Ray Martinez and Pandas Thumb
Rolf
Ray wrote:
QUOTE
Ogremky: I have ignored your posts because they are off-topic. If you or
Cali want a piece of me then show your face at the Talk.Origins Usenet (via
Google Groups) where I post regularly. There are no moderators to save or
censor anyone. The Group is currently down, though. Don't know when it will
be back up. This happens periodically.
UNQUOTE
Hi Ray, I don't know what your problem with t.o may be but it has been up
and running at least since June 18th. I greeted the news with "send in the
clowns", and I expect you soon to be back here where you belong.
I have wanted to raise some stumbling blocks for you but with your well
developed tactics of always talking about something else, I know it would be
wasted on you. When did you ever address a real scientific issue? All you do
is searching old and ancient literature for arguments you think trumps
current, 21st century status of evolutionary research.
How can you think that writing a book with that as your research portfolio
can overthrow 150 years of sound science?
Do you really think that the quality of scientific research being applied to
evolution is inferior, down to the level of idiocy, compared with all the
other sciences, most of which even evolutionary research depend on for it's
breathtaking, impressive results?
While creationists like you are static like cast in stone; science even
during the twelve years since I first 'met' you at t.o. have made tremendous
advances and the ToE, contrary to creationists claims, stands even stronger
that ever before.
BTW, Ray, you may keep your Bible! There's gold in them pages, but without a
proper detector you only find fools gold.
I'll repost this at t.o.; it doesn't really belong here at PT.
Yours truly, Rolf
David Fritzinger
"Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no> wrote:
I think Ray's problem is that he uses Google Groups, which has been
acting strangely for most of the last week, and is running anywhere form
a day to 3 days behind.
Tom McDonald
> In article <iuldjd$ol...@news.albasani.net>,
Giggle Glitch is back up. For the nonce. Maybe it will take Ray a
while to catch up on the posts he'll see for the first time very soon.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by David Fritzinger
<dfri...@nospam.mac.com>:
Ray has stated in the past that Gurgle Groups *is* usenet.
No one was able to persuade him he was wrong.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's right, Go Pack: Google Groups is back up after at least 4 days
of total down time. Newsreader posts did not show either (except on
your private circuit).
For evolutionist retard extraordinaire, Calilasseia (ex-Admin over at
the now defunct RichardDawkins Forum)
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/06/a-thank-you-fro.html#comment-263824
Show your face here Cali; there are no moderators to save or censor
anyone.
The same goes for you Ogremky.
The Microevolution Challenge stands. The Cali post (Pandas link above)
is simply an off-topic rant evading the Challenge.
I really doubt if these two evo big-mouths will step outside of
protective custody (sites where evo moderators save them from IDists).
RM (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist-species immutabilist, Paleyan
IDist)
Ernest Major
<f3a83f07-c05f-4e4d...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jul 1, 6:22 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 6:39 pm, David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <iuldjd$ol...@news.albasani.net>,
>>
>> > "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@tele2.no> wrote:
>> > > I am reposting here a reply to RM that I made at PT earlier today:
>>
>> > > Ray wrote:
>>
>> > > QUOTE
>>
>> > > Ogremky: I have ignored your posts because they are off-topic. If you or
>> > > Cali want a piece of me then show your face at the Talk.Origins
>> > >Usenet (via
>> > > Google Groups) where I post regularly. There are no moderators to save or
>> > > censor anyone. The Group is currently down, though. Don't know
>> > >when it will
>> > > be back up. This happens periodically.
>>
>> > > UNQUOTE
>>
>> > > Hi Ray, I don't know what your problem with t.o may be but it has been up
>> > > and running at least since June 18th. I greeted the news with
>> > >"send in the
>> > > clowns", and I expect you soon to be back here where you belong.
>>
>> > > I have wanted to raise some stumbling blocks for you but with your well
>> > > developed tactics of always talking about something else, I know
>> > > wasted on you. When did you ever address a real scientific issue?
>> > >All you do
>> > > is searching old and ancient literature for arguments you think trumps
>> > > current, 21st century status of evolutionary research.
>>
>> > > How can you think that writing a book with that as your research
>> > >portfolio
>> > > can overthrow 150 years of sound science?
>>
>> > > Do you really think that the quality of scientific research being
>> > >applied to
>> > > evolution is inferior, down to the level of idiocy, compared with all the
>> > > other sciences, most of which even evolutionary research depend
>> > >on for it's
>> > > breathtaking, impressive results?
>>
>> > > While creationists like you are static like cast in stone; science even
>> > > during the twelve years since I first 'met' you at t.o. have made
>> > >tremendous
>> > > advances and the ToE, contrary to creationists claims, stands
(inter alia?) God or Satan.
--
alias Ernest Major
Harry K
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:39:13 -1000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by David Fritzinger
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <iuldjd$ol...@news.albasani.net>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, he _is_ an expert on being wrong.
Harry K
Frank J
>
> Show your face here Cali; there are no moderators to save or censor
> anyone.
>
> The same goes for you Ogremky.
>
> The Microevolution Challenge stands. The Cali post (Pandas link above)
> is simply an off-topic rant evading the Challenge.
So how did those self-described creationists and design proponents,
who claim to accept micro but not macro, react to your challenge?
Or did you not ask, because you know, personally in fact, that they
are much quicker than "Darwinists" to censor someone?
>
> I really doubt if these two evo big-mouths will step outside of
> protective custody (sites where evo moderators save them from IDists).
Since you distinguish "IDists" from "DI-IDists" can you name any of
the former, besides you, that we have heard of - either a professional
or a regular on these boards?
>
> RM (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist-species immutabilist, Paleyan
> IDist)- Hide quoted text -
*Hemidactylus*
the Ugly shoot out here at t.o. usenet had real newsreaders/servers.
Would they be obliged to post via Google Groups as that's the
stipulation Ray set for the show down? Will he paint our hellish town
red [different movie] for the time when these outlaws arrive? I wonder
if he will mosey over to the bar and drink a shot of whiskey and get a
fresh shave first. Or will these renegades hang him high?
[cue Good, Bad and the Ugly theme music]
*Hemidactylus*
I didn't have any problems with Talk.Origins Usenet. Google Groups is
owned by a corporation and not a government entity so their circuit is
as private as any other. I thought you were an Objectivist. You should
know these things.
BTW talk.origins is a newsgroup on usenet, accessed by different means
other than Google Groups. If you want better, less interrupted access
you might consider getting a server account and downloading a newsreader
application.
> For evolutionist retard extraordinaire, Calilasseia (ex-Admin over at
> the now defunct RichardDawkins Forum)
>
> http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/06/a-thank-you-fro.html#comment-263824
>
> Show your face here Cali; there are no moderators to save or censor
> anyone.
>
> The same goes for you Ogremky.
>
> The Microevolution Challenge stands. The Cali post (Pandas link above)
> is simply an off-topic rant evading the Challenge.
>
> I really doubt if these two evo big-mouths will step outside of
> protective custody (sites where evo moderators save them from IDists).
>
> RM (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist-species immutabilist, Paleyan
> IDist)
Should we paint the town red sir, before these outlaws come riding into
town?
*Hemidactylus*
You are mocking him from your high and mighty "private circuit". What if
Google Groups has another outage. It might be days before he can
respond. Do you think that is fair ;-)
Walter Bushell
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Ray has stated in the past that Gurgle Groups *is* usenet.
> > No one was able to persuade him he was wrong.
>
> You are mocking him from your high and mighty "private circuit". What if
> Google Groups has another outage. It might be days before he can
> respond. Do you think that is fair ;-)
I didn't think that "fair" applies to bear baiting. Of course, Ray,
being unbearable, richly deserves it.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
*Hemidactylus*
> In article<UOidnRlucMe2AZLT...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus*<ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ray has stated in the past that Gurgle Groups *is* usenet.
>>> No one was able to persuade him he was wrong.
>>
>> You are mocking him from your high and mighty "private circuit". What if
>> Google Groups has another outage. It might be days before he can
>> respond. Do you think that is fair ;-)
>
> I didn't think that "fair" applies to bear baiting. Of course, Ray,
> being unbearable, richly deserves it.
>
servers are being exorcised as we speak. It's the rapture in reverse. I
expect the stock market to plunge on Tuesday and only those who haven't
offed themselves because smartphone access to the web (= Twitter +
Facebook) has been compromised will be left to witness that.
Richard Clayton
Uh... Ray... T.O *is* moderated, and I'd think you knew that, because
you complain about it here:
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fb3c8d98efa855a7
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling
*Hemidactylus*
haven't checked for updates recently. There were some compatibility
issues worked out from 3.4.3 and 3.4.5. Kudos to the development team in
upgrading the Objectivism packages. Wow!
3.4.7 is currently in Alpha. Downloads are by torrent only and you
better check md5sum.
Frank J
He's a creationist first and an objectivist second. In fact, anyone
who calls himself a creationist, design proponent or other term
indicating evolution denial, is that first, and everything else
(Christian, conservative, etc.) second. Their primary allegiance is to
pseudoscience. Unlike real science, pseudoscience needs to be "propped
up," so its peddlers will solicit any help they can get., including
big, bureaucratic Govt.
By admitting being an "Obama Democrat" Ray is either one of the most
honest, or least-self-deluded, evolution-deniers around. He knows that
if we ever get the theocracy that he's praying for, it will be much
more intrusive, and expensive, than any "secular" govt., be it
liberal, conservative or libertarian.
>
> BTW talk.origins is a newsgroup on usenet, accessed by different means
> other than Google Groups. If you want better, less interrupted access
> you might consider getting a server account and downloading a newsreader
> application.
>
>
>
>
>
> > For evolutionist retard extraordinaire, Calilasseia (ex-Admin over at
> > the now defunct RichardDawkins Forum)
>
> >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/06/a-thank-you-fro.html#comment-...
>
> > Show your face here Cali; there are no moderators to save or censor
> > anyone.
>
> > The same goes for you Ogremky.
>
> > The Microevolution Challenge stands. The Cali post (Pandas link above)
> > is simply an off-topic rant evading the Challenge.
>
> > I really doubt if these two evo big-mouths will step outside of
> > protective custody (sites where evo moderators save them from IDists).
>
> > RM (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist-species immutabilist, Paleyan
> > IDist)
>
> Should we paint the town red sir, before these outlaws come riding into
> town?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
>
> >> Show your face here Cali; there are no moderators to save or censor
> >> anyone.
>
> > Uh... Ray... T.O *is* moderated, and I'd think you knew that, because
> > you complain about it here:
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/fb3c8d98efa855a7
>
> That was Ray 1.1.5 . We are at least running Ray 3.4.6 by now, but I
> haven't checked for updates recently. There were some compatibility
> issues worked out from 3.4.3 and 3.4.5. Kudos to the development team in
> upgrading the Objectivism packages. Wow!
>
> 3.4.7 is currently in Alpha. Downloads are by torrent only and you
>
> - Show quoted text -
So is Ray like Microsoft, where the new version replaces the old one
just as we get used to it, or more like Dembski, where all versions
run concurrently despite being mutually incompatible?
*Hemidactylus*
something demonstrating backward compatibility.
Walter Bushell
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Isn't all his compatibility backward?
*Hemidactylus*
Well he does use Paley source code. But the Gene Scott modules represent
a huge forking from the Paley project. The "I am working on a paper"
subroutine has been replaced with the "I am working on a book"
subroutine, so the former is deprecated and should be purged soon. We
are worried that the Paleyian foundation might at some time come into
conflict with the recent builds of the Objectivism packages, resulting
in a serious system crash. Development teams are trying to reconcile
this, but as the recent 'Ayn Rand is in heaven' output has shown, the
developers are really good at their jobs.
Dana Tweedy
> In article <UOidnRlucMe2AZLT...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ray has stated in the past that Gurgle Groups *is* usenet.
> > > No one was able to persuade him he was wrong.
> >
> > You are mocking him from your high and mighty "private circuit". What if
> > Google Groups has another outage. It might be days before he can
> > respond. Do you think that is fair ;-)
>
> I didn't think that "fair" applies to bear baiting. Of course, Ray,
> being unbearable, richly deserves it.
Well, some may think that Ray is bi Polar, but the Grizzly fact is that he's just trying to break the Kodiak to the whole science edifice. He won't Cave to the pressures of mere reality, in his world that's Black and white.
The rest of us know his whole work is just a bunch of Pooh.
DJT
*Hemidactylus*
recently in a state separated from the thread. The reply-to has
talk.o...@googlegroups.com the User-Agent says G2/1.0. Is this the
new and improved Google Groups interface? Will they break usenet
usability for non-GG users in the hopes of forcing us to use Google
Groups in order to abide by their new standard? If not will we be forced
to follow the scattershot of broken threads all over the place?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>On Jul 1, 6:22 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Giggle Glitch is back up. For the nonce. Maybe it will take Ray a
>> while to catch up on the posts he'll see for the first time very soon.
