Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:482bff10-a44f-4359-b34a-7ccce15a12f9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 27, 10:01 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

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

Finally an admission that you have been misrepresenting.

No, it's an "admission" that your definitions are not consistent.

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.

That explains why you misrepresent, perhaps. Steven, however did not
misrepresent you at all.


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


Completely false.

In what way?


Evolutionary authorities almost never discuss evolution apart from
causation.

What "authorities" are you claiming do this?

I learned it from them.

Ray, you show not signs of learning anything.

Your ignorance is undoubtedly
caused by a failure to read what your own authorities have published.

Note that you haven't cited any "authorities" that support your claim.



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.

Again, how is this distortion? He repeated what you said, almost exactly.


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.

But your definition, which you claimed came from biologists, is very
different. You haven't shown any biologists who define evolution the way
you do.


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.

Which ones? Why don't you provide any evidence to support that?

The problem here is that
you are under the belief that there is only one correct definition of
evolution.

As far as biologists are concerned, there is only one.

The fact that you do not recognize my definition as correct
is because you already believe that there is only one correct
definition.

Actually, your definition is objectively wrong. That is why no one accepts
it.

This belief reveals ignorance or stubborn blind allegiance
to gene-centricism.

Ray, evolution is change in the gene frequencies of a population over time.
What part of that do you not understand???

My guess is that you are willingly ignorant
because you have already spoken up for a gene-centric definition of
evolution.

Can you provide any working biologist who does not accept that evolution is
change in gene frequency?

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.

Ray, you have a strange habit of projecting your own faults onto others.
Your own definition is wrong, and no matter how often you claim that others
are "ignorant" it's your own ignorance that is on display here.

snip

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.

The point is, that you are defining evolution as being caused by natural
selection. That is wrong. Evolution can take place without natural
selection. Even if it were the "main" cause of evolution, it's not the
ONLY cause, which is what you seem to be saying.


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.

Like usual, you quoted him out of context. You didn't understand what he
was talking about.

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.

Sigh, Ray, your claim about "modification", as you explained it, is what
biologists would call "mutation". Mutations are not caused by natural
selection. Natural selection acts on variations in a population, not
individuals. Your claim that natural selection is the main cause of
mutation is wrong. Also, you were attempting to define evolution as
change by natural selection. You can't then say that it's the main, but not
exclusive mechanism.


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.

Ray, have you forgotten your own claims?


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.

Which, is wrong, as your definition of "modification" is inapplicable to
natural selection. You seem to be claiming that natural selection is what
causes modification of individuals. That is wrong.


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.

So, you do accept that evolution can be caused by a supernatural being?
Then why do you claim that evolution always means natural causes?



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.

How so? Maybe you should be more clear in your claims?


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.

Actually, Ray you have said that. You've refered to evolution as "atheist
miracle claims". Also, if microevolution isn't produced by "miracles",
why are you claiming it can't be by natural processes?

snip

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.

So? That doesn't mean that mutations are caused by natural selection.

Your ego will not
allow you to concede.

I rather think it's the other way around.

There is no point in discussing anything with
you if you cannot concede this point.

As Steven, and I have pointed out, why should he concede when it's you who
is wrong? Natural selection is only part of the mechanism of evolution,
and can happen without natural selection.


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.

Which is just your own fantasy. It's not true. Evolution existed even
before Darwin recognized the mechanism by which evolution happens. It's
existed since then as well. Evolution will operate even if no one knows
the mechanism.


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

Yes, and even Darwin was aware that evolution could happen without natural
selection. Where you are wrong is your are assuming that natural
selection is what causes variation. It doesn't. Natural selection is a
non random mechanism that explains adaptation in populations, not change in
individual organisms.

snip

snipping many points that Ray has ignored, and most likely cannot answser


DJT


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ... Deliberate misrepresentation. ... you claimed that "evolutionary authorities" don't discuss evolution ... Natural selection acts on variations. ... Given that biologists routinely DEFINE ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins principle of divergence - Tautology
    ... DARWIN'S GREAT TAUTOLOGY ... DISCUSSION OF TWO FATAL DEFECTS IN HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION ... explanation for the diversity of living things in the universe ... The mechanism he referred to was "natural selection". ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Recent evolutionary reading (attention Steven J.)
    ... _Evolution for Everyone_ by David Sloan Wilson ... Sloan plugs and explains natural selection exclusively. ... providing any real statements from those biologists. ... "on the Galapagos Islands were explained as a product of genetic drift. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins principle of divergence - Tautology
    ... Below is the article that discusses the tautology concept from an ID ... DISCUSSION OF TWO FATAL DEFECTS IN HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION ... The terms "natural selection" and "survival of the ... explanation for the diversity of living things in the universe (except ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins principle of divergence - Tautology
    ... DISCUSSION OF TWO FATAL DEFECTS IN HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION ... The terms "natural selection" and "survival of the ... explanation for the diversity of living things in the universe (except ... tautology, which explains nothing that we do not already know. ...
    (talk.origins)