Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
Steven J.
Charles Carroll, who modestly referred to himself as "the Reasoner of
the Age, the Revelator of the Century," held views on racial matters
that were NOT typical of creationists, even in his day; indeed, he
spends many paragraphs in his 1900 work, _In the Image of God_,
complaining about that fact. But, several years after first running
across a copy of his book (on a bookshelf next to a rebuttal volume
titled _The Negro a Man_), I found a pdf copy on the web, and
reexamining it have noted a number of striking features of his
creationism.
<http://www.cimmay.us/pdf/carroll.pdf>
Although the opening of the book insists that "there are just two
schools of learning in the world to-day, which propose to explain the
existence of the heavens and the earth, with all the phenomena which
characterize each ...
(1) The Scriptural School of Divine Creation, (2) The Atheistic School
of Natural Development," and much of the book is a sustained assault
on evolutionary doctrine, which Professor Carroll sees as having led
to the catastrophic conclusion that Blacks are human, and perhaps even
equal to whites, he does not connect evolutionary theory to Darwin.
"Mr. Darwin" is mentioned solely as an expert who has shown that
animals are not limited to purely instinctive action, but have
rudimentary reasoning powers.
Carroll, while he nowhere uses the term "microevolution," is a fervent
denier of it. He mocks evolution not only by asking whether a duck
could hatch from a chicken egg, but (more to the point of his book)
whether "pure white" parents could give birth to a Black offspring.
The assumed impossibility of accomplishing, through fine gradations,
what cannot be accomplished in one fell swoop, is his argument not
only against common ancestry of humans and monkeys (macroevolution),
but of different human races (microevolution). See almost any of the
books illustrations for examples of his "reasoning" on this point.
In any case, Ray, I assume you reject forthrightly all of Professor
Carroll's conclusions about race and slavery. However, it must be
conceded that, if microevolution is impossible, then his conclusions
about separate origins for different human races must follow
logically. Therefore, it seems to me that you ought, on your own
announced principles, accept the possibility of microevolution.
However, feel free to correct my understanding if I have erred on this
point.
-- Steven J.
Ray Martinez
Simply ridiculous. There is no need to postulate multiple separate
origins for human beings since the eight surviving souls on the Ark
account for human diversity. Of course anthropology is extremely
complicated; the evidence and data conflicts almost endlessly. But we
do have foundational and benchmark evidence that proves the Bible
correct and evolution false.
> Therefore, it seems to me that you ought, on your own
> announced principles, accept the possibility of microevolution.
> However, feel free to correct my understanding if I have erred on this
> point.
>
> -- Steven J.
Look, I have no idea as to why you would want to discuss this subject
on the foundation of racism. Perhaps you would like to discuss natural
selection on the foundation of degree-less Ronald Fisher, Professor of
Eugenics, author of "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" - a
person that Richard Dawkins has compared to Darwin in scientific
importance, while forgetting that both of them believed in proto-Nazi
superiority doctrines.
The brutal fact of the microevolution matter is that I had accepted
the concept as fact based on the assumption that the mob (both
Darwinian and modern day Creationism) was correct. After two plus
years of intense research I announced that my view has changed: there
is no evidence for microevolution at all - none whatsoever. I align
myself with historic Paleyan-Design, British Natural Theology (also
called Creationism): we accept an old Earth, causation is Divine; each
species owe their existence to separate creation-supernatural agency;
mankind began as depicted in Genesis.
Creationism today is associated with YEC Fundamentalism, many of whom
accept the word 'evolution' in some way or another to have a role in
causing species to exist. A lot of modern OECs do also. But when we
examine these beliefs concerning evolution we find that the same has
no correspondence to Darwinian evolution. BUT they are using the term.
'Evolution' cannot be extricated from its original understanding in
the Darwinian paradigm, which has been established since 1859.
The point is that modern YECs and OECs who use and accept the concept
of evolution to have any role in the production of nature and species
are confused and/or ignorant. Creationism opposes evolution; we do not
accept it. It took me two years of full time study to emerge from this
confusion.
Ray
Lee Jay
Then how come that necking-down of our population doesn't show up in
our genetics?
> Of course anthropology is extremely
> complicated; the evidence and data conflicts almost endlessly. But we
> do have foundational and benchmark evidence that proves the Bible
> correct and evolution false.
>
> > Therefore, it seems to me that you ought, on your own
> > announced principles, accept the possibility of microevolution.
> > However, feel free to correct my understanding if I have erred on this
> > point.
>
> > -- Steven J.
>
> Look, I have no idea as to why you would want to discuss this subject
> on the foundation of racism. Perhaps you would like to discuss natural
> selection on the foundation of degree-less Ronald Fisher, Professor of
> Eugenics, author of "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" - a
> person that Richard Dawkins has compared to Darwin in scientific
> importance, while forgetting that both of them believed in proto-Nazi
> superiority doctrines.
>
> The brutal fact of the microevolution matter is that I had accepted
> the concept as fact based on the assumption that the mob (both
> Darwinian and modern day Creationism) was correct. After two plus
> years of intense research I announced that my view has changed: there
> is no evidence for microevolution at all - none whatsoever.
Then where did vancomycin resistant tuberculosis come from?
wf3h
>
> Look, I have no idea as to why you would want to discuss this subject
> on the foundation of racism. Perhaps you would like to discuss natural
> selection on the foundation of degree-less Ronald Fisher, Professor of
> Eugenics, author of "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" - a
> person that Richard Dawkins has compared to Darwin in scientific
> importance, while forgetting that both of them believed in proto-Nazi
> superiority doctrines.
this is ironic in that virtually every single american slave owner was
a creationist.
Ray Martinez
And they produced a Document that says their theory is
unconstitutional and establishes your theory as constitutional, right?
Ray
Elmer
Ray Martinez wrote:
(snip)
>>>> It is inconceivable that anyone could say or believe that the Bible
>>>> supports Darwinism or evolution...
>>>Ray, please explain what Gen 1:11 means when it says, And God said,
>>>Let the earth bring forth....
>> > Verse 11 exists in the context of verse 1:
>> > "....God created...."
>> Created always means direct Divine power.
>So what you're saying is that the words in Gen 1:11 don't really mean
>what they say, is that it Ray?
>> No, that is what you keep saying.
>> Do you agree that "And God said, Let the earth bring forth...." means
>> what it says Ray?
> In context, of course.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> We all know what verse one says. Verse 11 exists, of course, in the
> context of verse one. Verse 11 presupposes that the phrase "Let the
> earth bring forth" to mean special creation/supernatural creation. It
> is a synonymous description of the phrase "God created...." so that
> this phrase is not repeated redundantly.
In the beginning George Eastman created Kodak. George said, let the contractor
build a new building, so who built the building?
Elmer
> (snip)
> The point is that modern YECs and OECs who use and accept the concept
> of evolution to have any role in the production of nature and species
> are confused and/or ignorant. Creationism opposes evolution; we do not
> accept it. It took me two years of full time study to emerge from this
> confusion.
Did any of this study involve biology?
wf3h
evolution isn't mentioned in the constitution. freedom is. that's what
has you confused.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a8e8c12e-18c9-4d5c...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...snip
>> In any case, Ray, I assume you reject forthrightly all of Professor
>> Carroll's conclusions about race and slavery. However, it must be
>> conceded that, if microevolution is impossible, then his conclusions
>> about separate origins for different human races must follow
>> logically.
>
> Simply ridiculous. There is no need to postulate multiple separate
> origins for human beings since the eight surviving souls on the Ark
> account for human diversity.
Ray, it's simply impossible for eight individuals (especially when most of
them share the same genes) to have the diversity required to produce the
genetic diversity of the modern human population. Even worse if one
supposes that it's only been a few thousand years since those individuals
were the only ones left. Even worse than that, for you, is that it would
require "microevolution" on a scale not seen in nature.
> Of course anthropology is extremely
> complicated; the evidence and data conflicts almost endlessly.
Actually, the evidence shows there was no global flood. Noah, the Ark, and
the eight survivors is a myth.
> But we
> do have foundational and benchmark evidence that proves the Bible
> correct and evolution false.
Well, no, you don't. If you are thinking of the "Great Pyramid", that
fails to "prove" either.
>
>> Therefore, it seems to me that you ought, on your own
>> announced principles, accept the possibility of microevolution.
>> However, feel free to correct my understanding if I have erred on this
>> point.
>>
>> -- Steven J.
>
> Look, I have no idea as to why you would want to discuss this subject
> on the foundation of racism.
Perhaps because your claims about the foundation of racism are utterly
wrong.
> Perhaps you would like to discuss natural
> selection on the foundation of degree-less Ronald Fisher, Professor of
> Eugenics, author of "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" - a
> person that Richard Dawkins has compared to Darwin in scientific
> importance, while forgetting that both of them believed in proto-Nazi
> superiority doctrines.
Why would that be relevant, Ray? First of all, Ronald Fisher had a
degree. Second, it's his work in statistics that's remembered, not his
ideas about eugenics. Third, what Darwin, or Fisher "believed" is
irrelevant to the scientific work the men did.
>
> The brutal fact of the microevolution matter is that I had accepted
> the concept as fact based on the assumption that the mob (both
> Darwinian and modern day Creationism) was correct.
Which is a stupid reason to accept anything. If you had done the research,
you'd have found the reason why microevolution is accepted by YECs is that
the evidence for it is too strong to deny.
> After two plus
> years of intense research I announced that my view has changed: there
> is no evidence for microevolution at all - none whatsoever.
Which is evidence that you did no research at all. If you had, you
wouldn't hold such an absurd position.
> I align
> myself with historic Paleyan-Design, British Natural Theology (also
> called Creationism):
Sorry, Ray, but "Paleyan-Design, British Natural Theology" is not synonomous
with "creationism".
> we accept an old Earth,
Based on, what, exactly?
> causation is Divine;
What method did the "Divine" use?
> each
> species owe their existence to separate creation-supernatural agency;
> mankind began as depicted in Genesis.
The evidence, however contradicts that assumption.
>
> Creationism today is associated with YEC Fundamentalism, many of whom
> accept the word 'evolution' in some way or another to have a role in
> causing species to exist.
Because the evidence is too strong to totally deny.
> A lot of modern OECs do also. But when we
> examine these beliefs concerning evolution we find that the same has
> no correspondence to Darwinian evolution. BUT they are using the term.
So what? Evolution is evolution.
> 'Evolution' cannot be extricated from its original understanding in
> the Darwinian paradigm, which has been established since 1859.
Why not, Ray? If Darwin had not lived, the concept of evolution would
still have been discoved. Wallace had the same idea. Even if Wallace had
never existed, some other scientist would have discovered evolution.
>
> The point is that modern YECs and OECs who use and accept the concept
> of evolution to have any role in the production of nature and species
> are confused and/or ignorant.
Ironically, that's the image you present of yourself.
>Creationism opposes evolution; we do not
> accept it.
You reject evolution for no rational reason. You don't understand the
concept, and you don't even try to understand the evidence. You oppose
evolution without taking the least amount of effort to learn about it.
> It took me two years of full time study to emerge from this
> confusion.
Talk about "out of the frying pan". Your confusion now is even worse than
before.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Actually, Ray, the Constitution says nothing about science, or scientific
theories.
It does say, however that the government is not allowed to promote one
religion over any other. Creationism is a religious belief, not a
scientific theory. The Constitution does prohibit a government sponsored
school from teaching creationism as if it were scientific.
If you don't like that, blame those "founding fathers" who decided that
religious freedom was an important right that needed Constitutional
protection.
DJT
Steven J.
> On Mar 19, 10:36 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > <http://www.cimmay.us/pdf/carroll.pdf>
>
-- [snip]
>
> > In any case, Ray, I assume you reject forthrightly all of Professor
> > Carroll's conclusions about race and slavery. However, it must be
> > conceded that, if microevolution is impossible, then his conclusions
> > about separate origins for different human races must follow
> > logically.
>
> Simply ridiculous. There is no need to postulate multiple separate
> origins for human beings since the eight surviving souls on the Ark
> account for human diversity. Of course anthropology is extremely
> complicated; the evidence and data conflicts almost endlessly. But we
> do have foundational and benchmark evidence that proves the Bible
> correct and evolution false.
>
and ideological rather than scientific. But of course, the same is
true of your own postulation of an "invisible designer:" you need for
there to be scientific evidence of God, so you reject the possibility
that the diversity and complexity of life might have a non-miraculous
explanation. Much the same is true of any creationist.
Oh, and Ray, unless Noah had offspring after the flood which are
nowhere mentioned in Genesis (including in the genealogical tables
where we might expect to find them mentioned), that is six surviving
souls who contributed to the modern gene pool. Note that this implies
that humans ought to show more genetic variation than do chimpanzees
(since chimpanzees would presumably be descended from only two chimps
aboard the Ark), but in fact chimpanzees show more genetic variation
than we do. There's a problem there you ought to think about.
In any case, "microevolution" is defined, by actual biologists, as
change in the frequency of genes within a population, which does not
result in the population becoming a new species. By that definition,
a racially homogenous group (e.g. the passengers aboard the Ark)
giving rise to several racially distinct groups is "microevolution,"
even without new alleles arising though mutations. On the other hand,
I'm still not sure how *you* define "microevolution," since you've
never actually done so. So I'm not sure that when you deny what you
call "microevolution," you're denying what scientifically literate
people call "microevolution."
Of course, it is known as a matter of fact that new mutations have
appeared in human populations. Furthermore, it is known that
different human populations show distinct variants in mitochondrial
DNA. Your Ark population could have included, at most, three
different mitochondrial DNA lineages (since mitochondrial DNA is
transmitted through the female line, and there were only three female-
line ancestresses of modern humans, according to Genesis); the
existence of a much larger number of such lineages must mean, on your
own principles, that additional mutations have occurred.
>
> > Therefore, it seems to me that you ought, on your own
> > announced principles, accept the possibility of microevolution.
> > However, feel free to correct my understanding if I have erred on this
> > point.
>
> > -- Steven J.
>
> Look, I have no idea as to why you would want to discuss this subject
> on the foundation of racism. Perhaps you would like to discuss natural
> selection on the foundation of degree-less Ronald Fisher, Professor of
> Eugenics, author of "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" - a
> person that Richard Dawkins has compared to Darwin in scientific
> importance, while forgetting that both of them believed in proto-Nazi
> superiority doctrines.
>
Really, are you that silly? You are the one who has insisted that if
an idea implies racism, then the idea is scientifically as well as
morally bad. Well, I can't think of an idea much more potentially
racist that polygenesis (separate origins for separate "races" of
humanity), yet if you deny microevolution, then you are implying, as a
matter of logical necessity, that separate races must have had
separate origins.
Please note, natural selection does not rest on the "foundation" of
the political or social views of past evolutionists. A scientific
theory does not depend on the personal authority or sanctity of the
scientists who developed it. On the other hand, I certainly was not
suggesting that your opposition to evolution was "founded" on racism.
I was merely pointing out that it is perfectly compatible with racism,
and indeed, if taken to the extreme you claim to have taken it, even
logically implies racism. Therefore, again, on your own principles,
you ought to accept some limited degree of evolution (but again,
perhaps you do: as I keep complaining, you never explain what you
think "microevolution" means).
>
> The brutal fact of the microevolution matter is that I had accepted
> the concept as fact based on the assumption that the mob (both
> Darwinian and modern day Creationism) was correct. After two plus
> years of intense research I announced that my view has changed: there
> is no evidence for microevolution at all - none whatsoever. I align
> myself with historic Paleyan-Design, British Natural Theology (also
> called Creationism): we accept an old Earth, causation is Divine; each
> species owe their existence to separate creation-supernatural agency;
> mankind began as depicted in Genesis.
>
You keep harping on these "two years of intense research," but it's
hardly clear what you actually read (and, again, it's hardly clear
what you think "microevolution" means; could you please offer a
definition of the term as you use it?). There are a host of articles
and books detailing evidence for microevolution; it seems very odd
that you could do "intensive research" that was actually relevant to
the problem and not come up with any evidence for it. Of course, for
that matter, I see nothing in the Paleyan-design school that would
prohibit microevolution, or even macroevolution in the sense of
speciation.
Oh, and as a practical matter, no conceivable evidence could show that
"causation was divine." It is perfectly conceivable that the evidence
could show that species had separate origins and that common descent
was false. It is perfectly conceivable that evidence could show that
no known natural cause could account for the diversity and complexity
of life. But that would not settle the question of whether the
unknown cause was natural or "divine."
>
> Creationism today is associated with YEC Fundamentalism, many of whom
> accept the word 'evolution' in some way or another to have a role in
> causing species to exist. A lot of modern OECs do also. But when we
> examine these beliefs concerning evolution we find that the same has
> no correspondence to Darwinian evolution. BUT they are using the term.
> 'Evolution' cannot be extricated from its original understanding in
> the Darwinian paradigm, which has been established since 1859.
>
My own impression is that the professional OECs reject speciation. I
think this is because they accept the dates assigned to fossils by
mainstream paleontologists and geologists. If one accepts that a
literal Adam was created within the last 10,000 years, and became the
ancestor of all modern humans, then one must conclude that hominine
fossils 50,000 years old and more cannot be truly human, even though
some of them look like _Homo sapiens_. So they end up drawing the
boundaries of "created kinds" very narrowly indeed. Of course, among
creationists in the pew one finds all sorts of inconsistent patchwork
creationisms, which the creationists in the pews have never thought
very carefully about.
But what of yourself, Ray? Most OECs hold that Noah's Flood was a
purely local affair, and that most modern species are descended from
ancestors that never boarded the Ark and were unaffected by the
flood. Is this your position? What is your position on the
Neanderthals? Were they human? Were they descendants of Adam?
>
> The point is that modern YECs and OECs who use and accept the concept
> of evolution to have any role in the production of nature and species
> are confused and/or ignorant. Creationism opposes evolution; we do not
> accept it. It took me two years of full time study to emerge from this
> confusion.
>
Many creationists have a superstitious fear of the word "evolution."
But the word (as applied to biology) simply means the change in the
frequency of inheritable traits over time. If your research did not
convince you that this actually happens (and, for that matter, that
mutation and natural selection really happen) then your research was
so hopelessly defective that no paper based on it could possibly have
any important connections to reality.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Dick C
>
> Simply ridiculous. There is no need to postulate multiple separate
> origins for human beings since the eight surviving souls on the Ark
> account for human diversity. Of course anthropology is extremely
> complicated; the evidence and data conflicts almost endlessly.
Yes, the evidence and data contradicts the Bible.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.net
Dick C
> On Mar 20, 7:07 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
Might the Document be called the Constitution of the the United States?
There is one major reason why ID is unconstitutional, it is religious in
nature and intent. And the constitution does not allow the government to
promote one religion over another.
Science is not religious in ether nature or intent.
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
My only interest here is to *understand* your opinion, Dana.
How does 'prohibition' (said word was used in your first paragraph) of
Creationism correspond to protecting 'religious freedom' (said phrase
was used in your last paragraph)?
If Creationism is a religious doctrine then how does its prohibition
in the stated arena protect religious freedom?
The reason I do not understand what you are saying is because it makes
no sense, is illogical, and contradictory on its face. But again, I
must be misunderstanding your viewpoint.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>> > And they produced a Document that says their theory is
>> > unconstitutional and establishes your theory as constitutional, right?
>>
>> Actually, Ray, the Constitution says nothing about science, or scientific
>> theories.
>>
>> It does say, however that the government is not allowed to promote one
>> religion over any other. Creationism is a religious belief, not a
>> scientific theory. The Constitution does prohibit a government sponsored
>> school from teaching creationism as if it were scientific.
>>
>> If you don't like that, blame those "founding fathers" who decided that
>> religious freedom was an important right that needed Constitutional
>> protection.
>>
>> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> My only interest here is to *understand* your opinion, Dana.
In order to understand my opinion, you would have to understand history,
the Constitution, and the idea of religious freedom. You'd also need to
understand what science is, and what the difference is between a scientific
theory, and a religious belief. From what I've read of your posts, you
lack that understanding. Therefore it's highly unlikely that you will be
able to understand my opinion.
>
> How does 'prohibition' (said word was used in your first paragraph) of
> Creationism correspond to protecting 'religious freedom' (said phrase
> was used in your last paragraph)?
Because creationism is a religious belief, and not science. The
Constitution prohibits the government from favoring one religious belief
(creationism) over any other religion's belief. Treating creationism as if
it were science is unfair, and favors that religion over others. Note
please, that creationism is not being prohibited from being presented for
what it is, i.e. a religious belief. It's being prohibited from being
taught as science, because that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.
>
> If Creationism is a religious doctrine then how does its prohibition
> in the stated arena protect religious freedom?
Because the "stated arena" is a science classroom. If you were to
permit creationists to promote their religious beliefs as science, you'd be
violating the religious freedom of everyone. Remember the "arena" is a
branch of the government, a publically funded school. The 1st amendment
directly states that the government is not to establish any religion, or
prevent the free exercise of religion. Treating creationism as science
is effectively establishing on religion as the official government sponsored
religion.
Note again, creationism is permitted to be taught as a religious belief,
and can can be taught in religious schools without any government
interference. There's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent
creationists from presenting any scientific evidence that would support
their beliefs, and nothing that would prevent creationists from putting
forth a scientific theory of creation. Creationists are not prohibited
from publishing their "work" in scientific journals. They aren't
prohibited from seeking private funding to test their claims in
laboratories, and if they could convince private industry from funding
research to support their cause, the government could not stop them .
That leads to the question, of why the creationists don't do any original
research? Why don't they publish any fidings in scientific journals?
Why don't they get funding from private industry, if their work were of any
scientific value? You can claim "conspiracy" by "evolutionists", but
there really isn't any evidence of such.
>
> The reason I do not understand what you are saying is because it makes
> no sense, is illogical, and contradictory on its face.
That's because you don't understand the concept of religious freedom.
Religious freedom means *everyone* gets to worship as they wish, and that
people are free not to worship if they wish. Treating a religious concept
as if it were science is a violation of that freedom. It gives one
religion an unfair precedence over all the others. My statments are
quite logical, and make a great deal of sense, if, that is, you understand
what religious freedom means. If you reject religious freedom for
everyone, and insist that only your religious views are acceptable, then
perhaps you'd not understand why my statements are logical, and sound.
> But again, I
> must be misunderstanding your viewpoint.
Obviously. My viewpoint is the same that those who wrote the Constitution
had. They wished to prevent religious entanglement with the government, in
order to protect religious freedom. You, on the other hand, like many
zealots, seem to believe that everyone is entitled to your religious belief,
and no other.
DJT
Lee Jay
The Government is Constitutionally prohibited from supporting any
particular religion over the rest. Public school is government-
funded, and therefore religious teachings are constitutionally
prohibited from being taught there.
> If Creationism is a religious doctrine then how does its prohibition
> in the stated arena protect religious freedom?
It allows people to be free to study and accept whatever religious
teachings they want, including those that contradict creationism. If
you teach creationism, you are teaching one to the exclusion of the
others. Would you object to the teaching of Islamic principles in
public school, funded by the federal government? If you're not going
to teach them all (and there are nearly an infinite number), then you
have to teach none of them, or else you are favoring one religion over
the others, and that's Constitutionally forbidden.
> The reason I do not understand what you are saying is because it makes
> no sense, is illogical, and contradictory on its face. But again, I
> must be misunderstanding your viewpoint.
In addition, you don't understand the concept of "logic".
Ye Old One
Because you daft fairy tales are not the only daft fairy tales.
>
>The reason I do not understand what you are saying is because it makes
>no sense, is illogical, and contradictory on its face. But again, I
>must be misunderstanding your viewpoint.
You always do.
>
>Ray
>
--
Bob.
Steven J.
>
> How does 'prohibition' (said word was used in your first paragraph) of
> Creationism correspond to protecting 'religious freedom' (said phrase
> was used in your last paragraph)?
>
ought to be. Teaching creationism in the public schools is
prohibited, because creationism is a sectarian religious dogma
(specifically, the dogma that the tenets of certain sects of
Christianity are supported by "science").
>
> If Creationism is a religious doctrine then how does its prohibition
> in the stated arena protect religious freedom?
>
public schools that "scientific discoveries" showed that Muhammed was
a true prophet. Or suppose it were taught that there was evidence
that Krishna was really the supreme manifestation of the Godhead.
Would you be in favor of these things, on the grounds that prohibiting
schools from teaching them somehow violated religious freedom? For
that matter, given your disdain for pretty much everyone else's
version of creationism, would you want your tax dollars spent teaching
students someone else's version of creationism?
>
> The reason I do not understand what you are saying is because it makes
> no sense, is illogical, and contradictory on its face. But again, I
> must be misunderstanding your viewpoint.
>
people's viewpoints. Creationism is false. The arguments for ID are
either false, or they are blatant god-of-the-gaps fallacies ("we don't
understand this, so it must be a miracle"). The only reason anyone
could confuse these errors and fallacies for something that belongs in
a science class is that these errors and fallacies, if taken
seriously, support his own sectarian dogmas. Therefore, the inclusion
of creationism in science classes is the use of state funds and state
power to advance one religious doctrine over another.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Ray Martinez
> On Mar 20, 7:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 10:36 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > <http://www.cimmay.us/pdf/carroll.pdf>
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > In any case, Ray, I assume you reject forthrightly all of Professor
> > > Carroll's conclusions about race and slavery. However, it must be
> > > conceded that, if microevolution is impossible, then his conclusions
> > > about separate origins for different human races must follow
> > > logically.
>
> > Simply ridiculous. There is no need to postulate multiple separate
> > origins for human beings since the eight surviving souls on the Ark
> > account for human diversity. Of course anthropology is extremely
> > complicated; the evidence and data conflicts almost endlessly. But we
> > do have foundational and benchmark evidence that proves the Bible
> > correct and evolution false.