>That's right, Go Pack: Google Groups is back up after at least 4 days
>of total down time. Newsreader posts did not show either (except on
>your private circuit).
That's because the problem was with Gurgle, not Usenet. And
Usenet is not a "private circuit", whatever that means, just
as Google is not the Web.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>In article <UOidnRlucMe2AZLT...@giganews.com>,
> *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Ray has stated in the past that Gurgle Groups *is* usenet.
>> > No one was able to persuade him he was wrong.
>>
>> You are mocking him from your high and mighty "private circuit". What if
>> Google Groups has another outage. It might be days before he can
>> respond. Do you think that is fair ;-)
>
>I didn't think that "fair" applies to bear baiting. Of course, Ray,
>being unbearable,
....and a master baiter...
> richly deserves it.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Harry K
<turnk...@hotmail.com>:
>Well, he _is_ an expert on being wrong.
Seems so. And just to set the record straight, I remembered
that it wasn't that he claimed GurgleGroups is Usenet, but
that Gurgle is the Web.
IOW, even more generally wrong.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@hotmail.com>:
Well... Yes.
Walter Bushell
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 21:25:18 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:
>
> >In article <UOidnRlucMe2AZLT...@giganews.com>,
> > *Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Ray has stated in the past that Gurgle Groups *is* usenet.
> >> > No one was able to persuade him he was wrong.
> >>
> >> You are mocking him from your high and mighty "private circuit". What if
> >> Google Groups has another outage. It might be days before he can
> >> respond. Do you think that is fair ;-)
> >
> >I didn't think that "fair" applies to bear baiting. Of course, Ray,
> >being unbearable,
>
> ....and a master baiter...
My friends in the fishing industry tell me master baiters are *very*
respected, so no.
Kevin McCarthy
>
> That's right, Go Pack: Google Groups is back up after at least 4 days
> of total down time. Newsreader posts did not show either (except on
> your private circuit).
>
> For evolutionist retard extraordinaire, Calilasseia (ex-Admin over at
> the now defunct RichardDawkins Forum)
>
>
> Show your face here Cali; there are no moderators to save or censor
> anyone.
>
> The same goes for you Ogremky.
>
> The Microevolution Challenge stands. The Cali post (Pandas link above)
> is simply an off-topic rant evading the Challenge.
>
> I really doubt if these two evo big-mouths will step outside of
> protective custody (sites where evo moderators save them from IDists).
>
> RM (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist-species immutabilist, Paleyan
> IDist)
There are no moderators at Panda's Thumb (where you failed to answer
my questions), After the Bar Closes (where you ran away after
promising you would answer my questions), my own personal blog, where
you retain full unmoderated posting privileges, or FRDB where you ran
away rather than answer my questions.
Something you need to understand Ray, is that, unlike Christian
creationists, I don't lie and I don't moderate (or edit responses,
unlike other Christian creationist forums).
Unfortunately, even here, you will not answer my simple question Ray.
It is a fact that you are attacking and demanding evidence of a
strawman of evolution of your own creation. I asked you, "Will you
accept evidence that supports the correct theory of evolution?"
You have failed to answer that question 3 times. You have run away
from the forum in which that question was asked 3 times.
I honestly, have no hope that you will accept the evidence, even if
you say yes to my question. This has nothing to do with evidence,
science, or anything else, except your personal bias and desire to be
right. Fortunately for us, you are not correct.
Further, you do not hold your own notions to the same level of
evidence that you demand of science. That is another bias that you
have.
You claim that species are immutable. You are wrong.
The Scottish fold breed of cat is your worst nightmare. Not only can
we show that it is a major change in the phenotype, we can show
EXACTLY when the mutation occurred (1961), the fact that no cats
before hand had the fold, where the mutation occurred and indeed,
using that, how closely related the fold is to other breeds of cat.
Of course, you say "But it's still a cat". Of course it is. But your
concept, Ray, is that of species immutability. The mutation causing
the ears of the cat to bend forward in the middle did not exist before
1961. It's now a common breed.
Therefore, your entire notion, is very simply wrong.
*Hemidactylus*
analogue for evolution via natural selection. Ray typically rationalizes
this sort of stuff away as it is incompatible with immutability.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@hotmail.com>:
Ray, like most fundies, is heavily into assuming his
conclusions and ignoring evidence. Don't look for this to
change him.
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 2, 12:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > That's right, Go Pack: Google Groups is back up after at least 4 days
> > of total down time. Newsreader posts did not show either (except on
> > your private circuit).
>
> > For evolutionist retard extraordinaire, Calilasseia (ex-Admin over at
> > the now defunct RichardDawkins Forum)
>
> >http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2011/06/a-thank-you-fro.html#comment-...
>
> > Show your face here Cali; there are no moderators to save or censor
> > anyone.
>
> > The same goes for you Ogremky.
>
> > The Microevolution Challenge stands. The Cali post (Pandas link above)
> > is simply an off-topic rant evading the Challenge.
>
> > I really doubt if these two evo big-mouths will step outside of
> > protective custody (sites where evo moderators save them from IDists).
>
> > RM (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creatorist-species immutabilist, Paleyan
> > IDist)
>
> There are no moderators at Panda's Thumb (where you failed to answer
> my questions), After the Bar Closes (where you ran away after
> promising you would answer my questions), my own personal blog, where
> you retain full unmoderated posting privileges, or FRDB where you ran
> away rather than answer my questions.
>
Both Matt Young and Reed Cartwright erase my messages on a routine
basis (contrary to their own Rules). I have been censored by
Darwinists on the Internet for years at the drop of a hat. I don't
trust any Darwinist, including you.
There is no threat of censorship here at Talk.Origins Usenet. The
Darwinists here know that. This FORCES them to address all arguments
lest the perception of being unable sticks.
> Something you need to understand Ray, is that, unlike Christian
> creationists, I don't lie and I don't moderate (or edit responses,
> unlike other Christian creationist forums).
>
I just obtained a controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks
like a cash cow, hurry up and email me if you want in.
> Unfortunately, even here, you will not answer my simple question Ray.
>
Dream on...
I invited you here; (and Cali, where is he)?
> It is a fact that you are attacking and demanding evidence of a
> strawman of evolution of your own creation. �I asked you, "Will you
> accept evidence that supports the correct theory of evolution?"
>
There is no straw man in place.
> You have failed to answer that question 3 times. �You have run away
> from the forum in which that question was asked 3 times.
>
> I honestly, have no hope that you will accept the evidence, even if
> you say yes to my question. �This has nothing to do with evidence,
> science, or anything else, except your personal bias and desire to be
> right. �Fortunately for us, you are not correct.
>
> Further, you do not hold your own notions to the same level of
> evidence that you demand of science. �That is another bias that you
> have.
>
> You claim that species are immutable. �You are wrong.
>
> The Scottish fold breed of cat is your worst nightmare. �Not only can
> we show that it is a major change in the phenotype, we can show
> EXACTLY when the mutation occurred (1961), the fact that no cats
> before hand had the fold, where the mutation occurred and indeed,
> using that, how closely related the fold is to other breeds of cat.
>
How does a crease in the ear flap constitute a "major change in
phenotype"?
What is the survival advantage?
Is it not more accurate to say that said mutation is neutral?
> Of course, you say "But it's still a cat". �Of course it is. �But your
> concept, Ray, is that of species immutability. �The mutation causing
> the ears of the cat to bend forward in the middle did not exist before
> 1961. �It's now a common breed.
>
> Therefore, your entire notion, is very simply wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And you forgot to supply the crucial evidence of the unguided/
unintelligent natural process that allegedly caused said mutation.
Remember: the Challenge is two-fold:
(1) Show a Darwinian modification in species (2) caused by an unguided/
unintelligent natural process.
And your belief that I have been running from you is laughable. We
just had a 3 day holiday weekend here in the States.
Ray
OgreMkV
> On Jul 4, 8:05锟絘m, Kevin McCarthy <ke...@alexismccarthy.com> wrote:
> > accept evidence that supports the correct theory of evolution?"
>
> There is no straw man in place.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > from the forum in which that question was asked 3 times.
>
> > I honestly, have no hope that you will accept the evidence, even if
> > science, or anything else, except your personal bias and desire to be
>
> > Further, you do not hold your own notions to the same level of
> > have.
>
> > You claim that species are immutable. 锟結ou are wrong.
>
> > The Scottish fold breed of cat is your worst nightmare. 锟絅ot only can
> > we show that it is a major change in the phenotype, we can show
> > EXACTLY when the mutation occurred (1961), the fact that no cats
> > before hand had the fold, where the mutation occurred and indeed,
> > using that, how closely related the fold is to other breeds of cat.
>
> How does a crease in the ear flap constitute a "major change in
> phenotype"?
>
> What is the survival advantage?
>
> Is it not more accurate to say that said mutation is neutral?
>
> > concept, Ray, is that of species immutability. 锟絋he mutation causing
> > the ears of the cat to bend forward in the middle did not exist before
>
> > Therefore, your entire notion, is very simply wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> And you forgot to supply the crucial evidence of the unguided/
> unintelligent natural process that allegedly caused said mutation.
>
> Remember: the Challenge is two-fold:
>
> (1) Show a Darwinian modification in species (2) caused by an unguided/
> unintelligent natural process.
>
> And your belief that I have been running from you is laughable. We
> just had a 3 day holiday weekend here in the States.
>
> Ray
Ray, I live in Texas.
Your posts are moved to the Bathroom Wall because you don't stay on
topic and you steadfastly refuse to learn. It's that simple.
If you are claiming that I am a liar or edited your posts on my own
blog, then man up and provide all the evidence, right here, right
now. If you have ANY evidence of PT, AtBC or my blog editing your
posts, then post it. Do it or retract your claims.
As far as the rest...
The Challenge, as I have told you 4 times now, is a strawman.
YOU, Ray, are the only person (well... and a few other creationists)
who require that second part.
A mutation in Susie caused the cartilage in her body to not be as
quite structurally sound as other cats. I'm actually glad you said
this:
RAY "How does a crease in the ear flap constitute a "major change in
phenotype"? "
Because, interestingly, the simple dominant mutated allele results in
weak cartilage throughout the body of the cat. This is a major change
in the phenotype because it is a major change in a fundamental part of
the anatomy of the animal. So you see, this is a modification of a
species.
There once was no cats with folded ears (and the subsequent cartilage
damage), now there are. The population of species Felis catus has had
a major change in the frequency of alleles. Which, BTW, is the actual
definition of evolution. Therefore, your notion of species
immutability is wrong.
The rest of your 'challenge' cannot ever be met because no one thinks
that it must be met. You see Ray, there's this concept called
'selection'. You might have heard about it in your wanderings of
other pro-creation websites.
Selection, by definition, is non-random. You see, it IS guided. It
is guided in the direction you've already alluded to in your post
here.
RAY "What is the survival advantage?
Is it not more accurate to say that said mutation is neutral? "
That's it exactly. If there is a survival advantage, then the
mutation (or whatever) is guided by that survival advantage. I know
you know this. I also know that you cannot admit this publicly,
because it will destroy whatever marginal credibility your notion/
challenge has.
If a mutation (or whatever) could be neutral or beneficial or
detrimental, then there is a DIRECTION for the probabilities of the
frequency of the allele changing in the population. If the mutation
is beneficial, then there is a very high probability that the allele
frequency in the population will increase. That's a concept we call
evolution (the change in the allele frequency in a population).
I really hope you make the obvious claim against what I just said. I
can't wait for you do it. Yes, it's a trap. I deliberately left that
door open so I can crush you after your next post. So please don't
disappoint.
Thanks
Prof Weird
What 'arguments' have you actually presented other than willful
gibbering incredulity and dropping to your knees to recite the
'wizzzdom' of Gene Scott ?
> > Something you need to understand Ray, is that, unlike Christian
> > creationists, I don't lie and I don't moderate (or edit responses,
> > unlike other Christian creationist forums).
>
> I just obtained a controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks
> like a cash cow, hurry up and email me if you want in.
Insult = failure to refute.
> > Unfortunately, even here, you will not answer my simple question Ray.
>
> Dream on...
>
> I invited you here; (and Cali, where is he)?
Probably has better things to do with his life than make you look like
even MORE of a gibbering loon than you do now.
> > It is a fact that you are attacking and demanding evidence of a
> > strawman of evolution of your own creation. �I asked you, "Will you
> > accept evidence that supports the correct theory of evolution?"
