Re: Ray Martinez: evolution refuted.


"Cj" <Cj@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:485EC6DE.7080801@xxxxxxxxxxx
hersheyh wrote:
On Jun 21, 4:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 20, 3:58 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 20, 5:36 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
I can tell you for certain that the interpretation of evidence in
favor of evolution is false based on the fact that natural selection,
that is, the alleged main mechanism causing evolutionary change, does
not exist.
Which assumption of the process of natural selection is wrong, Ray?
Do you have evidence that mutations do not occur? That change in DNA
does not occur? Evidence that genetic variation is not ultimately due
to mutation? That the reproductive success of mutational variation is
unaffected by the environment? That the environment is not
"natural". That all "natural" selection is teleologically foretold?
That mutation is teleologically foretold? That all mutations and
variations are always deleterious in all environments? Curious minds
want to know why "natural selection... does not exist".
I have no idea why you are incorporating teleology into a mindless
material process, but this is undoubtedly deliberate confusion.

Because, *if* you had evidence that the mutations or selection were
teleologic in nature and, thus, occurred because of some grand
intentional goal, you could claim that what we call "natural
selection" is really "artificial selection". That would not, of
course, change the evidence one bit. But it would mesh with theistic
evolution.
Aside from this it appears that you seek a turn. I have already
soundly defeated Steven J and Dana Tweedy.

So you assert.

I accept the short list of truisms that comprise your alleged material
process. I reject that they, in tandem, become a mechanism.

They most certainly become a mechanism that tends to optimize the net
reproductive success of populations to a local optimum. That is a
mathematical certainty and an observed experimentally repeatable
phenomenon.

If you want to argue that such a mechanism *never ever* can result in
speciation, that at least would make sense. Saying that random
mutation plus environmental selection for relative reproductive
success is not a mechanism (and one that can produce phenotypic and
genotypic change in a population) is whacko nutville stuff.

Two
points: First, the list (listen closely) is the evidence that there
is no mechanism. Any honest and objective person can plainly see that
these truisms do not become the understood definition of 'mechanism.'

What definition of "mechanism" do you consider to be the "understood"
one?

They only do when evolutionary authorities say they do.

Biologists study natural selection even when doing so has no
evolutionary implications. For example, disease resistance in crops,
loss of sensitivity of bacteria to antibiotics, etc., etc. There is
no "authority" that one has to go before in order to study natural
selection.

Evolution is a
just-so story. You will undoubtedly prove my point by saying the list
is a mechanism, it is just-so.

Two steps in the following order is what we call the mechanism of
"natural selection": First, random mutation. Second, differential
reproductive success due to local environmental pressures (typically
excluding the specific case where the environmental pressure is a
human breeder, which is called "artificial selection").

Two steps in the following order is what we call the mechanism of
"neutral drift": First, random mutation. Second, stochastic
variation in the frequency of the mutant allele from generation to
generation.

Second, material processes have no mind
since, by definition, Mind and Intelligence is not involved. This
fact, that is, the fact of mindlessness, means that the same cannot
produce its antithesis: minds.

That is an assertion. Moreover, it is the assertion you need to
present evidence for. You assertion has exactly zero evidentiary
value. The one-celled human embryo becomes a baby by a purely
chemical and mechanical process called "development". That process
produces a "brain". That "brain" (except in your case) has the
potential of thought, once it has learned enough to have intelligent
thoughts.

Mindlessness cannot create its antonym - minds. The interpretation of
evidence in favor of evolution is false and refuted right here since
no mechanism exists to cause transmutation.

Exactly where in the process from single-celled zygote to PhD did the
supernatural intervene to produce mind?

Species are the product of
special creation.

This, again, is an assertion without evidence.

This means that the Genesis Creator is directly in
control of nature - hands-on. Varieties are produced by a mechanism
that reflects Intelligent Design or Divine power.

And what mechanism would be the one that produces variety? Would that
mechanism involve random mutation followed by selection or drift?
Curious minds want to know.

These descriptions
rule out any Darwinian or neo-Darwinian terminology to be accurate
since these terms and phrases presuppose the non-involvement of God or
Divine power or causation.

As I mentioned above, there is always theistic evolution, which
presupposes that God acts, as he appears to do with the wind and
weather and earthquakes and planetary orbits, through mechanisms that
can be described as "natural". Why would He have to act through fiat
direct creation (i.e., magical poofing)? Because that is the way that
you want Him to? Because that is what the only part of the Bible you
demand be 'literally read' says so in your English (or Spanish)
translation of a translation of a transcription of an oral history?
Ray


Why respond to RayRay? He doesn't care what you write or why you write
it. He is mindless and degenerate, a spine that types endlessly
repeated nonsense. Nothing you write has any effect on his output since
he only responds to some imaginary deity. He has *** for brains.

You are damn right. There ain't nobody there; we are just talking to
ourselves.
But when we meet our Lord we may proudly assert: "We did our best but he
would not listen."


.