>
> Well, I'd bet the rent money that Prof. Carroll's need was theological
> and ideological rather than scientific.
Objectively reversed I would bet that Prof. Atheist's need is anti-
theological and ideological rather than scientific.
> But of course, the same is
> true of your own postulation of an "invisible designer:" you need for
> there to be scientific evidence of God, so you reject the possibility
> that the diversity and complexity of life might have a non-miraculous
> explanation. Much the same is true of any creationist.
>
But of course the same is true of your own position: you need science
to be defined as presupposing no evidence of God to exist in order to
justify your Atheist worldview as corresponding to reality.
Theism has always been supported by reality-all scientific evidence.
Only evolutionists deny, and most contradict their denial by saying
evolution is compatible with Theism.
Perverted "logic" of evolutionists:
"Evolution is compatible with Theism but evolution in no way, shape or
form, is evidence supporting Theism."
Sam Harris has desired Atheism to not be a worldview. His point was
that Atheism is the self-evident truth dictated by reality. Before
1859 this was the reputation of Theism. The situation is now reversed
because of the "evidence" of evolution and its acceptance by persons
who control our society. Before 1859 the exact opposite was true.
> Oh, and Ray, unless Noah had offspring after the flood which are
> nowhere mentioned in Genesis (including in the genealogical tables
> where we might expect to find them mentioned), that is six surviving
> souls who contributed to the modern gene pool. Note that this implies
> that humans ought to show more genetic variation than do chimpanzees
> (since chimpanzees would presumably be descended from only two chimps
> aboard the Ark), but in fact chimpanzees show more genetic variation
> than we do. There's a problem there you ought to think about.
>
We cannot trust any interpretations or conclusions of genetic data
made by persons who are evolutionists because they have a track record
of *never* making logical or correct interpretations and conclusions.
Mind you: I said "interpretations" and "conclusions" while saying
nothing about production of facts or evidence.
> In any case, "microevolution" is defined, by actual biologists, as
> change in the frequency of genes within a population, which does not
> result in the population becoming a new species.
I agree that this is a general position of most (if not all)
evolutionary biologists.
> By that definition,
> a racially homogenous group (e.g. the passengers aboard the Ark)
> giving rise to several racially distinct groups is "microevolution,"
> even without new alleles arising though mutations.
*You* could view it that way. I understand your point.
> On the other hand,
> I'm still not sure how *you* define "microevolution," since you've
> never actually done so. So I'm not sure that when you deny what you
> call "microevolution," you're denying what scientifically literate
> people call "microevolution."
>
Now we finally come to the heart of the matter. How do I define
microevolution? How do I define that which I came to reject and that
which I claim to be able to disprove with scientific evidence?
First, it would make no sense for me to have an unorthodox definition
of that which I claim to be able to disprove.
In my forth coming paper I do not tinker with the definition of
evolution or microevolution: I rely on the two or three biggest names
in evolution (all of them are scientists) to define both terms
straight out of their published writings. These congruent definitions
is what I refute.
Microevolution, according the evolutionary theorists, is when a non-
random automatic material process acting in tandem with a random
mutational phenomenon modifies an organism. Evolutionists recognize
the foregoing to have occurred, and to be occurring, in nature,
repetitively, and at some rate of speed that corresponds to something
to slow to see with the naked eye in real time.
> Of course, it is known as a matter of fact that new mutations have
> appeared in human populations.
But they remain human beings.
> Furthermore, it is known that
> different human populations show distinct variants in mitochondrial
> DNA. Your Ark population could have included, at most, three
> different mitochondrial DNA lineages (since mitochondrial DNA is
> transmitted through the female line, and there were only three female-
> line ancestresses of modern humans, according to Genesis); the
> existence of a much larger number of such lineages must mean, on your
> own principles, that additional mutations have occurred.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Therefore, it seems to me that you ought, on your own
> > > announced principles, accept the possibility of microevolution.
> > > However, feel free to correct my understanding if I have erred on this
> > > point.
>
> > > -- Steven J.
>
> > Look, I have no idea as to why you would want to discuss this subject
> > on the foundation of racism. Perhaps you would like to discuss natural
> > selection on the foundation of degree-less Ronald Fisher, Professor of
> > Eugenics, author of "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" - a
> > person that Richard Dawkins has compared to Darwin in scientific
> > importance, while forgetting that both of them believed in proto-Nazi
> > superiority doctrines.
>
> Really, are you that silly? You are the one who has insisted that if
> an idea implies racism, then the idea is scientifically as well as
> morally bad.
You are misrepresenting, whether intentional or unintentionally.
> Well, I can't think of an idea much more potentially
> racist that polygenesis (separate origins for separate "races" of
> humanity), yet if you deny microevolution, then you are implying, as a
> matter of logical necessity, that separate races must have had
> separate origins.
>
No, you are making this ridiculous implication - not me.
> Please note, natural selection does not rest on the "foundation" of
> the political or social views of past evolutionists. A scientific
> theory does not depend on the personal authority or sanctity of the
> scientists who developed it. On the other hand, I certainly was not
> suggesting that your opposition to evolution was "founded" on racism.
Good.
> I was merely pointing out that it is perfectly compatible with racism,
> and indeed, if taken to the extreme you claim to have taken it, even
> logically implies racism.
By this standard anything can be compatible with racism, including, of
course, human evolution, which evolutionists have now said began in
Africa.
> Therefore, again, on your own principles,
> you ought to accept some limited degree of evolution (but again,
> perhaps you do: as I keep complaining, you never explain what you
> think "microevolution" means).
>
I have now given a general definition above.
> > The brutal fact of the microevolution matter is that I had accepted
> > the concept as fact based on the assumption that the mob (both
> > Darwinian and modern day Creationism) was correct. After two plus
> > years of intense research I announced that my view has changed: there
> > is no evidence for microevolution at all - none whatsoever. I align
> > myself with historic Paleyan-Design, British Natural Theology (also
> > called Creationism): we accept an old Earth, causation is Divine; each
> > species owe their existence to separate creation-supernatural agency;
> > mankind began as depicted in Genesis.
>
> You keep harping on these "two years of intense research," but it's
> hardly clear what you actually read (and, again, it's hardly clear
> what you think "microevolution" means; could you please offer a
> definition of the term as you use it?). There are a host of articles
> and books detailing evidence for microevolution; it seems very odd
> that you could do "intensive research" that was actually relevant to
> the problem and not come up with any evidence for it. Of course, for
> that matter, I see nothing in the Paleyan-design school that would
> prohibit microevolution, or even macroevolution in the sense of
> speciation.
>
Any evolution that has existed since 1859 has not existed except in
the context of material causation. Creationism rejects material
causation. Creationism accepts Divine causation. And William Paley
was the epitome of the arch-antievolutionist and arch-anti-Atheism
crusader one will ever encounter in the history of modern science.
Your notion that Paley, arguably the greatest Creationist to ever
live, accepted evolution, is historically unsupportable.
> Oh, and as a practical matter, no conceivable evidence could show that
> "causation was divine."
The observation of design and organized complexity is seen in all of
nature and in each organism. Both phenomena owe their existence to
Divine causation.
> It is perfectly conceivable that the evidence
> could show that species had separate origins and that common descent
> was false.
Not could, it does show that.
> It is perfectly conceivable that evidence could show that
> no known natural cause could account for the diversity and complexity
> of life. But that would not settle the question of whether the
> unknown cause was natural or "divine."
>
Point doesn't really make sense. Natural could be ruled out by
evidence but causation by natural is not harmed.
But let me say this:
Your silent assertion is built on inconsistent logic: observation of
design does not imply Designer but observation of gradations implies
evolution. This is why logical evolutionists deny design to exist in
nature.
> > Creationism today is associated with YEC Fundamentalism, many of whom
> > accept the word 'evolution' in some way or another to have a role in
> > causing species to exist. A lot of modern OECs do also. But when we
> > examine these beliefs concerning evolution we find that the same has
> > no correspondence to Darwinian evolution. BUT they are using the term.
> > 'Evolution' cannot be extricated from its original understanding in
> > the Darwinian paradigm, which has been established since 1859.
>
> My own impression is that the professional OECs reject speciation. I
> think this is because they accept the dates assigned to fossils by
> mainstream paleontologists and geologists. If one accepts that a
> literal Adam was created within the last 10,000 years, and became the
> ancestor of all modern humans, then one must conclude that hominine
> fossils 50,000 years old and more cannot be truly human, even though
> some of them look like _Homo sapiens_.
I generally agree.
> So they end up drawing the
> boundaries of "created kinds" very narrowly indeed. Of course, among
> creationists in the pew one finds all sorts of inconsistent patchwork
> creationisms, which the creationists in the pews have never thought
> very carefully about.
>
Again, I generally agree.
Same is true with lay evolutionists who thump the "Origin of Species"
and look to Richard Dawkins as a god or more accurately, a living idol
or icon.
> But what of yourself, Ray? Most OECs hold that Noah's Flood was a
> purely local affair,
So....
And some of the best evidence for this position comes from literature
produced by admitted British Israelites (= kooks).
> and that most modern species [humans I presume?] are descended from
> ancestors that never boarded the Ark and were unaffected by the
> flood. Is this your position?
No.
I hold to the Biblical position: the Flood was worldwide. I am not in
a position to say anything else at this time.
> What is your position on the
> Neanderthals? Were they human? Were they descendants of Adam?
>
I have speculated that they are Atlanteans and that the Garden of Eden
was on Atlantis. This speculation is also based on the fact that radio
dating is completely unreliable.
Their cranial size is congruent with intelligence that exceeds ours.
Monuments exist through-out the world exhibiting wonders that cannot
be explained except through the lens of Genesis and the Torah.
> > The point is that modern YECs and OECs who use and accept the concept
> > of evolution to have any role in the production of nature and species
> > are confused and/or ignorant. Creationism opposes evolution; we do not
> > accept it. It took me two years of full time study to emerge from this
> > confusion.
>
> Many creationists have a superstitious fear of the word "evolution."
> But the word (as applied to biology) simply means the change in the
> frequency of inheritable traits over time....
....by material causation.
> If your research did not
> convince you that this actually happens (and, for that matter, that
> mutation and natural selection really happen) then your research was
> so hopelessly defective that no paper based on it could possibly have
> any important connections to reality.
>
We shall see.
I am working as fast as I can full time.
>
>
> > Ray
>
> -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
wf3h
>> My only interest here is to *understand* your opinion, Dana.
>
> How does 'prohibition' (said word was used in your first paragraph) of
> Creationism correspond to protecting 'religious freedom' (said phrase
> was used in your last paragraph)?
>
> If Creationism is a religious doctrine then how does its prohibition
> in the stated arena protect religious freedom?
?? you can't read the 1st amendment? since creationism is religious,
and is not fact nor scientific theory, teaching it would violate the
1st amendment.
does creationism make you this stupid, as well as paranoid?
>
> The reason I do not understand what you are saying is because it makes
> no sense, is illogical, and contradictory on its face. But again, I
> must be misunderstanding your viewpoint.
>
well....there's a well reasoned argument.
wf3h
>>
> Theism has always been supported by reality-all scientific evidence.
> Only evolutionists deny, and most contradict their denial by saying
> evolution is compatible with Theism.
?? what proof do you have of this? saying it's true merely because you
say it's true is not a logical argument
> >
> We cannot trust any interpretations or conclusions of genetic data
> made by persons who are evolutionists because they have a track record
> of *never* making logical or correct interpretations and conclusions.
> Mind you: I said "interpretations" and "conclusions" while saying
> nothing about production of facts or evidence.
creationists contributed nothing to 20th and 21st century science in
any field. so what is valid about 'creationism' as science?
when creationism died in 1859 one reason it died was because all
sciences developed in a way that contradicted creationism. stars are
old. chemistry showed how genes change...etc. etc.
>
> In my forth coming paper
which will be published after christ returns...
>
> Any evolution that has existed since 1859 has not existed except in
> the context of material causation. Creationism rejects material
> causation. Creationism accepts Divine causation.
and yet material causation is the ONLY causation observed. i'm a
chemist, not an evolutionary biologist. and in chemistry we NEVER use
the idea of 'divine causation'. never. not once. ever.
Steven J.
> On Mar 20, 9:50 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > But of course, the same is
> > true of your own postulation of an "invisible designer:" you need for
> > there to be scientific evidence of God, so you reject the possibility
> > that the diversity and complexity of life might have a non-miraculous
> > explanation. Much the same is true of any creationist.
>
> But of course the same is true of your own position: you need science
> to be defined as presupposing no evidence of God to exist in order to
> justify your Atheist worldview as corresponding to reality.
>
complexity and diversity require an "invisible designer," it does not
follow logically that this Designer must be the biblical God, or have
any more interest in human physical, moral or spiritual welfare than a
scientist might have in the physical, moral, and spiritual welfare of
bacteria in a Petri dish. Remember that the Deism you so disdain
originally was a creationist position.
>
> Theism has always been supported by reality-all scientific evidence.
>
biological complexity and diversity could arise through natural
processes.
>
> Only evolutionists deny, and most contradict their denial by saying
> evolution is compatible with Theism.
>
it, so denial that scientific evidence supports theism need not imply
that theism is false. Second, evolutionists do something rather more
interesting than denying "design;" they point out how the "design" in
living things can be explained as naturally possible modifications of
simpler and more primitive designs in other living things.
>
> Perverted "logic" of evolutionists:
>
> "Evolution is compatible with Theism but evolution in no way, shape or
> form, is evidence supporting Theism."
>
"heliocentrism is compatible with theism, but the fact that the Earth
orbits the sun is not evidence for the existence of God." Or, indeed,
one might compare it to: "Canada being a part of the British
Commonwealth is compatible with there being a Union Jack in the canton
of the Canadian flag, but is not evidence that the Canadian flag
actually has a British flag in its canton." I see no logical problem
with any of those statements.
Evolution is a fact about the world. To the Christian, any fact about
the world must be compatible with the existence of God; this is not
quite the same as saying that any fact about the world must be in some
way evidence of God.
>
> Sam Harris has desired Atheism to not be a worldview. His point was
> that Atheism is the self-evident truth dictated by reality. Before
> 1859 this was the reputation of Theism. The situation is now reversed
> because of the "evidence" of evolution and its acceptance by persons
> who control our society. Before 1859 the exact opposite was true.
>
As I recall, Sam Harris cites, as his premier evidence for the
nonexistence of God, the fact that God does not intervene to prevent
little girls from being brutally raped and murdered. Presumably, you
disagree with him about what this proves. Logically, you should have
no difficulty in disagreeing with him about what common descent and
natural selection prove about God.
>
> > Oh, and Ray, unless Noah had offspring after the flood which are
> > nowhere mentioned in Genesis (including in the genealogical tables
> > where we might expect to find them mentioned), that is six surviving
> > souls who contributed to the modern gene pool. Note that this implies
> > that humans ought to show more genetic variation than do chimpanzees
> > (since chimpanzees would presumably be descended from only two chimps
> > aboard the Ark), but in fact chimpanzees show more genetic variation
> > than we do. There's a problem there you ought to think about.
>
> We cannot trust any interpretations or conclusions of genetic data
> made by persons who are evolutionists because they have a track record
> of *never* making logical or correct interpretations and conclusions.
> Mind you: I said "interpretations" and "conclusions" while saying
> nothing about production of facts or evidence.
>
The facts produced show that chimpanzees, with a much smaller, more
geographically restricted population than human beings, show more
genetic diversity than modern humans do. If all humans are descended
from three human couples aboard the Ark, and all chimpanzees are
descended from one chimpanzee pair aboard the Ark, how is that
possible? Insisting that evolutionists' conclusions can be dismissed
because they disagree with you does not eliminate this contradiction
between your ideas and the facts on the ground (or, in some cases, in
the trees).
>
-- [snip of prefatory matter to definition of "microevolution"]
>
> Microevolution, according the evolutionary theorists, is when a non-
> random automatic material process acting in tandem with a random
> mutational phenomenon modifies an organism. Evolutionists recognize
> the foregoing to have occurred, and to be occurring, in nature,
> repetitively, and at some rate of speed that corresponds to something
> to slow to see with the naked eye in real time.
>
Strictly speaking, there is no need for mutations: we can take
variation in the population as a given, and if the frequency of
variations changes there is microevolution. For that matter, there
is, strictly speaking, no need for a non-random process: genetic drift
is microevolution. So you are wrong on two counts already. But no
matter; let us run with your definition.
>
> > Of course, it is known as a matter of fact that new mutations have
> > appeared in human populations.
>
> But they remain human beings.
>
Well, yes, we are describing microevolution: evolution within a
species (in this case, our own). I'll take this as a concession of my
position.
>
> > Furthermore, it is known that
> > different human populations show distinct variants in mitochondrial
> > DNA. Your Ark population could have included, at most, three
> > different mitochondrial DNA lineages (since mitochondrial DNA is
> > transmitted through the female line, and there were only three female-
> > line ancestresses of modern humans, according to Genesis); the
> > existence of a much larger number of such lineages must mean, on your
> > own principles, that additional mutations have occurred.
>
Ray, the above is important: after human beings scattered to different
geographical areas, there were mutations in some groups that were not
present in other groups, and these mutations spread through those
local groups. The above is a statement that, by your own definition
of microevolution, microevolution has happened among human beings.
You really need to address this point, or else to concede it.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > Really, are you that silly? You are the one who has insisted that if
> > an idea implies racism, then the idea is scientifically as well as
> > morally bad.
>
> You are misrepresenting, whether intentional or unintentionally.
>
Yet you don't state, above, why you think it matters whether evolution
is "racist." If "racist" ideas aren't necessarily scientifically
wrong ideas, what good does it do your case against evolution to
insist that the theory is racist?
>
> > Well, I can't think of an idea much more potentially
> > racist that polygenesis (separate origins for separate "races" of
> > humanity), yet if you deny microevolution, then you are implying, as a
> > matter of logical necessity, that separate races must have had
> > separate origins.
>
> No, you are making this ridiculous implication - not me.
>
Ray, the fact that you can't see the logical implications of your own
assertions is not my problem, but yours. As I've pointed out,
humanity comprises many local populations that are not genetically
identical to one another. They are, therefore, either the products of
microevolution or separate creations; take your choice.
>
>
-- [snip]
>
> > You keep harping on these "two years of intense research," but it's
> > hardly clear what you actually read (and, again, it's hardly clear
> > what you think "microevolution" means; could you please offer a
> > definition of the term as you use it?). There are a host of articles
> > and books detailing evidence for microevolution; it seems very odd
> > that you could do "intensive research" that was actually relevant to
> > the problem and not come up with any evidence for it. Of course, for
> > that matter, I see nothing in the Paleyan-design school that would
> > prohibit microevolution, or even macroevolution in the sense of
> > speciation.
>
> Any evolution that has existed since 1859 has not existed except in
> the context of material causation. Creationism rejects material
> causation. Creationism accepts Divine causation. And William Paley
> was the epitome of the arch-antievolutionist and arch-anti-Atheism
> crusader one will ever encounter in the history of modern science.
> Your notion that Paley, arguably the greatest Creationist to ever
> live, accepted evolution, is historically unsupportable.
>
Creationism rejects material causation!? Ray, at one time you seemed
to imply that babies were made through material causation; have you
abandoned this position? You have likewise seemed to accept that a
host of other phenomena in nature are materially caused, of course.
Is it your current position that every blade of grass, every puppy
sired by a stray mutt, every living thing on the planet is a separate
creation miracle? If not, then there seems to me that even on the
strictest creationist grounds (on which every species must represent a
separate creation miracle) there can be no reason to not accept
material causation for differences within species as well as for
differences among individuals.
Paley, by the way, was not an antievolutionist. He knew of no theory
of evolution to oppose and if he did not accept microevolution it was
purely out of ignorance of any such concept rather than any feeling
that it was incompatible with "divine design."
>
> > Oh, and as a practical matter, no conceivable evidence could show that
> > "causation was divine."
>
> The observation of design and organized complexity is seen in all of
> nature and in each organism. Both phenomena owe their existence to
> Divine causation.
>
Again, this is no more an argument against microevolution (indeed, it
is no more an argument against macroevolution) than it is against
embryogenesis through natural processes.
>
> > It is perfectly conceivable that the evidence
> > could show that species had separate origins and that common descent
> > was false.
>
> Not could, it does show that.
>
At this point, it would be appropriate to actually adduce some of this
evidence, rather than merely assert that it exists. Or are we back to
your persistent inability to distinguish between your own subjective
feelings and the facts of nature?
>
> > It is perfectly conceivable that evidence could show that
> > no known natural cause could account for the diversity and complexity
> > of life. But that would not settle the question of whether the
> > unknown cause was natural or "divine."
>
> Point doesn't really make sense. Natural could be ruled out by
> evidence but causation by natural is not harmed.
>
The point is that there is no theory that says that biological
diversity and complexity resulted from by "natural causes." Rather,
there are theories that biological diversity and complexity resulted
from particular natural causes: mutation, natural selection, genetic
drift, etc. These are not all the natural causes that are known in
the universe, and all the natural causes that are KNOWN are probably
not all the natural causes that exist. Ruling out SOME natural causes
does not rule out ALL natural causes.
>
> But let me say this:
>
> Your silent assertion is built on inconsistent logic: observation of
> design does not imply Designer but observation of gradations implies
> evolution. This is why logical evolutionists deny design to exist in
> nature.
>
The trouble, going back to Paley himself, is that "observation of
design" is itself inconsistent. Things that resemble "design" (e.g.
complex arrangement of parts to serve some function) are cited as
evidence for design, but things that do not resemble design (e.g.
designs at cross-purposes, such as the keen eyes of predators and prey
alike, or a nested hierarchy pattern that is not seen in suites of
human designs, or the use of dissimilar designs for similar functions
while also using similar designs for dissimilar functions) are not
counted as evidence AGAINST design. Apparent design of very dubious
quality (e.g. the vermiform appendix, the prostate gland, the blind
spot of the vertebrate eye) is never counted as evidence against an
omnipotent, omniscient special Creator.
On the other hand, the evidence for evolution is not plagued with such
gross inconsistencies. The gradations are consistent with evolution,
and make no sense in the context of special creation. A vast array of
biological evidence has these characteristics, as noted above.
>
-- [snip of points on which, astoundingly, Ray and I seem to largely
agree]
>
> > But what of yourself, Ray? Most OECs hold that Noah's Flood was a
> > purely local affair,
>
> So....
>
> And some of the best evidence for this position comes from literature
> produced by admitted British Israelites (= kooks).
>
Ray, you keep using that word "evidence." I think it does not mean
what you think it means. British Israelites did not produce the
evidence that there was no global flood; that was done by much earlier
creationist geologists, as well as by later noncreationist
geologists. The various modern OECs simply did the best they could to
keep Noah's Flood without contradicting, too obviously, the known
facts of geology.
>
> > and that most modern species [humans I presume?] are descended from
> > ancestors that never boarded the Ark and were unaffected by the
> > flood. Is this your position?
>
> No.
>
Regarding that "humans I presume," no, I think all OECs except the
Christian Identity nuts (the modern heirs of Charles Carroll) hold
that all modern humans are descendants of Noah and his sons, and not
of any humans unaffected by the Flood.
>
> I hold to the Biblical position: the Flood was worldwide. I am not in
> a position to say anything else at this time.
>
Such as how millions of animal species fit into the Ark for over a
year?
>
> > What is your position on the
> > Neanderthals? Were they human? Were they descendants of Adam?
>
> I have speculated that they are Atlanteans and that the Garden of Eden
> was on Atlantis. This speculation is also based on the fact that radio
> dating is completely unreliable.
>
I'll take that as "Neanderthals were descendants of Adam," although
it's not entirely clear. I think even God might be hard-pressed to
put the Garden of Eden on a piece of land that never existed: there is
nothing in the mid-Atlantic that corresponds to a submerged island
continent.
>
> Their cranial size is congruent with intelligence that exceeds ours.
>
On the other hand, their rather limited and static inventory of tools
is congruent with less creativity and imagination, and perhaps lower
intelligence, than ours. Brain size is imperfectly correlated with
intelligence.
>
> Monuments exist through-out the world exhibiting wonders that cannot
> be explained except through the lens of Genesis and the Torah.
>
There is no tiniest evidence that any of those monuments was built by
Neanderthals, or required ultra-advanced technology, or skills beyond
those obtained gradually through experience by ancient peoples whose
intelligence was equal to our own.
>
> > > The point is that modern YECs and OECs who use and accept the concept
> > > of evolution to have any role in the production of nature and species
> > > are confused and/or ignorant. Creationism opposes evolution; we do not
> > > accept it. It took me two years of full time study to emerge from this
> > > confusion.
>
> > Many creationists have a superstitious fear of the word "evolution."
> > But the word (as applied to biology) simply means the change in the
> > frequency of inheritable traits over time....
>
> ....by material causation.
>
Again, most creationists (even you, in some posts in the past) have
accepted material causation for a host of phenomena in nature. Ray,
if you're so all-fired hostile to "material causation," why don't you
just become an occasionalist? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Occasionalism> Occasionalists deny that there are material causes for
*anything*; everything that happens happens because God directly
causes it to happen. If you became an occasionalist, you could even
accept common descent with modification, since every mutation and
selection incident would be separately and divinely caused (of course,
I suppose from your standpoint, that's not exactly a recommendation
for the position).
>
> > If your research did not
> > convince you that this actually happens (and, for that matter, that
> > mutation and natural selection really happen) then your research was
> > so hopelessly defective that no paper based on it could possibly have
> > any important connections to reality.