>
> There is no straw man in place.
Unwillingness/inability to answer the question noted.
> > You have failed to answer that question 3 times. �You have run away
> > from the forum in which that question was asked 3 times.
>
> > I honestly, have no hope that you will accept the evidence, even if
> > you say yes to my question. �This has nothing to do with evidence,
> > science, or anything else, except your personal bias and desire to be
> > right. �Fortunately for us, you are not correct.
>
> > Further, you do not hold your own notions to the same level of
> > evidence that you demand of science. �That is another bias that you
> > have.
>
> > You claim that species are immutable. �You are wrong.
>
> > The Scottish fold breed of cat is your worst nightmare. �Not only can
> > we show that it is a major change in the phenotype, we can show
> > EXACTLY when the mutation occurred (1961), the fact that no cats
> > before hand had the fold, where the mutation occurred and indeed,
> > using that, how closely related the fold is to other breeds of cat.
>
> How does a crease in the ear flap constitute a "major change in
> phenotype"?
Where did you ever blubber that one was NECESSARY ?
Your assertion was that 'species are IMMUTABLE'. ie, cannot change.
He gave an example of a recent change. Thus disproving the silly-
arsed idea that species are immutable.
Do all of your goalposts have warp speed capability ?
> What is the survival advantage?
You never said there had to be one. Again : your 'assertion' was that
species are IMMUTABLE.
He showed that species are mutable. Thus, you are wrong.
Slapping on additional requirements after the fact is blatant evasion.
> Is it not more accurate to say that said mutation is neutral?
The mutation may be neutral, but it DEMONSTRATES THAT SPECIES ARE NOT
IMMUTABLE.
Which disproves your original contention.
> > Of course, you say "But it's still a cat". �Of course it is. �But your
> > concept, Ray, is that of species immutability. �The mutation causing
> > the ears of the cat to bend forward in the middle did not exist before
> > 1961. �It's now a common breed.
>
> > Therefore, your entire notion, is very simply wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> And you forgot to supply the crucial evidence of the unguided/
> unintelligent natural process that allegedly caused said mutation.
Mutations that alter phenotype have been known for decades RayRay;
there has never been any sign that a Magical Sky Pixie/Intelligent
Designer/External Intellect/Guiding Being was ever involved in any of
them.
Since you are whining that such beings ARE required, how about
providing EVIDENCE that said beings actually did what you ASSERT they
do ? Or actually EXIST in the first place ?
> Remember: the Challenge is two-fold:
>
> (1) Show a Darwinian modification in species (2) caused by an unguided/
> unintelligent natural process.
In other words, he must demonstrate that an undetectable being was NOT
involved in the process.
ie, prove an unrestricted universal negative. No sane or rational
person would make such a demand.
In the drooling imbecility that is your gibbertwittian 'model', ALL
PROCESSES IN NATURE ARE GUIDED.
Therefore, there is no evidence conceivable that could convince you -
you can ALWAYS run away screaming
'but, but - you didn't PROVE an undetectable being was NOT involved !!
Me win !! Me win !!'
Again : to date, there has never been any evidence that external
intelligences have done anything even if they exist.
Unless, of course, you have EVIDENCE to the contrary ?
(and no - your willful ignorance, howling incredulity, blubberings of
the 'wisdom' of Gene Scott, or the mindf*ck of 'anyone that disagrees
with me is OBVIOUSLY a tool of Satan so I must be right !!1!!!'
routines don't count)
OgreMkV
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/
On the other hand, I can (with a high degree of confidence) state that
this doesn't affect me quite as much. I've had several epiphanies of
this sort. From Southern Baptist to Atheist. From AGW denier to
supporter (in fact, my change to AGW support came about as I was doing
research to support my view of denier).
Am I immune, of course not. But I can confidently say that I can be
swayed by evidence.
So, Ray, let's see that evidence. Not just your bald assertions,
let's see some hypotheses, some experimental data, and some valid
conclusions.
Wait, what am I asking... nevermind.
Ray Martinez
[....]
>
> > And your belief that I have been running from you is laughable. We
> > just had a 3 day holiday weekend here in the States.
>
> > Ray
>
> Ray, I live in Texas.
>
Then why are you charging me of evading?
> Your posts are moved to the Bathroom Wall because you don't stay on
> topic and you steadfastly refuse to learn. �It's that simple.
>
My posts are ERASED by Matt and Reed because the points I make cause
rage and an inability to refute.
This is why I want to debate here (Talk Origins), a place where lying
and dishonest evolutionists cannot censor anyone.
And your belief that Pandas Thumb is a site where posters agree that
they are ignorant, in need of learning from those who are allowed to
author topics, is your own personal inferiority complex speaking.
Perhaps you could support your belief with an official pronouncement
from Pandas Thumb?
> If you are claiming that I am a liar or edited your posts on my own
> blog, then man up and provide all the evidence, right here, right
> now. �If you have ANY evidence of PT, AtBC or my blog editing your
> posts, then post it. �Do it or retract your claims.
>
> As far as the rest...
>
My posts over at PT are erased, and not moved per the Rules. What
exactly don't you understand?
I had at least three posts **erased** from the Steve Gey death
announcement topic.
Ray
[....]
Prof Weird
> On Jul 5, 11:25�am, OgreMkV <ke...@alexismccarthy.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>
>
> > > And your belief that I have been running from you is laughable. We
> > > just had a 3 day holiday weekend here in the States.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Ray, I live in Texas.
>
> Then why are you charging me of evading?
>
> > Your posts are moved to the Bathroom Wall because you don't stay on
>
> My posts are ERASED by Matt and Reed because the points I make cause
> rage and an inability to refute.
>
> This is why I want to debate here (Talk Origins), a place where lying
> and dishonest evolutionists cannot censor anyone.
>
> And your belief that Pandas Thumb is a site where posters agree that
> they are ignorant, in need of learning from those who are allowed to
> author topics, is your own personal inferiority complex speaking.
> Perhaps you could support your belief with an official pronouncement
> from Pandas Thumb?
>
> > If you are claiming that I am a liar or edited your posts on my own
> > blog, then man up and provide all the evidence, right here, right
> > posts, then post it. �Do it or retract your claims.
>
> > As far as the rest...
>
> My posts over at PT are erased, and not moved per the Rules. What
> exactly don't you understand?
>
> I had at least three posts **erased** from the Steve Gey death
> announcement topic.
>
> Ray
>
> [....]
If they were anything like this one, they DESERVED to be deleted :
Ray Martinez | June 14, 2011 8:09 PM | Reply | Edit
> [Steve Gey] was one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Edwards v Aguillard, the case that ruled creation science out of > public school science classrooms.
"The success against the Creator, according to the Bible, means God
has ruled Gey out of His kingdom�that�s why Gey and many others are
against God.
Look what Darwin hath wrought!
Atheists are comparable to that iconic aging movie star convinced of
self-importance, ready for her close-up, unaware that God has forsaken
them (and not the other way around)."
For someone that prances about proclaiming himself to be the One True
Christian, you do tend to leave a stench of arrogant bastardy behind
you wherever you go.
I've seen vultures with more class and civility than you RayRay.
Ray Martinez
Yes, they were closely related. And nothing there is deserving of
being erased, which is against their own Rules.
The truth hurts, it hurts so bad that it drives deluded morons like
Matt Young and Reed Cartwright to erase my posts contrary to their own
Rules.
Ray
Ray Martinez
[....]
> The Challenge, as I have told you 4 times now, is a strawman.
>
> YOU, Ray, are the only person (well... and a few other creationists)
> who require that second part.
>
In other words you cannot provide any evidence supporting the main
claim of Darwinism. This is why I say natural processes do not exist
(except in Darwin's imagination).
> A mutation in Susie caused the cartilage in her body to not be as
> quite structurally sound as other cats. �I'm actually glad you said
> this:
>
> RAY "How does a crease in the ear flap constitute a "major change in
> phenotype"? "
>
> Because, interestingly, the simple dominant mutated allele results in
> weak cartilage throughout the body of the cat. �This is a major change
> in the phenotype because it is a major change in a fundamental part of
> the anatomy of the animal. �So you see, this is a modification of a
> species.
>
Under what type of logic can weakened cartilage throughout the body of
a cat be considered a survival advantage? Of course the same cannot be
deemed an advantage, unless you are a Casey Anthony juror : )
> There once was no cats with folded ears (and the subsequent cartilage
> damage), now there are. �The population of species Felis catus has had
> a major change in the frequency of alleles. �Which, BTW, is the actual
> definition of evolution. �Therefore, your notion of species
> immutability is wrong.
>
> The rest of your 'challenge' cannot ever be met because no one thinks
> that it must be met. �You see Ray, there's this concept called
> 'selection'. �You might have heard about it in your wanderings of
> other pro-creation websites.
>
> Selection, by definition, is non-random. �You see, it IS guided. �It
> is guided in the direction you've already alluded to in your post
> here.
>
> RAY "What is the survival advantage?
>
> Is it not more accurate to say that said mutation is neutral? "
>
> That's it exactly. �If there is a survival advantage, then the
> mutation (or whatever) is guided by that survival advantage. �I know
> you know this. �I also know that you cannot admit this publicly,
> because it will destroy whatever marginal credibility your notion/
> challenge has.
>
Nobody equates survival advantage with guidance. The latter is
teleological. The former non-teleological.
> If a mutation (or whatever) could be neutral or beneficial or
> detrimental, then there is a DIRECTION for the probabilities of the
> frequency of the allele changing in the population. �If the mutation
> is beneficial, then there is a very high probability that the allele
> frequency in the population will increase. �That's a concept we call
> evolution (the change in the allele frequency in a population).
>
> I really hope you make the obvious claim against what I just said. �I
> can't wait for you do it. �Yes, it's a trap. �I deliberately left that
> door open so I can crush you after your next post. �So please don't
> disappoint.
>
> Thanks
How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
Since you have already admitted no ability to support the existence of
natural processes, my question is rhetorical.
Your attempt to satisfy the Microevolution Challenge fails. Species
remain immutable.
RM (species immutabilist)
Randy C
> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
Because that is the definition of evolution.
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
Publishers, p.974
OgreMkV
Way to actually discuss the evidence... oh wait. Nevermind.
Prof Weird
And some Xtians claim they are more moral than atheists !
And you are deluded enough to 'think' that your posts were deleted
(and we only have your 'word' they were) because you posed a threat to
evolution, and NOT for gibbering crassness ?
I knew some IDiocreotards were arrogant, but you truly take the cake !
You seriously 'think' that your whinings are more important than
everything else - including civility and the morality you PRETEND to
profess ?
And so, on a thread devoted to saying words of remembrance of someone
that died, you decided to barge in, vomit on the corpse and prance
about like your fetid opinions were far more important ?
And you have the unmitigated gall to wonder why they might want to
delete your posts ?!?!
Initiating standard Raytardian delusion :
> The truth hurts, it hurts so bad that it drives deluded morons like
> Matt Young and Reed Cartwright to erase my posts contrary to their own
> Rules.
>
> Ray
It is far more likely they would've deleted them for being off-topic
and incredibly crass and in fetid taste.
(as you clearly demonstrated above !) After all, there is filth not
fit even for bathroom walls.
But, then again, we only have your word they actually deleted your
posts.
And, given your tenuous grasp of reality, there is no way to be sure
anything was actually deleted.
And just what was the 'Truth' you CLAIM to have posted there ?
That anyone that disagrees with your interpretation of Gene Scott's
delusions is a pawn of Satan and deserves to burn in hell ? "God is
Love - and he will torture for all eternity anyone that dares think
otherwise !!!1!!11!!!" ?
You're becoming the poster child for atheism - if you are what it
means to be a Xtian, who would join up ?
You and the Phelps clan should get together - might be amusing to
watch y'all get into a fist fight over who follows the One True
Xtianity.
Ray Martinez
Question begging/defining yourself correct.
The definition, in this context, is actually a claim. Once again: how
do you know said change is evolutionary (unguided/unintelligent)?
Ray
OgreMkV
> On Jul 5, 11:25 am, OgreMkV <ke...@alexismccarthy.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> > The Challenge, as I have told you 4 times now, is a strawman.
>
> > YOU, Ray, are the only person (well... and a few other creationists)
> > who require that second part.
>
> In other words you cannot provide any evidence supporting the main
> claim of Darwinism. This is why I say natural processes do not exist
> (except in Darwin's imagination).
I can quote every definition of evolution in every text book on the
planet. "Change in allele frequency in a population over time."
BTW: Darwinism doesn't exist. It may have existed 150 years ago, but
it doesn't now. We have moved far beyond what Darwin considered. Yet
the fundamental principles that Darwin and Wallace came up with
"Natural SELECTION" remains a huge part of evolutionary theory.
