Re: evolution: can someone please correct (or confirm???) my

On Apr 29, 9:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 29, 7:20 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 29, 11:07 am, DJT <mousede...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 29, 10:01 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 29, 1:41 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip]

-- [snip]

I am
familiar with some of the evidence (the totality is too large for any
one person to be familiar with it), and I find that the evidence
supports the factuality of common descent with modification through the
agency of natural selection and other processes.

Hello Dana! Are you there?

Yes, I'm here.

Have you read what Ernest Major just wrote?

Yep, he's right.   You, however are still wrong in defining evolution
as change due to natural selection.

Major said the agency of natural selection (and other processes) is
responsible for modification evolution.

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.  Evolution itself does
not require natural selection.   It can happen by genetic drift, and
other factors.

What Ernest said was correct, but you are still wrong.

Ernest: Dana has denied up and down the term 'modification' to be
involved in evolution.

Actually, I've never "denied" that at all.   Ray is either making
things up, or is very confused.   What I have denied is Ray's bizarre
ideas that evolution is "modification" of an individual by natural
selection.   Populations are what evolves, not individuals.

I have repeatedly said what you have just said.

No, Ray, you have made claims that were very different, and
incorrect.    You were trying to claim that evolution is
"modification" of an individual by "natural selection" (which you seem
to think means something like 'natural causes'.

I have said this in the context of announcing the basic claim of
evolution.

Which you got entirely wrong.   Evolution does not happen by
individual modification during the organism's lifetime.

While I do not believe the claim it is nonetheless how a
population allegedly evolves: natural selection modifies an organism
(for its good - Charles Darwin) then organism breeds and releases said
modification into its breeding population; the next generation
inherits modification = gradualism also known as 'evolution.'

This is what is wrong.    Natural selection does NOT modify an
individual.   Natural selection acts like a filter in a population,
"choosing" which of the inborn mutations will propagate into the
population.     You have also misquoted Darwin.   Mutations, or
variations, as Darwin knew them, are random in respect to the needs of
the individual.

   Mutations are not "for the good" of the individual, they happen
randomly, and if the organism is lucky enough to get a mutation which
does give it some advantage, that will more likely get passed on to
the next generation.  Th

Now lets watch Dana distort, nit pick, misrepesent, caricature, and of
course, deny.

Ray, you've done a such a good job of distorting, caricature, and
misrepresenting.    I can only try to correct you many errors.    As
you know, I don't "nit pick" "misrepresent" , caricature, or deny the
truth.    What I do is try to show where you are wrong.   It's hardly
my fault if you are so badly mistaken.

-- [snip]

This reply by Dana proves that this Group is dishonest to the bone,
especially John Harshman. Pointing out that Harshman is not a scholar
is proven everytime he refuses to put a lay evolutionist liar, like
Dana Tweedy, in his place. The deliberate lies and contradictions
spoken by Dana Tweedy in this post expose every evolutionist in this
Group to have no integrity, confirming what we already knew.

It's not clear to me how something Dana says can prove that John
Harshman is "dishonest to the bone;" Harshman is under no moral
obligation to read every post here, much less comment on it, nor is he
responsible for what other posters say.  

Harshman is a prolific poster; and in this case and in these context
he very well knows and sees a howler at work. I wouldn't say a word if
it was run-of-the-mill dishonesty, but in this case it is severe.
John's silence proves he really does not have a degree. He is hiding
behind the skirt of Dana Tweedy because I dared to challenge him.
Harshman also maligns fellow degree holders therefore he will receive
the same treatment whether it comes from him personally or whether he
remains silent and allows the degree of someone else to be trashed.

In any case, it seems to me
that Dana is absolutely right, here: you have repeatedly defined
"evolution" as change in a population over time caused by either
natural selection, or by natural selection along with other natural
mechanisms.  Dana and I have repeatedly pointed out that the term
"evolution," as used and understood by actual scientists, applies to
any change in the frequency of inheritable traits in a population over
time, regardless of what causes the change.  If natural selection
plays no role at all in changing a population, change in that
population over time, if it occurs, is still evolution.