>
> We shall see.
>
> I am working as fast as I can full time.
>
I'm picturing a man trying to dig the Panama Canal alone, using a
plastic spoon. Except, in your case, you're not in Panama, and have
no idea what a canal should look like.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Tiny Bulcher
Dana Tweedy
>> Well, I'd bet the rent money that Prof. Carroll's need was theological
>> and ideological rather than scientific.
>
> Objectively reversed I would bet that Prof. Atheist's need is anti-
> theological and ideological rather than scientific.
Well, you'd lose that bet. "Prof. Atheist" is just as likely to be a
theist.
>
>> But of course, the same is
>> true of your own postulation of an "invisible designer:" you need for
>> there to be scientific evidence of God, so you reject the possibility
>> that the diversity and complexity of life might have a non-miraculous
>> explanation. Much the same is true of any creationist.
>>
>
> But of course the same is true of your own position: you need science
> to be defined as presupposing no evidence of God to exist in order to
> justify your Atheist worldview as corresponding to reality.
There's no "need" for science to be defined that way. Science does not
"presuppose" no evidence for God. There just isn't any way science can
detect the influence of a supernatural being.
>
> Theism has always been supported by reality-all scientific evidence.
Actually, Ray, theism is a belief. It's not supported by any scientific
evidence. You've been asked to provide any evidence that supports theism,
and all you have managed is to present your own opinions regarding "design".
> Only evolutionists deny, and most contradict their denial by saying
> evolution is compatible with Theism.
Of course evolution is compatable with theism. Why would you feel this is
a contradiction? There is no scientific evidence for God, but that does
not mean that one cannot believe in God in the absence of evidence. Do
you really believe that God can only exist if you, personally see evidence
for his existence? If so, that puts you in the same boat as atheists like
Richard Dawkins.
>
> Perverted "logic" of evolutionists:
>
> "Evolution is compatible with Theism but evolution in no way, shape or
> form, is evidence supporting Theism."
As has been pointed out many times, you really don't understand how logic
works. Evolution is a scientific theory. It's compatable with a belief
in God, because if God exists, he's responsible for how the universe works.
Evolution is a description of how a part of the universe works. It's not,
however evidence that God exists, because evolution would work, even if God
did not exist.
>
> Sam Harris has desired Atheism to not be a worldview. His point was
> that Atheism is the self-evident truth dictated by reality.
Why should I care what Sam Harris thinks?
> Before
> 1859 this was the reputation of Theism. The situation is now reversed
> because of the "evidence" of evolution and its acceptance by persons
> who control our society. Before 1859 the exact opposite was true.
Ray, do you really imagine there are people who "control" society?
Evolution was accepted because it's a workable explanation for a biological
phenomena. It's remains accepted because it continues to explain the
evidence. It's not because it's "anti-theism".
>
>> Oh, and Ray, unless Noah had offspring after the flood which are
>> nowhere mentioned in Genesis (including in the genealogical tables
>> where we might expect to find them mentioned), that is six surviving
>> souls who contributed to the modern gene pool. Note that this implies
>> that humans ought to show more genetic variation than do chimpanzees
>> (since chimpanzees would presumably be descended from only two chimps
>> aboard the Ark), but in fact chimpanzees show more genetic variation
>> than we do. There's a problem there you ought to think about.
>>
>
> We cannot trust any interpretations or conclusions of genetic data
> made by persons who are evolutionists because they have a track record
> of *never* making logical or correct interpretations and conclusions.
Perhaps you could show some examples of how these "evolutionists" have not
made logical or correct interpretations of the evidence? You assert a
"track record" but have never shown where any of these scientists were
wrong. You claim the genetic evidence has been interpreted incorrectly.
Please explain how it should be interpreted, and why?
> Mind you: I said "interpretations" and "conclusions" while saying
> nothing about production of facts or evidence.
Ray, you are not familiar with either facts or evidence. Why should
anyone accept what you claim?
>
>> In any case, "microevolution" is defined, by actual biologists, as
>> change in the frequency of genes within a population, which does not
>> result in the population becoming a new species.
>
> I agree that this is a general position of most (if not all)
> evolutionary biologists.
That, is all working biologists. There are few, if any competent
biologists who reject evolutionary theory.
>
>> By that definition,
>> a racially homogenous group (e.g. the passengers aboard the Ark)
>> giving rise to several racially distinct groups is "microevolution,"
>> even without new alleles arising though mutations.
>
> *You* could view it that way. I understand your point.
What other way could you "view" it? How did the relatively minor racial
differences between human populations occur, if not by common descent with
modification?
>
>> On the other hand,
>> I'm still not sure how *you* define "microevolution," since you've
>> never actually done so. So I'm not sure that when you deny what you
>> call "microevolution," you're denying what scientifically literate
>> people call "microevolution."
>>
>
> Now we finally come to the heart of the matter. How do I define
> microevolution? How do I define that which I came to reject and that
> which I claim to be able to disprove with scientific evidence?
A claim which is obviously empty boasting.
>
> First, it would make no sense for me to have an unorthodox definition
> of that which I claim to be able to disprove.
Ray, it makes no sense for you to claim to "disprove" microevolution at all.
>
> In my forth coming paper I do not tinker with the definition of
> evolution or microevolution: I rely on the two or three biggest names
> in evolution (all of them are scientists) to define both terms
> straight out of their published writings. These congruent definitions
> is what I refute.
I'll be willing to bet you get it wrong.......
>
> Microevolution, according the evolutionary theorists, is when a non-
> random automatic material process acting in tandem with a random
> mutational phenomenon modifies an organism.
Ca CHING! I win the bet..... As Steven has pointed out, microevolution
does not require either random mutations, or non random selection. Also,
what is modified by microevolution is not "an organism" but (and this is
important) A POPULATION of organisms over time.
> Evolutionists recognize
> the foregoing to have occurred, and to be occurring, in nature,
> repetitively, and at some rate of speed that corresponds to something
> to slow to see with the naked eye in real time.
Again, this is false. The speed at which evolution occurrs is not set, and
can happen fast enough to be observed in rapidly reproducing populations.
So, what you are wrong about is:
1. "micro" evolution can happen without mutations, but with existing
variation.
2. It can happen without selection, as in genetic drift.
3. It involves populations, not individual organisms
4. It can happen fast enough to observe in real time.
>
>
>> Of course, it is known as a matter of fact that new mutations have
>> appeared in human populations.
>
> But they remain human beings.
Which is exactly the point. Microevolution is defined as evolution below
the level of species. Evolution is happening right now in human
populations, and they remain humans. Likewise they remain apes, they remain
primates, they remain mammals, they remain vertebrates , etc, etc....
If you agree that genetic changes happen in a population, you are admitting
that microevolution happens. Evolution does not mean that one organism
suddenly changes into something entirely different.
>
>> Furthermore, it is known that
>> different human populations show distinct variants in mitochondrial
>> DNA. Your Ark population could have included, at most, three
>> different mitochondrial DNA lineages (since mitochondrial DNA is
>> transmitted through the female line, and there were only three female-
>> line ancestresses of modern humans, according to Genesis); the
>> existence of a much larger number of such lineages must mean, on your
>> own principles, that additional mutations have occurred.
As Steven pointed out, the above is important. You need to address this,
or admit you were wrong.
snip
>> Really, are you that silly? You are the one who has insisted that if
>> an idea implies racism, then the idea is scientifically as well as
>> morally bad.
>
> You are misrepresenting, whether intentional or unintentionally.
Please explain how this is a misrepresentation. You have gotten in the
habit of claiming anytime someone catches you in a contradiction, that they
are misinterpreting you. Everyone recognizes this as a dodge.
>
>> Well, I can't think of an idea much more potentially
>> racist that polygenesis (separate origins for separate "races" of
>> humanity), yet if you deny microevolution, then you are implying, as a
>> matter of logical necessity, that separate races must have had
>> separate origins.
>>
>
> No, you are making this ridiculous implication - not me.
Again, you are just trying to avoid the implication of your own claims.
Why are there real (if superficial) genetic differences between human
populations? The "Noah's Family" excuse just doesn't cut it. In order
to avoid the polygenesis implication, you have to admit that genetic changes
have occurred in human populations over time. And what do you think
"genetic changes in a population over time" is called? Microevolution.
>
>> Please note, natural selection does not rest on the "foundation" of
>> the political or social views of past evolutionists. A scientific
>> theory does not depend on the personal authority or sanctity of the
>> scientists who developed it. On the other hand, I certainly was not
>> suggesting that your opposition to evolution was "founded" on racism.
>
> Good.
>
>> I was merely pointing out that it is perfectly compatible with racism,
>> and indeed, if taken to the extreme you claim to have taken it, even
>> logically implies racism.
>
> By this standard anything can be compatible with racism, including, of
> course, human evolution, which evolutionists have now said began in
> Africa.
Of course. That's the point. You blame evolution for racism, when it's
the racist who have used evolutionary theory for their claims. In the same
way, racists have used creationist beliefs to support their racism.
Racism is a belief, an ugly one, that can adapt itself to any position.
Scientists say that human evolution began in Africa because that's where the
earliest hominid ancestors were found. If they had been found in Europe,
Asia, North, or South America, Austrailia, or even Antartica, that's where
scientists would believe that human evolution began.
I have to point out yet again, that identifiying the ancestors of humans
as being African, does not mean that populations of modern humans who live
in Africa today are closer to those ancestors than any other human
population. All modern human populations are equally "evolved".
>
>
>> Therefore, again, on your own principles,
>> you ought to accept some limited degree of evolution (but again,
>> perhaps you do: as I keep complaining, you never explain what you
>> think "microevolution" means).
>>
>
> I have now given a general definition above.
As usual, you got it wrong.
>
>> > The brutal fact of the microevolution matter is that I had accepted
>> > the concept as fact based on the assumption that the mob (both
>> > Darwinian and modern day Creationism) was correct. After two plus
>> > years of intense research I announced that my view has changed: there
>> > is no evidence for microevolution at all - none whatsoever. I align
>> > myself with historic Paleyan-Design, British Natural Theology (also
>> > called Creationism): we accept an old Earth, causation is Divine; each
>> > species owe their existence to separate creation-supernatural agency;
>> > mankind began as depicted in Genesis.
>>
>> You keep harping on these "two years of intense research," but it's
>> hardly clear what you actually read (and, again, it's hardly clear
>> what you think "microevolution" means; could you please offer a
>> definition of the term as you use it?). There are a host of articles
>> and books detailing evidence for microevolution; it seems very odd
>> that you could do "intensive research" that was actually relevant to
>> the problem and not come up with any evidence for it. Of course, for
>> that matter, I see nothing in the Paleyan-design school that would
>> prohibit microevolution, or even macroevolution in the sense of
>> speciation.
>>
>
> Any evolution that has existed since 1859 has not existed except in
> the context of material causation.
That's true of any evolution before 1859 as well. All science accepts
material causation, and did so before Darwin. You keep mistaking the
religious beliefs of scientists before 1859, with how science works. A
scientist can hold religious opinions, and still hold that science only can
deal with material causation.
> Creationism rejects material
> causation. Creationism accepts Divine causation.
That's why creationism is not science, and never was science. Science can
only observe natural causation. I can not accept "divine causation" as a
mechanism, as it can never be observed, or tested.
> And William Paley
> was the epitome of the arch-antievolutionist and arch-anti-Atheism
> crusader one will ever encounter in the history of modern science.
> Your notion that Paley, arguably the greatest Creationist to ever
> live, accepted evolution, is historically unsupportable.
I get the impression that you think of Paley as your own alter ego.
Whatever you believe, you ascribe to Paley. Whatever prejudices and
misunderstandings about evolution that you have, you assume Paley had.
It's clear you don't really grasp Paley's real beliefs, or his real
position. Paley, if he were alive today, would most likely have rejected
modern Creationist ideas. As Steven mentioned, he lived before evolution
was presented as a scientific theory. It's quite probable that Paley would
have accepted Darwin's conclusions if he had lived to see them. Paley was
trying to provide proof of God's existence, not trying to deny the physical
evidence of nature itself.
>
>
>> Oh, and as a practical matter, no conceivable evidence could show that
>> "causation was divine."
>
> The observation of design and organized complexity is seen in all of
> nature and in each organism. Both phenomena owe their existence to
> Divine causation.
Again, Ray, that's you assumption. You see what you perceive as "design"
and assume divine causation, without any real reason. You ignore the fact
that natural processes can, and do produce the appearance of design.
"Organized complexity" are just buzzwords for the argument from incredulity.
I doubt you could define "organized complexity" in a way that would allow
you to consistently apply it to real situations.
>
>> It is perfectly conceivable that the evidence
>> could show that species had separate origins and that common descent
>> was false.
>
> Not could, it does show that.
What evidence can you offer that shows that? Where has separate origin
of a species ever been observed? Can you cite any example of a species
that simply popped into existence without any predecessors? Can you
show any examples of an organisms that's body chemistry is completely
different from any other living thing? Can you show any organism that does
not use the same genetic material as every other living thing?
>
>> It is perfectly conceivable that evidence could show that
>> no known natural cause could account for the diversity and complexity
>> of life. But that would not settle the question of whether the
>> unknown cause was natural or "divine."
>>
>
> Point doesn't really make sense. Natural could be ruled out by
> evidence but causation by natural is not harmed.
You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding here. What Steven is saying
is that if science were to find something that has no known natural cause,
science isn't able to say it has to be "divine". There are natural causes
that are not yet known. You can't rule out all natural causes untill you
know what all natural causes are.
>
> But let me say this:
>
> Your silent assertion is built on inconsistent logic: observation of
> design does not imply Designer but observation of gradations implies
> evolution. This is why logical evolutionists deny design to exist in
> nature.
The fact is that what you call "observation" of design is in reality
the appearance of design. The appearance of design does not necessarily
imply a physical designer, because there are processes that produce the
appearance of design. The observation of "gradations" in the fossil
record is consistent with evolution, and is explained by evolution. If
you propose a designer to explain the appearance of design, you'd first have
to show that a designer exists that is capable of the "design". You'd also
have to show that *only* a designer could produce the appearance of design.
With "gradations" evolution is an explanation for them, but also explains
the other evidence as well. It explains not only the fossil record, but
the genetic similiarities, anatomical similarities, and the
biogeographical data. It explains the existence of faunal succession, why
chimps and humans both have the same disabled genes for Vitamin C
production, viral "scars" in the genome, and why humans and Chimps have the
same blood types.
With your "designer" you still have to explain sub optimal design, why the
"gradiations" exist at all, and why common descent is going on today, but
supposedly not in the past.
snipping
>> But what of yourself, Ray? Most OECs hold that Noah's Flood was a
>> purely local affair,
>
> So....
>
> And some of the best evidence for this position comes from literature
> produced by admitted British Israelites (= kooks).
Note that Ray himself agrees with those "kooks" about things like the name
of London, lost tribes of Israel.....
>
>
>> and that most modern species [humans I presume?] are descended from
>> ancestors that never boarded the Ark and were unaffected by the
>> flood. Is this your position?
>
> No.
>
> I hold to the Biblical position: the Flood was worldwide. I am not in
> a position to say anything else at this time.
Why is there no evidence of a worldwide flood?
>
>> What is your position on the
>> Neanderthals? Were they human? Were they descendants of Adam?
>>
>
> I have speculated that they are Atlanteans and that the Garden of Eden
> was on Atlantis.
The Bible's description of the location of Eden does not fit with Eden being
on the mythical Atlantis. The Bible's description has it somewhere in
Mesopotamia (near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers). Plato describes
Atlantis as being to the west.
> This speculation is also based on the fact that radio
> dating is completely unreliable.
Of course, radiometric dating is not totally unreliable, so your
"speculation" is based on a falsehood. Even if radiometric dating were
wrong, that still doesn't explain how Eden could have been on Atlantis, or
provide evidence that Atlantis itself (or Eden for that matter) even
existed.
>
> Their cranial size is congruent with intelligence that exceeds ours.
Well, no. It's "congruent" with adaptation for cold. There's no evidence
that Neanderthal's intelligence excceded modern human intelligence. Brain
size and intelligence are only weakly correlated. See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=neurosci.box.1833
> Monuments exist through-out the world exhibiting wonders that cannot
> be explained except through the lens of Genesis and the Torah.
Actually, those 'monuments' (by which you mean the pyramids, I presume) can
be, and have been explained by normal human activity. There's no evidence
that Neanderthals made any of the ancient structures still existing.
>
>> > The point is that modern YECs and OECs who use and accept the concept
>> > of evolution to have any role in the production of nature and species
>> > are confused and/or ignorant. Creationism opposes evolution; we do not
>> > accept it. It took me two years of full time study to emerge from this
>> > confusion.
>>
>> Many creationists have a superstitious fear of the word "evolution."
>> But the word (as applied to biology) simply means the change in the
>> frequency of inheritable traits over time....
>
> ....by material causation. But even if the causation were 'divine', it's
> still evolution.
>
>> If your research did not
>> convince you that this actually happens (and, for that matter, that
>> mutation and natural selection really happen) then your research was
>> so hopelessly defective that no paper based on it could possibly have
>> any important connections to reality.
>>
>
> We shall see.
Will "we"? Humans have finite life spans.
>
> I am working as fast as I can full time.
If you expect anyone to believe that, you need to show you actually
understand what you are claiming to be working on.
DJT
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> Would you object to the teaching of Islamic principles in
> public school, funded by the federal government?
A quibble here. (Must be my day for them.)
I *want* Islamic principles taught in American public schools.
God knows we have suffered too much already from not
understanding Islam.
What ITYM, and what I would agree with, is objecting to teaching
Islamic principles in science courses; or in other classes as
somehow privileged over other religion's principles.
<snip>
Ray Martinez
> On Mar 21, 1:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 20, 9:50 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > But of course, the same is
> > > true of your own postulation of an "invisible designer:" you need for
> > > there to be scientific evidence of God, so you reject the possibility
> > > that the diversity and complexity of life might have a non-miraculous
> > > explanation. Much the same is true of any creationist.
>
> > But of course the same is true of your own position: you need science
> > to be defined as presupposing no evidence of God to exist in order to
> > justify your Atheist worldview as corresponding to reality.
>
> No, not really; why should I?
This reply tells me that you have lost track of the point in the
previous pair of exchanges, part of which you snipped.
What I wrote was simply an objective reversal of your point concerning
Professor Carroll. You shouldn't make overtly biassed points and not
expect them to be reversed, exposing the bias. You cannot accept the
reversal because that would be admitting the truth about evolution:
anti-Theism intent.
> Even if I acknowledged that biological
> complexity and diversity require an "invisible designer," it does not
> follow logically that this Designer must be the biblical God, or have
> any more interest in human physical, moral or spiritual welfare than a
> scientist might have in the physical, moral, and spiritual welfare of
> bacteria in a Petri dish. Remember that the Deism you so disdain
> originally was a creationist position.
>
It is logical that the invisible Designer is the Biblical Theos, BUT,
however, it is not mandatory or a necessity. What is mandatory, if the
acknowledgement is made, is that ***direct*** Divine power is
recognized. Please notice that I didn't even say Intelligence per se,
but Divine power. The source of this Divine power could be any
monotheistic-deistic universal Creator of any religion that holds such
beliefs.
And I have no idea as to what you are talking about when you say:
"Remember that the Deism you so disdain originally was a creationist
position."
I do not disdain Deism, never have.
> > Theism has always been supported by reality-all scientific evidence.
>
> The only "evidence" you cite is your own personal incredulity that
> biological complexity and diversity could arise through natural
> processes.
>
We know evolutionists deny Theism to not have always been supported by
scientific evidence, what is your point?
> > Only evolutionists deny, and most contradict their denial by saying
> > evolution is compatible with Theism.
>
> First, something can be true even if there is no evidence to support
> it, so denial that scientific evidence supports theism need not imply
> that theism is false. Second, evolutionists do something rather more
> interesting than denying "design;" they point out how the "design" in
> living things can be explained as naturally possible modifications of
> simpler and more primitive designs in other living things.
>
We were talking about Theism here, not design. So I'll move on....
> > Perverted "logic" of evolutionists:
>
> > "Evolution is compatible with Theism but evolution in no way, shape or
> > form, is evidence supporting Theism."
>
> Ray, to me that statement appears to be exactly on a par with
> "heliocentrism is compatible with theism, but the fact that the Earth
> orbits the sun is not evidence for the existence of God." Or, indeed,
> one might compare it to: "Canada being a part of the British
> Commonwealth is compatible with there being a Union Jack in the canton
> of the Canadian flag, but is not evidence that the Canadian flag
> actually has a British flag in its canton." I see no logical problem
> with any of those statements.
>
If you see no logical problem with MY statement in quote marks above -
a quote relating the severe illogic and ill-thinking of evolutionists
who frequent this Usenet, then you are certainly deluded and it
explains your robotic support of nonsensical evolutionary theory in
general.
Said quote is contradictory, grossly illogical and its defense can
only be explained by delusion or devotion to a corruptive agenda that
is targeting Theism, attempting to deny that said worldview claims to
be supported by evidence. Since it is a claim the same is invulnerable
to denial. Subsequent denial is silly and shows the degree to which
the evolutionist will brazenly lie.
> Evolution is a fact about the world. To the Christian, any fact about
> the world must be compatible with the existence of God; this is not
> quite the same as saying that any fact about the world must be in some
> way evidence of God.
>
Since you wrote this "jewel" you really believe it is logical and
makes sense, for why else did you write it?
Comment, on its face, evidently makes no sense and is grossly
illogical. It is proof that your thinking process is highly defective.
Your comment presupposes silently the absolute "truth" of Atheism
supported by "scientific" evidence/evolution. Objectively reversed,
using the same "logic," you would undoubtedly reject. This is WHY your
"logic" is subjective and perverted: a one-way well traveled street
called bias.
When we remember that you think apes morphing into men, common
ancestry, design not implying Designer, to make sense, we can know for
certain that the illogic seen above is not an aberration; but like I
said: it is proof that your entire thinking process is defective. This
is what happens when God is excluded from scientific explanation, and
Materialism is accepted: the mind becomes deluded producing horribly
illogical constructs, while being completely unaware.
> > Sam Harris has desired Atheism to not be a worldview. His point was
> > that Atheism is the self-evident truth dictated by reality. Before
> > 1859 this was the reputation of Theism. The situation is now reversed
> > because of the "evidence" of evolution and its acceptance by persons
> > who control our society. Before 1859 the exact opposite was true.
>
> As I recall, Sam Harris cites, as his premier evidence for the
> nonexistence of God, the fact that God does not intervene to prevent
> little girls from being brutally raped and murdered. Presumably, you
> disagree with him about what this proves. Logically, you should have
> no difficulty in disagreeing with him about what common descent and
> natural selection prove about God.
>
These comments are a non-sequitur. Previous points stand.
But God does intervene to prevent tragedies, but not all of the time.
"Rain falls on the just and unjust alike." I was shot in the face with
a .38 at point blank range when I was 19 years old. I escaped with a
broken jaw and no disfigurement. The person was caught and convicted.
Harris is engaged in the most recognizable form of lawyer rhetoric.
Educated persons are not swayed or fooled one bit.
>
>
>
>
> > > Oh, and Ray, unless Noah had offspring after the flood which are
> > > nowhere mentioned in Genesis (including in the genealogical tables
> > > where we might expect to find them mentioned), that is six surviving
> > > souls who contributed to the modern gene pool. Note that this implies
> > > that humans ought to show more genetic variation than do chimpanzees
> > > (since chimpanzees would presumably be descended from only two chimps
> > > aboard the Ark), but in fact chimpanzees show more genetic variation
> > > than we do. There's a problem there you ought to think about.
>
> > We cannot trust any interpretations or conclusions of genetic data
> > made by persons who are evolutionists because they have a track record
> > of *never* making logical or correct interpretations and conclusions.
> > Mind you: I said "interpretations" and "conclusions" while saying
> > nothing about production of facts or evidence.
>
> The facts produced show that chimpanzees, with a much smaller, more
> geographically restricted population than human beings, show more
> genetic diversity than modern humans do. If all humans are descended
> from three human couples aboard the Ark, and all chimpanzees are
> descended from one chimpanzee pair aboard the Ark, how is that
> possible? Insisting that evolutionists' conclusions can be dismissed
> because they disagree with you does not eliminate this contradiction
> between your ideas and the facts on the ground (or, in some cases, in
> the trees).
>
Once again: We cannot trust any interpretations or conclusions of
genetic data made by persons who are evolutionists because they have a
track record of *never* making logical or correct interpretations and
conclusions. Mind you: I said "interpretations" and "conclusions"
while saying nothing about production of facts or evidence.
> -- [snip of prefatory matter to definition of "microevolution"]
>
> > Microevolution, according the evolutionary theorists, is when a non-
> > random automatic material process acting in tandem with a random
> > mutational phenomenon modifies an organism. Evolutionists recognize
> > the foregoing to have occurred, and to be occurring, in nature,
> > repetitively, and at some rate of speed that corresponds to something
> > to slow to see with the naked eye in real time.
>
> Strictly speaking, there is no need for mutations: we can take
> variation in the population as a given, and if the frequency of
> variations changes there is microevolution. For that matter, there
> is, strictly speaking, no need for a non-random process: genetic drift
> is microevolution. So you are wrong on two counts already. But no
> matter; let us run with your definition.
>
I was addressing (alleged) microevolution in visible reality. Denying
random mutation is silly and ad hoc. Frequency of variation changes is
not microevolution. The non-random process I was talking about was
natural selection; (again) to deny NS (like RM) is ad hoc and
incredibly silly for an evolutionist. Slight modification by NS (=
mechanism) is microevolution. Microevolution concerns mechanism and is
inseperable since the term implies slight change, called
modification. And nobody concerned with visible reality cares about
genetic drift or rather, whatever you mean by it in these context.