And that single word, 'SELECTION', destroys your entire 'challenge'.
Of course your 'challenge' was utterly defeated over 150 years ago...
>
> > A mutation in Susie caused the cartilage in her body to not be as
> > quite structurally sound as other cats. I'm actually glad you said
> > this:
>
> > RAY "How does a crease in the ear flap constitute a "major change in
> > phenotype"? "
>
> > Because, interestingly, the simple dominant mutated allele results in
> > weak cartilage throughout the body of the cat. This is a major change
> > in the phenotype because it is a major change in a fundamental part of
> > the anatomy of the animal. So you see, this is a modification of a
> > species.
>
> Under what type of logic can weakened cartilage throughout the body of
> a cat be considered a survival advantage? Of course the same cannot be
> deemed an advantage, unless you are a Casey Anthony juror : )
>
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You went there. Thanks for proving that
you are utterly clueless about evolution.
1) First, what may be considered a detrimental mutation in one
environment may be considered a beneficial mutation in another
environment. Witness the proliferation of the sickle cell allele in
areas with a high possibility of contracting malaria. In the specific
case of this cat. It survived perfectly well because it was cute.
Believe me, having three meals a day, a warm bed, and a veterinarian
is a survival advantage.
2) Second, you fail to get the point of evolution at all. Why is
Alzheimer's disease still in the population? One would think that a
disease that causes massive degradation of ones brain would be
selected against. OH wait... it happens AFTER the reproductive age.
So, for all practical purposes, this mutation is totally neutral.
Meaning, even without human interference, it would have become very
common in the population. Why? Because it is simple dominant.
>
> >
> > There once was no cats with folded ears (and the subsequent cartilage
> > damage), now there are. The population of species Felis catus has had
> > a major change in the frequency of alleles. Which, BTW, is the actual
> > definition of evolution. Therefore, your notion of species
> > immutability is wrong.
>
> > The rest of your 'challenge' cannot ever be met because no one thinks
> > that it must be met. You see Ray, there's this concept called
> > 'selection'. You might have heard about it in your wanderings of
> > other pro-creation websites.
>
> > Selection, by definition, is non-random. You see, it IS guided. It
> > is guided in the direction you've already alluded to in your post
> > here.
>
> > RAY "What is the survival advantage?
>
> > Is it not more accurate to say that said mutation is neutral? "
>
> > That's it exactly. If there is a survival advantage, then the
> > mutation (or whatever) is guided by that survival advantage. I know
> > you know this. I also know that you cannot admit this publicly,
> > because it will destroy whatever marginal credibility your notion/
> > challenge has.
>
> Nobody equates survival advantage with guidance. The latter is
> teleological. The former non-teleological.
>
Then why do you do it?
You are correct, it is not survival advantage doing the guiding, it is
selection. What's selected? Organisms that survive.
> > If a mutation (or whatever) could be neutral or beneficial or
> > detrimental, then there is a DIRECTION for the probabilities of the
> > frequency of the allele changing in the population. If the mutation
> > is beneficial, then there is a very high probability that the allele
> > frequency in the population will increase. That's a concept we call
> > evolution (the change in the allele frequency in a population).
>
> > I really hope you make the obvious claim against what I just said. I
> > can't wait for you do it. Yes, it's a trap. I deliberately left that
> > door open so I can crush you after your next post. So please don't
> > disappoint.
>
> > Thanks
>
> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
Because it's THE DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You really don't have a clue as to what you are arguing about.
Tell, you what, I'll pull all my Biology textbooks and type in the
definition of evolution from every single one of them. How much are
you willing to bet that I find my definition and never see your
definition of evolution?
Is that argument from authority? No, (before you waste our time with
this pathetic tactic) it's an argument from scientific consensus. If
you think this consensus is wrong, then you need to start publishing.
You have a lot ground to make up (like 150 years worth).
> Since you have already admitted no ability to support the existence of
> natural processes, my question is rhetorical.
Quote me.
> Your attempt to satisfy the Microevolution Challenge fails. Species
> remain immutable.
im·mu·ta·ble/iˈmyo͞otəbəl/
Adjective: Unchanging over time or unable to be changed: "an immutable
fact".
The allele frequency of a population changed every time an organism is
born. Therefore the allele frequency of a species is not immutable.
Before 1961, no cat had the scottish fold. After 1961 they did.
Morphological change. Something in the genes changed, resulting in a
change in morphology and the protein structure in the cartilage.
This, Ray, is what we call pwnage. Unless of course, you have a very
different definition of immutable than the rest of the English
speaking world.
Again, before you say "It's still a cat", I might remind you that YOUR
definition is the "Immutability of a SPECIES", not macroevolution.
> RM (species immutabilist)
RM - Wrong on so many levels it hurts.
*Hemidactylus*
He is consistent in that one regard.
Dale_Husband
That is so 19th Century!
That and he is lying about being censored on Panda's Thumb. I saw him
posting and his crap being kept there just the other day.
OgreMkV
Yep, he posted a few days ago to challenge me and cali to come here
and take up his challenge. Yet, the last two times he challenged me
on this, he ran. FRBD and PT.
He posted some drivel at my blog, but never came back and answer my
response.
And such we see the power of creationism...
Richard Clayton
As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
it wasn't evolution."
Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling
John S. Wilkins
> On 05-Jul-11 8:08 PM, Randy C wrote:
> >> Ray:
> >> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
> >
> > Because that is the definition of evolution.
> >
> > "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
> > frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
> > next."
> > - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
> > Publishers, p.974
>
> As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
> weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
> it wasn't evolution."
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
Technically, even if magic invisible nano-angels were involved, a change
in allele frquencies remains a change in allele frequencies... it's
still evolution.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Bruce Stephens
> Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
>> weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
>> it wasn't evolution."
>>
>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
>
> Technically, even if magic invisible nano-angels were involved, a change
> in allele frquencies remains a change in allele frequencies... it's
> still evolution.
But that's one of his arguments: evolution (he says) is about natural
processes, and Ray denies that it has been shown that natural processes
are responsible for evolution.
(I think Ray's obviously correct in this: we can't rule out magic
invisible nano-angels. What he seems to miss is that nobody cares.)
Burkhard
Because that is how evolution after the modern synthesis is defined.
For a _very_ basic introduction, try e.g. Enger, Ross and Baily:
concepts in biology, p222
By affecting the reproductive success of individuals, natural
selection affects allele frequencies within the population. That
change of allele frequency is evolution"
Ernest Major
<82bf96b5-0f76-47f8...@s33g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
You define evolution as incompatible with your dualist (polytheistic?)
version of occasionalism. Most other people don't include that it in the
definition; a change of allele frequencies is a change of allele
frequencies regardless of whether it is a result of natural processes,
or a result of divine and/or demonic interference.
Occasionalism is, like omphalism, simulationism and solipsism, an
unfalsifiable hypothesis.
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> writes
>Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 05-Jul-11 8:08 PM, Randy C wrote:
>> >> Ray:
>> >> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
>> >
>> > Because that is the definition of evolution.
>> >
>> > "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
>> > frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
>> > next."
>> > - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
>> > Publishers, p.974
>>
>> As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
>> weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
>> it wasn't evolution."
>>
>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
>
>Technically, even if magic invisible nano-angels were involved, a change
>in allele frquencies remains a change in allele frequencies... it's
>still evolution.
Ray seems to be a dualist-occasionalist evolutionist.
--
alias Ernest Major
OgreMkV
A couple of points here:
1) You STILL haven't answered the question. Which is "Will you accept
the evidence that supports the ACTUAL definition of evolution instead
of your incorrect definition of evolution?"
2) How do we know that invisible nano-angels aren't doing everything?
Well, it's complex, but follow me here. If a deity/designer is doing
every single thing that happens in the universe (and I mean everything
from making sure that every electron is in a particular orbit and
every quark is linked just so with two other quarks, etc, etc, etc.),
then your nano-angel/deity/designer is no different than the known
processes of the universe. If the designer is everything, then the
designer is physics and chemistry.
If the designer/deity/nano-angel created the universe and walked away,
then the same thing applies. The only things we have to go on are
physics and chemistry.
If (and this is the only other option) the deity/satan/Flying Spagetti
Monster is a meddler (i.e. doing some things, but not involved in
other things), then we would see evidence of these meddles. These
would be actions without causes or things that are known to be
impossible utilizing physics and chemistry. We haven't found anything
like this yet. In spite of thousands of years of looking, there is
not a single event that every person on the planet can agree is a
'miracle'.
So, we are led to believe, by the complete lack of any evidence
supporting this contention, that a meddling deity doesn't exist.
That's the only hope you have for any kind of deital support.
(I give a fuller treatment of the topic here:
http://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/why-intelligent-design-must-be-religious/)
I know this is about you religion Ray. That's OK, you can believe
whatever you want. I really don't care.
But when you lie about science, then I care and I will correct you
every single time you do it.
So, as promised, a list of the definitions of evolution
Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the
change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations
of organisms.[1] (original source: Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005).
Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN
0-87893-187-2.)
evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It
is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In
general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which
new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic
terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of
alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/index.html#e
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This
definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene
frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-
scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common
ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the
history of life. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
ev·o·lu·tion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution)
[ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Show IPA
–noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of
a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration
of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation
to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and
genetic drift.
That's the top four hits on the internet search for 'evolution'
skipping conservepedia, but even they had the Mirriam-Websters
definition of evolution.
So, Ray, before your challenge is even to be considered worth
answering, you need to explain, in a great amount of detail, with
plenty of references, why your definition of evolution should even be
considered a possibility.
Notice that EVERY SINGLE DEFINITION has the word "change" in it.
Since you claim that species are immutable, it is up to YOU to show
that no species ever changes. Since this concept is wrong, you can't
do it and your entire philosophy is... well... wrong.
DanaTweedy
> On Jul 4, 8:05 am, Kevin McCarthy<ke...@alexismccarthy.com> wrote:
>> Something you need to understand Ray, is that, unlike Christian
>> creationists, I don't lie and I don't moderate (or edit responses,
>> unlike other Christian creationist forums).
>>
>
> I just obtained a controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks
> like a cash cow, hurry up and email me if you want in.
Ray, just because you were gullible enough to buy that bridge, that
doesn't mean anyone else is.
>
>> Unfortunately, even here, you will not answer my simple question Ray.
>>
>
> Dream on...
>
> I invited you here; (and Cali, where is he)?
Ray, you run from questions quite often. Everyone familiar with you
knows this.
>
>> It is a fact that you are attacking and demanding evidence of a
>> strawman of evolution of your own creation. I asked you, "Will you
>> accept evidence that supports the correct theory of evolution?"
>>
>
> There is no straw man in place.
Except for your own.
>
>> You have failed to answer that question 3 times. You have run away
>> from the forum in which that question was asked 3 times.
>>
>> I honestly, have no hope that you will accept the evidence, even if
>> you say yes to my question. This has nothing to do with evidence,
>> science, or anything else, except your personal bias and desire to be
>> right. Fortunately for us, you are not correct.
>>
>> Further, you do not hold your own notions to the same level of
>> evidence that you demand of science. That is another bias that you
>> have.
>>
>> You claim that species are immutable. You are wrong.
>>
>> The Scottish fold breed of cat is your worst nightmare. Not only can
>> we show that it is a major change in the phenotype, we can show
>> EXACTLY when the mutation occurred (1961), the fact that no cats
>> before hand had the fold, where the mutation occurred and indeed,
>> using that, how closely related the fold is to other breeds of cat.
>>
>
> How does a crease in the ear flap constitute a "major change in
> phenotype"?
Your claims of "immutability" don't require a "major change in
phenotype". All it requires to refute is a small observable change.
>
> What is the survival advantage?
In this case, the "survival advantage" is that humans select them for
further breeding because they like the mutation.
>
> Is it not more accurate to say that said mutation is neutral?
Some mutations are neutral, but it doesn't matter to the case, as it's
an observed mutation, and shows that changes are possible, in refutation
of your claim that species are immutable.
>
>
>> Of course, you say "But it's still a cat". Of course it is. But your
>> concept, Ray, is that of species immutability. The mutation causing
>> the ears of the cat to bend forward in the middle did not exist before
>> 1961. It's now a common breed.
>>
>> Therefore, your entire notion, is very simply wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> And you forgot to supply the crucial evidence of the unguided/
> unintelligent natural process that allegedly caused said mutation.
Since the process is known, and shows no sign of guidance, or
intelligence, what evidence do you have that it's caused by anything else?
