simply tell me if you
understand what I have said.

You believe in what *I* call "microevolution," but you don't call it
"microevolution" because you think it needs miracles to make it
happen, and you only apply the term "microevolution" to the results of
natural selection.  It's natural selection you don't think exists.

Do I have that more or less right?


Your comments are noticeably screwball.

I have no idea why you place quote marks around words and what these
words are now supposed to mean, and I have never said microevolution
needs miracles - ridiculous.


-- [snip]

No one except you thinks that it is an error to talk about evolution
without discussing the mechanisms of evolution.  

False!

The main purpose of the "Origin" (1859) was to evidence and explain
HOW evolution allegedly occurs. This is why Darwin began the "Origin"
with a metaphor. This is why the phrase "natural selection" is in the
title of the book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
Selection...."

Yet, as you yourself note, there was a decades-long "eclipse of
Darwinism" in which common descent was accepted, and in which it was
mostly assumed to have "material causes," yet there was a great deal
of controversy and uncertainty about those causes.  And, of course, in
the modern age there are many controversies over the relative
importance of selection and drift, or whether material factors other
than natural selection play a role in adaptions.  And, as noted,
Darwin himself stated that he thought there were other causes of
evolution besides natural selection, although he thought they were of
little importance.

You need to concede this point. Since 1859 evolution has never existed
except within the context of a proposed mechanism of causation.

Why should I concede it, when it is not really true?


The phrase "natural selection" is in the title. Your ego will not
allow you to concede. There is no point in discussing anything with
you if you cannot concede this point.

This is why I point out the obvious; evolutionists are brazen liars
even when the evidence is beyond dispute: evolution since 1859 has
never existed except in the context of proposed mechanism.

"On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection...."


This is why I refuse to define or discuss microevolution apart from
causation. Please note that according to Darwin (and modern
theorists): "natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
of modification."

Actually, some modern theorists disagree that natural selection plays
a larger role than other factors.  Now, if you said that "natural
selection is the main means of adaption, or adaptive evolution" you
would probably find nearly all modern theorists in agreement with
you.  But it seems to me perverse to treat "main but not exclusive" as
though it meant "exclusive."

'Micro' implies slight or small; 'evolution' implies change, but HOW?

'How' is very important because it presupposes that God or the
supernatural is not the agent of causation.

Ray, if I recall correctly, you have stated that you hold that human
embryogenesis (where babies come from) occurs through material
causes.  You agree that weather occurs through material causes.  I
cannot discern why you should insist that even the tiniest degree of
change in populations over time must require a miracle.  But it seems
you do.

Furthermore, much
discussion of evolutionary mechanisms by people who actually know
something about evolution holds that it is often caused by genetic
drift, or by structural mechanisms of development.

I didn't know natural selection had been abandoned. Apparently
Francisco Ayala, as recently in his new book, didn't know either. I
believe Ayala is a molecular biologist.

Ray, you yourself cite Darwin saying that natural selection was the
"main BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE" mechanism of evolution.  Now I, for my part,
have often insisted that one of the differences between evolutionary
biology and religion is that evolutionary biology does not assume its
founders were inerrant prophets.  Some evolutionists are interested in
those mechanisms other than natural selection, even if they are not
the main mechanisms of evolution.  Some think that Darwin was wrong,
and that natural selection may not even be the main mechanism of
evolution (for most if not all of them, that is equivalent to "most
evolution may not be adaptive").

You are pulling a Dana Tweedy stunt.

Trying to be reasonable and explain things to you?

-- [snip]

Another point, of course, is that you
will not respond to requests for clarification: you will not say
whether you think that "material causation" plays any role in
inheritance....

It most certainly does not!

Ray, I said "inheritance," not "evolution" or "change in
populations."  You've just asserted (and I'm not sure you meant to)
that Mendel and de Vries were as wrong as Darwin: genetics does not
exist and babies inherit blue or brown eyes by miracles.

....or whether changes in the frequency of inherited traits
happen in populations

If causation is material, and this is presupposed silently, then NO!

I'll take that (provisionally, and subject to correction) that you
think that populations change over time, but as the result of
miracles.

Ray, would you like to rethink your earlier statement that babies are
made through material processes?  You apparently don't think that
inheritance works through material causes, but a great deal of baby-
making is inheritance.  Indeed, I still think that you ought to look
into occasionalism as an ontological system.

or whether natural selection occurs at all.

As the main agent causing evolution and responsible for producing
nature, of course not. There is simply no evidence for this absurdity.

It might be interesting to discuss what you think is happening in
experiments where biology teachers create ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ray


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can Steven J produce the testable details concerning emergence
    ... Random mutations coupled to natural selection explains ... Very little in evolution is de novo.) ... species and populations, and that evolution took place not slowly over ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Theory Collapsed, Quick Put Back Up
    ... We may recognize design because we know the item in question, ... Evolution is the result of random ... Yes of course natural selection acts on the random mutations. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: POTM Nomination: Re: Can Steven J produce the testable details
    ... Random mutations coupled to natural selection explains ... In evolution, "novel" features (as ... species and populations, and that evolution took place not slowly over ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ... "microevolution," you did not insist that any particular mechanism was ... many biologists would probably go along with you ... on that) or natural selection as the cause of change in a population ... selection is "...not the exclusive cause" of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ... In this context I have repeatedly said that microevolution ... in evolutionary science before natural selection was universally ... performed on an organism by the causal agent of natural selection. ... your own ideas about evolution are wrong. ...
    (talk.origins)