You need to remember that I had accepted microevolution to produce
varieties and speciation with in kind. But after two plus years of
research I announced to the Group that my view has changed: there is
no evidence of microevolution; and, more importantly, I can support my
position with scientific evidence. Any Creationist who accepts ANY
kind of evolution is ignorant and confused. It took me two solid years
of research to emerge from this ignorance and confusion.
Ray
SNIP... (for now)
wf3h
> >
> It is logical that the invisible Designer is the Biblical Theos, BUT,
> however, it is not mandatory or a necessity. What is mandatory, if the
> acknowledgement is made, is that ***direct*** Divine power is
> recognized. Please notice that I didn't even say Intelligence per se,
> but Divine power. The source of this Divine power could be any
> monotheistic-deistic universal Creator of any religion that holds such
> beliefs.
>
wow. something never seen...with no observable powers at all....
>
> If you see no logical problem with MY statement in quote marks above -
> a quote relating the severe illogic and ill-thinking of evolutionists
> who frequent this Usenet, then you are certainly deluded and it
> explains your robotic support of nonsensical evolutionary theory in
> general.
hmmm....let's see...
his logic includes a magical, mystical, unobserved power that can not
be detected and has no details on its workings
and that, says ray, is logical.
>
> When we remember that you think apes morphing into men, common
> ancestry, design not implying Designer, to make sense, we can know for
> certain that the illogic seen above is not an aberration; but like I
> said: it is proof that your entire thinking process is defective. This
> is what happens when God is excluded from scientific explanation
how in the world can god be ACCEPTED in science when, by your own
admission, his power is NOT scientific?
Lee Jay
> But God does intervene to prevent tragedies, but not all of the time.
> "Rain falls on the just and unjust alike." I was shot in the face with
> a .38 at point blank range when I was 19 years old. I escaped with a
> broken jaw and no disfigurement. The person was caught and convicted.
> Harris is engaged in the most recognizable form of lawyer rhetoric.
> Educated persons are not swayed or fooled one bit.
A friend of mine was shot point-blank in the back of the head
execution style by an escaped convicted murderer. He survived with
only relatively-minor long-term injuries. He was about as militant an
atheist as you're going to find, both before and after. The same guy
at the same time shot and killed 4 (IIRC) others, using the same gun
in the same location. Some of them were theists. Please explain the
supposed actions of your god.
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 21, 10:22 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 1:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar
>> 20, 9:50 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>> -- [snip]
>>
>> > > But of course, the same is
>> > > true of your own postulation of an "invisible designer:" you need for
>> > > there to be scientific evidence of God, so you reject the possibility
>> > > that the diversity and complexity of life might have a non-miraculous
>> > > explanation. Much the same is true of any creationist.
>>
>> > But of course the same is true of your own position: you need science
>> > to be defined as presupposing no evidence of God to exist in order to
>> > justify your Atheist worldview as corresponding to reality.
>>
>> No, not really; why should I?
>
> This reply tells me that you have lost track of the point in the
> previous pair of exchanges, part of which you snipped.
Actually, Ray that reply asks you why should Steven need to justfy his
beliefs.
>
> What I wrote was simply an objective reversal of your point concerning
> Professor Carroll.
Well, except for the "objective part", and the "reversal" part... Science
doesn't have to defend atheism, and atheism doesn't need to be defended by
science.
> You shouldn't make overtly biassed points and not
> expect them to be reversed, exposing the bias.
Good grief, Ray, how do you say these things without recognizing the irony?
Your own "points" are biased even worse.
> You cannot accept the
> reversal because that would be admitting the truth about evolution:
> anti-Theism intent.
There is no anti-theism bias to evolution, or any other science. Just
because science won't support your own loonytunes religious beliefs, that
does not mean science opposes theism.
>
>> Even if I acknowledged that biological
>> complexity and diversity require an "invisible designer," it does not
>> follow logically that this Designer must be the biblical God, or have
>> any more interest in human physical, moral or spiritual welfare than a
>> scientist might have in the physical, moral, and spiritual welfare of
>> bacteria in a Petri dish. Remember that the Deism you so disdain
>> originally was a creationist position.
>>
>
> It is logical that the invisible Designer is the Biblical Theos,
Ray, it's not even logical to assume an "invisible designer". Why would it
be logical to assume it's one particular idea of God?
> BUT,
> however, it is not mandatory or a necessity. What is mandatory, if the
> acknowledgement is made, is that ***direct*** Divine power is
> recognized.
Why? The question again presents itself..... why can't a divine being use
natural processes as his means of creation?
> Please notice that I didn't even say Intelligence per se,
> but Divine power.
Do you mean to imply then, that the divinity isn't necessarily intelligent?
> The source of this Divine power could be any
> monotheistic-deistic universal Creator of any religion that holds such
> beliefs.
Why monotheistic? Why can't it be a pantheon involved in the creation?
snip
>> > Theism has always been supported by reality-all scientific evidence.
>>
>> The only "evidence" you cite is your own personal incredulity that
>> biological complexity and diversity could arise through natural
>> processes.
>>
>
> We know evolutionists deny Theism to not have always been supported by
> scientific evidence, what is your point?
It's not just "evolutionists" who deny this claim. No one familiar with
the nature of evidence, and with theology would make such a claim. You
haven't presented any scientific evidence that would support theism. You
haven't demonstrated that any scientist ever considered there to be
scientific evidence that supports theism.
>
>
>> > Only evolutionists deny, and most contradict their denial by saying
>> > evolution is compatible with Theism.
>>
>> First, something can be true even if there is no evidence to support
>> it, so denial that scientific evidence supports theism need not imply
>> that theism is false. Second, evolutionists do something rather more
>> interesting than denying "design;" they point out how the "design" in
>> living things can be explained as naturally possible modifications of
>> simpler and more primitive designs in other living things.
>>
>
> We were talking about Theism here, not design. So I'll move on....
Avoiding the point again.....
>
>
>> > Perverted "logic" of evolutionists:
>>
>> > "Evolution is compatible with Theism but evolution in no way, shape or
>> > form, is evidence supporting Theism."
>>
>> Ray, to me that statement appears to be exactly on a par with
>> "heliocentrism is compatible with theism, but the fact that the Earth
>> orbits the sun is not evidence for the existence of God." Or, indeed,
>> one might compare it to: "Canada being a part of the British
>> Commonwealth is compatible with there being a Union Jack in the canton
>> of the Canadian flag, but is not evidence that the Canadian flag
>> actually has a British flag in its canton." I see no logical problem
>> with any of those statements.
>>
>
> If you see no logical problem with MY statement in quote marks above -
> a quote relating the severe illogic and ill-thinking of evolutionists
> who frequent this Usenet, then you are certainly deluded and it
> explains your robotic support of nonsensical evolutionary theory in
> general.
Ray, once again, you demonstrate quite clearly you have absolutely no grasp
of even the most basic logic. The statement above is not illogical. Your
insistance that "appearance of design implies a designer" is illogical.
Evolutionary theory does not become "nonsensical" just because you can't see
the sense in it.
>
> Said quote is contradictory, grossly illogical and its defense can
> only be explained by delusion or devotion to a corruptive agenda that
> is targeting Theism,
Just because you declare it to be illogical does not make it so. The quote
itself makes sense, because evolution is not used as evidence for God.
Being compatable with a belief in God does not mean it must provide evidence
of God's existence. God's existence is not something that science can, or
can't prove.
> attempting to deny that said worldview claims to
> be supported by evidence.
"Said worldview?" Ray, what are you talking about here. Your statement
above did not describe a "worldview". You wrote (bizarrely assuming this
to be illogical):
"Evolution is compatible with Theism but evolution in no way, shape or form,
is evidence supporting Theism."
There is no "worldview" stated here. It's not a claim that any "worldview"
is supported by any evidence.
> Since it is a claim the same is invulnerable
> to denial.
This sentence makes even less sense than usual for you, Ray. Any claim
may be denied, especially when the claim in question is blatently false.
>Subsequent denial is silly and shows the degree to which
> the evolutionist will brazenly lie.
Ray, denial of your false assumptions is not a lie, and it's not silly to
deny your own silly claims.
>
>> Evolution is a fact about the world. To the Christian, any fact about
>> the world must be compatible with the existence of God; this is not
>> quite the same as saying that any fact about the world must be in some
>> way evidence of God.
>>
>
> Since you wrote this "jewel" you really believe it is logical and
> makes sense, for why else did you write it?
Exactly what do you find about this to not be logical, or make sense? If
God exists, then the universe is his creation. Any fact of the universe is
compatable with God's existence, if one believes that God exists. That
does not mean that any fact must "prove" that God exists, because God does
not have to show himself if he chooses not to. Maybe God wants people to
believe in him, of their own free will, not slavish devotion.
>
> Comment, on its face, evidently makes no sense and is grossly
> illogical.
How so? Come on, Ray ,explain it.
> It is proof that your thinking process is highly defective.
Or maybe it's proof that your own "thinking" is defenctive, if you feel that
is not logical.
> Your comment presupposes silently the absolute "truth" of Atheism
> supported by "scientific" evidence/evolution.
Where do you get that, Ray? Steven said nothing about atheism being
supported by the scientific evidence. What he's saying is that one may
believe in God, even if one does not have scientific evidence for God.
> Objectively reversed,
Ray, you have no idea what is objective.
> using the same "logic," you would undoubtedly reject. This is WHY your
> "logic" is subjective and perverted: a one-way well traveled street
> called bias.
Obviously you are not able to recognize a logical construct when you see it.
>
> When we remember that you think apes morphing into men,
Ray, humans are apes. The evolution of humans from an earlier ape species
is not "morphing".
> common
> ancestry,
Common ancestory is easily observed, and well evidenced. Why would anyone
reject such evidence?
> design not implying Designer,
The appearance of design does not imply a "Designer", it only implies that
there appears to be design. What produced that appareance of design is
another question.
> to make sense, we can know for
> certain that the illogic seen above is not an aberration;
Hint, Ray, he's not the one being illogical.
> but like I
> said: it is proof that your entire thinking process is defective.
Ray, if your own thinking processes were defective, how would you know if
anyone else was logical or not? You are the one who is suggesting silly,
and unsupported claims, and then accusing others of having "defective"
thinking processes.
>This
> is what happens when God is excluded from scientific explanation, and
> Materialism is accepted: the mind becomes deluded producing horribly
> illogical constructs, while being completely unaware.
Oh, the irony here. Ray, did it ever occur to you, that you might be
completely unaware of how foolish you appear?
>
>> > Sam Harris has desired Atheism to not be a worldview. His point was
>> > that Atheism is the self-evident truth dictated by reality. Before
>> > 1859 this was the reputation of Theism. The situation is now reversed
>> > because of the "evidence" of evolution and its acceptance by persons
>> > who control our society. Before 1859 the exact opposite was true.
>>
>> As I recall, Sam Harris cites, as his premier evidence for the
>> nonexistence of God, the fact that God does not intervene to prevent
>> little girls from being brutally raped and murdered. Presumably, you
>> disagree with him about what this proves. Logically, you should have
>> no difficulty in disagreeing with him about what common descent and
>> natural selection prove about God.
>>
>
> These comments are a non-sequitur. Previous points stand.
Trying to prop up your destroyed points here by whining "non sequitur" is
truly pathetic. Your points were shot down. They dont' stand.
>
> But God does intervene to prevent tragedies, but not all of the time.
Which begs the question, why not?
> "Rain falls on the just and unjust alike." I was shot in the face with
> a .38 at point blank range when I was 19 years old. I escaped with a
> broken jaw and no disfigurement. The person was caught and convicted.
> Harris is engaged in the most recognizable form of lawyer rhetoric.
> Educated persons are not swayed or fooled one bit.
What would you know about "educated persons", Ray? Anecdotal statements
don't offer any support for your claims. When I was 8, I was hit by a
car, and survived with minor injuries. Many other children, probably more
deserving than me have been killed by cars. What does that mean? How is
it relevant?
snip
>> The facts produced show that chimpanzees, with a much smaller, more
>> geographically restricted population than human beings, show more
>> genetic diversity than modern humans do. If all humans are descended
>> from three human couples aboard the Ark, and all chimpanzees are
>> descended from one chimpanzee pair aboard the Ark, how is that
>> possible? Insisting that evolutionists' conclusions can be dismissed
>> because they disagree with you does not eliminate this contradiction
>> between your ideas and the facts on the ground (or, in some cases, in
>> the trees).
>>
>
> Once again: We cannot trust any interpretations or conclusions of
> genetic data made by persons who are evolutionists because they have a
> track record of *never* making logical or correct interpretations and
> conclusions.
Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. Your accusation is not
supported by any examples of "evolutionists" making illogical, or incorrect
interpretations, and conclusions. Why do you feel this false accusation of
yours should be taken seriously?
> Mind you: I said "interpretations" and "conclusions"
> while saying nothing about production of facts or evidence.
Irrelvant, as you are wrong about both.
>
>> -- [snip of prefatory matter to definition of "microevolution"]
>>
>> > Microevolution, according the evolutionary theorists, is when a non-
>> > random automatic material process acting in tandem with a random
>> > mutational phenomenon modifies an organism. Evolutionists recognize
>> > the foregoing to have occurred, and to be occurring, in nature,
>> > repetitively, and at some rate of speed that corresponds to something
>> > to slow to see with the naked eye in real time.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, there is no need for mutations: we can take
>> variation in the population as a given, and if the frequency of
>> variations changes there is microevolution. For that matter, there
>> is, strictly speaking, no need for a non-random process: genetic drift
>> is microevolution. So you are wrong on two counts already. But no
>> matter; let us run with your definition.
>>
>
> I was addressing (alleged) microevolution in visible reality.
Which you got wrong.
> Denying
> random mutation is silly and ad hoc.
So, why are you doing it? Steven was not denying random mutations. He
was pointing out that they aren't necessary for microevolution.
> Frequency of variation changes is
> not microevolution.
Actually, that's pretty much how microevolution is defined.
>The non-random process I was talking about was
> natural selection; (again) to deny NS (like RM) is ad hoc and
> incredibly silly for an evolutionist.
Again, it's not Steven who is denying natural selection. He's pointing out
that natural selection is not necessary for microevolution.
> Slight modification by NS (=
> mechanism) is microevolution.
Actually, natural selection does not do the modification. Natural
selection acts as a filter which fixes particular variations in a
population. But microevolution can, and does take place without selection.
> Microevolution concerns mechanism and is
> inseperable since the term implies slight change, called
> modification.
Microevolution means change, and doesn't depend on any particular mechanism
of change.
> And nobody concerned with visible reality cares about
> genetic drift or rather, whatever you mean by it in these context.
Ray, geneticists and population biologists are quite concerned about genetic
drift. You again display your own ignorance.
>
> You need to remember that I had accepted microevolution to produce
> varieties and speciation with in kind.
But you didn't understand it when you "accepted" it, and you don't
understand it now.
> But after two plus years of
> research I announced to the Group that my view has changed: there is
> no evidence of microevolution; and, more importantly, I can support my
> position with scientific evidence.
Both false assertions. It's quite clear you haven't done any research (as
the term is normally understood) into the biology behind evolution, and it's
quite clear that you can't support your position. You don't even understand
your own position.
> Any Creationist who accepts ANY
> kind of evolution is ignorant and confused. It took me two solid years
> of research to emerge from this ignorance and confusion.
As I said before, out of the fying pan, into the fire..... You are, if
possible, even more ignorant and confused than you were before...
DJT
Steven J.
> On Mar 21, 10:22 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 21, 1:50 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 20, 9:50 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
-- [snip]
>
> > complexity and diversity require an "invisible designer," it does not
> > follow logically that this Designer must be the biblical God, or have
> > any more interest in human physical, moral or spiritual welfare than a
> > scientist might have in the physical, moral, and spiritual welfare of
> > bacteria in a Petri dish. Remember that the Deism you so disdain
> > originally was a creationist position.
>
> It is logical that the invisible Designer is the Biblical Theos, BUT,
> however, it is not mandatory or a necessity. What is mandatory, if the
> acknowledgement is made, is that ***direct*** Divine power is
> recognized. Please notice that I didn't even say Intelligence per se,
> but Divine power. The source of this Divine power could be any
> monotheistic-deistic universal Creator of any religion that holds such
> beliefs.
>
does not imply a single Designer, or a Designer that is concerned with
us in any way, or a Designer Who has bothered to give us any
revelation beyond creation itself.
>
> And I have no idea as to what you are talking about when you say:
> "Remember that the Deism you so disdain originally was a creationist
> position."
>
special revelation to us: no scripture, no commandments, no faith to
keep. Pretty much everything creationists imagine evolutionists
dislike about theism is absent from deism.
>
> I do not disdain Deism, never have.
>
Ayala's views to call them "deism." You are a welter of
contradictions and illogic, Ray.
>
> > > Theism has always been supported by reality-all scientific evidence.
>
> > The only "evidence" you cite is your own personal incredulity that
> > biological complexity and diversity could arise through natural
> > processes.
>
> We know evolutionists deny Theism to not have always been supported by
> scientific evidence, what is your point?
>
that my disagreement comes as no surprise to you. Your constant
carping about what evolutionists deny is a sorry substitute for actual
citations of actual evidence. But then, you have no evidence; all you
have is, as I said, an argument from incredulity: what looks like
design to you cannot possibly be the result of nonteleological
processes.
>
-- [large snip of Ray demonstrating his inability to think clearly]
>
> > > Sam Harris has desired Atheism to not be a worldview. His point was
> > > that Atheism is the self-evident truth dictated by reality. Before
> > > 1859 this was the reputation of Theism. The situation is now reversed
> > > because of the "evidence" of evolution and its acceptance by persons
> > > who control our society. Before 1859 the exact opposite was true.
>
> > As I recall, Sam Harris cites, as his premier evidence for the
> > nonexistence of God, the fact that God does not intervene to prevent
> > little girls from being brutally raped and murdered. Presumably, you
> > disagree with him about what this proves. Logically, you should have
> > no difficulty in disagreeing with him about what common descent and
> > natural selection prove about God.
>
> These comments are a non-sequitur. Previous points stand.
>
existence of evil, not evolution, to be the principle argument against
God. Therefore, even assuming that evolution was, in fact,
unsupported by evidence would not strike him as reason to accept God.
>
> But God does intervene to prevent tragedies, but not all of the time.
> "Rain falls on the just and unjust alike." I was shot in the face with
> a .38 at point blank range when I was 19 years old. I escaped with a
> broken jaw and no disfigurement. The person was caught and convicted.
> Harris is engaged in the most recognizable form of lawyer rhetoric.
> Educated persons are not swayed or fooled one bit.
>
tragedies, but not all the time," and "not every possible catastrophe
happens?" There is nothing supernatural in a bullet wound not causing
fatal or crippling damage; if enough people get shot, some of them are
going to be hit in ways that don't inflict devastating injuries.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > The facts produced show that chimpanzees, with a much smaller, more
> > geographically restricted population than human beings, show more
> > genetic diversity than modern humans do. If all humans are descended
> > from three human couples aboard the Ark, and all chimpanzees are
> > descended from one chimpanzee pair aboard the Ark, how is that
> > possible? Insisting that evolutionists' conclusions can be dismissed
> > because they disagree with you does not eliminate this contradiction
> > between your ideas and the facts on the ground (or, in some cases, in
> > the trees).
>
> Once again: We cannot trust any interpretations or conclusions of
> genetic data made by persons who are evolutionists because they have a
> track record of *never* making logical or correct interpretations and
> conclusions. Mind you: I said "interpretations" and "conclusions"
> while saying nothing about production of facts or evidence.
>
genetic variation than do humans (at least, that is the only way to
make your response relevant to my point). I suppose this fits in with
your general approach: simply deny that any evidence that you find
inconvenient, even exists, and insist that some vast atheist
conspiracy has forged every fact that you don't want to believe.
Trust whom you like, Ray, but don't confuse your rabid subjectivity
with "evidence," or "science," or "logic," or "intelligence."
>
> > -- [snip of prefatory matter to definition of "microevolution"]
>
> > > Microevolution, according the evolutionary theorists, is when a non-
> > > random automatic material process acting in tandem with a random
> > > mutational phenomenon modifies an organism. Evolutionists recognize
> > > the foregoing to have occurred, and to be occurring, in nature,
> > > repetitively, and at some rate of speed that corresponds to something
> > > to slow to see with the naked eye in real time.
>
> > Strictly speaking, there is no need for mutations: we can take
> > variation in the population as a given, and if the frequency of
> > variations changes there is microevolution. For that matter, there
> > is, strictly speaking, no need for a non-random process: genetic drift
> > is microevolution. So you are wrong on two counts already. But no
> > matter; let us run with your definition.
>
> I was addressing (alleged) microevolution in visible reality. Denying
> random mutation is silly and ad hoc. Frequency of variation changes is
> not microevolution. The non-random process I was talking about was
> natural selection; (again) to deny NS (like RM) is ad hoc and
> incredibly silly for an evolutionist. Slight modification by NS (=
> mechanism) is microevolution. Microevolution concerns mechanism and is
> inseperable since the term implies slight change, called
> modification. And nobody concerned with visible reality cares about
> genetic drift or rather, whatever you mean by it in these context.
>
I do not deny random mutation. I merely note that natural selection
can work on existing variations even if no new variation arises.
Likewise, I do not deny natural selection, but in point of fact
genetic drift also occurs and plays an important role in modern
evolutionary theory (the entire concept of "molecular clocks" depends
on much genetic change being the result of random drift rather than
selection: this change is still evolution). No one except you insists
that change in gene frequencies over time is only "evolution" if
natural selection is involved, and only if mutations are involved.
And this is important. Ray, you claim to be working on a paper that
will shatter evolutionary theory, after spending years researching
evolutionary theory. Yet within the last few months you've admitted
that you have no idea what "adaptive radiation" is (this ranks among
the most important concepts in evolutionary theory), and that you are
unaware either of what genetic drift is, or why evolutionists care
about it. You define "evolution" in ways bizarrely different from the
way actual evolutionists define it. Oh, and you make assertions about
the Bible that are demonstrably contrary to fact, for whatever that's
worth. Ray, given these facts, is there the slightest reason to
suppose that your "paper," assuming it ever comes into being, will
have anything to do with reality or with the theory it purports to
refute?
Beyond all that, I find myself somewhat confused. Upthread, you said
that you accepted the current scientific definition of microevolution
(said definition saying nothing about either mechanisms of genetic
change, or about mutations). You implied that the "microevolution"
you rejected was the same one evolutionists talk about, but now you
take back your own words. This (along with your complete
imperviousness to the basics of logical thought) is why it's so
frustrating trying to reason with you.
What *do* you reject, Ray? Natural selection? Mutations? Do you
accept changes in gene frequency over time, as long as there are no
mutations? As long as these changes don't result from natural
selection? I can't figure out what you position actually is (of
course, I have this sneaking suspicion that you can't figure out what
your position is, either).
>
> You need to remember that I had accepted microevolution to produce
> varieties and speciation with in kind. But after two plus years of
> research I announced to the Group that my view has changed: there is
> no evidence of microevolution; and, more importantly, I can support my
> position with scientific evidence. Any Creationist who accepts ANY
> kind of evolution is ignorant and confused. It took me two solid years
> of research to emerge from this ignorance and confusion.
>
Your two years of research seem to have enabled you to emerge from
ignorance into delusion, and from confusion into sheer gibbering
lunacy. Gene Scott would be proud of you.
>
> Ray
>
> SNIP... (for now)
-- Steven J.
Ray Martinez
You have misunderstood. I did not call Ayala's views Deism; rather, I
said he was fronting evolution to presuppose deistic intent for the
purpose of making evolution appear acceptable to religion. Ayala is an
Atheist and of course, a liar.
This is a problem phenomenon with evolutionists: they assume
contradictory and illogical when in fact they have misunderstood.
But we do know that Creationism/Bible and Evolution contradict one
another and that Evolution is built on perverted logic: design does
not imply Designer.
> > > > Theism has always been supported by reality-all scientific evidence.
>
> > > The only "evidence" you cite is your own personal incredulity that
> > > biological complexity and diversity could arise through natural
> > > processes.
>
> > We know evolutionists deny Theism to not have always been supported by
> > scientific evidence, what is your point?
>
> My point is that you do not support your own beliefs by pointing out
> that my disagreement comes as no surprise to you. Your constant
> carping about what evolutionists deny is a sorry substitute for actual
> citations of actual evidence. But then, you have no evidence; all you
> have is, as I said, an argument from incredulity: what looks like
> design to you cannot possibly be the result of nonteleological
> processes.
>
Persons who believe apes morphed into men should not use credulity
arguments.
The best explanation of design is Designer, it is most logical unless
your agenda is really philosophical. And we know the agenda of
evolution is philosophical - the philosophy of Materialism (=
Atheism).
You *did*.
> I merely note that natural selection
> can work on existing variations even if no new variation arises.
You didn't say anything about NS until *now*.
> Likewise, I do not deny natural selection, but in point of fact
> genetic drift also occurs and plays an important role in modern
> evolutionary theory
That is not what you said before. You are changing your story as you
go, insulting everyones intelligence.
> (the entire concept of "molecular clocks" depends
> on much genetic change being the result of random drift rather than
> selection: this change is still evolution). No one except you insists
> that change in gene frequencies over time is only "evolution" if
> natural selection is involved, and only if mutations are involved.
>
I said no such thing. Again, you have misunderstood and blamed me.