>
> Remember: the Challenge is two-fold:
>
> (1) Show a Darwinian modification in species (2) caused by an unguided/
> unintelligent natural process.
Again, Ray, all mutations are known to be unguided/unintelligent, unless
proven otherwise. If you claim that the changes are guided, you need
to show evidence of guidance.
>
> And your belief that I have been running from you is laughable.
But no one is laughing. You know you run quite often.
> We
> just had a 3 day holiday weekend here in the States.
Which doesn't excuse your running.
DJT
DanaTweedy
> On Jul 5, 11:25 am, OgreMkV<ke...@alexismccarthy.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>> The Challenge, as I have told you 4 times now, is a strawman.
>>
>> YOU, Ray, are the only person (well... and a few other creationists)
>> who require that second part.
>>
>
> In other words you cannot provide any evidence supporting the main
> claim of Darwinism. This is why I say natural processes do not exist
> (except in Darwin's imagination).
Ray, the "main claim" of "Darwinism" is that natural selection acting on
variations produces change in populations over generations. It says
nothing about the process being unguided, or unintelligent. If you can
show any positive evidence that guidance, or intelligence is required
for evolution, you are welcome to do so.
Natural processes do exist, whether or not you will admit to them.
>
>> A mutation in Susie caused the cartilage in her body to not be as
>> quite structurally sound as other cats. I'm actually glad you said
>> this:
>>
>> RAY "How does a crease in the ear flap constitute a "major change in
>> phenotype"? "
>>
>> Because, interestingly, the simple dominant mutated allele results in
>> weak cartilage throughout the body of the cat. This is a major change
>> in the phenotype because it is a major change in a fundamental part of
>> the anatomy of the animal. So you see, this is a modification of a
>> species.
>>
>
> Under what type of logic can weakened cartilage throughout the body of
> a cat be considered a survival advantage?
When that "weakened cartilage" makes humans breed them over others in
their population.
> Of course the same cannot be
> deemed an advantage, unless you are a Casey Anthony juror : )
Of course, Ray simply argues from his personal ignorance here. He
can't imagine an "advantage" so there can't be any.
>
>> There once was no cats with folded ears (and the subsequent cartilage
>> damage), now there are. The population of species Felis catus has had
>> a major change in the frequency of alleles. Which, BTW, is the actual
>> definition of evolution. Therefore, your notion of species
>> immutability is wrong.
>>
>> The rest of your 'challenge' cannot ever be met because no one thinks
>> that it must be met. You see Ray, there's this concept called
>> 'selection'. You might have heard about it in your wanderings of
>> other pro-creation websites.
>>
>> Selection, by definition, is non-random. You see, it IS guided. It
>> is guided in the direction you've already alluded to in your post
>> here.
>>
>> RAY "What is the survival advantage?
>>
>> Is it not more accurate to say that said mutation is neutral? "
>>
>> That's it exactly. If there is a survival advantage, then the
>> mutation (or whatever) is guided by that survival advantage. I know
>> you know this. I also know that you cannot admit this publicly,
>> because it will destroy whatever marginal credibility your notion/
>> challenge has.
>>
>
> Nobody equates survival advantage with guidance.
Actually, Ray, survival advantage is a form of guidance. Your own
misunderstanding notwithstanding. Natural selection picks those traits
with some kind of survival advantage, and culls those with a survival
disadvantage.
> The latter is
> teleological. The former non-teleological.
There's no teleology involved. Having an advantage means one is more
likely to survive and pass on one's genes.
>
>> If a mutation (or whatever) could be neutral or beneficial or
>> detrimental, then there is a DIRECTION for the probabilities of the
>> frequency of the allele changing in the population. If the mutation
>> is beneficial, then there is a very high probability that the allele
>> frequency in the population will increase. That's a concept we call
>> evolution (the change in the allele frequency in a population).
>>
>> I really hope you make the obvious claim against what I just said. I
>> can't wait for you do it. Yes, it's a trap. I deliberately left that
>> door open so I can crush you after your next post. So please don't
>> disappoint.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
Because that's how evolution is defined.
>
> Since you have already admitted no ability to support the existence of
> natural processes, my question is rhetorical.
Your question is silly, Ray, and you know it. Natural processes can be
observed to exist. It's YOUR job to show that natural processes are
supernaturally influenced.
>
> Your attempt to satisfy the Microevolution Challenge fails. Species
> remain immutable.
Wrong again, Ray. Your own challenge has been met, and you refuse to
admit you were wrong.
DJT
DanaTweedy
> On 05-Jul-11 8:08 PM, Randy C wrote:
>>> Ray:
>>> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
>>
>> Because that is the definition of evolution.
>>
>> "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
>> frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
>> next."
>> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
>> Publishers, p.974
>
> As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
> weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
> it wasn't evolution."
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
>
It's worse than that. He's saying, in effect: "Ok, changes happen, but
you can't show those changes aren't supernatural, so no changes happen."
You just can't beat Ray for twisted thinking.
DJT
DanaTweedy
> On Jul 5, 5:08 pm, Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ray:
>>> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
>>
>> Because that is the definition of evolution.
>>
>> "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
>> frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
>> next."
>> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
>> Publishers, p.974
>
> Question begging/defining yourself correct.
Ray, that is the real definition of the term. It's not "begging the
question" to use a genuine definition of a word.
>
> The definition, in this context, is actually a claim. Once again: how
> do you know said change is evolutionary (unguided/unintelligent)?
Because there is no evidence of any guidance, or intelligence.
Remember, Ray, it's YOUR JOB to demonstrate that guidance, or
intelligence is necessary.
Your position is that all processes are guided by the supernatural. The
default position is that all processes are natural, unless shown
otherwise.
Show your evidence, or admit you are wrong.
DJT
Randy C
> > > How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
> > Because that is the definition of evolution.
> > "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
> > frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
> > next."
> > - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
> > Publishers, p.974
> Question begging/defining yourself correct.
That is not my definition. It comes from a standard biology textbook.
> The definition, in this context, is actually a claim. Once again: how
> do you know said change is evolutionary (unguided/unintelligent)?
Evolution is change over time. If the frequency of alleles changes
over time, then evolution is taking place.
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm sure he will make it all clear in his book. That should be
published in the near future...defining "near future" as "about when
the sun is a red giant".
Harry K
Ray Martinez
wrote:
No, my "point" is a legitimate straightforward question: what effects
cause evolutionary scientists to believe causation is unguided/
unintelligent?
Ray
Ray Martinez
> In message
> <82bf96b5-0f76-47f8-96fb-2b8007ef5...@s33g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 5, 5:08�pm, Randy C <randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Ray:
> >> > How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
>
> >> Because that is the definition of evolution.
>
> >> "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
> >> frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
> >> next."
> >> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
> >> Publishers, p.974
>
>
> >The definition, in this context, is actually a claim. Once again: how
> >do you know said change is evolutionary (unguided/unintelligent)?
>
> version of occasionalism. Most other people don't include that it in the
> definition; a change of allele frequencies is a change of allele
> frequencies regardless of whether it is a result of natural processes,
>
Completely false.
If Divine power is involved (Intelligent causation) the same has
always been called Creationism or Natural Theology, not evolution.
Ray
[....]
Ray Martinez
> Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 05-Jul-11 8:08 PM, Randy C wrote:
> > >> Ray:
> > >> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
>
> > > Because that is the definition of evolution.
>
> > > "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
> > > frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
> > > next."
> > > - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
> > > Publishers, p.974
>
> > As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
> > weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
> > it wasn't evolution."
>
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
>
> Technically, even if magic invisible nano-angels were involved, a change
> in allele frquencies remains a change in allele frequencies... it's
> still evolution.
Then, when isn't it evolution?
There must be a falsifying antithesis.
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) writes:
>
> > Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
> >> weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
> >> it wasn't evolution."
>
> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
>
> > Technically, even if magic invisible nano-angels were involved, a change
> > in allele frquencies remains a change in allele frequencies... it's
> > still evolution.
>
> But that's one of his arguments: evolution (he says) is about natural
Every single scholarly explication of evolution that I have ever read
says evolution is natural. I can support the claim with at least 300
references.
> ....and Ray denies that it has been shown that natural processes
> are responsible for evolution.
>
Not quite.
I reject (not deny) that natural processes have been shown to exist.
> (I think Ray's obviously correct in this: we can't rule out magic
> invisible nano-angels. �What he seems to miss is that nobody cares.)
When the literature says evolution is natural the same means the
supernatural IS ruled out.
This is BASIC Evolution 101.
Ray
OgreMkV
Do you have any evidence that supernatural causes exist?
No? Then start looking. If and when you find it, then let us all
know. Until, then, you're just talking... not actually doing anything
useful.
Randy C
> > in allele frquencies remains a change in allele frequencies... it's
> > still evolution.
> Then, when isn't it evolution?
> There must be a falsifying antithesis.
> Ray
The word �evolution� applies to many things other than biology. In
the more general sense, �evolution� really means simply �change over
time�. Languages �change over time� and therefore they �evolve�.
One scenario under which there would be no biological evolution would
be if genes worked differently from how they actually work. Darwin
and his colleagues thought that genes worked through a sort of
�blending� process. If that was the case, then a mutation causing a
new allele would be �blended� back to the ancestral characteristic
over multiple generations. If genes worked that way, allele
frequencies would basically stay the same with only small variations
over time. Effectively biological evolution would be impossible.
So if nature is �designed� and the �designer� wanted to prevent
biological evolution, that �designer� could have made genes that
worked through a blending process. Since they don�t work that way,
either they are not �designed� or the �designer� wanted life to
evolve.
Ray Martinez
Look at what we have here: a big dumb chimp from Pandas Thumb has
ventured out into a domain where his Mommy cannot censor his opponent.
FYI: I had 3 posts from the Steve Gey death announcement topic erased/
deleted by Matt Young or Reed Cartwright. Their own Rules forbid them
to do that----that
they must move the content elsewhere, not erase or delete. Obviously
the truth hurt so very bad.
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
"I need hardly stress Darwin's impact as one of the half dozen or so
most revolutionary thinkers in western history. I want, instead, to
emphasize a more curious aspect of his status----his continuing
relevance, indeed his benevolent hovering over almost all our current
proceedings. We may revere Newton and Lavoisier as men of equal
impact, but do modern physicists and chemists actively engage the
ideas of these founders, as they pursue their daily work? Darwin, on
the other hand, continues to bestride our world like a colossus----so
much so that I can only begin this book on the structure of
evolutionary theory by laying out Darwin's detailed vision as a modern
starting point, a current orthodoxy only lightly modified by more than
a century of work."
--S.J. Gould ("The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory" 2002:96)
Read the quote above, Dale. It says your belief about Darwinism is
completely false.
Ray
OgreMkV
Wait, were you the one that came onto a thread about the death of
someone crowing about how his death showed evolution was false or how
he had wasted his life or something like that?
If so, then I would have deleted it to. You (well, you might, a
decent human wouldn't) wouldn't go to a funeral and stand up at the
pulpit and tell the crowd about how he wasted his life and he was a
jerk to you.
BTW: You've made 4-5 posts now and you STILL haven't answered my
question. Plus, you haven't even discussed your mistaken concept in
light of the information I presented.
Instead, you are concern trolling about how mean the people at PT
are. You know what, who the hell cares?
Either you can support your statements or you can't. So far you
haven't. you have ignored relevant questions, you have argued about
things that are inconsequential to your claims, you have ignored
comments, definitions, and data that cause your entire notion to be
wrong, and you have summarily rejected a great deal of observed data.
It's that simple.
Ray Martinez
> Ray,
>
> A couple of points here:
>
> 1) You STILL haven't answered the question. Which is "Will you accept
> the evidence that supports the ACTUAL definition of evolution instead
> of your incorrect definition of evolution?"
>
Second reply:
No misrepresentation of the definition of evolution is in place.
[snip 5 paragraphs of nonsense....]
>
> But when you lie about science, then I care and I will correct you
> every single time you do it.
>
Our beef is with Darwinian evolution (scientism), not science.
> So, as promised, a list of the definitions of evolution
>
> Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the
> change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations
> of organisms.[1] (original source: Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005).
> Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN
> 0-87893-187-2.)
>
> evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It
> is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In
> general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which
> new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic
> terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of
> alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/glossary/index.html#e
Microevolution: any Darwinian modification in species accomplished by
an unguided/unintelligent natural process.
Explanation:
"Darwinian modification" means any mutation or change in species that
contributes to survival/reproduction and the passing of said
modification into a breeding population in the wild.
"in species" means animals that reproduce sexually, which is what
Darwin was addressing mainly when he titled his book "On The Origin Of
Species"; the same is also talking about Paley's watches; all three
are seen in Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
"unguided/unintelligent natural process" means natural selection (or
the underlying principle of natural causation), like when Darwin
titled his book "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
Selection."