You are out for revenge, like Dana. My views on evolution are basic
and uncomplicated. You are an enraged howler.


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.

and the reason that John Harshman does not criticize Dana when
he says things like this is that Harshman, like every other
biologists, already knows and accepts this.  

You are babbling.

Again, it's not clear
what value your paper can have if you cannot grasp simple points like
this.


You are just very angry, this much is obvious. If I posed no threat to
evolution you would not give me the time of day.

The silence is explained as such: evolutionists know Dana is lying but
his lies are excused because he is dealing with a creationist. This
means they know he is lying as a tactic - ad hoc.

No, the silence is explained by Dana being right, and you being
utterly uncomprehending of important distinctions.


Rage via severe misrepresentation.


I, on the other hand, would not and have not hesitated to expose
design liars.

I think you misused "expose" where you meant "endorse," above.  You
have, after all, endorsed a creationist liar like Ben Stein.


Anti-semitism.

In fact evolution is anti-semitism; it says the Jews who wrote Genesis
conspired to fool the world. But thank God he raised up Charles Darwin
to expose their conspiracy.

Human evolution beginning in Africa, Jewish conspiracies, evolution
has it all.


This is what separates creationists from evolutionists. The latter
believes lying is okay if the veracity of their theory is at stake.
They are too dumb and angry to see that standing up to liars in their
own ranks is what reinforces their theory.

I would have thought, personally, that evidence is what reinforces
evolutionary theory.


Like Harshman, you are just too stupid to see that the shooting down
of liars in your ranks makes evolution (or any cause) gain credibility
and objectivity. Tolerating howlers shows you cannot refute, that is
why it is practiced. Your thinking here confirms a lot. I, on the
other hand, have exposed design liars without flinching, like David
Berlinski. Evolutionists have not this courage or intergrity. If any
creationist acted like Dana Tweedy or yourself I would be the first to
attack them. The Group here is just too stupid and angry to see and
implement these points.


All evolutionists are afraid of Dana Tweedy, not willing to read this
post and call a liar a liar. This is exactly what makes John Harshman
the absolute nobody that he is. True scholars are not afraid to expose
anyone who lies. Harshman knows Dana is a liar but he doesn't mind
because I dared to point out his errors and give him a taste of his
own medicine. Harshman cannot be trusted to tell the truth no matter
what. This is why he is here at Talk Origins playing king among a pack
of lying howlers instead of separating himself and confronting liars
in his own ranks. This is why I have observed that Harshman has
sacrificed his "degree." He is just too stupid and dishonest to see
this point.

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 based 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."



Ray Martinez, Designist.

-- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I already said all of you defend Dana. We do not expect any honesty.
It shows how dishonest that you are, confirming what we already knew.

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ... Plagiarism while defending deliberate misrepresentation. ... Darwin did not explain or discuss evolution except in the context of a ... that only changes in populations caused by natural selection are ...    He repeated what you said, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?
    ... behind the skirt of Dana Tweedy because I dared to challenge him. ... Ray, why do you imagine John is "hiding" behind anything. ... natural selection, or by natural selection along with other natural ... "evolution," as used and understood by actual scientists, applies to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evolution: can someone please correct (or confirm???) my
    ... reject evolution: the evidence does not support the claims. ...   Therefore assuming a supernatural being is not ... agency of natural selection and other processes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evolution: can someone please correct (or confirm???) my
    ... reject evolution: the evidence does not support the claims. ...   Therefore assuming a supernatural being is not ... agency of natural selection and other processes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evolution: can someone please correct (or confirm???) my
    ... is that the peppered moth studies are a good example of natural selection ...   This is his own statement of why he opposes evolution. ... Jonathan Wells full story and reasons for opposing evolution include ... statements in this way is dishonest. ...
    (talk.origins)