Re: Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2662f117-8033-43a6-b299-cdc26edf745e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 1, 12:31 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

[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.

It's quite likely Ernest is serious. This is not a 'basic claim' of
evolution, which has already been explained to you.

NS
does not change an entire population, which is what Ernest is "saying"
by implication.]

What Ernest is saying is that natural selection causes changes *in* the
population, not in the indvidual.


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).

Again, Ray, that's wrong. Natural selection does not modify an organism.
It modifies the gene frequency in the population over many generations.
Natural selection cannot change the genes of the individual, only of the
gene pool over time.

This has been explained to you many times. Why do you keep
misunderstanding this simple matter?


(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, why can't you just admit you are wrong? Evolutonary theory does NOT,
repeat NOT say that natural selection changes the individual. At the level
of the individual, natural selection only determines whether the organism
lives, and reproduces, or dies without reproducing.






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.

Once again, that's wrong. The population is changed by gene frequency of
the population changing, over generations.

See how viciously
dishonest any given evolutionist is?

Anyone can see how dishonest, or possibly deeply confused, you are.

But since Ernest has an ulterior
motive for his willful "ignorance" we have an explanation.]

The explanation is that you are wrong. Why can't you just accept that
fact?

False.

An entire population is not modified, one orgainism is, who then
breeds the modification into the population;

Ray, once again, the "entire population" is what natural selection acts on.
A mutation in the population is not caused by natural selection. It's
caused by any number of causes, including radiation, cosmic rays, mutagentic
chemicals, etc. It HAS to be a genetic change, and it has to be
inheritable. A change in the liftime of the individual is not
inheritable, and will not spread through the population.

this is how a
modification enters a population, which is then changed, as a
population, in the next generation.

A "modification" enters the population by mutation in the germ line of the
reproducing organism. It's not a change in the individual over that
individual's life time. Once in the population, the mutation can either
give a selectional advantage, in which case, it spreads quickly, or gives no
advantage, but no detriment either. In that case, it can spread more
slowly. If it's detrimental, it's removed from the population. This
only works with repeated reproduction/selection over many generations.

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.

What he knows, is that you are wrong, and is trying to correct your mistake.
He's not the one confused.

In any
case you are a lying scum bag if you are not confused, explained by
the agenda motive.

Ray, you are wrong. Name calling doesn't make you right.


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.

Again, you are wrong. You pose no "threat" and are being absurd. It's
not "compliment" to point out why you are wrong.




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.

Your claim is wrong, Ray. How many times do you have to be told?


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.

Your "paper" is obviously self defeating. It's no compliment to point out
why you are wrong.

DJT


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... You keep demonstrating that you do not know what natural selection is. ... Ray is actually correct here. ... You do not understand the basic claims of evolution since Darwin 1859. ... been that species change by the mechanism of variation and natural ...
    (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)
  • Ray is right. And you know it.
    ... I admit that I have been swayed by the evil Satan-virus that is the ... to stand proud behind Ray and call these orangutan-spunk ... society that is the "Theory of Evolution" (or as I like to call it, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards and AFA-B Awards, Feb/Mar 2009
    ... Microevolution and natural selection are facts. ... While Ray is a three ring circus of crazy..... ... Ray, genes are "macroreality". ... Evolution has never been about a change in gene frequencies. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evolution: can someone please correct (or confirm???) my
    ... the change in allele frequency in populations. ... Ray, I've pointed out before that trying to interject your comments into my ... that evolution is not change in allele frequency, which is the only way your ... Your claim that microevolution is defined as change due to natural selection ...
    (talk.origins)