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 6, 12:39�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 2:10�am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) writes:
>
> > > > Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > >> As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
> > > >> weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
> > > >> it wasn't evolution."
>
> > > >> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
>
> > > > in allele frquencies remains a change in allele frequencies... it's
> > > > still evolution.
>
> > > processes,...
>
> > Every single scholarly explication of evolution that I have ever read
> > says evolution is natural. I can support the claim with at least 300
> > references.
>
> > > ....and Ray denies that it has been shown that natural processes
> > > are responsible for evolution.
>
> > Not quite.
>
> > I reject (not deny) that natural processes have been shown to exist.
>
> > > (I think Ray's obviously correct in this: we can't rule out magic
> > > invisible nano-angels. �What he seems to miss is that nobody cares.)
>
> > When the literature says evolution is natural the same means the
> > supernatural IS ruled out.
>
> > This is BASIC Evolution 101.
>
> > Ray
>
> Do you have any evidence that supernatural causes exist?
>
Of course.
The concepts of design and organized complexity are SEEN in every
aspect of nature with the naked eye.
> No? �Then start looking. �If and when you find it, then let us all
> know. �Until, then, you're just talking... not actually doing anything
> useful.
Now answer the question I ask above (to Richard Clayton):
What effects cause evolutionary scientists to believe causation is
unguided/
unintelligent?
Ray
OgreMkV
Give an example and explain why it fits design rather than evolution.
First, of course, you will define organized complexity. Then you will
have to show what criteria you are using. Then you will have to show
what values of that criteria show evolution and what values show
design (and why this is the case).
Then, you'll need to explain, in detail, how you calculated those
values.
Are termites intelligent agents Ray?
> > No? �Then start looking. �If and when you find it, then let us all
> > know. �Until, then, you're just talking... not actually doing anything
> > useful.
>
> Now answer the question I ask above (to Richard Clayton):
>
> What effects cause evolutionary scientists to believe causation is
> unguided/
> unintelligent?
>
> Ray
No one believes that Ray. Strawman. But thanks for playing.
As I have told you no less than 3 times; selection is not random. It
is guided in the direction of survival
OgreMkV
> On Jul 6, 6:49 am, OgreMkV <ke...@alexismccarthy.com> wrote:
>
> > Ray,
>
> > A couple of points here:
>
> > 1) You STILL haven't answered the question. Which is "Will you accept
> > the evidence that supports the ACTUAL definition of evolution instead
> > of your incorrect definition of evolution?"
>
> Second reply:
>
> No misrepresentation of the definition of evolution is in place.
>
> [snip 5 paragraphs of nonsense....]
>
Then why can't you support your claim. Find a valid scientific
reference that supports YOUR definition.
I posted 4, with links and references. I could, in the space of a few
minutes post another 20-30 that are the same.
Can you?
I didn't think so.
Ray, I know you think you know what you are talking about, but you
don't.
Honestly, this is getting boring.
You would rather argue semantics than science.
>
> > But when you lie about science, then I care and I will correct you
> > every single time you do it.
>
> Our beef is with Darwinian evolution (scientism), not science.
>
Oh good, because Darwinian evolution really doesn't exist anymore. I
guess that takes care of that.
Of course, the fundamental principle (natural selection) remains
exactly the same and you haven't 'defeated' that at all.
BTW: The scottish fold neatly shows selection in action.
I'm willing to bet any amount of money that you cannot tell the
difference between an organism that has been through artificial
selection and one that has been through natural selection.
If you think you can, then please explain, in detail, how you would do
this.
I don't see a reference. Why is that, I provided references Ray.
It's not that I don't believe you, but... well... I don't.
So, what's the reference for that definition Ray?
>
> Explanation:
>
> "Darwinian modification" means any mutation or change in species that
> contributes to survival/reproduction and the passing of said
> modification into a breeding population in the wild.
>
> "in species" means animals that reproduce sexually, which is what
> Darwin was addressing mainly when he titled his book "On The Origin Of
> Species"; the same is also talking about Paley's watches; all three
> are seen in Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> "unguided/unintelligent natural process" means natural selection (or
> the underlying principle of natural causation), like when Darwin
> titled his book "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
> Selection."
>
> Ray
I can parse just fine, I'm not the one with English language issues
(apart from an appalling spelling issue).
Really Ray, then please post a link or a reference to a legitimate
science textbook or peer-reviewed paper that uses this definition.
Prof Weird
> On Jul 6, 11:02�am, OgreMkV <ke...@alexismccarthy.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 12:39�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 2:10�am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) writes:
>
> > > > > Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > [...]
>
> > > > >> As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
> > > > >> weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
> > > > >> it wasn't evolution."
>
> > > > >> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
>
> > > > > Technically, even if magic invisible nano-angels were involved, a change
> > > > > in allele frquencies remains a change in allele frequencies... it's
> > > > > still evolution.
>
> > > > But that's one of his arguments: evolution (he says) is about natural
> > > > processes,...
>
> > > Every single scholarly explication of evolution that I have ever read
> > > says evolution is natural. I can support the claim with at least 300
> > > references.
>
> > > > ....and Ray denies that it has been shown that natural processes
> > > > are responsible for evolution.
>
> > > Not quite.
>
> > > I reject (not deny) that natural processes have been shown to exist.
On what basis do you reject reality ?
Oh, THAT'S RIGHT - in your festering little world, all processes that
increase 'order' or 'complexity' are SUPERNATURAL.
Snowflake formation ? Guided by the undetectable hand of undetectable
beings.
Crystal formation ? Guided by the undetectable whim of Magical Sky
Pixies.
> > > > (I think Ray's obviously correct in this: we can't rule out magic
> > > > invisible nano-angels. �What he seems to miss is that nobody cares.)
>
> > > When the literature says evolution is natural the same means the
> > > supernatural IS ruled out.
Nope - how, EXACTLY, does one rule the supernatural IN ?
IF you could actually DEMONSTRATE that the supernatural exists, then
your silly prattlings might be given a microsecond's thought.
As it stands now, since there is no evidence of undetectable magical
beings somehow doing stuff, there is no sane or rational reason to
include them.
> > > This is BASIC Evolution 101.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Do you have any evidence that supernatural causes exist?
>
> Of course.
>
> The concepts of design and organized complexity are SEEN in every
> aspect of nature with the naked eye.
Too bad for you that multiple iterations of selection and variation
(ie, EVOLUTION) can produce what passes for 'design' and 'organized
complexity' to the willfully ignorant and proudly stupid.
> > No? �Then start looking. �If and when you find it, then let us all
> > know. �Until, then, you're just talking... not actually doing anything
> > useful.
>
> Now answer the question I ask above (to Richard Clayton):
>
> What effects cause evolutionary scientists to believe causation is
> unguided/
> unintelligent?
The FACT that no one has ever produced any evidence that Magical Sky
Pixies exist to cause or guide anything.
Now, IF you can produce EVIDENCE that supernatural beings actually
exist, AND they did what you assert they did, then creationism might
be taken seriously.
As it is now, all anyone has are your deranged howlings about how if
anyone disagrees with you they deserve to burn in Hell.
BTW - the Galapagos finches meet your definition of 'microevolution'.
Therefore, you are shown to be wrong yet again.
(unless, of course, you'd like to run away while screaming 'but, but -
you can't PROVE an undetectable being DIDN'T intervene in an
undetectable way !! Me win !! Me win !!')
RayRay's requirements :
"Darwinian modification" means any mutation or change in species that
contributes to survival/reproduction and the passing of said
modification into a breeding population in the wild. - Galapagos
finches, CHECK !
"in species" means animals that reproduce sexually, which is what
Darwin was addressing mainly when he titled his book "On The Origin
Of
Species"; the same is also talking about Paley's watches; all three
are seen in Mayr's Biological Species Concept. - Galapagos finches,
CHECK !
(care to cite WHERE Paley's watches are seen in Mayr's BSC ?)
"unguided/unintelligent natural process" means natural selection (or
the underlying principle of natural causation), like when Darwin
titled his book "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
Selection." - Galapagos finches, CHECK !
(unless Ray evades with the 'you can't prove an undetectable being was
NOT involved !!!' routine ...)
You seem to have this ridiculous idea that Darwin is the be-all and
end-all of evolution; that if you can only say enough bad things about
him, the entire edifice of reality-based evolution would collapse.
'Evolutionists' do not hold Darwin in the same regard that you hold
Gene Scott or biblical authors. Despite what you pathologically need
to believe, the ToE is not a religious cult.
Ernest Major
<b6882c04-092a-4b8f...@h25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Jul 6, 11:02�am, OgreMkV <ke...@alexismccarthy.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 12:39�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 6, 2:10�am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) writes:
>>
>> > > > Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > [...]
>>
>> > > >> As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
>> > > >> weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes,
>> > > >>therefore
>> > > >> it wasn't evolution."
>>
>> > > >> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
>>
>> > > > Technically, even if magic invisible nano-angels were involved,
Your question is based on false premises.
>Ray
>
Assume that occasionalism is true. (It is easier to consider true
occasionalism than your bastardised version.) Then either God causes
things to occur in a predictable mention none of the time, some of the
time, or all of time.
In the first case, you would have nihilistic occasionalism, with a
denial of the possibility of evidence based knowledge. A nihilistic
occasionalist would perhaps be living in fear of being poisoned by his
next bite of food, glass of water or breath of air.
In the third case, you would have deistic occasionalism. In that case
there is no possible means to distinguish between natural and
supernatural causation.
In the intermediate case you would have, inter alia, free will denying
versions of theistic evolution in which God hides his intervention in
quantum uncertainties.
But in both these cases the predictions of the behaviour of the world
are the same whether you ascribe label causation natural or
supernatural; mentioning God, Crom, the flying spaghetti monster or the
invisible pink unicorn does add anything to the explanation.
Rather than argue fruitlessly which God (or none) is involved science
adopts methodological naturalism. This is not the same as philosophical
naturalism. Nor is evolutionary biology different from any other branch
of science in this respect. Evolutionary biology does not entail
causation being unguided/unintelligent; it only entails it being at
least statistically predictable.
--
alias Ernest Major
Randy C
> Now answer the question I ask above (to Richard Clayton):
> What effects cause evolutionary scientists to believe causation is
> unguided/ unintelligent?
Human history tells us that whenever there has been a debate about
whether or not something in the natural world is �designed� or the
result of �natural causes� and a final conclusion has been reached, in
each and every case that conclusion has been �natural causes�.
In many cultures, rain was thought to be caused by �rain gods�. Final
conclusion: natural causes such as air pressure differences, jet
streams, etc.
Lightning was thought in many cultures to be caused by gods. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt#In_Mythology ) Final
conclusion: natural cause, specifically static electricity.
Similarly thunder was thought to be caused by gods with names like
�Thor�. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thunder_gods gives a
long list of other gods.) Final conclusion: natural cause from
lightning.
It goes on and on. Eclipses, Northern lights, and many other things
are all found to be the result of natural causes whenever a final
conclusion has been reached.
Based on natural causes having such an unbroken history of successful
explanations for phenomena in the natural world, the burden of proof
is clearly on YOU to provide evidence of a guided or intelligent cause
rather than the other way around.
Richard Clayton
> On Jul 6, 1:31 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 6:49 am, OgreMkV<ke...@alexismccarthy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ray,
>>
>>> A couple of points here:
>>
>>> 1) You STILL haven't answered the question. Which is "Will you accept
>>> the evidence that supports the ACTUAL definition of evolution instead
>>> of your incorrect definition of evolution?"
>>
>> Second reply:
>>
>> No misrepresentation of the definition of evolution is in place.
>>
>> [snip 5 paragraphs of nonsense....]
>>
>
> Then why can't you support your claim. Find a valid scientific
> reference that supports YOUR definition.
>
> I posted 4, with links and references. I could, in the space of a few
> minutes post another 20-30 that are the same.
>
> Can you?
>
> I didn't think so.
>
> Ray, I know you think you know what you are talking about, but you
> don't.
>
> Honestly, this is getting boring.
>
> You would rather argue semantics than science.
[snip]
To be fair, I can understand why Ray wants to stay far away from the
evidence; he gets beaten like the village gong every time the discussion
veers into actual physical evidence rather than his bizarre
argumentums-ad-redefinition. He's been fleeing from Dana Tweedy's
attempts to discuss KNM-WT 15000 for something like three or four years now.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
Richard Clayton
> On Jul 5, 9:09 pm, Richard Clayton<richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
Well, for starters, there's evidence FOR any entities guiding it. How
does one discern between a lightning bolt caused by atmospheric static
discharge and one caused by the will of Thor?