> And this is important. Ray, you claim to be working on a paper that
> will shatter evolutionary theory, after spending years researching
> evolutionary theory. Yet within the last few months you've admitted
> that you have no idea what "adaptive radiation" is (this ranks among
> the most important concepts in evolutionary theory), and that you are
> unaware either of what genetic drift is, or why evolutionists care
> about it.
Nonsense via misrepresentation.
> You define "evolution" in ways bizarrely different from the
> way actual evolutionists define it.
Only you do that. ***Everything I say*** I can back up with
scholarship. None of your assertions are ever supported by scholarship
and references - none - ever.
> Oh, and you make assertions about
> the Bible that are demonstrably contrary to fact, for whatever that's
> worth. Ray, given these facts, is there the slightest reason to
> suppose that your "paper," assuming it ever comes into being, will
> have anything to do with reality or with the theory it purports to
> refute?
>
Something that an angry evolutionist, who cannot refute, would say.
> Beyond all that, I find myself somewhat confused. Upthread, you said
> that you accepted the current scientific definition of microevolution
> (said definition saying nothing about either mechanisms of genetic
> change, or about mutations). You implied that the "microevolution"
> you rejected was the same one evolutionists talk about, but now you
> take back your own words. This (along with your complete
> imperviousness to the basics of logical thought) is why it's so
> frustrating trying to reason with you.
>
Horrible distortions.
Why?
Because Steven, like all evolutionists, cannot admit Creationists to
be correct about anything.
I had assumed he was interested in my views. I was wrong. He is only
interested in clowning everything said with self-evident
misrepresentation. In other words, Steven is grinding an axe. He is
mad about previous exchanges: he is trying to get some revenge.
You need to find at least ONE Creationist or Designist to come to your
aid or everything I have pointed out stands.
> What *do* you reject, Ray? Natural selection? Mutations? Do you
> accept changes in gene frequency over time, as long as there are no
> mutations? As long as these changes don't result from natural
> selection? I can't figure out what you position actually is (of
> course, I have this sneaking suspicion that you can't figure out what
> your position is, either).
>
Endless distortions and caricature.
Evolution has more than one correct scientific definition. It is NOT a
change in gene frequencies. This is a meaningless assertion with no
correspondence to nature and reality. Who cares if gene frequencies
change? Nobody who has a brain is going to accept evolution because
scientists say gene frequencies change. Evolution must be explainable
and ascertainable and accesible to the average citizen in visual
reality, otherwise your discipline and talents are useless. We will
not take the word of Steven J, Howard Hershey, Richard Lewontin, Tim
Berra or even Sean Pitman. These guys can argue genetics, molecular
biology and bio-chemistry in front of the world, just like the
Pharisees who prayed in front of the world, of whom Jesus said they
did it to obtain the praise of men.
Evolution, historically and scientifically, is a claim that species
change into completely different species given enough time via
material causation. Gene frequencies could change and I am sure that
they do change and the former fact could still be completey false.
That is the fucking point.
We are interested in naked eye reality and explaining naked eye
reality to the masses. Steven, Howard, Richard, Tim and Sean must, at
some point, re-enter reality. When they do I will be waiting for them.
In this context I can prove that evolution is false.
Ray
SNIP....
Elmer
> (snip)
> Horrible distortions.
Ray Martinez wrote:
(snip)
>>>> It is inconceivable that anyone could say or believe that the Bible
>>>> supports Darwinism or evolution...
>>>Ray, please explain what Gen 1:11 means when it says, And God said,
>>>Let the earth bring forth....
>> > Verse 11 exists in the context of verse 1:
>> > "....God created...."
>> Created always means direct Divine power.
>So what you're saying is that the words in Gen 1:11 don't really mean
>what they say, is that it Ray?
>> No, that is what you keep saying.
>> Do you agree that "And God said, Let the earth bring forth...." means
>> what it says Ray?
> In context, of course.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
> We all know what verse one says. Verse 11 exists, of course, in the
> context of verse one. Verse 11 presupposes that the phrase "Let the
> earth bring forth" to mean special creation/supernatural creation. It
> is a synonymous description of the phrase "God created...." so that
> this phrase is not repeated redundantly.
In the beginning George Eastman created Kodak. George said, let the
contractor build a new building, so who built the building Ray?
Steven J.
>
-- [snip]
>
> You have misunderstood. I did not call Ayala's views Deism; rather, I
> said he was fronting evolution to presuppose deistic intent for the
> purpose of making evolution appear acceptable to religion. Ayala is an
> Atheist and of course, a liar.
>
except your own prejudices and hatreds, that Ayala is a liar. The
rest of the above paragraph is not, strictly speaking, in English,
even if all the words are used in actual English.
>
> This is a problem phenomenon with evolutionists: they assume
> contradictory and illogical when in fact they have misunderstood.
>
prose than with accepting evolution.
>
> But we do know that Creationism/Bible and Evolution contradict one
> another and that Evolution is built on perverted logic: design does
> not imply Designer.
>
problems that Paley himself identified with his own views (e.g. why
would an omnipotent Designer need specified complex designs at all,
when He could endow a rock with sight or reason?) are not problems at
all, and that mechanisms that explain how specified complexity could
arise gradually and without intent don't really exist.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Persons who believe apes morphed into men should not use credulity
> arguments.
>
pretend that the existence of intermediate forms is irrelevant.
>
> The best explanation of design is Designer, it is most logical unless
> your agenda is really philosophical. And we know the agenda of
> evolution is philosophical - the philosophy of Materialism (=
> Atheism).
>
don't look like design. On the premise of common design for common
function, for example, the different structure of pterosaur wings,
bird wings, and bat wings is inexplicable. On the premise of
individual design for separate purposes, the common structures of
hummingbird wings, penguin wings, and ostrich wings is inexplicable.
On the premise of separate designs of separate kinds or species,
shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other
primates, or in whales and artiodactyls, in inexplicable (as is, e.g.
molars in some vampire bat species, or the existence of hind limbs and
teeth in baleen whale embryos). The only aspects of nature that
really look like "design" are what Paley called "contrivance" and what
modern IDists call "specified complexity:" complicated, often jury-
rigged and Rube-Goldbergish assemblages which accomplish various
functions (again, an omnipotent, omniscient Creator would not need to
resort to such contrivances); this is explicable in terms of gradual
modification through a process of massively parallel generation and
testing known as mutation and natural selection.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > I do not deny random mutation.
>
> You *did*.
>
not necessarily involved wherever natural selection, or evolution, is
involved.
>
> > I merely note that natural selection
> > can work on existing variations even if no new variation arises.
>
> You didn't say anything about NS until *now*.
>
comprehension nor write so that others can comprehend you. I would
have assumed that natural selection was implied.
>
> > Likewise, I do not deny natural selection, but in point of fact
> > genetic drift also occurs and plays an important role in modern
> > evolutionary theory
>
> That is not what you said before. You are changing your story as you
> go, insulting everyones intelligence.
>
not need to be the whole story to be part of the story. But then, it
occurs to me that this is probably not something I should have counted
on you realizing: much of your argument (on many issues) depends on
the "if X is not the whole story, then X is no part of the story"
assumption: thus, e.g. you assume that if evolution does not attribute
all of biology to miracles, then it must insist that God does not
exist and plays no role in nature at all, or, for that matter, if
works cannot earn salvation then they can be no important part of
Christianity.
>
> > (the entire concept of "molecular clocks" depends
> > on much genetic change being the result of random drift rather than
> > selection: this change is still evolution). No one except you insists
> > that change in gene frequencies over time is only "evolution" if
> > natural selection is involved, and only if mutations are involved.
>
> I said no such thing. Again, you have misunderstood and blamed me.
>
own views, and fails miserably.
>
> > And this is important. Ray, you claim to be working on a paper that
> > will shatter evolutionary theory, after spending years researching
> > evolutionary theory. Yet within the last few months you've admitted
> > that you have no idea what "adaptive radiation" is (this ranks among
> > the most important concepts in evolutionary theory), and that you are
> > unaware either of what genetic drift is, or why evolutionists care
> > about it.
>
> Nonsense via misrepresentation.
>
demonstrate what I misrepresented, or what your actual views on
adaptive radiation or genetic drift are.
>
> > You define "evolution" in ways bizarrely different from the
> > way actual evolutionists define it.
>
> Only you do that. ***Everything I say*** I can back up with
> scholarship. None of your assertions are ever supported by scholarship
> and references - none - ever.
>
scholarship. Contradicting yourself is not scholarship.
>
> > Oh, and you make assertions about
> > the Bible that are demonstrably contrary to fact, for whatever that's
> > worth. Ray, given these facts, is there the slightest reason to
> > suppose that your "paper," assuming it ever comes into being, will
> > have anything to do with reality or with the theory it purports to
> > refute?
>
> Something that an angry evolutionist, who cannot refute, would say.
>
episode of projectile vomiting.
accept mainstream scientific definitions of microevolution. Above,
however, you insist that, in fact, you do not care about these
definitions and will not take the word of the people who use them.
Never mind your hysterical insistence that all of science must be
demonstrable to the naked eyes of untrained laymen (what I take to be
the meaning of your phrase "in visual reality"), although it might be
interesting to try to demonstrate, under such conditions, that matter
is made of atoms, or that radioactive decay occurs, or, for that
matter, that the Earth orbits the sun (much less that Pluto orbits the
sun). Changes in genes correlate to changes in bodies (although not
in any simple one-to-one mapping: very small changes in the genome can
have huge affects on anatomy or behavior, while different, much larger
changes in the genome have very little affect on the genotype)
>
> Evolution, historically and scientifically, is a claim that species
> change into completely different species given enough time via
> material causation. Gene frequencies could change and I am sure that
> they do change and the former fact could still be completey false.
> That is the fucking point.
>
microevolution." Microevolution, by definition (even by YEC
definition!) is not "change into a completely different species." You
cannot be defining "microevolution" if you insist that it involves a
change into a completely different species, when the very distinction
between "micro" and "macro" is that "microevolution" does not involve
a change into a different species.
Of course, human beings, while a different species from chimpanzees,
are not a *completely* different species; the homologies, genetic,
anatomical, and even behavioral, are extensive and striking. Humans
are arguably not even a *completely* different species from lungfish
(numerous details of genetics and embryology are very similar), or
even from sea anemones (similar Hox genes are used in both species, as
are many other biochemical systems). So talk about a "completely"
different species is confusing and misleading (are Neanderthals a
completely different species? a partially different species? the same
species? is there any such thing as a partially different species?).
As for "material causes," of course, science is limited to
investigating material causes; if it cannot find a material cause,
then there is no way of knowing whether something is uncaused, or has
an unknown material cause, or, perhaps, an unknown "supernatural"
cause. Note that a cause which could be investigated by science (e.g.
a Designer Whose methods could be studied and Whose motives could be
puzzled out) would be, for scientific purposes, a "material cause."
>
> We are interested in naked eye reality and explaining naked eye
> reality to the masses. Steven, Howard, Richard, Tim and Sean must, at
> some point, re-enter reality. When they do I will be waiting for them.
> In this context I can prove that evolution is false.
>
You keep using that word "reality." I think it does not mean what you
think it means.
>
> Ray
>
Ray, I do not think your display of hysteria and profanity, above,
will convince many people that you actually know what you're talking
about or that you have engaged in either serious scholarship or
serious thinking about the problems of evolution and creationism.
>
> SNIP....
-- Steven J.
Dana Tweedy
>> > I do not disdain Deism, never have.
>>
>> Yet you seemed to feel it was sufficient condemnation of Francisco
>> Ayala's views to call them "deism." You are a welter of
>> contradictions and illogic, Ray.
>>
>
> You have misunderstood. I did not call Ayala's views Deism; rather, I
> said he was fronting evolution to presuppose deistic intent for the
> purpose of making evolution appear acceptable to religion. Ayala is an
> Atheist and of course, a liar.
The old, "If he doesn't agree with me, he's an atheist and liar" claim
again. Ray, it really doesn't matter what you label Ayala to marginalize
him, he's not an atheist. Ayala is a devout Christian.
>
> This is a problem phenomenon with evolutionists: they assume
> contradictory and illogical when in fact they have misunderstood.
Ray, Steven did not misunderstand. You were wrong.
>
> But we do know that Creationism/Bible and Evolution contradict one
> another and that Evolution is built on perverted logic: design does
> not imply Designer.
This paragraph appears to be written in Bizarro World. Everything you are
claiming is the opposite of the truth. As I've pointed out to you before,
it's illogical to assume that the appearance of design must imply a
"designer". This is because:
1. There's no evidence of a designer capable of producing that "design"
2. There's no evidence that only a designer is capable of producing that
"design"
3. There is evidence that natural processes, acting without conscious
intent, can produce the appearance of design.
Therefore assuming that if you see what appears to be design ,there must be
a "designer" is unwarranted, and not logical.
>
>
>
>> > > > Theism has always been supported by reality-all scientific
>> > > > evidence.
>>
>> > > The only "evidence" you cite is your own personal incredulity that
>> > > biological complexity and diversity could arise through natural
>> > > processes.
>>
>> > We know evolutionists deny Theism to not have always been supported by
>> > scientific evidence, what is your point?
>>
>> My point is that you do not support your own beliefs by pointing out
>> that my disagreement comes as no surprise to you. Your constant
>> carping about what evolutionists deny is a sorry substitute for actual
>> citations of actual evidence. But then, you have no evidence; all you
>> have is, as I said, an argument from incredulity: what looks like
>> design to you cannot possibly be the result of nonteleological
>> processes.
>>
>
> Persons who believe apes morphed into men should not use credulity
> arguments.
Why not, Ray? Humans are apes, and there is a great deal of evidence that
humans have evolved from a population of earlier apes. So far you've not
been able to refute any of the evidence of human evolution. All you have
done is to run away from the evidence, and hide behind your "paper".
>
> The best explanation of design is Designer, it is most logical unless
> your agenda is really philosophical.
As I explained above, assuming a "designer" for the appearance of design is
not the "best explanation". It's not logical at all.
> And we know the agenda of
> evolution is philosophical - the philosophy of Materialism (=
> Atheism).
This is your own false assumption. Evolution has no "agenda", and only the
"philosophy" of science.
snipping what Ray ignored.
> > > Strictly speaking, there is no need for mutations: we can take
> > > variation in the population as a given, and if the frequency of
> > > variations changes there is microevolution. For that matter, there
> > > is, strictly speaking, no need for a non-random process: genetic drift
> > > is microevolution. So you are wrong on two counts already. But no
> > > matter; let us run with your definition.
>> > I was addressing (alleged) microevolution in visible reality. Denying
>> > random mutation is silly and ad hoc. Frequency of variation changes is
>> > not microevolution. The non-random process I was talking about was
>> > natural selection; (again) to deny NS (like RM) is ad hoc and
>> > incredibly silly for an evolutionist. Slight modification by NS (=
>> > mechanism) is microevolution. Microevolution concerns mechanism and is
>> > inseperable since the term implies slight change, called
>> > modification. And nobody concerned with visible reality cares about
>> > genetic drift or rather, whatever you mean by it in these context.
>>
>> I do not deny random mutation.
>
> You *did*.
No, he did not. You are mistaken, and I suspect you won't be able to admit
it.
>
>> I merely note that natural selection
>> can work on existing variations even if no new variation arises.
>
> You didn't say anything about NS until *now*.
Ray, are you blind as well as dense? He was referring to natural selection
when he said "non random process".
>
>> Likewise, I do not deny natural selection, but in point of fact
>> genetic drift also occurs and plays an important role in modern
>> evolutionary theory
>
> That is not what you said before. You are changing your story as you
> go, insulting everyones intelligence.
Ray, you have no intelligence to insult. He did not change his story. You
are either trying to be argumentive, or you have not read for comprehension.
>
>> (the entire concept of "molecular clocks" depends
>> on much genetic change being the result of random drift rather than
>> selection: this change is still evolution). No one except you insists
>> that change in gene frequencies over time is only "evolution" if
>> natural selection is involved, and only if mutations are involved.
>>
>
> I said no such thing. Again, you have misunderstood and blamed me.
Ray, it's quite possible you don't even understand your own writing. If
that's not what you were saying, what DID you mean? It's not Steven's
fault if you don't understand the implications of your own statements.
>
>> And this is important. Ray, you claim to be working on a paper that
>> will shatter evolutionary theory, after spending years researching
>> evolutionary theory. Yet within the last few months you've admitted
>> that you have no idea what "adaptive radiation" is (this ranks among
>> the most important concepts in evolutionary theory), and that you are
>> unaware either of what genetic drift is, or why evolutionists care
>> about it.
>
> Nonsense via misrepresentation.
Which is just your way of rejecting what you don't understand. How does
this misrepresent what you said? How is it "nonsesnse"? You did claim
that "no one cares about genetic drift".
>
>> You define "evolution" in ways bizarrely different from the
>> way actual evolutionists define it.
>
> Only you do that. ***Everything I say*** I can back up with
> scholarship.
So, why don't you? Quote mining is not "scholarship". It does not show
that you understand the material being quoted.
> None of your assertions are ever supported by scholarship
> and references - none - ever.
That's not true. Please retract this false claim.
>
>> Oh, and you make assertions about
>> the Bible that are demonstrably contrary to fact, for whatever that's
>> worth. Ray, given these facts, is there the slightest reason to
>> suppose that your "paper," assuming it ever comes into being, will
>> have anything to do with reality or with the theory it purports to
>> refute?
>>
>
> Something that an angry evolutionist, who cannot refute, would say.
There isn't any evidence that Steven is "angry". Your reply is something
someone way over his head, and floundering would say. Can you show to
anyone here that you actually understand the theory you claim to be able to
refute?
>
>
>> Beyond all that, I find myself somewhat confused. Upthread, you said
>> that you accepted the current scientific definition of microevolution
>> (said definition saying nothing about either mechanisms of genetic
>> change, or about mutations). You implied that the "microevolution"
>> you rejected was the same one evolutionists talk about, but now you
>> take back your own words. This (along with your complete
>> imperviousness to the basics of logical thought) is why it's so
>> frustrating trying to reason with you.
>>
>
> Horrible distortions.
How are these distortions? It's very clear that when you are caught in a
contradiction, you cry "distortion" and run away.
>
> Why?
How is this distortion? Come on, Ray, grow a backbone and address the
issues, not just label them and dismiss them.
> Because Steven, like all evolutionists, cannot admit Creationists to
> be correct about anything.
I'm sure that if you were ever correct about something, Steven would admit
it. As it happens you are still wrong.
>
> I had assumed he was interested in my views. I was wrong. He is only
> interested in clowning everything said with self-evident
> misrepresentation. In other words, Steven is grinding an axe. He is
> mad about previous exchanges: he is trying to get some revenge.
Again, you have just dismissed Steven's points as "misrepresentation",
without actually showing that they are. Why should anyone accept your
claim?
>
> You need to find at least ONE Creationist or Designist to come to your
> aid or everything I have pointed out stands.
Why? When you are wrong, he doesn't need anyone else to tell you that.
Nothing you have said stands on it's own.
>
>
>> What *do* you reject, Ray? Natural selection? Mutations? Do you
>> accept changes in gene frequency over time, as long as there are no
>> mutations? As long as these changes don't result from natural
>> selection? I can't figure out what you position actually is (of
>> course, I have this sneaking suspicion that you can't figure out what
>> your position is, either).
>>
>
> Endless distortions and caricature.
Ray, it gets tiresome to read your whining about "distortion" when it's
obvious that Steven has you pegged. Either explain how you've been
misrepresented, or admit you were wrong.
>
> Evolution has more than one correct scientific definition.
Perhaps, but you have not shown you know any of them.....
> It is NOT a
> change in gene frequencies.
Actually, the accepted definition of evolution among scientists is "change
in gene frequencies in a population over generations". Where do you get
the idea that evolution is not change in gene frequencies?
> This is a meaningless assertion with no
> correspondence to nature and reality.
Yes, your assertion is meaningless, and it's false as well.
> Who cares if gene frequencies
> change?
Anyone who wants to talk about evolution. Here's your admission you do
not know what evolution is about.
> Nobody who has a brain is going to accept evolution because
> scientists say gene frequencies change.
Ray, don't assume you'd know what anyone with a brain will accept. You
are not a member of that set. Evolution is defined as change in gene
frequencies in a population over time. You have a strange idea of what
evolution really is, if you have any idea at all.
> Evolution must be explainable
> and ascertainable and accesible to the average citizen in visual
> reality, otherwise your discipline and talents are useless.
Why? Ray, it may come as a shock, but science isn't concerned with what
the "average citizen" is willing to accept. It's much more concerned with
what educated, and informed people, who actually know what they are talking
about think.
> We will
> not take the word of Steven J, Howard Hershey, Richard Lewontin, Tim
> Berra or even Sean Pitman.
You'd rather take the word of Gene Scott. But he's dead, and he was wrong
when he was alive...... If you doctor tells you you need an operation, do
you go and ask the "average citizen's" opinion? If you want to build a
bridge, do you hire an "average citizen" to design it, or an Engineer? If
you want your car fixed, do you take it to an "average citizen" or a
mechanic? The point here is that science is a specialized field of
study. It's not something that the "average person" is going to be well
versed in, unless that "average person" takes the time and effort to learn
something.
> These guys can argue genetics, molecular
> biology and bio-chemistry in front of the world, just like the
> Pharisees who prayed in front of the world, of whom Jesus said they
> did it to obtain the praise of men.
The reason scientists can argue genetics and molecular biology is that they
have LEARNED something about those subjects. They aren't just offering
opinions based on ignorance and religious opinions. Again, it's not a
matter of "praise of men" but an understanding of the subject.
>
> Evolution, historically and scientifically, is a claim that species
> change into completely different species given enough time via
> material causation.
Actually, it's that they change into new, but related species over time.
They don't change into "completely different" species, and they don't change
into unrelated species.
> Gene frequencies could change and I am sure that
> they do change and the former fact could still be completey false.
If you are sure that gene frequencies change, then you are admitting that
microevolution does occur. The "former fact" is your own misunderstanding.
Populations change by changing gene frequencies. When these genes have
changed enough that the population is unable to breed with the parent
population, speciation has occurred. That's how new species appear.
Apes don't "morph" into "men". Men remain apes, as they evolve into
populations of modern humans.
> That is the fucking point.
Which only goes to show that you are very confused about evolution, and what
you claim.
>
> We are interested in naked eye reality and explaining naked eye
> reality to the masses.
Ray, the problem is that "naked eye reality" is made up of esoteric subjects
like gene frequencies. "The masses" are the "masses" because they don't
take the time or effort to learn about the subject. When one does learn,
one becomes a scientist, or they can be like you, and choose to remain
ignorant.
> Steven, Howard, Richard, Tim and Sean must, at
> some point, re-enter reality. When they do I will be waiting for them.
> In this context I can prove that evolution is false.
Unfortunately for you, Ray; Steven, Howard, Richard, Tim and even Sean are
in reality. You are living in your own fantasy world, and it's only in
that world that you might stand a chance of "proving" evolution false.
If you can't enter the scientist's world, and meet them on their own terms,
you stand absolutely no chance of refuting evolution. Even if it were
possible, you still would fail, unless you can discuss such matters as gene
frequencies, adaptive radiation, genetic drift, and other subjects you
choose to remain ignorant about.
DJT
wf3h
> >
> You have misunderstood. I did not call Ayala's views Deism; rather, I
> said he was fronting evolution to presuppose deistic intent for the
> purpose of making evolution appear acceptable to religion. Ayala is an
ray's definition of liar: anyone who disagrees with ray.
>
> This is a problem phenomenon with evolutionists: they assume
> contradictory and illogical when in fact they have misunderstood.
says the guy who thinks an unobserved creator with no rules or laws
proves that nature is orderly
>
> The best explanation of design is Designer, it is most logical unless
> your agenda is really philosophical
how is this possible if there are no rules by which we can conclude
that a designer was involved?
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Persons who believe apes morphed into men
For the umpteenth time Dishonest Ray - men ARE still apes.
--
Bob.
Ray Martinez
That is exactly what you did to my explanation of microevolution.
But unlike you I said it explicitly and you still chose not to read
with comprehension.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
As I was saying: microevolution is a small almost imperceptible change
called a modification. It is caused, for the most part, by natural
selection.
Or in other words microevolution is slight change caused by material
phenomenon. There is no evidence for this belief - none whatsoever.
It took me two plus years of research to establish this fact and
change my viewpoint.
Ray
Tiny Bulcher
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eb622a80-d8ab-4ace...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> These guys can argue genetics, molecular
>> biology and bio-chemistry in front of the world, just like the
>> Pharisees who prayed in front of the world, of whom Jesus said they
>> did it to obtain the praise of men.
I wonder what Jesus would have said about praying on TV?
> The reason scientists can argue genetics and molecular biology is
> that they have LEARNED something about those subjects.
Ray has never learned anything. It's beyond him. on account of
persistent insanity.
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<0f229351-dd24-46e0...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>But God does intervene to prevent tragedies, but not all of the time.
>"Rain falls on the just and unjust alike." I was shot in the face with
>a .38 at point blank range when I was 19 years old.
For whatever it may be worth, I wish that hadn't happened to you.
>I escaped with a
>broken jaw and no disfigurement. The person was caught and convicted.
And I'm happy for the positive outcome.
[snip]
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<eb622a80-d8ab-4ace...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>On Mar 22, 11:30 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 22, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 21, 10:22 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> You define "evolution" in ways bizarrely different from the
>> way actual evolutionists define it.
>
>Only you do that. ***Everything I say*** I can back up with
>scholarship.
This, of course, is false. You regularly make claims and fail to back
them up.
>None of your assertions are ever supported by scholarship
>and references - none - ever.
[snip]
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1bc25c3b-9d1b-4e8f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...snip
>> > You didn't say anything about NS until *now*.
