Re: Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?

On May 1, 12:31 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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).

(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.)


Ad hoc or contrived anger that has no correspondence to anything
truthful.



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.

[More ad hoc nonsense serving a "hidden" agenda. Of course Ernest
knows the population is changed after one organism is modified who
then breeds that modification into the population. See how viciously
dishonest any given evolutionist is? But since Ernest has an ulterior
motive for his willful "ignorance" we have an explanation.]

False.

An entire population is not modified, one orgainism is, who then
breeds the modification into the population; this is how a
modification enters a population, which is then changed, as a
population, in the next generation. You have confused populational
thinking (as a general concept) or you are undoubtedly engaged in
deliberate equivocation since I know you know that I am right. In any
case you are a lying scum bag if you are not confused, explained by
the agenda motive.

Your agenda of opposing a creationist, no matter how silly, like Dana,
demonstrates the real agenda of attempting to misrepresent every
little and simple thing I say because you have made the decision that
I represent a grave threat to your theory. This is a classic and
sustained ad hom howler attack and a great compliment in view of its
motive.

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....

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: 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: 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)
  • Re: evolution: can someone please correct (or confirm???) my
    ... agency of natural selection and other processes. ... responsible for modification evolution. ...   He did not say ... Dana Tweedy, in his place. ...
    (talk.origins)