Rolf
> On Jul 6, 6:49 am, OgreMkV <ke...@alexismccarthy.com> wrote:
>> Ray,
>>
>> A couple of points here:
>>
>> 1) You STILL haven't answered the question. Which is "Will you accept
>> the evidence that supports the ACTUAL definition of evolution instead
>> of your incorrect definition of evolution?"
>>
>
> Second reply:
>
> No misrepresentation of the definition of evolution is in place.
>
> [snip 5 paragraphs of nonsense....]
>
>>
>> But when you lie about science, then I care and I will correct you
>> every single time you do it.
>>
>
> Our beef is with Darwinian evolution (scientism), not science.
>
Another perfect example of Sancho Martinez insane method of arguing:
Creating another og his absurd windmills: scientism .
BWAHAHAHAHA
Sancho, as I've told you so many times before, stop worrying about what
Darwin wrote.
Sancho, we have had 150 years of continued research since Darwin. So you
think that doesn't amount to anything? We went to the moon, we got satellite
navigation ipods 3D tv and just about any stupid gadget you can think of and
then some, and you think scientists are idiots like you?
There is only one kind of scientists. The others, the ones' you love so
much, like Velkovsky, are charlatans.
Now please present your theory: What happened, how and where when the second
creation event according to you took place a few thousand years ago? You
have some evidence, don't you? Or are you making it all up?
Rolf.
Burkhard
> On Jul 6, 2:10�am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) writes:
>
> > > Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > >> As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
> > >> weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
> > >> it wasn't evolution."
>
> > >> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
>
> > > Technically, even if magic invisible nano-angels were involved, a change
> > > in allele frquencies remains a change in allele frequencies... it's
> > > still evolution.
>
> > But that's one of his arguments: evolution (he says) is about natural
> > processes,...
>
> Every single scholarly explication of evolution that I have ever read
> says evolution is natural. I can support the claim with at least 300
> references.
As does every single textbook on physics that explains gravity, or
book on chemistry that explain chemical reactions, etc etc. That is
why they are natural sciences. It is then left to philosophers or
theologians to speculate and argue at will if behind these
description, there is or is not an additional dimension (which need
not be supernatural, they can as well be debates over the status of
laws of nature - real or constructed e.g.) the science is pretty
much independent of these meta-theoretical arguments and consistent
with all of them, even if they are mutually exclusive.
>
> > ....and Ray denies that it has been shown that natural processes
> > are responsible for evolution.
>
> Not quite.
>
> I reject (not deny) that natural processes have been shown to exist.
Fine by me. then lets simply call the regularities scientist observe
"quiddelty processes", with are best described by "quiddelty laws",
and be done with it From a scientific perspective, nothing depends on
it. What is relevant are only that there are regularities.
>
> > (I think Ray's obviously correct in this: we can't rule out magic
> > invisible nano-angels. �What he seems to miss is that nobody cares.)
>
> When the literature says evolution is natural the same means the
> supernatural IS ruled out.
Nope, what is ruled out are ad hoc events that violate the
established general laws that describe the observed patterns, that's
all
Burkhard
When the rate in alleles remain always constant, for instance,
independent of environmental changes. Or when it declines/increases at
a fixed rate (possibly across all species) , independent from the
environment. Or when suddenly fully formed animals, possibly as many
as to form a species, pop into existence without having parents
(creationism).
Mark Isaak
> On Jul 6, 2:10�am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> [...]
>> (I think Ray's obviously correct in this: we can't rule out magic
>> invisible nano-angels. �What he seems to miss is that nobody cares.)
>
> When the literature says evolution is natural the same means the
> supernatural IS ruled out.
Likewise, if I have bought food at a market, my having bought food at a
supermarket is ruled out. And if a printed document is written in
script, then its containing superscripts is ruled out.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
DanaTweedy
> On Jul 6, 6:49 am, OgreMkV<ke...@alexismccarthy.com> wrote:
>> Ray,
>>
>> A couple of points here:
>>
>> 1) You STILL haven't answered the question. Which is "Will you accept
>> the evidence that supports the ACTUAL definition of evolution instead
>> of your incorrect definition of evolution?"
>>
>
> Second reply:
>
> No misrepresentation of the definition of evolution is in place.
>
> [snip 5 paragraphs of nonsense....]
You are running from the points, Ray. Your personal definition of
evolution is not shared by anyone else.
>
>>
>> But when you lie about science, then I care and I will correct you
>> every single time you do it.
>>
>
> Our beef is with Darwinian evolution (scientism), not science.
No, it's with science, which you don't understand. What you claim as
"scientism" does not exist. Darwinian evolution is just plain science.
snipping definitions that Ray does not understand.
>> Notice that EVERY SINGLE DEFINITION has the word "change" in it.
>> Since you claim that species are immutable, it is up to YOU to show
>> that no species ever changes. Since this concept is wrong, you can't
>> do it and your entire philosophy is... well... wrong.
>
> Microevolution: any Darwinian modification in species accomplished by
> an unguided/unintelligent natural process.
That's not a definition any uses, and it's incorrect, as has been
pointed out to you many times.
>
> Explanation:
>
> "Darwinian modification" means any mutation or change in species that
> contributes to survival/reproduction and the passing of said
> modification into a breeding population in the wild.
This is a poor definition, as it includes changes that are not
heritable. Also, evolution happens in populations where there is no
breeding.
>
> "in species" means animals that reproduce sexually, which is what
> Darwin was addressing mainly when he titled his book "On The Origin Of
> Species";
Wrong again, Ray. The word "species" in biology also includes plants,
fungi, protist, and bacteria, which are not animals, and many do not
sexually reproduce. Darwin did not limit his book to animals, or those
creatures that reproduce sexually.
> the same is also talking about Paley's watches; all three
> are seen in Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
Paley used the watch as a metaphor. Paley himself did not limit his
view of nature to only animals, and only sexually reproducing ones.
Mayr also did not limit the word "Species" to mean only animals, and
sexually reproducing ones.
You are wrong about all three.
>
> "unguided/unintelligent natural process" means natural selection (or
> the underlying principle of natural causation),
Natural selection is not "the underlying principle of natural
causation". You are mistaking the process of selection by the
environment, for natural processes in general.
> like when Darwin
> titled his book "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
> Selection."
By which Darwin meant selection of variations by environmental factors,
not non supernatural causes in general. You have been corrected on
this mistake several times as well.
DJT
DanaTweedy
When it's a change that isn't inheritable. When no changes happen at
all, when a species goes extinct. All of those are not evolution.
Rocks, for example, don't evolve. They don't reproduce, but they do
change with heat and pressure.
>
> There must be a falsifying antithesis.
And, or course there are. If organisms did not reproduce, they would
not evolve. If organisms were to reproduce perfectly, so that there is
no variation, evolution would be falsified. If species were indeed
"immutable" evolution would be falsified.
Unfortunately for you, it's quite easy to show that allele changes in
populations over generations happen. Your assertion that species are
immutable is false.
DJT
DanaTweedy
> On Jul 5, 9:09 pm, Richard Clayton<richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
As you've been told before: Because the "causation" shows no evidence
of guidance, or intelligence. If you think it does, please present such
evidence.
Note that your personal assumption that order and complexity are only
caused by intelligence, or guidance is already shown to be false.
DJT
>
Walter Bushell
DanaTweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/5/11 10:09 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
> > On 05-Jul-11 8:08 PM, Randy C wrote:
> >>> Ray:
> >>> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
> >>
> >> Because that is the definition of evolution.
> >>
> >> "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
> >> frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
> >> next."
> >> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
> >> Publishers, p.974
> >
> > As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
> > weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
> > it wasn't evolution."
> >
> > Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
> >
>
> It's worse than that. He's saying, in effect: "Ok, changes happen, but
> you can't show those changes aren't supernatural, so no changes happen."
>
> You just can't beat Ray for twisted thinking.
>
>
> DJT
I would say he's Bush league.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
DanaTweedy
> On Jul 6, 4:14 am, Ernest Major<{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <82bf96b5-0f76-47f8-96fb-2b8007ef5...@s33g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ray
>> Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 5, 5:08 pm, Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ray:
>>>>> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
>>
>>>> Because that is the definition of evolution.
>>
>>>> "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
>>>> frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
>>>> next."
>>>> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
>>>> Publishers, p.974
>>
>>> Question begging/defining yourself correct.
>>
>>> The definition, in this context, is actually a claim. Once again: how
>>> do you know said change is evolutionary (unguided/unintelligent)?
>>
>> You define evolution as incompatible with your dualist (polytheistic?)
>> version of occasionalism. Most other people don't include that it in the
>> definition; a change of allele frequencies is a change of allele
>> frequencies regardless of whether it is a result of natural processes,
>> or a result of divine....interference.
>>
>
> Completely false.
What do you base this assertion upon?
>
> If Divine power is involved (Intelligent causation) the same has
> always been called Creationism or Natural Theology, not evolution.
This is your claim, that you've never been able to support. If "Divine
power" is involved, science isn't able to tell. Call it what you like,
but allele change in populations over generations is evolution, not
matter what the cause. A scientist will call it evolution. A religious
person may call it "theistic evolution".
Your attempts to define it out of existence is doomed to failure.
DJT
*Hemidactylus*
should easily be able to provide proof to exclude Thor's will from the
realm of possibility.
DanaTweedy
> On Jul 5, 8:24 pm, Dale_Husband<dale_husb...@att.net> wrote:
>> I wish idiots like Ray Martinez would stop crowing about "Darwinists".
>> That is so 19th Century!
>>
>> That and he is lying about being censored on Panda's Thumb. I saw him
>> posting and his crap being kept there just the other day.
>
> Look at what we have here: a big dumb chimp from Pandas Thumb has
> ventured out into a domain where his Mommy cannot censor his opponent.
Note that Ray has a very well earned reputation for running away in this
"domain" as well. If anyone would benefit by censorship, it would be
Ray.
> FYI: I had 3 posts from the Steve Gey death announcement topic erased/
> deleted by Matt Young or Reed Cartwright. Their own Rules forbid them
> to do that----that
> they must move the content elsewhere, not erase or delete. Obviously
> the truth hurt so very bad.
Such is your claim, but you also have a well earned reputation of lying.
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------
>
> "I need hardly stress Darwin's impact as one of the half dozen or so
> most revolutionary thinkers in western history. I want, instead, to
> emphasize a more curious aspect of his status----his continuing
> relevance, indeed his benevolent hovering over almost all our current
> proceedings. We may revere Newton and Lavoisier as men of equal
> impact, but do modern physicists and chemists actively engage the
> ideas of these founders, as they pursue their daily work? Darwin, on
> the other hand, continues to bestride our world like a colossus----so
> much so that I can only begin this book on the structure of
> evolutionary theory by laying out Darwin's detailed vision as a modern
> starting point, a current orthodoxy only lightly modified by more than
> a century of work."
>
> --S.J. Gould ("The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory" 2002:96)
>
> Read the quote above, Dale. It says your belief about Darwinism is
> completely false.
of course, Gould was talking about the specific idea of evolutionary
change due to natural selection acting on variations, not a secular
religion of Darwin worship, which the term is often used to indicate.
That kind of "Darwinism" does not exist.
Darwin's work has largely been superseded by new information. Calling
the general study of modern evolution "Darwinism" is an anachronism.
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On 7/5/11 6:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 5:08 pm, Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com> �wrote:
> >>> Ray:
> >>> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
>
> >> Because that is the definition of evolution.
>
> >> "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
> >> frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
> >> next."
> >> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
> >> Publishers, p.974
>
>
> Ray, that is the real definition of the term. � It's not "begging the
> question" to use a genuine definition of a word.
>
>
>
> > The definition, in this context, is actually a claim. Once again: how
> > do you know said change is evolutionary (unguided/unintelligent)?
>
> Remember, Ray, it's YOUR JOB to demonstrate that guidance, or
> intelligence is necessary.
>
> Your position is that all processes are guided by the supernatural. �
False.
My position is that all processes were created, reflecting design
(except for negative phenomena like antibiotic resistance, etc.etc.).
> The
> default position is that all processes are natural, unless shown
> otherwise.
>
The position of Darwinism/ToE is NOT default.
The position of Darwinism/ToE is that nature yields positive evidence
supporting natural processes; and that no evidence (the negative)
exists supporting teleological processes.
> Show your evidence, or admit you are wrong.
>
> DJT
The Microevolution Challenge is the topic here. Show your evidence, if
not species remain as they were before 1859 (immutable).
Microevolution: any (1) Darwinian modification in species accomplished
(2) by an unguided/unintelligent natural process.