>>
>> I have a problem, Ray, which is that you neither read for
>> comprehension nor write so that others can comprehend you. I would
>> have assumed that natural selection was implied.
>>
>
> That is exactly what you did to my explanation of microevolution.
Your "explanation" was wrong.
>
> But unlike you I said it explicitly and you still chose not to read
> with comprehension.
Ray, what you said was not only wrong, but unclear.
snipping what Ray ignored
>
> As I was saying: microevolution is a small almost imperceptible change
> called a modification. It is caused, for the most part, by natural
> selection.
Which is wrong. Microevolution is change below the level of species. It's
not always "imperceptible change". Dog breeds are microevolution, but the
difference between a wolf and a chihuahua are quite large. Also, natural
selection itself does not cause changes. Natural selection explains why
certian traits are retained in a population, but it does not explain the
traits themselves. As Steven pointed out, microevolution can occur in the
absence of natural selection.
>
> Or in other words microevolution is slight change caused by material
> phenomenon. There is no evidence for this belief - none whatsoever.
Again, this assertion is quite wrong. Mutations occur in populations.
That's been observed. Those mutations cause change in that population.
Changes in gene frequencies over time in a population is how evolution is
defined.
>
> It took me two plus years of research to establish this fact and
> change my viewpoint.
Then you wasted those years. You are asserting something akin to claiming
the moon does not move around the Earth. Your denial of microevolution
is bizarre, and based on a very poor understanding of what the term means.
It's also based on your own ignorance of the science involved.
DJT
Steven J.
> On Mar 24, 12:00 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I have a problem, Ray, which is that you neither read for
> > comprehension nor write so that others can comprehend you. I would
> > have assumed that natural selection was implied.
>
> That is exactly what you did to my explanation of microevolution.
>
definitions found in the actual scientific literature, and with one
another. I do read your writings for comprehension; the difficulty,
as I've noted before, is that you don't write them for comprehension.
>
> But unlike you I said it explicitly and you still chose not to read
> with comprehension.
>
frequency in a population that does not result in speciation, and that
such changes need not be the result of natural selection. That is not
the same thing at all as saying that such changes cannot be the result
of natural selection. I pointed out that gene frequencies can change
even when no new alleles arise through mutation; that is not the same
thing as saying that new alleles do not arise through mutations.
Now, I see below that you have somehow decided that, no matter what
actual evolutionists say, the definition of "evolution" includes
natural selection. This decision is wrong, by the way; since at least
1968 when Motoo Kimura introduced the idea of "genetic drift,"
evolutionary theorists have acknowledged that much evolution is NOT
the result of natural selection (now, it is still generally held that
adaptive evolution is the result of natural selection, but not all
evolution is adaption). Indeed, when Darwin first introduced the idea
of natural selection, he argued that it was the principle but not the
sole cause of evolution, although he did not suggest any other
mechanisms of evolution. So, naturally, I assumed that you did not
read into the definition of "evolution" (change in the frequency of
inheritable traits in a population over time) an idea that every
evolutionist from Darwin on down has been careful to exclude from the
definition.
Please note, and revise your paper accordingly, that the DEFINITION of
evolution is a different thing from the THEORY of evolution (of
course, the theory of evolution isn't quite what you think it is,
either).
>
-- [massive snip]
>
> As I was saying: microevolution is a small almost imperceptible change
> called a modification. It is caused, for the most part, by natural
> selection.
>
Microevolution can be quite perceptible: the differences between a
poodle and a Saint Bernard are microevolutionary changes (albeit
resulting mainly from artificial rather than strictly natural
selection). Even the difference between a population consisting
mostly of black moths and one consisting mostly of grey moths is
pretty noticeable, as were the differences in beak size among the
Galapagos finches studied by the Grants. For that matter, antibiotic
resistance may not make a visible difference in bacteria when you're
looking at them through a microscope (much less when trying to look at
them with naked eyes), but the difference is pretty noticeable from a
clinical or epidemiological standpoint.
The above are examples of adaptive changes, caused by selection
("natural," "sexual," or "artificial"). As noted above, not all
evolution, micro- or macro-, is adaptive; certainly many "small almost
imperceptible" changes can result from random genetic drift with no
adaptive effect, and perhaps some large changes can result in the same
way. Evolutionists debate among themselves just how much evolutionary
change is adaptive, and how much is random drift; there are
evolutionists who hold that most change at the genetic level, and much
even at the phenotypic level, is random drift rather than the result
of selection. Other evolutionists still hold that most, but not all,
evolution is the result of natural selection. I suppose that genetic
drift (along with more exotic possibilities, such as constraints due
to physical processes during embryonic development) falls under
"material causes."
By the way, Ray, saying that evolutionary change is "called a
modification" sounds very strange, not because it is false but
because, in this context, "change" and "modification" are just two
different words for the same thing. Some modifications or changes are
called "adaptions;" these are the changes that make an organism better
able to find food, or avoid becoming food, or resist disease and
parasites, or attract a mate, etc. than its unmodified ancestors.
Now, I'm just nit-picking here, but again, I think that phrase shows
that you don't really understand many of the words and phrases you
use, and I'm asking you to consider carefully whether this might
indicate a problem with your paper (when and if you get it written).
>
> Or in other words microevolution is slight change caused by material
> phenomenon. There is no evidence for this belief - none whatsoever.
>
Forgive me, I beg you, if I'm still not quite sure what your point
is. If a population consisting entirely of grey peppered moths is
observed to change, over a few deades, to one consisting almost
entirely of black peppered moths, are you saying that:
[a] this is not a change in the population, or
[b] this change was caused miraculously rather than by material
causes, or
[c] this observation must be in error; no such change can possibly
have occurred?
The same question, _mutatis mutandis_, can be asked about changes in
finch beaks on the Galapagos, or about the emergence of antibiotic
resistance in a host of infectious organisms, or about the increasing
percentage of African elephants born without tusks, or about many
other appparent changes in many other species. For example:
[a] Are antibiotic-resistant TB bacteria exactly the same as TB
bacteria that are killed by antibiotics?
[b] Did God change _Mycobacterium tuberculosis_ in order to make it
resistant?
[c] Has there in fact been no change in the incidence of antibiotic-
resistant TB?
>
> It took me two plus years of research to establish this fact and
> change my viewpoint.
>
Is your objection to changes within populations over time, or to the
idea that such changes may occur without direct divine causation? Can
you summarize the research that led you to either of these
conclusions?
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Jim Willemin
<cutting to the chase, as it were>
> As I was saying: microevolution is a small almost imperceptible change
> called a modification. It is caused, for the most part, by natural
> selection.
>
> Or in other words microevolution is slight change caused by material
> phenomenon. There is no evidence for this belief - none whatsoever.
>
Except that it happens. Ray, my grandfather, Fred Hoit, had bent little
fingers. All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five
children, I have a brother and four cousins and they have a whole
handful of kids amongst them, who by now are getting ready to have kids
of their own - as far as I know we all carry the Hoit bent little
finger). In several more generations, I imagine there will be a fair
number of descendants of Fred Hoit who all have bent little fingers.
Now, Ray, is this slight change the result of Divine causation, or the
result of a random mutation?
How about another example - one of my cats has a very oily coat (she
looks spiky, and feels kinda greasy when you pet her). Her grandmother
had a similar coat, as did her great-grandmother and great-great
grandmother. (Other descendants had normal coats.) Is this
modification of her coat Divinely caused, or the result of a random
mutation?
Speaking of cats, what about the well-known six- and seven-toed cats?
Are these the result of Divine causation or random mutation?
Now, Ray, here is another question: are these obvious modifications
microevolution? If not, why not?
> It took me two plus years of research to establish this fact and
> change my viewpoint.
>
> Ray
It seems to me that whoever taught you to do research was not very good
at it. Counterexamples trump 'research', no matter how many books you
read, or quotes you can find. You can fight reality all you like, but
in the end reality wins. Remember that: reality wins.
hersheyh
> On Mar 24, 12:00 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 1:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> > > > I do not deny random mutation.
>
> > > You *did*.
>
> > I did not deny that random mutation happens; I merely noted that it is
> > not necessarily involved wherever natural selection, or evolution, is
> > involved.
>
> > > > I merely note that natural selection
> > > > can work on existing variations even if no new variation arises.
>
*existing* variations. Selection, being a natural process, *never*
works on non-existent or potentially existent or imaginary
variations. Variations, both new and existing, are due to mutation.
Natural selection (and neutral drift) only comes into play when the
variation actually exists in the population.
But, if, as you seem to agree, mutation does provide new or re-
emergent variation, there does indeed seem to always be variation upon
which selection can act. Mutation (an event causing permanent change
in a DNA sequence) is the only known mechanism for generating
variation. Do you propose a different mechanism for generating
variation?
[snip]
Ray Martinez
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:01:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <eb622a80-d8ab-4ace-baa3-93c9232a1...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>
> >On Mar 22, 11:30 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 22, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 21, 10:22 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> You define "evolution" in ways bizarrely different from the
> >> way actual evolutionists define it.
>
> >Only you do that. ***Everything I say*** I can back up with
> >scholarship.
>
> This, of course, is false. You regularly make claims and fail to back
> them up.
>
Such as......
> >None of your assertions are ever supported by scholarship
> >and references - none - ever.
>
> [snip]
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1bc25c3b-9d1b-4e8f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> <cutting to the chase, as it were>
>
> > As I was saying: microevolution is a small almost imperceptible change
> > called a modification. It is caused, for the most part, by natural
> > selection.
>
> > Or in other words microevolution is slight change caused by material
> > phenomenon. There is no evidence for this belief - none whatsoever.
>
> Except that it happens.
No, it does not.
It is a claim - a claim that I once accepted by blind faith. After two
years of intense research I came to the conclusion that the claim is
100 percent false and I have in my possession the scientific evidence
to prove it. That evidence will be found in my paper. Evolution, as
understood since 1859, has not occurred on this planet at anytime or
at any rate.
> Ray, my grandfather, Fred Hoit, had bent little
> fingers. All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five
> children, I have a brother and four cousins and they have a whole
> handful of kids amongst them, who by now are getting ready to have kids
> of their own - as far as I know we all carry the Hoit bent little
> finger).
Genetic inheritance (deformity in this case) is not microevolution as
defined above. Selection (mechanism of microevolution) acts to better
an organism, unless Darwin was wrong.
Jim: what about degrees of talent; emotions; and instincts? What
causes them? Material phenomenon?
> In several more generations, I imagine there will be a fair
> number of descendants of Fred Hoit who all have bent little fingers.
Not guaranteed, but highly probable. But there is no reproduction
benefit. We have been through this before. I am sure you remember. You
cannot have things both ways all of the time. You cannot call bent
fingers microevolutionary beneficial. All they are is an aberration
that will die out in some future generation.
> Now, Ray, is this slight change the result of Divine causation, or the
> result of a random mutation?
>
If causation is Divine then the next question is why? Of course we
have an explanation for imperfection or sub-optimality.
As for RM: it has never existed except within the context of material
causation as first defined by Darwin. (Please notice that I did not
say that Darwin advocated RM as understood today.)
The only issue is which explanation is a better explanation that
corresponds to reality. Over half of all adults in the U.S. say that
Creationism (= Divine causation) is the scientific theory that best
corresponds to reality. My presence and arguments here exist in a
position of strength. Persons agree that causation is Divine. This is
not a popularity argument. This is an argument that says ***a*** jury
agrees with Divine causation. Other juries agree with the evolutionary
explanation. The vast majority of scientific personnel agree that
causation is material. But like the other jury, this is simply many
persons with the same opinion, or a unit of one.
The next issue brings us right back to the central question. A
question posed by Professor Huston Smith: "Who's Right About
Reality....?" (2001, "Why Religion Matters" p.11).
We only need to explain why evolutionists accept material causation.
> How about another example - one of my cats has a very oily coat (she
> looks spiky, and feels kinda greasy when you pet her). Her grandmother
> had a similar coat, as did her great-grandmother and great-great
> grandmother. (Other descendants had normal coats.) Is this
> modification of her coat Divinely caused, or the result of a random
> mutation?
>
> Speaking of cats, what about the well-known six- and seven-toed cats?
> Are these the result of Divine causation or random mutation?
>
> Now, Ray, here is another question: are these obvious modifications
> microevolution? If not, why not?
>
> > It took me two plus years of research to establish this fact and
> > change my viewpoint.
>
> > Ray
>
> It seems to me that whoever taught you to do research was not very good
> at it. Counterexamples trump 'research', no matter how many books you
> read, or quotes you can find. You can fight reality all you like, but
> in the end reality wins. Remember that: reality wins.
Ray
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<612fb84b-79b6-4a2c...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>On Mar 24, 3:57 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:01:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <eb622a80-d8ab-4ace-baa3-93c9232a1...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >On Mar 22, 11:30 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mar 22, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 21, 10:22 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> You define "evolution" in ways bizarrely different from the
>> >> way actual evolutionists define it.
>>
>> >Only you do that. ***Everything I say*** I can back up with
>> >scholarship.
>>
>> This, of course, is false. You regularly make claims and fail to back
>> them up.
>>
>
>Such as......
In
news:549515b4-9b5e-45b0...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
you stated, regarding some feathers that had been found in amber, that
A close-up of rachis and barbules and barbs compared to the
pictures in the link does not suport a claim of intermediacy.
When are you going to back up that claim?
>> >None of your assertions are ever supported by scholarship
>> >and references - none - ever.
>>
>> [snip]
Also, now that we're in agreement that "Harun Yahya" misrepresented
the contents of a newspaper article, I'm still waiting for you to
condemn him for lying, like you said you would.
DJT
> On Mar 25, 4:29 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Or in other words microevolution is slight change caused by material
> > > phenomenon. There is no evidence for this belief - none whatsoever.
>
> > Except that it happens.
>
> No, it does not.
Jim gave several examples of it happening.
>
> It is a claim - a claim that I once accepted by blind faith.
Just because you accepted it on 'blind faith' does not mean that
others haven't seen the evidence.
> After two
> years of intense research I came to the conclusion that the claim is
> 100 percent false and I have in my possession the scientific evidence
> to prove it.
Ray, exactly what kind of "research" did you do? Did you read
scientific journal articles? Did you do experiments on your own?
Did you correspond with geneticists, and other scientists who are
directly involved in observing evolution?
>That evidence will be found in my paper.
So, the "evidence" you assert will never be found. Hiding behind
your 'paper' to avoid having to support your claims has gotten very
old.
> Evolution, as
> understood since 1859, has not occurred on this planet at anytime or
> at any rate.
Then why is there so much evidence that it has? In any case, you've
shown that you don't understand what evolution is, and what is the
evidence for evolution. Why should anyone take your word for it?
>
> > Ray, my grandfather, Fred Hoit, had bent little
> > fingers. All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five
> > children, I have a brother and four cousins and they have a whole
> > handful of kids amongst them, who by now are getting ready to have kids
> > of their own - as far as I know we all carry the Hoit bent little
> > finger).
>
> Genetic inheritance (deformity in this case) is not microevolution as
> defined above.
Why not, Ray? The trait that Jim mentioned is not a deformity, and
it is a genetic change in a population over generations.
> Selection (mechanism of microevolution) acts to better
> an organism, unless Darwin was wrong.
Again, Ray, you got it wrong. "Selection" does not act to "better"
an organism. Selection fixes a trait in the population. Also,
selection is only part of the mechanism of evolution. Microevolution
can take place without selection.
>
> Jim: what about degrees of talent; emotions; and instincts? What
> causes them? Material phenomenon?
Most likely, yes. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please
present it.
>
> > In several more generations, I imagine there will be a fair
> > number of descendants of Fred Hoit who all have bent little fingers.
>
> Not guaranteed, but highly probable. But there is no reproduction
> benefit.
There doesn't have to be, for it to be microevolution,.
> We have been through this before. I am sure you remember.
Yes, you got your butt kicked before.
> You
> cannot have things both ways all of the time. You cannot call bent
> fingers microevolutionary beneficial. All they are is an aberration
> that will die out in some future generation.
Except that they aren't an "abberation" and as long as they don't have
any major reproductive cost, they most likely will persist in the
population. Again, a trait does not have to be beneficial in order
for it to be retained in a population. This is an example of genetic
drift, which you didn't think anyone cared about.
>
> > Now, Ray, is this slight change the result of Divine causation, or the
> > result of a random mutation?
>
> If causation is Divine then the next question is why?
Actually, the question is "IS it divine causation"? How can you
tell?
> Of course we
> have an explanation for imperfection or sub-optimality.
What might that explanation be?
>
> As for RM: it has never existed except within the context of material
> causation as first defined by Darwin. (Please notice that I did not
> say that Darwin advocated RM as understood today.)
Ray, random mutation can be observed in any population. Where do
you get the idea that it doesn't exist?
>
> The only issue is which explanation is a better explanation that
> corresponds to reality.
That's simple. The one that's been observed. "Divine causation"
has never been observed. Evolution has been observed. "Divine
causation" loses.
>Over half of all adults in the U.S. say that
> Creationism (= Divine causation) is the scientific theory that best
> corresponds to reality.
Ray, the population of the US is largely made up of people who woudn't
know a scientific theory if they saw one. Creationism is not a
scientific theory, and never was one. It's not the "best"
explanation for the evidence, and in fact it's not an explanation at
all. It's a religious belief.
You also have claimed that the majority is always wrong, now you
depend on the "majority", and an uneducated majority at that, to
support your claim.
> My presence and arguments here exist in a
> position of strength.
How is having no evidence, and no logical support a "position of
strength"?
> Persons agree that causation is Divine.
Ray, "persons" agree that stars influence daily events, and that if
you hope real hard, you team will win the Pennant. That doesn't mean
those "persons" are right.
> This is
> not a popularity argument.
Actually, that's exactly what it is.
> This is an argument that says ***a*** jury
> agrees with Divine causation.
Except that in a court case, the jury at least in an ideal situation,
is familiar with the evidence, and is willing to overlook personal
prejudices. In your case, you have a jury of the uneducated, who
are unfamiliar with the evidence, and have let their personal biases
intercede. The general public is not scientifically literate, and
don't have any valid reason to assume "divine causation".
> Other juries agree with the evolutionary
> explanation.
Those who understand the evidence, and are educated. When
Creationists have had a chance in open court to present their beliefs,
they have lost every time.
>The vast majority of scientific personnel agree that
> causation is material.
Because they know the facts in the case.
> But like the other jury, this is simply many
> persons with the same opinion, or a unit of one.
However not all opinions are equal. Do you really feel that the
opinion of the uneducated, and apathetic is more important than the
opinion of those who know the facts?
>
> The next issue brings us right back to the central question. A
> question posed by Professor Huston Smith: "Who's Right About
> Reality....?" (2001, "Why Religion Matters" p.11).
>
> We only need to explain why evolutionists accept material causation.
Because material causation has been observed to produce results.
"Evolutionists" in this case is anyone who is familiar with the
evidence.
>
>
>
> > How about another example - one of my cats has a very oily coat (she
> > looks spiky, and feels kinda greasy when you pet her). Her grandmother
> > had a similar coat, as did her great-grandmother and great-great
> > grandmother. (Other descendants had normal coats.) Is this
> > modification of her coat Divinely caused, or the result of a random
> > mutation?
>
> > Speaking of cats, what about the well-known six- and seven-toed cats?
> > Are these the result of Divine causation or random mutation?
>
> > Now, Ray, here is another question: are these obvious modifications
> > microevolution? If not, why not?
>
> > > It took me two plus years of research to establish this fact and
> > > change my viewpoint.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > It seems to me that whoever taught you to do research was not very good
> > at it. Counterexamples trump 'research', no matter how many books you
> > read, or quotes you can find. You can fight reality all you like, but
> > in the end reality wins. Remember that: reality wins.
Why have you ignored these points, Ray?
DJT
DJT
> On Mar 24, 3:57 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:01:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > <eb622a80-d8ab-4ace-baa3-93c9232a1...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>
> > >On Mar 22, 11:30 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 22, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 21, 10:22 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > >> You define "evolution" in ways bizarrely different from the
> > >> way actual evolutionists define it.
>
> > >Only you do that. ***Everything I say*** I can back up with
> > >scholarship.
>
> > This, of course, is false. You regularly make claims and fail to back
> > them up.
>
> Such as......
For starters, how about your claim that "the female uterus produces a
scent mechanism that prevents fertilization by other species".
How about your claim that human females were raped by non human
apes?
How about your claim that JPL scientists supported the "Vapor
Canopy"?
How about your assertion that no one cares about genetic drift?
DJT
DJT
> Over half of all adults in the U.S. say that
> Creationism (= Divine causation) is the scientific theory that best
> corresponds to reality. My presence and arguments here exist in a
> position of strength. Persons agree that causation is Divine. This is
> not a popularity argument.
DJT
Kermit
> On Mar 25, 4:29 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1bc25c3b-9d1b-4e8f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > <cutting to the chase, as it were>
>
> > > As I was saying: microevolution is a small almost imperceptible change
> > > called a modification. It is caused, for the most part, by natural
> > > selection.
>
> > > Or in other words microevolution is slight change caused by material
> > > phenomenon. There is no evidence for this belief - none whatsoever.
>
> > Except that it happens.
>
> No, it does not.
Well, yes, it does.
Here's some of the evidence:
The nested hierarchy, and the observation that genomes and
morphology match.
Vestigial behaviors and organs, and junk DNA.
The fossil record, sorted chronologically and revealing a succession
not just of organisms but whole ecologies, changing from primitive to
modern forms over long periods of time.
The fossil record corresponds to plate tectonics.
Embryological development.
Support from tree rings, ice cores, anthropological records.
The fact that all of these point to the same picture.
>
> It is a claim - a claim that I once accepted by blind faith. After two
> years of intense research
I for one do not consider mailing checks to a cigar smoking horse
gambler to be research.
> I came to the conclusion that the claim is
> 100 percent false and I have in my possession the scientific evidence
> to prove it. That evidence will be found in my paper. Evolution, as
> understood since 1859, has not occurred on this planet at anytime or
> at any rate.
And yet, the model fits the data.
>
> > Ray, my grandfather, Fred Hoit, had bent little
> > fingers. All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five
> > children, I have a brother and four cousins and they have a whole
> > handful of kids amongst them, who by now are getting ready to have kids
> > of their own - as far as I know we all carry the Hoit bent little
> > finger).
>
> Genetic inheritance (deformity in this case) is not microevolution as
> defined above. Selection (mechanism of microevolution) acts to better
> an organism, unless Darwin was wrong.
Sounds like neutral drift, since it isn't adversely affecting the
family's reproductive rate. One of the mechanisms of evolution.
>
> Jim: what about degrees of talent; emotions; and instincts? What
> causes them? Material phenomenon?
Yes. Brain, nutrition, family dynamics, accidents, and cultural
influences.
>
> > In several more generations, I imagine there will be a fair
> > number of descendants of Fred Hoit who all have bent little fingers.
>
> Not guaranteed, but highly probable. But there is no reproduction
> benefit. We have been through this before. I am sure you remember. You
> cannot have things both ways all of the time. You cannot call bent
> fingers microevolutionary beneficial. All they are is an aberration
> that will die out in some future generation.
At this rate its going to have to be some die-off. Why aren't they
dying off now? I have a bent little finger (acquired thru trauma) and
it is a minor handicap. I can't brush crumbs off the counter
efficiently. Can't see how else it affects me.
>
> > Now, Ray, is this slight change the result of Divine causation, or the
> > result of a random mutation?
>
> If causation is Divine then the next question is why? Of course we
> have an explanation for imperfection or sub-optimality.
God test those He loves most?
>
> As for RM: it has never existed except within the context of material
> causation as first defined by Darwin. (Please notice that I did not
> say that Darwin advocated RM as understood today.)
How would one go about collecting evidence of God's handiwork, except
by studying material data? Can you give me an example of a testable
model involving God?
>
> The only issue is which explanation is a better explanation that
> corresponds to reality. Over half of all adults in the U.S. say that
> Creationism (= Divine causation) is the scientific theory that best
> corresponds to reality.
From
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/914a9b91d293a5f7/172abc9b522aa074?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=%22Ray+Martinez%22+majority+%27bible+says%22+wrong#172abc9b522aa074
"IN the Bible the majority is always wrong = typology is proven true
by
your link above."
Your. Words.
> My presence and arguments here exist in a
> position of strength. Persons agree that causation is Divine. This is
> not a popularity argument. This is an argument that says ***a*** jury
> agrees with Divine causation. Other juries agree with the evolutionary
> explanation. The vast majority of scientific personnel agree that
> causation is material. But like the other jury, this is simply many
> persons with the same opinion, or a unit of one.
>
> The next issue brings us right back to the central question. A
> question posed by Professor Huston Smith: "Who's Right About
> Reality....?" (2001, "Why Religion Matters" p.11).
>
> We only need to explain why evolutionists accept material causation.
Because evolutionary science is a testable model that fits the facts.
Because there are no other testable models that fit the facts.
Because the facts are, as facts always are, material.
>
>
>
> > How about another example - one of my cats has a very oily coat (she
> > looks spiky, and feels kinda greasy when you pet her). Her grandmother
> > had a similar coat, as did her great-grandmother and great-great
> > grandmother. (Other descendants had normal coats.) Is this
> > modification of her coat Divinely caused, or the result of a random
> > mutation?
>
> > Speaking of cats, what about the well-known six- and seven-toed cats?
> > Are these the result of Divine causation or random mutation?
>
> > Now, Ray, here is another question: are these obvious modifications
> > microevolution? If not, why not?
