Re: Dana Tweedy: error or ignorance?

On May 1, 9:26 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 1, 1:11 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
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?

Because it is not simple - that's why.

Today I was, in the course of writing my paper, searching my
electronic files of rough drafts written well over a year ago. I was
searching for something completely unrelated to the issue here, but
low and behold, there it was: I had written (in my own words of
course) exactly what you have been saying about natural selection. As
soon as I saw it I said to myself "Dana is right."

Ray,

If you are having trouble understanding, at the most basic level, the
theory you are attacking, how do you know you are right to attack it?

If you were wrong about the basics of natural selection, and the group
here was right, how do you know the same isn't true about the rest of
your claims regarding these topics?

I suspect your immediate reaction to such questions would be along the
lines of, "because the Bible says so, and I believe it", but how do
you know that even the first part of that statement is true, and if it
is, do you want to place yourself in the situation that discovering
that everyone here is right about Evolution will cause a complete
collapse of your faith?

Lee Jay

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Removing Lewontins Fallacy From Hamiltons Rule
    ... >>> required to break Hamilton's fitness tautology. ... verified or refuted within nature. ... gene centric argument that "genes use organisms to replicate genes" which is ... >> Also, natural selection does not care about causation, only ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Beneficial mutations (Was: Re: Challenge for Darwinists)
    ... and other steroids or make a duplicate of alpha ... Natural selection was powerless to "save" the mutated chicken. ... challenge changes, or _whatever variation arises ... *If* a duplicate gene plus useful variations / ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why dont mitochondria have junk DNA?
    ... >>>preserved by natural selection since the original mutation event. ... >>>occurred only because of the selection preserving the nuclear copy. ... > gene function in regards to the ribosome. ... > typical order of the gene transfers. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Culture is not consciously developed? Q for Wilkins
    ... I'm not real familiar with the concept of drift but what is it "useful" ... because "random evolution" is a contradiction of terms. ... process of natural selection operates on as many types of random heritable ... gene centric Neo Darwinism regards the random ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Why dont mitochondria have junk DNA?
    ... Natural selection preserves one copy. ... >> gene transfers correspond to the importance of each respective nuclear ...
    (talk.origins)