Waiting....
Ray (Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
OgreMkV
> On Jul 6, 7:31�am, DanaTweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/5/11 6:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 5, 5:08 pm, Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com> �wrote:
> > >>> Ray:
> > >>> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
>
> > >> Because that is the definition of evolution.
>
> > >> "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
> > >> frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
> > >> next."
> > >> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
> > >> Publishers, p.974
>
> > > Question begging/defining yourself correct.
>
> > Ray, that is the real definition of the term. � It's not "begging the
> > question" to use a genuine definition of a word.
>
> > > The definition, in this context, is actually a claim. Once again: how
> > > do you know said change is evolutionary (unguided/unintelligent)?
>
> > Because there is no evidence of any guidance, or intelligence.
> > Remember, Ray, it's YOUR JOB to demonstrate that guidance, or
> > intelligence is necessary.
>
> > Your position is that all processes are guided by the supernatural. �
>
> False.
>
> My position is that all processes were created, reflecting design
> (except for negative phenomena like antibiotic resistance, etc.etc.).
>
By whom or what? How do you know? Is there any physical, measurably
evidence of this?
Remember that even if you were to disprove evolution right here, right
now, it still wouldn't mean that your notions are correct. Only
positive supporting evidence can do that. Where is it?
Or are you willing to admit your bias?
> > The
> > default position is that all processes are natural, unless shown
> > otherwise.
>
> The position of Darwinism/ToE is NOT default.
>
No, but it was well over 250 years of evidential support, with
hundreds of thousands of supporting documents, experiments, and
observations.
Where's yours?
> The position of Darwinism/ToE is that nature yields positive evidence
> supporting natural processes; and that no evidence (the negative)
> exists supporting teleological processes.
>
> > Show your evidence, or admit you are wrong.
>
> > DJT
>
> The Microevolution Challenge is the topic here. Show your evidence, if
> not species remain as they were before 1859 (immutable).
>
1751 - Pierre Louis Maupertuis writes about natural modifications
during reproduction and accumulating over the course of generations.
1767-1792 - James Burnett writes about the concept that man has
descended from primates in response to the environment.
1796 - George Cuvier publishes differences between living elephants
and those found in the fossil record. He identifies mastodons and
mammoths as unique species.
You see, the phenomenon was well known over 100 years before Darwin
published.
Wrong, Ray, as usual.
> Microevolution: any (1) Darwinian modification in species accomplished
> (2) by an unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> Waiting....
>
> Ray (Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)
And we're waiting for you to support that your definition is even
valid, which it isn't.
You're challenge is a strawman because the basis for it is
WRONG!!!!!!!!
I've challenged you twice now to show a single scientific source that
uses your definition. You have not. Therefore, I can only conclude
that you made it up (or 'borrowed it' without citing from a likewise
biased creationist source).
Would you like me to provide the other dozens of references? I can
provide references (cited) for days that support our definition of
evolution and I'm willing to bet you ANY amount of money that not a
single one of them will show your definition (or your 'species
immutability' concept).
Going to take me up on it? I didn't think so.
So, I'll continue to ask this questions until I get a 'yes' or a 'no',
either is fine, just answer, "Will you, Ray, accept evidence for the
correct definition of evolution instead your wrong version?"
SkyEyes
> Under what type of logic can weakened cartilage throughout the body of
> a cat be considered a survival advantage?
I don't usually answer your posts, Ray, because you're the kind of
creationist-retard I grew up being and I know that there's no point in
arguing logically with you.
However, even *you* should have noticed that cats can squeeze
themselves into holes, tunnels and spaces that are smaller than the
cat's frame. That allows them to escape and hide in places that would
otherwise be unavailable to them. This convenient trick is brought to
you by weaker cartilage, and is a distinct survival benefit.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
alextangent
>
> The Microevolution Challenge is the topic here. Show your evidence, if
> not species remain as they were before 1859 (immutable).
>
> Microevolution: any (1) Darwinian modification in species accomplished
> (2) by an unguided/unintelligent natural process.
"Changed days, son. Not the way it used to be, with all this
herveylooshun and sciencey stuff. When I were a nipper, it used to be
pretty quiet round here. Before 1859. That was the year that guy
Charles Darkins turned up, moved in the big house over there, and all
hell broke loose. Shenanigans, that's what he was up to in that lab of
his with his test tubes and big sparky machines and chemicules. I
mean, see them ducks on the village pond over there? It used to be
they was crocodiles til he did his experimenting and specied them a
bit. Bit too much specieing if you ask me. Unnatural what he was
doing, that's what. I glad your gran isn't around to see it, she'd
have been shocked seeing them ducks. Nothing she liked better than a
bit of a wrestle with a croc and a smart new handbag and shoes every
year. Aye, changed days, son."
Christopher Denney
[snip]
>
> Then, when isn't it evolution?
>
> There must be a falsifying antithesis.
>
> Ray
>
If an elephant gave birth to a horse, that wouldn't be evolution.
DanaTweedy
> On Jul 6, 7:31 am, DanaTweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/5/11 6:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 5, 5:08 pm, Randy C<randyec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ray:
>>>>> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
>>
>>>> Because that is the definition of evolution.
>>
>>>> "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
>>>> frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
>>>> next."
>>>> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
>>>> Publishers, p.974
>>
>>> Question begging/defining yourself correct.
>>
>> Ray, that is the real definition of the term. It's not "begging the
>> question" to use a genuine definition of a word.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The definition, in this context, is actually a claim. Once again: how
>>> do you know said change is evolutionary (unguided/unintelligent)?
>>
>> Because there is no evidence of any guidance, or intelligence.
>> Remember, Ray, it's YOUR JOB to demonstrate that guidance, or
>> intelligence is necessary.
>>
>> Your position is that all processes are guided by the supernatural.
>
> False.
Then perhaps you should listen to yourself sometime. That's what you've
been claiming.
>
> My position is that all processes were created, reflecting design
> (except for negative phenomena like antibiotic resistance, etc.etc.).
Who determines what is "negative phenomena"? Why would a negative
phenomena not reflect "design" as well? Also, since the appearance of
design can be produced by non guided processes, how do you determine
what "reflects design"?
>
>> The
>> default position is that all processes are natural, unless shown
>> otherwise.
>>
>
> The position of Darwinism/ToE is NOT default.
The position of methodological naturalism is the default in science.
"Darwinism" operates like any other scientific theory.
>
> The position of Darwinism/ToE is that nature yields positive evidence
> supporting natural processes;
Wrong again, Ray. Evolution is a natural process, like any other
process that can be observed. Nature *is* natural processes.
> and that no evidence (the negative)
> exists supporting teleological processes.
the fact is that no evidence of teleological processes has been
discovered. If you feel there has, feel free to present it.
>
>> Show your evidence, or admit you are wrong.
Note that Ray will do neither.
>>
>> DJT
>
> The Microevolution Challenge is the topic here.
Which has been met, and you were shown to be wrong, time and time again.
Why not admit you were wrong?
> Show your evidence, if
> not species remain as they were before 1859 (immutable).
Species were not immutable before 1859, Ray. They changed even before
science discovered the process by which they change. I've already
shown you lots of evidence that species change. You ran away from that
evidence, and are still running.
>
> Microevolution: any (1) Darwinian modification in species accomplished
> (2) by an unguided/unintelligent natural process.
That's not how the term is defined by anyone sane. You've been shown
many examples of "Darwinian modification" of species. You've also been
shown that natural processes are by default unguided, and unintelligent,
unless proven otherwise.
>
> Waiting....
Why wait? You've already been given the evidence, and you are still
running away from it.
DJT
OgreMkV
> On 7/7/11 12:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
> > My position is that all processes were created, reflecting design
> > (except for negative phenomena like antibiotic resistance, etc.etc.).
>
> Who determines what is "negative phenomena"? Why would a negative
> phenomena not reflect "design" as well? Also, since the appearance of
> design can be produced by non guided processes, how do you determine
> what "reflects design"?
>
This is a very good point and one I missed.
As usual, the creationist shows his human-centric bias... it's almost
as if other organisms don't exist, except for the sake of humans
Ray, antibiotic resistance is a POSITIVE mutation, you silly boy.
It's positive because it helps the bacteria survive and reproduce.
Duh.
It's bad for us, but you can't use humans as the deciding factor on
whether a mutation in another organism helps that organism.
Sigh... Save me from Christians.
Ray Martinez
> On 7/6/11 11:31 AM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 9:09 pm, Richard Clayton<richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 05-Jul-11 8:08 PM, Randy C wrote:
>
> >>>> Ray:
> >>>> How do you know allele change is evolutionary?
>
> >>> Because that is the definition of evolution.
>
> >>> "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
> >>> frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
> >>> next."
> >>> - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth
> >>> Publishers, p.974
>
> >> As far as I can tell, Ray's point is "Yes, but you can't PROVE there
> >> weren't magic invisible nano-angels tinkering with the genes, therefore
> >> it wasn't evolution."
>
> >> Please correct me if I'm wrong, Ray.
>
> >> --
> >> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> >> Richard Clayton
> >> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
>
> > No, my "point" is a legitimate straightforward question: what effects
> > cause evolutionary scientists to believe causation is unguided/
> > unintelligent?
>
> As you've been told before: Because the "causation" shows no evidence
> of guidance, or intelligence. If you think it does, please present such
> evidence.
>
So the action looks unguided and unintelligent?
Ray
> Note that your personal assumption that order and complexity are only
> caused by intelligence, or guidance is already shown to be false.
>
> DJT
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 5, 4:37 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Under what type of logic can weakened cartilage throughout the body of
> > a cat be considered a survival advantage?
>
> I don't usually answer your posts, Ray, because you're the kind of
> creationist-retard I grew up being and I know that there's no point in
> arguing logically with you.
>
Shoeless Brenda: I am relieved to be considered a retard by a person
like yourself who believes apes morphed into men over the course of
millions of years.
Ray
OgreMkV
> On Jul 7, 12:59 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 4:37 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Under what type of logic can weakened cartilage throughout the body of
> > > a cat be considered a survival advantage?
>
> > I don't usually answer your posts, Ray, because you're the kind of
> > creationist-retard I grew up being and I know that there's no point in
> > arguing logically with you.
>
> Shoeless Brenda: I am relieved to be considered a retard by a person
> like yourself who believes apes morphed into men over the course of
> millions of years.
>
> Ray
>
>
Interesting that no one actually believes that Ray. The very
definition of strawman!
You ask questions Ray, yet never answer ones asked of you.
Ray Martinez
Everyone has a bias. What's the point?
My definition has 3 (and only 3) BASIC elements:
1. Darwinian modification
2. Sexually producing species
3. Unguided/unintelligent natural process(es)
Your rejection of my definition means you cannot provide evidence
supporting one or more elements. This is the only reason why the
definition is rejected. Since each element is BASIC to evolutionary
theory, you (and all other evolutionists) exist in a state of
humiliation.
All you guys can do is offer a gene-centric definition of evolution
then claim the same to be evidence. Definitions are not evidence. The
same is question begging. Again, how do you know allele change is
evolutionary? Allele change is designed. How do I know? Because I read
it on creationist websites! LOL!
And my definition is my own. Your belief that I plagiarized it from a
creationist website indicates deep seated anger toward me and my
arguments, Kevin.
Ray
>
> Would you like me to provide the other dozens of references? I can
> provide references (cited) for days that support our definition of
> evolution and I'm willing to bet you ANY amount of money that not a
> single one of them will show your definition (or your 'species
> immutability' concept).
>
> Going to take me up on it? I didn't think so.
>
> So, I'll continue to ask this questions until I get a 'yes' or a 'no',
> either is fine, just answer, "Will you, Ray, accept evidence for the
> correct definition of evolution instead your wrong version?"- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
If they are so basic, why does the word "unguided" or "unintelligent"
not appear in any standard textbook in evolutionary biology?
>
> All you guys can do is offer a gene-centric definition of evolution
> then claim the same to be evidence. Definitions are not evidence. The
> same is question begging. Again, how do you know allele change is
> evolutionary?
Because that is how evolution is defined by evolutionary biologists
>Allele change is designed.
If you like. Doesn't matter, really, as far as biology is concerned.
> How do I know? Because I read
> it on creationist websites!
So, how does the website propose to test if something is designed or
not?
Ray Martinez
Kevin: Dana Tweedy claims to be a Christian. The fact that you could
not tell from his posts, but thought he was an Atheist like yourself,
is priceless : )
LOL, Dana, LOL!
Kevin: this Usenet EXISTS to portray evolution as friendly to
Christianity. Stop blowing the cover of wolves in sheeps clothing.
Quite embarrassing.
Ray