>
> > > It took me two plus years of research to establish this fact and
> > > change my viewpoint.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > It seems to me that whoever taught you to do research was not very good
> > at it. Counterexamples trump 'research', no matter how many books you
> > read, or quotes you can find. You can fight reality all you like, but
> > in the end reality wins. Remember that: reality wins.
>
> Ray
No response?
Kermit
Elmer
>(snip)
> We only need to explain why evolutionists accept material causation.
Perhaps that's because that's what God created? He didn't make us supernatural
beings, now did He? Where in Genesis does it say that God created something
unseen and nonexistent? BTW, Ray:
Ray Martinez wrote:
(snip)
> In context, of course.
build a new building, so who built that building Ray?
#10.
Jim Willemin
> On Mar 25, 4:29 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:1bc25c3b-9d1b-4e8f-a9db-63f8b281cc42
@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>> <cutting to the chase, as it were>
>>
>> > As I was saying: microevolution is a small almost imperceptible
>> > change called a modification. It is caused, for the most part, by
>> > natural selection.
>>
>> > Or in other words microevolution is slight change caused by
>> > material phenomenon. There is no evidence for this belief - none
>> > whatsoever.
>>
>> Except that it happens.
>
> No, it does not.
>
> It is a claim - a claim that I once accepted by blind faith. After two
> years of intense research I came to the conclusion that the claim is
> 100 percent false and I have in my possession the scientific evidence
> to prove it. That evidence will be found in my paper. Evolution, as
> understood since 1859, has not occurred on this planet at anytime or
> at any rate.
>
>> Ray, my grandfather, Fred Hoit, had bent little
>> fingers. All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five
>> children, I have a brother and four cousins and they have a whole
>> handful of kids amongst them, who by now are getting ready to have
>> kids of their own - as far as I know we all carry the Hoit bent
>> little finger).
>
> Genetic inheritance (deformity in this case) is not microevolution as
> defined above. Selection (mechanism of microevolution) acts to better
> an organism, unless Darwin was wrong.
Wait just a minute here. Why is the propagation of a trait not
microevolution? In a thousand generations a huge percentage of humans
will carry the Hoit bent little finger,insofar as it appears to be a
dominant gene (at which point straight little fingers will be reckoned a
deformity). Natural selection IS working on this trait - it is neutral,
so natural selection has no effect on it, and it spreads slowly through
the population. Natural selection only acts to remove ill-adapted
traits, those that render indiviual organisms less likely to reproduce
than their fellows. Since bent little fingers have no effect on
likelihood of reproduction (cf. the growing number of descendants of
Fred Hoit), they are not removed by natural selection. So, Ray -
natural selection allows the propagation of bent little fingers, which I
guess means that (by your description of the effects of natural
selection) those that carry the trait are an improved model of human.
>
> Jim: what about degrees of talent; emotions; and instincts? What
> causes them? Material phenomenon?
>
Yes, but what does this have to do with the price of rice in China? It
is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>> In several more generations, I imagine there will be a fair
>> number of descendants of Fred Hoit who all have bent little fingers.
>>
>
> Not guaranteed, but highly probable. But there is no reproduction
> benefit. We have been through this before. I am sure you remember. You
> cannot have things both ways all of the time. You cannot call bent
> fingers microevolutionary beneficial. All they are is an aberration
> that will die out in some future generation.
Ray, I never claimed that bent little fingers are beneficial (except to
hold beer cans). The trait is reproductively neutral - it has no effect
on the likelihood of successful reproduction. It is a dominant trait,
expressed in all the children of one who bears that trait (at least, it
is to the best of my knowledge - I haven't seen my cousin's kids). That
means that it will spread, albeit slowly. There is no reason for
natural selection to operate on this particular trait by killing off
those of us who are blessed with it.
Let me emphasize here: the Hoit bent little finger is reproductively
neutral - it isn't a babe magnet, nor is it a hindrance to having kids.
It is genetically dominant, so it will spread through the population as
generations pass. Eventually, a large subset of H. sapiens may have
that trait. You claim this is not microevolution, which you define as
- "...microevolution is a small almost imperceptible
- change called a modification. It is caused, for the most part, by
- natural selection.
- Or in other words microevolution is slight change caused by
- material phenomenon."
The Hoit bent little finger is a small change in the morphology of H.
sapiens, which is not removed by natural selection. Why is this not an
example of microevolution?
>
>> Now, Ray, is this slight change the result of Divine causation, or
>> the result of a random mutation?
>>
>
> If causation is Divine then the next question is why? Of course we
> have an explanation for imperfection or sub-optimality.
>
This does not answer the question. Is the appearance of the Hoit bent
little finger the result of Divine causation? Yes or no? If not, why
not?
I don't want to know what your 'explanation for imperfection' is, though
I suspect it is indistinguishable from random mutation.
> As for RM: it has never existed except within the context of material
> causation as first defined by Darwin. (Please notice that I did not
> say that Darwin advocated RM as understood today.)
<snip appeal to popularity>
>
> The next issue brings us right back to the central question. A
> question posed by Professor Huston Smith: "Who's Right About
> Reality....?" (2001, "Why Religion Matters" p.11).
>
What next issue? Is the Hoit bent little finger the result of Divine
causation? Yes or no? If not, why not?
> We only need to explain why evolutionists accept material causation.
No, you need to tell me whether or not my cat's funky coat is the result
of Divine casuation. Is it? Yes or no? If not, why not?
And come to think of it, how do you know?
Ray Martinez
> On Mar 24, 6:14 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 12:00 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 1:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > > I do not deny random mutation.
>
> > > > You *did*.
>
> > > I did not deny that random mutation happens; I merely noted that it is
> > > not necessarily involved wherever natural selection, or evolution, is
> > > involved.
>
> > > > > I merely note that natural selection
> > > > > can work on existing variations even if no new variation arises.
>
> Ray. Let me ease your mind. Natural selection *always* works on
> *existing* variations.
Yes, I know, that is the claim. What is your point?
> Selection, being a natural process, *never*
> works on non-existent or potentially existent or imaginary
> variations.
It should be noted that your comments are actually addressing comments
written by Steven J.
> Variations, both new and existing, are due to mutation.
Yes, I know, that is the claim - a claim that I am not disputing. I am
only saying, and I have only been saying, that these are claims of
evolutionary theory and that these claims presuppose the scientific
veracity of material causation also known as Materialism.
> Natural selection (and neutral drift) only comes into play when the
> variation actually exists in the population.
>
Okay....so....what is the point?
Steven asked me to define microevolution. When I did he promptly began
to clown the discussion. He has not stopped.
Howard: microevolution is incremental change, more accurately
described as modification. Natural selection is the main (but not the
exclusive) agent causing modification-evolution. It is error to talk
about microevolution unless cause (NS) and effect (modification) is
described.
No matter how times I define or describe microevolution Steven J
grossly misrepresents, distorts, and suddenly cannot read with
comprehension. I hope you do not choose to engage this path too.
Mind you: I can support and reference everything that I say with
evolutionary scientists - everything. But none of this is the point
here. The point here, which has nothing to do with you (as of yet) is
that the basic description of microevolution that I have provided is
not at issue or in question. This is kindergarten stuff. The issue
here is the inexcusable behavior and indefensible actions of Steven J
and Dana Tweedy. All posts from these two persons are deliberate
distortions each and every step of the way.
If you want to align yourself with them then fine. I will simply
ignore and go about my business with other persons and their messages
and not waste my time with howlers.
> But, if, as you seem to agree, mutation does provide new or re-
> emergent variation, there does indeed seem to always be variation upon
> which selection can act.
According to Ernst Mayr it is almost unlimited. Other context he seems
to say there is a limit. It doesn't really matter to me which is true
or if both are sometimes true.
> Mutation (an event causing permanent change
> in a DNA sequence) is the only known mechanism for generating
> variation. Do you propose a different mechanism for generating
> variation?
>
> [snip]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I agree that is the claim.
Ray
DJT
> On Mar 25, 6:25 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ray. Let me ease your mind. Natural selection *always* works on
> > *existing* variations.
>
> Yes, I know, that is the claim. What is your point?
That natural selection always works on existing variations. How did
you miss that?
>
> > Selection, being a natural process, *never*
> > works on non-existent or potentially existent or imaginary
> > variations.
>
> It should be noted that your comments are actually addressing comments
> written by Steven J.
How so?
>
> > Variations, both new and existing, are due to mutation.
>
> Yes, I know, that is the claim - a claim that I am not disputing.
That "claim" as you put it, has been observed. If you don't dispute
mutations, why are you claiming that they don't exist?
> I am
> only saying, and I have only been saying, that these are claims of
> evolutionary theory and that these claims presuppose the scientific
> veracity of material causation also known as Materialism.
Ray, all science "presupposes" that. "Materialism" is more correctly
the belief that nothing beyond the material exists. Science doesn't
go that far. It only "presupposes" that material causation is all
that can be observed. If you can show any evidence of "divine
causation" please do so.
>
> > Natural selection (and neutral drift) only comes into play when the
> > variation actually exists in the population.
>
> Okay....so....what is the point?
That where there is no variation, there is no natural selection, or
drift.
>
> Steven asked me to define microevolution. When I did he promptly began
> to clown the discussion. He has not stopped.
Ray, he's not the "clown" in the discussion. You are. You got the
definition of microevolution wrong. Steven and others, such as
myself are showing you were you went wrong.
>
> Howard: microevolution is incremental change, more accurately
> described as modification.
That's not how anyone else defines the term.
> Natural selection is the main (but not the
> exclusive) agent causing modification-evolution.
Again, Ray, that's wrong. The "main agent" in microevolution is
variation in the population, produced by constant random mutations.
Natural selection is what *fixes* particular variants in the
population. In the same way, artificial selection by humans, or
sexual selection by members of the species, can fix variations as
well.
> It is error to talk
> about microevolution unless cause (NS) and effect (modification) is
> described.
But you have the "cause" and "effect" wrong. "Modification" in a
population is evolution, even if you don't want to admit it. Natural
selection itself does not cause "modification" of a population, unless
there is some variation in the population for the selection to work
on. It's not clear, from your use of the term "organism" if you
mean the individual, or the population. It should be remembered that
evolution occurs in populations, not individuals. Once an individual
organism is born (by whatever process), any further modification of
that individual is not inheritable. Therefore it's not evolution.
>
> No matter how times I define or describe microevolution Steven J
> grossly misrepresents, distorts, and suddenly cannot read with
> comprehension. I hope you do not choose to engage this path too.
Actually, Ray, Steven has not misrepresented, or distorted your
statements. You are just unable to see the logical extension of your
claims. Your own inability to write clearly, and your constant
contradictions make your writing difficult to understand.
>
> Mind you: I can support and reference everything that I say with
> evolutionary scientists - everything.
But you haven't, and I suspect you can't because to do so, you'd have
to understand what was written, not just copy their statements out of
context.
> But none of this is the point
> here. The point here, which has nothing to do with you (as of yet) is
> that the basic description of microevolution that I have provided is
> not at issue or in question.
Aren't you concerned that your "basic description" is utterly
wrong?
>This is kindergarten stuff.
And apparently you are flunking kindergarten...
>The issue
> here is the inexcusable behavior and indefensible actions of Steven J
> and Dana Tweedy. All posts from these two persons are deliberate
> distortions each and every step of the way.
How have Steven or I distorted anything you said? Making
accusations of "distortion" does not negate the points that Steven and
I have made. You may use them as an excuse to avoid discussion, but
it's not honest, or productive.
>
> If you want to align yourself with them then fine. I will simply
> ignore and go about my business with other persons and their messages
> and not waste my time with howlers.
Which is your way of saying you can't deal with the points Steven and
I are making. When Howard's points become too much, you will run away
again, whining that you were "distorted".
>
> > But, if, as you seem to agree, mutation does provide new or re-
> > emergent variation, there does indeed seem to always be variation upon
> > which selection can act.
>
> According to Ernst Mayr it is almost unlimited.
Which indicates you have misunderstood Mayr.
> Other context he seems
> to say there is a limit. It doesn't really matter to me which is true
> or if both are sometimes true.
Which indicates you ignore what you don't understand, and don't wish
to understand.
>
> > Mutation (an event causing permanent change
> > in a DNA sequence) is the only known mechanism for generating
> > variation. Do you propose a different mechanism for generating
> > variation?
>
> > [snip]- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No, I agree that is the claim.
That is the truth. Ray, I have to ask, although you will probably
just ignore the question. Do you accept that populations of
organisms undergo genetic change over generations? (by whatever
means)
If you don't accept this, what is your explanation for why antibiotics
eventually fail to work on populations of bacteria. What is your
explanation for the hundreds of breeds of dogs registered by the
AKC? How do you explain the dozens of breeds of domestic cattle?
What is your explanation for Teosinte becoming Maize over thousands of
years of cultivation in MesoAmerica?
DJT
hersheyh
> > > I did not deny that random mutation happens; I merely noted that it is
> > > not necessarily involved wherever natural selection, or evolution, is
> > > involved.
> > > > > I merely note that natural selection
> > > > > can work on existing variations even if no new variation arises.
The point is that you appear to be making a distinction between
"existing variation" and "variation caused by mutation". No such
distinction exists. *All* variation that has ever been observed to
occur has occurred by mutation. *All* variation that can be observed
have differences that can be attributed to the known action of various
kinds of mutational processes even if we have not actually observed
the mutational event. There is NO mechanism other than mutation that
you or anyone else has proposed to be a substitute mechanism for
generating variation. *All* the variation that natural selection
works on is existing variation. That is the point.
Many creationists, and perhaps you, deny that any 'beneficial'
mutations exist. They often do so by denying that any beneficial
variations were caused by mutation. Instead they claim that such
variations *already existed*, ignorantly thinking that natural
selection works on variation that does not exist at that time.
Natural selection does not *create* the variation. Mutation does.
Natural selection requires the variation to actually exist beforehand.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
The place where you begin your comments are in reply to things Steven
J wrote - not I.
This is the second time that I have pointed this out.
Your comments begin by answering my "what's the point?" comment BUT
they actually follow things written by Steven J and not me.
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
Because Darwin said that NS acts favorably, or for the good, or to
improve, an organism, is he wrong? Bent fingers do not correspond to
'good' or 'improvement'. And may I remind that any accepted evolution
since 1859 has never existed except in the context of a proposed
mechanism. It seems as if you seek to isolate change apart from
causation. Personally, it doesn't matter to me. If evolutionists want
to call any propagation microevolution then fine. BUT for the sake of
accuracy, according to evolutionary authorities, like Darwin, the
mechanism of modification-evolution does not propagate injury.
Darwin, "Origin of Species" 1859:
Natural Selection
page 81:
"On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least
degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of
favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I
call Natural Selection."
page 84:
"It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly
scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the
slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all
that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever
opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in
relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life....Although
natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being,
yet characters and structures, which we are apt to consider as of very
trifling importance, may thus be acted on."
I would like to stress that it doesn't matter to me, personally, if
microevolution causes non-beneficial traits. My only concern here is
to accurately communicate the claims of evolutionary theory. You need
to remember that I don't believe in, or accept, any of this crap.
> In a thousand generations a huge percentage of humans
> will carry the Hoit bent little finger,insofar as it appears to be a
> dominant gene (at which point straight little fingers will be reckoned a
> deformity).
Are you serious?
> Natural selection IS working on this trait - it is neutral,
Cite....reference....please?
> so natural selection has no effect on it, and it spreads slowly through
> the population.
You say NS "IS working" then you say NS "has no effect on it...."
According to Darwin NS is not working on the trait at issue. Maybe I
have misunderstood your point?
Will finish ASAP.
Ray
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
wrote:
*********************
> Natural selection only acts to remove ill-adapted
> traits, those that render indiviual organisms less likely to reproduce
> than their fellows.
Not according to Darwin.
NS is a positive force of addition through beneficial selection. Maybe
you are just describing the same result in a negative fashion.
> Since bent little fingers have no effect on
> likelihood of reproduction (cf. the growing number of descendants of
> Fred Hoit), they are not removed by natural selection. So, Ray -
> natural selection allows the propagation of bent little fingers, which I
> guess means that (by your description of the effects of natural
> selection) those that carry the trait are an improved model of human.
>
Explain how bent fingers correspond to improvement? Previously you
were fighting for neutrality. Now you have graduated your claim.
>
>
> > Jim: what about degrees of talent; emotions; and instincts? What
> > causes them? Material phenomenon?
>
> Yes, but what does this have to do with the price of rice in China? It
> is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
>
> >> In several more generations, I imagine there will be a fair
> >> number of descendants of Fred Hoit who all have bent little fingers.
> >>
>
> > Not guaranteed, but highly probable. But there is no reproduction
> > benefit. We have been through this before. I am sure you remember. You
> > cannot have things both ways all of the time. You cannot call bent
> > fingers microevolutionary beneficial. All they are is an aberration
> > that will die out in some future generation.
>
> Ray, I never claimed that bent little fingers are beneficial (except to
> hold beer cans). The trait is reproductively neutral - it has no effect
> on the likelihood of successful reproduction. It is a dominant trait,
> expressed in all the children of one who bears that trait (at least, it
> is to the best of my knowledge - I haven't seen my cousin's kids). That
> means that it will spread, albeit slowly. There is no reason for
> natural selection to operate on this particular trait by killing off
> those of us who are blessed with it.
>
But your view of NS in relation to bent fingers is not supported by
Darwin. That is my only point.
> Let me emphasize here: the Hoit bent little finger is reproductively
> neutral - it isn't a babe magnet, nor is it a hindrance to having kids.
> It is genetically dominant, so it will spread through the population as
> generations pass. Eventually, a large subset of H. sapiens may have
> that trait. You claim this is not microevolution, which you define as
>
> - "...microevolution is a small almost imperceptible
> - change called a modification. It is caused, for the most part, by
> - natural selection.
>
> - Or in other words microevolution is slight change caused by
> - material phenomenon."
>
> The Hoit bent little finger is a small change in the morphology of H.
> sapiens, which is not removed by natural selection. Why is this not an
> example of microevolution?
>
Because it is diminutive or non-beneficial. Modification-evolution, by
natural selection, doesn't even know that your defective variation
exists if the selection process acts as Darwin says it acts. NS
doesn't choose or remove anything. These terms: "remove" - "choose" -
"add" - "subtract" are teleological and not intended to be understood
as such. They are words attempting to describe a single repetitive
phenomenon that ***acts only one way**** since material causation, of
course, is unintelligent. This action, according to Darwin, is seen to
improve an organism for its good. Natural selection, and its
relationship to variation (whatever its cause) has the ability to
choose the good or beneficial. It cannot chew gum and walk at the same
time. You have no source, in Darwin, for your claims.
>
>
> >> Now, Ray, is this slight change the result of Divine causation, or
> >> the result of a random mutation?
>
> > If causation is Divine then the next question is why? Of course we
> > have an explanation for imperfection or sub-optimality.
>
> This does not answer the question. Is the appearance of the Hoit bent
> little finger the result of Divine causation? Yes or no? If not, why
> not?
>
Ultimately, yes.
> I don't want to know what your 'explanation for imperfection' is, though
> I suspect it is indistinguishable from random mutation.
>
> > As for RM: it has never existed except within the context of material
> > causation as first defined by Darwin. (Please notice that I did not
> > say that Darwin advocated RM as understood today.)
>
> <snip appeal to popularity>
>
For the record: It wasn't an appeal to popularity. I plainly explained
why.
>
>
> > The next issue brings us right back to the central question. A
> > question posed by Professor Huston Smith: "Who's Right About
> > Reality....?" (2001, "Why Religion Matters" p.11).
>
> What next issue? Is the Hoit bent little finger the result of Divine
> causation? Yes or no? If not, why not?
>
But unlike NS, Divine causation is free to cause negative effects and
results.
> > We only need to explain why evolutionists accept material causation.
>
> No, you need to tell me whether or not my cat's funky coat is the result
> of Divine casuation. Is it? Yes or no? If not, why not?
>
> And come to think of it, how do you know?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> How about another example - one of my cats has a very oily coat (she
> >> looks spiky, and feels kinda greasy when you pet her). Her
> >> grandmother had a similar coat, as did her great-grandmother and
> >> great-great grandmother. (Other descendants had normal coats.) Is
> >> this modification of her coat Divinely caused, or the result of a
> >> random mutation?
>
> >> Speaking of cats, what about the well-known six- and seven-toed cats?
> >> Are these the result of Divine causation or random mutation?
>
> >> Now, Ray, here is another question: are these obvious modifications
> >> microevolution? If not, why not?
>
> >> > It took me two plus years of research to establish this fact and
> >> > change my viewpoint.
>
> >> > Ray
>
> >> It seems to me that whoever taught you to do research was not very
> >> good at it. Counterexamples trump 'research', no matter how many
> >> books you read, or quotes you can find. You can fight reality all
> >> you like, but in the end reality wins. Remember that: reality wins.
>
> > Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Other posters asked why I did not address these last issues or points.
But I did address them in my previous comments (both posts). All you
did was exchange bent fingers with oily cat fur. I do not understand
how these other posters could miss this fact.
Your very last comment is about reality. That is why I quoted
Professor Smith before (and above).
Ray
Shane
wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:06 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1ed00de8-e4d4-4f55...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Mar 25, 4:29 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> innews:1bc25c3b-9d1b-4e8f-a9db-63f8b281cc42
[...]
>>>> Ray, my grandfather, Fred Hoit, had bent little
>>>> fingers. All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five
>>>> children, I have a brother and four cousins and they have a whole
>>>> handful of kids amongst them, who by now are getting ready to have
>>>> kids of their own - as far as I know we all carry the Hoit bent
>>>> little finger).
>>
>>> Genetic inheritance (deformity in this case) is not microevolution as
>>> defined above. Selection (mechanism of microevolution) acts to better
>>> an organism, unless Darwin was wrong.
>>
>> Wait just a minute here. Why is the propagation of a trait not
>> microevolution?
>
> Because Darwin said that NS acts favorably, or for the good, or to
> improve, an organism, is he wrong?
Possibly*, but it is really beside the point. NS is not the
only force that drives evolution, thus it cannot be
conflated with evolution.
*NS has a number of aspects, one of which is the selection
of positive traits, which may not necessarily be
improvements to the organism, even though they may help
survival. An example that came to mind is the issue of dogs
sweating through their tongue. It may help retain moisture
in dry environments but it is really an improved cooling
method?
NS, obviously, also works against those characteristics that
lead to the organism failing to reproduce, or becoming
someones lunch.
Finally it is a mistake to think that NS leads to the
optimum result. Rather than survival of the fittest, it is
more like survival of the adequate, as a result of which the
far less than optimum--the vertebrate eye for example--is
enough of an advantage over the extant alternatives to
confer the advantage, even though there are better eyes out
there now, or in other creatures.
> Bent fingers do not correspond to
> 'good' or 'improvement'.
Nor are they being naturally selected, but they are a
mutation that is spreading in a population, thus there is
evolution involved. Given that they are not a new species,
it must be that they are microevolutionary changes.
> And may I remind that any accepted evolution
> since 1859 has never existed except in the context of a proposed
> mechanism. It seems as if you seek to isolate change apart from
> causation. Personally, it doesn't matter to me. If evolutionists want
> to call any propagation microevolution then fine. BUT for the sake of
> accuracy, according to evolutionary authorities, like Darwin, the
> mechanism of modification-evolution does not propagate injury.
True in Darwins day, but given that he had no idea of
genetics, then he could hardly be expected to account for
the varying methods by which genes mutate in his seminal
work.
>
> Darwin, "Origin of Species" 1859:
>
> Natural Selection
>
> page 81:
>
> "On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least
> degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of
> favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I
> call Natural Selection."
>
> page 84:
>
> "It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly
> scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the
> slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all
> that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever
> opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in
> relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life....Although
> natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being,
> yet characters and structures, which we are apt to consider as of very
> trifling importance, may thus be acted on."
>
> I would like to stress that it doesn't matter to me, personally, if
> microevolution causes non-beneficial traits. My only concern here is
> to accurately communicate the claims of evolutionary theory. You need
> to remember that I don't believe in, or accept, any of this crap.
Which apparently does not stop you misrepresenting it.
evolution is more than NS.
>> In a thousand generations a huge percentage of humans
>> will carry the Hoit bent little finger,insofar as it appears to be a
>> dominant gene (at which point straight little fingers will be reckoned a
>> deformity).
>
> Are you serious?
>
>> Natural selection IS working on this trait - it is neutral,
>
> Cite....reference....please?
Common sense is enough. It is not being selected against,
and as it seems to be a dominant gene, that is enough.
Therefore NS is at work.
>> so natural selection has no effect on it, and it spreads slowly through
>> the population.
>
> You say NS "IS working" then you say NS "has no effect on it...."
Yep. It is not actively selecting against it, nor is it
accetuating it, the mechanism of dominant/recessive genes is
looking after that.
>
> According to Darwin NS is not working on the trait at issue. Maybe I
> have misunderstood your point?
But Darwin didn't know about dominant and recessive genes,
nor their mechanisms of mutation. Thus Darwin is considered
by very few people--other than creationists--as the last
word on any aspect of evolution. Science has moved on, it is
obvious that creationism has not kept pace.
[...]
Steven J.
> On Mar 25, 4:29 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1bc25c3b-9d1b-4e8f...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > <cutting to the chase, as it were>
>
> > > As I was saying: microevolution is a small almost imperceptible change
> > > called a modification. It is caused, for the most part, by natural
> > > selection.
>
> > > Or in other words microevolution is slight change caused by material
> > > phenomenon. There is no evidence for this belief - none whatsoever.
>
> > Except that it happens.
>
> No, it does not.
