Re: Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?

In message <3056c456-ddc6-4150-af3f-de89040628b3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ray Martinez <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> writes
On Apr 30, 7:40 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


news:db0cf399-a068-44f2-90fa-f93f364f9823@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Apr 29, 9:48 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

snip



>> 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.

Why is your being wrong John's problem?

> 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.

Ray, why do you imagine John is "hiding" behind anything.   What you said
was wrong, and no amount of your blustering and whining is going to change
that.

> 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.

Wells deserves any "maligning" he gets, as he makes false statements.
Having a Ph.D. does not mean one must cover up the lies of others with a
Ph.D.     Wells was wrong in his book, and again, no amount of rants,
whining, or trash talk about John Harshman will make Wells correct.



>> 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.

Well, your views on evolution are still wrong.    Why would Steven, or
myself want "revenge" on you for being wrong?



>> 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. (Considering some of the other solecisms that you've written 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.)


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.

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 unobjective 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).


--
alias Ernest Major

.

Quantcast