>
> It is a claim - a claim that I once accepted by blind faith. After two
> years of intense research I came to the conclusion that the claim is
> 100 percent false and I have in my possession the scientific evidence
> to prove it. That evidence will be found in my paper. Evolution, as
> understood since 1859, has not occurred on this planet at anytime or
> at any rate.
>
else's paper, some peer-reviewed paper summarizing actual laboratory
experiments. There are, after all, many such papers describing
incidences of microevolution (even microevolution by your rather
eccentric definition).
If there is no such thing as microevolution, what did happen in the
Galapagos, that the Grants interpreted as microevolution? If there is
no such thing as microevolution, how do you explain the appearance of
multiply-resistant disease bacteria?
>
> > Ray, my grandfather, Fred Hoit, had bent little
> > fingers. All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five
> > children, I have a brother and four cousins and they have a whole
> > handful of kids amongst them, who by now are getting ready to have kids
> > of their own - as far as I know we all carry the Hoit bent little
> > finger).
>
> Genetic inheritance (deformity in this case) is not microevolution as
> defined above. Selection (mechanism of microevolution) acts to better
> an organism, unless Darwin was wrong.
>
> Jim: what about degrees of talent; emotions; and instincts? What
> causes them? Material phenomenon?
>
Variations in intelligence appear to be at least partly hereditary.
Environmental causes, of course, also affect both intelligence and
developed talents, and certainly at least some environmental factors
(e.g. food and environmental toxins, etc.) are material phenomena.
It is known that drugs and brain damage alike can affect temperment
and emotions: from the case of Phineas Gage in the 19th century to
modern pharmaceuticals, there is ample evidence that material causes
can affect emotions and intelligence. Instinct is a rather broad
term, but the fact that different breeds of dogs consistently show
differences in instinctive abilities suggests that they, likewise, are
based in material causes and inherited like physical traits.
>
> > In several more generations, I imagine there will be a fair
> > number of descendants of Fred Hoit who all have bent little fingers.
>
> Not guaranteed, but highly probable. But there is no reproduction
> benefit. We have been through this before. I am sure you remember. You
> cannot have things both ways all of the time. You cannot call bent
> fingers microevolutionary beneficial. All they are is an aberration
> that will die out in some future generation.
>
Well, there is a family in the Milan area of Italy, who have inherited
a mutation that reduces the likelihood of atherosclerosis (hardening
of the arteries). That mutation seems less likely to die out
(although it's not clear that a bent little finger is necessarily
going to reduce a person's chances of having or raising offpspring).
>
> > Now, Ray, is this slight change the result of Divine causation, or the
> > result of a random mutation?
>
> If causation is Divine then the next question is why? Of course we
> have an explanation for imperfection or sub-optimality.
>
What would that explanation be? The fall? Did Adam's sin cause God
to forget how to do competent genetic engineering?
>
> As for RM: it has never existed except within the context of material
> causation as first defined by Darwin. (Please notice that I did not
> say that Darwin advocated RM as understood today.)
>
Darwin didn't originate the idea of material causation, either. Every
field of science emerged as it became possible to explain phenomena in
terms of material causation; Newton advocated material causation for
the motions of planets and cannonballs.
>
> The only issue is which explanation is a better explanation that
> corresponds to reality. Over half of all adults in the U.S. say that
> Creationism (= Divine causation) is the scientific theory that best
> corresponds to reality. My presence and arguments here exist in a
> position of strength. Persons agree that causation is Divine. This is
> not a popularity argument. This is an argument that says ***a*** jury
> agrees with Divine causation. Other juries agree with the evolutionary
> explanation. The vast majority of scientific personnel agree that
> causation is material. But like the other jury, this is simply many
> persons with the same opinion, or a unit of one.
>
Ray, we've been over this before: you assume that most creationists
are seriously deluded in accepting microevolution. For that matter,
you hold that a majority of U.S. creationists are deluded in accepting
an Earth that is only ca. 6000 years old. Obviously, if you're right
on this point, the vast majority of U.S. creationists have never
thought carefully about the evidence or about the premises of
creationism and evolution. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether a
majority supports "divine causation;" what is the value (outside of
the purely political) of having a majority of the scientific
illiterates on your side? To add to the confusion, you assert that
millions of biologically-educated people who accept evolution count as
only one opinion, because they all agree with each other, whereas the
scientifically-illiterate masses who (more or less) agree with you
somehow put you in a "position of strength."
>
> The next issue brings us right back to the central question. A
> question posed by Professor Huston Smith: "Who's Right About
> Reality....?" (2001, "Why Religion Matters" p.11).
>
> We only need to explain why evolutionists accept material causation.
>
Ray, everyone (a handful of ontological occasionalists and the
occasional psychotic aside) accepts material causation. Some people
accept, also, "supernatural" causation. Some people go so far as to
invoke "supernatural" causation when they do not know of (or refuse to
accept) an explanation for something in terms of material causation
(the so-called "god of the gaps" argument). Evolutionists accept
material causation because it has been demonstrated.
>
> > How about another example - one of my cats has a very oily coat (she
> > looks spiky, and feels kinda greasy when you pet her). Her grandmother
> > had a similar coat, as did her great-grandmother and great-great
> > grandmother. (Other descendants had normal coats.) Is this
> > modification of her coat Divinely caused, or the result of a random
> > mutation?
>
> > Speaking of cats, what about the well-known six- and seven-toed cats?
> > Are these the result of Divine causation or random mutation?
>
> > Now, Ray, here is another question: are these obvious modifications
> > microevolution? If not, why not?
>
> > > It took me two plus years of research to establish this fact and
> > > change my viewpoint.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > It seems to me that whoever taught you to do research was not very good
> > at it. Counterexamples trump 'research', no matter how many books you
> > read, or quotes you can find. You can fight reality all you like, but
> > in the end reality wins. Remember that: reality wins.
>
Well, I guess reality doesn't win if you refuse to believe in it.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
DJT
> On Mar 25, 2:06 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
> > > Genetic inheritance (deformity in this case) is not microevolution as
> > > defined above. Selection (mechanism of microevolution) acts to better
> > > an organism, unless Darwin was wrong.
>
> > Wait just a minute here. Why is the propagation of a trait not
> > microevolution?
>
> Because Darwin said that NS acts favorably, or for the good, or to
> improve, an organism, is he wrong?
Ray, you are misunderstanding what Darwin said. What Darwin was
talking about was that natural selection acts on variations in a
population. When you talk about "an organism" you seem to be
suggesting that evolution acts on the level of the individual, rather
than the population. By 'improves', Darwin was talking about making
the population better adapted for the enviroment. He was not
suggesting that there is an objective "better" or "worse" organism.
You also need to be aware that Darwin is not the ultimate authority in
questions of evolution. Darwin was a brilliant scientist, and the
world owes him much, but he didn't know about genes, and the whole
scientific world has made a great deal of progress since Darwin wrote
his book.
>Bent fingers do not correspond to
> 'good' or 'improvement'.
That rather depends on the situation. You can't say objectively that
bent fingers are bad, or detrimental, without asking "for what?". As
Jim has pointed out, the feature doesn't affect reproductive fitness,
so it's a neutral mutation.
> And may I remind that any accepted evolution
> since 1859 has never existed except in the context of a proposed
> mechanism.
You can say this, but it's wrong. The mechanism of evolution is well
known, and does exist.
> It seems as if you seek to isolate change apart from
> causation.
It really doesn't matter what the causation of the change is, as long
as it's change. That's what evolution is, genetic change in a
population over time.
> Personally, it doesn't matter to me. If evolutionists want
> to call any propagation microevolution then fine. BUT for the sake of
> accuracy, according to evolutionary authorities, like Darwin, the
> mechanism of modification-evolution does not propagate injury.
Actually, Ray, you are wrong for more than one reason here. First of
all, the trait that Jim describes is not an injury, it's a different
trait. The technical term for this is allele. Second, Darwin
didn't make any distinction for "microevolution" so claiming that
Darwin rejected this definition is false. Third, the modern
definition of evolution is change in allele frequencies in a
population over time. (Darwin didn't know about genes). "Any
propagation" of alleles in a population is evolution, whether you want
to admit it or not. This refutes your claim that microevolution
does not exist.
>
> Darwin, "Origin of Species" 1859:
>
> Natural Selection
>
> page 81:
>
> "On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least
> degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of
> favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I
> call Natural Selection."
That tends to suggest that Jim's allele is not "in the least degree
injurious".
>
> page 84:
>
> "It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly
> scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the
> slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all
> that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever
> opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in
> relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life....Although
> natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being,
> yet characters and structures, which we are apt to consider as of very
> trifling importance, may thus be acted on."
Again, this is confirming that Jim's trait is not harmful.
>
> I would like to stress that it doesn't matter to me, personally, if
> microevolution causes non-beneficial traits.
Ray, microevolution does not "cause" neutral, or even harmful
traits. It does cause traits to be spread through the population.
Sometimes a trait that may be considered "harmful" may confer an
advantage that allows it to be fixed in a population. Sickle Cell
trait is one such example. It's harmful for someone who inherits both
genes, but it confers a certain amount of resistance to malaria for
those who inherit only one copy of the gene.
> My only concern here is
> to accurately communicate the claims of evolutionary theory.
Which you've failed, miserably. You obviously don't understand what
the claims of evolutionary theory really are. You have a distorted
idea of what evolution really means.
>You need
> to remember that I don't believe in, or accept, any of this crap.
But you don't have any rational reason to reject it. Not only do
you oppose evolution, you don't even understand it well enough to
accurately repeat it.
>
> > In a thousand generations a huge percentage of humans
> > will carry the Hoit bent little finger,insofar as it appears to be a
> > dominant gene (at which point straight little fingers will be reckoned a
> > deformity).
>
> Are you serious?
Why not? It does appear that Jim has his tongue in cheek here. The
point is that what you call a "deformity" could just as well be the
norm.
>
> > Natural selection IS working on this trait - it is neutral,
>
> Cite....reference....please?
Here's some citations on neutral muations:
http://www.complexity.org.au/ci_louise/vol04/eco-tierra/node3.html
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/terry/Classes/s260.1998/Week13a/week13a/node8.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
>
> > so natural selection has no effect on it, and it spreads slowly through
> > the population.
>
> You say NS "IS working" then you say NS "has no effect on it...."
Right. Natural selection is "working" on it by passing it on to the
next generation. Natural selection either passes on a trait, or
eliminates it.
>
> According to Darwin NS is not working on the trait at issue. Maybe I
> have misunderstood your point?
Darwin is not the ultimate authority on natural selection. You have
not only misunderstood Jim, but Darwin as well.
DJT
DJT
> On Mar 25, 2:06 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
>
> > Natural selection only acts to remove ill-adapted
> > traits, those that render indiviual organisms less likely to reproduce
> > than their fellows.
>
> Not according to Darwin.
Remember that Darwin was not aware of genes. Again, evolution
happens in populations, not in individuals. Evolution will not
change an individual once that organism is born.
>
> NS is a positive force of addition through beneficial selection. Maybe
> you are just describing the same result in a negative fashion.
Natural selection is not really a "positive" or "negative" force.
It's not really a "force" at all. It's more like a filter.
>
> > Since bent little fingers have no effect on
> > likelihood of reproduction (cf. the growing number of descendants of
> > Fred Hoit), they are not removed by natural selection. So, Ray -
> > natural selection allows the propagation of bent little fingers, which I
> > guess means that (by your description of the effects of natural
> > selection) those that carry the trait are an improved model of human.
>
> Explain how bent fingers correspond to improvement?
Ray, Jim's point is that natural selection has not deselected the
trait, therefore, if as you claim, natural selection is supposed to
only permit "improvements", then the trait, again according to you, is
an improvement. What he's telling you is that your idea of natural
selection is wrong.
> Previously you
> were fighting for neutrality. Now you have graduated your claim.
No, he's showing you why your own claim about natural selection is
wrong.
snip
> > Ray, I never claimed that bent little fingers are beneficial (except to
> > hold beer cans). The trait is reproductively neutral - it has no effect
> > on the likelihood of successful reproduction. It is a dominant trait,
> > expressed in all the children of one who bears that trait (at least, it
> > is to the best of my knowledge - I haven't seen my cousin's kids). That
> > means that it will spread, albeit slowly. There is no reason for
> > natural selection to operate on this particular trait by killing off
> > those of us who are blessed with it.
>
> But your view of NS in relation to bent fingers is not supported by
> Darwin. That is my only point.
Ray, I really don't think you know enough about Darwin to make such a
statement. You have obviously misunderstood what Darwin said.
His view of natural selection is in accordance with Darwin's theory.
Yours is wrong. Remember too, that Darwin is not the ultimate
authority regarding evolution.
snip
> > The Hoit bent little finger is a small change in the morphology of H.
> > sapiens, which is not removed by natural selection. Why is this not an
> > example of microevolution?
>
> Because it is diminutive or non-beneficial.
But microevolution does not have to be "beneficial". It just has to
be a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
> Modification-evolution, by
> natural selection, doesn't even know that your defective variation
> exists if the selection process acts as Darwin says it acts.
Again, your own ideas about what Darwin says are very suspect.
Jim's trait is not "defective", it's just a variation. The selection
process acts on the level of the individual as a whole, bent fingers
and all. If that individual survives to pass on his or her genes,
then that individual is successful. The allele frequency of the
population will have changed. That's evolution.
> NS
> doesn't choose or remove anything.
It's a metaphor, but a good one. Natural selection does remove
harmful genes from a population, by the fact that the harmful genes
are contained in an individual who does not reproduce. Either the
individual dies, or can't find a mate. Either way, natural selection
has removed that individual from the gene pool.
> These terms: "remove" - "choose" -
> "add" - "subtract" are teleological and not intended to be understood
> as such.
Not teleological, but metaphorical.
> They are words attempting to describe a single repetitive
> phenomenon that ***acts only one way**** since material causation, of
> course, is unintelligent.
What way do you think natural selection acts? Also, what, other
than material causation, can be observed by science?
> This action, according to Darwin, is seen to
> improve an organism for its good.
Only in the sense that ''improve" means it's better suited for it's
environment. It doesn't make it a better population in any
objective sense.
> Natural selection, and its
> relationship to variation (whatever its cause) has the ability to
> choose the good or beneficial.
It can only "choose" by differential survival. What is "good" or
"beneficial" is relative to the environment.
> It cannot chew gum and walk at the same
> time.
Rather poor analogy, and demonstrates that you don't understand how
evolution works.
> You have no source, in Darwin, for your claims.
Ray, there has been quite a bit of scientific advance since Darwin.
See Darwin's chapter on natural selection
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-04.html
Oddly enough, you quoted Darwin's statements about natural selection,
implying that natural selection only acted on harmful or beneficial
traits. The very next sentence, which you didn't quote, says:
"Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by
natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps
we see in the species called polymorphic."
>
> > >> Now, Ray, is this slight change the result of Divine causation, or
> > >> the result of a random mutation?
>
> > > If causation is Divine then the next question is why? Of course we
> > > have an explanation for imperfection or sub-optimality.
>
> > This does not answer the question. Is the appearance of the Hoit bent
> > little finger the result of Divine causation? Yes or no? If not, why
> > not?
>
> Ultimately, yes.
You seem to be admitting here that God can use natural processes as a
means of causing variation in a population. That is very close to
admitting that God can use evolution as his means of creation.
>
> > I don't want to know what your 'explanation for imperfection' is, though
> > I suspect it is indistinguishable from random mutation.
>
> > > As for RM: it has never existed except within the context of material
> > > causation as first defined by Darwin. (Please notice that I did not
> > > say that Darwin advocated RM as understood today.)
>
> > <snip appeal to popularity>
>
> For the record: It wasn't an appeal to popularity. I plainly explained
> why.
Your explanation, however failed. It was obviously an appeal to
popularity, and your jury analogy was false.
>
>
>
> > > The next issue brings us right back to the central question. A
> > > question posed by Professor Huston Smith: "Who's Right About
> > > Reality....?" (2001, "Why Religion Matters" p.11).
>
> > What next issue? Is the Hoit bent little finger the result of Divine
> > causation? Yes or no? If not, why not?
>
> But unlike NS, Divine causation is free to cause negative effects and
> results.
Ray, first of all, natural selection is not the cause of traits in a
population. No scientist claims that natural selection can cause
variation in a population. Natural selection acts on traits that
exist.
Also, how do you tell if an effect or result is due to "divine
causation'?
And are still asking......
> But I did address them in my previous comments (both posts).
Actually, Ray, you did not address them at all. You avoided them.
> All you
> did was exchange bent fingers with oily cat fur. I do not understand
> how these other posters could miss this fact.
What was "missed", Ray was any attempt on your part to answer the
question.
>
> Your very last comment is about reality. That is why I quoted
> Professor Smith before (and above).
So, you replace reality with your own beliefs. Then you wonder why
no one takes you seriously.
DJT
Steven J.
> On Mar 25, 6:25 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Variations, both new and existing, are due to mutation.
>
> Yes, I know, that is the claim - a claim that I am not disputing. I am
> only saying, and I have only been saying, that these are claims of
> evolutionary theory and that these claims presuppose the scientific
> veracity of material causation also known as Materialism.
>
addressing. You insist that microevolution does not occur. Are you
saying that variation does not exist, or (despite your statement that
you are "not disputing" Howard's statements about mutation) that
mutations are not in fact the cause of variation?
>
> > Natural selection (and neutral drift) only comes into play when the
> > variation actually exists in the population.
>
> Okay....so....what is the point?
>
> Steven asked me to define microevolution. When I did he promptly began
> to clown the discussion. He has not stopped.
>
which contradict one another and, in some cases, the textbook
definition of "microevolution." The fact that you constantly switch
definitions, and rant about "material causation," "materialism," and
"divine causation" rather than saying whether you think that mutations
actually occur, or whether natural selection actually occurs, or
whether changes in populations over time occur, is a big part of the
problem. I am not "clowning the discussion;" I am attempting to
figure out what you think (on the rather generous assumption that you
do think) about evolution. Insisting that it doesn't happen is
useless, if no one can figure out what it is that you think doesn't
happen.
>
> Howard: microevolution is incremental change, more accurately
> described as modification. Natural selection is the main (but not the
> exclusive) agent causing modification-evolution. It is error to talk
> about microevolution unless cause (NS) and effect (modification) is
> described.
>
without discussing the mechanisms of evolution. Furthermore, much
discussion of evolutionary mechanisms by people who actually know
something about evolution holds that it is often caused by genetic
drift, or by structural mechanisms of development.
>
> No matter how times I define or describe microevolution Steven J
> grossly misrepresents, distorts, and suddenly cannot read with
> comprehension. I hope you do not choose to engage this path too.
>
it is my fault that you cannot express yourself coherently. On the
other hand, I should give you credit for not committing the error of
writing more clearly than you can think.
>
> Mind you: I can support and reference everything that I say with
> evolutionary scientists - everything. But none of this is the point
> here. The point here, which has nothing to do with you (as of yet) is
> that the basic description of microevolution that I have provided is
> not at issue or in question. This is kindergarten stuff. The issue
> here is the inexcusable behavior and indefensible actions of Steven J
> and Dana Tweedy. All posts from these two persons are deliberate
> distortions each and every step of the way.
>
note that you don't actually cite any to defend any of your various
contradictory definitions of "microevolution." But the point is that
when you insist that "microevolution" has natural selection as part of
its definition, you are wrong. Another point, of course, is that you
will not respond to requests for clarification: you will not say
whether you think that "material causation" plays any role in
inheritance, or whether changes in the frequency of inherited traits
happen in populations, or whether natural selection occurs at all.
You evade these questions desperately: I cannot help but think that
the "inexcusable" and "indefensible" actions of mine that you complain
about consist of asking you to clarify your position.
>
> If you want to align yourself with them then fine. I will simply
> ignore and go about my business with other persons and their messages
> and not waste my time with howlers.
>
> > But, if, as you seem to agree, mutation does provide new or re-
> > emergent variation, there does indeed seem to always be variation upon
> > which selection can act.
>
> According to Ernst Mayr it is almost unlimited. Other context he seems
> to say there is a limit. It doesn't really matter to me which is true
> or if both are sometimes true.
>
something else that doesn't matter to you?
>
> > Mutation (an event causing permanent change
> > in a DNA sequence) is the only known mechanism for generating
> > variation. Do you propose a different mechanism for generating
> > variation?
>
> > [snip]
>
>
describing your position coherently, much less defending it?
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Desertphile
ROTFL! It reminds me of the "THIS IS NOT SPAM!" spam that I used
to get every day.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Walter Bushell
<5691e097-41b7-4d57...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Lee Jay <ljfi...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 6:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 10:36 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > First of all, I wish to emphasize that the rather astonishinly racist
> > > Charles Carroll, who modestly referred to himself as "the Reasoner of
> > > the Age, the Revelator of the Century," held views on racial matters
> > > that were NOT typical of creationists, even in his day; indeed, he
> > > spends many paragraphs in his 1900 work, _In the Image of God_,
> > > complaining about that fact. But, several years after first running
> > > across a copy of his book (on a bookshelf next to a rebuttal volume
> > > titled _The Negro a Man_), I found a pdf copy on the web, and
> > > reexamining it have noted a number of striking features of his
> > > creationism.
> >
> > > <http://www.cimmay.us/pdf/carroll.pdf>
> >
> > > Although the opening of the book insists that "there are just two
> > > schools of learning in the world to-day, which propose to explain the
> > > existence of the heavens and the earth, with all the phenomena which
> > > characterize each ...
> > > (1) The Scriptural School of Divine Creation, (2) The Atheistic School
> > > of Natural Development," and much of the book is a sustained assault
> > > on evolutionary doctrine, which Professor Carroll sees as having led
> > > to the catastrophic conclusion that Blacks are human, and perhaps even
> > > equal to whites, he does not connect evolutionary theory to Darwin.
> > > "Mr. Darwin" is mentioned solely as an expert who has shown that
> > > animals are not limited to purely instinctive action, but have
> > > rudimentary reasoning powers.
> >
> > > Carroll, while he nowhere uses the term "microevolution," is a fervent
> > > denier of it. He mocks evolution not only by asking whether a duck
> > > could hatch from a chicken egg, but (more to the point of his book)
> > > whether "pure white" parents could give birth to a Black offspring.
> > > The assumed impossibility of accomplishing, through fine gradations,
> > > what cannot be accomplished in one fell swoop, is his argument not
> > > only against common ancestry of humans and monkeys (macroevolution),
> > > but of different human races (microevolution). See almost any of the
> > > books illustrations for examples of his "reasoning" on this point.
> >
> > > In any case, Ray, I assume you reject forthrightly all of Professor
> > > Carroll's conclusions about race and slavery. However, it must be
> > > conceded that, if microevolution is impossible, then his conclusions
> > > about separate origins for different human races must follow
> > > logically.
> >
> > Simply ridiculous. There is no need to postulate multiple separate
> > origins for human beings since the eight surviving souls on the Ark
> > account for human diversity.
>
> Then how come that necking-down of our population doesn't show up in
> our genetics?
>
> > Of course anthropology is extremely
> > complicated; the evidence and data conflicts almost endlessly. But we
> > do have foundational and benchmark evidence that proves the Bible
> > correct and evolution false.
> >
> > > Therefore, it seems to me that you ought, on your own
> > > announced principles, accept the possibility of microevolution.
> > > However, feel free to correct my understanding if I have erred on this
> > > point.
> >
> > > -- Steven J.
> >
> > Look, I have no idea as to why you would want to discuss this subject
> > on the foundation of racism. Perhaps you would like to discuss natural
> > selection on the foundation of degree-less Ronald Fisher, Professor of
> > Eugenics, author of "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" - a
> > person that Richard Dawkins has compared to Darwin in scientific
> > importance, while forgetting that both of them believed in proto-Nazi
> > superiority doctrines.
> >
> > The brutal fact of the microevolution matter is that I had accepted
> > the concept as fact based on the assumption that the mob (both
> > Darwinian and modern day Creationism) was correct. After two plus
> > years of intense research I announced that my view has changed: there
> > is no evidence for microevolution at all - none whatsoever.
>
> Then where did vancomycin resistant tuberculosis come from?
D-G created it special for us.
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms.
Rupert Morrish
[snip and change of subject]
> Well, there is a family in the Milan area of Italy, who have inherited
> a mutation that reduces the likelihood of atherosclerosis (hardening
> of the arteries). That mutation seems less likely to die out
> (although it's not clear that a bent little finger is necessarily
> going to reduce a person's chances of having or raising offpspring).
Does atherosclerosis affect a noticeable number of people of child
rearing age?
I suppose having grandparents around can increase the number of children
a couple can raise - would this be kin selection or group selection?
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:30:41 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <612fb84b-79b6-4a2c-a186-14e3302c2...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 24, 3:57 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:01:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> <eb622a80-d8ab-4ace-baa3-93c9232a1...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>
> >> >On Mar 22, 11:30 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mar 22, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 21, 10:22 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> >> You define "evolution" in ways bizarrely different from the
> >> >> way actual evolutionists define it.
>
> >> >Only you do that. ***Everything I say*** I can back up with
> >> >scholarship.
>
> >> This, of course, is false. You regularly make claims and fail to back
> >> them up.
>
> >Such as......
>
> you stated, regarding some feathers that had been found in amber, that
>
> A close-up of rachis and barbules and barbs compared to the
> pictures in the link does not suport a claim of intermediacy.
>
> When are you going to back up that claim?
>
Are you saying I see something that you do not see? If so when are you
going to back up your claim?
> >> >None of your assertions are ever supported by scholarship
> >> >and references - none - ever.
>
> >> [snip]
>
> Also, now that we're in agreement that "Harun Yahya" misrepresented
> the contents of a newspaper article, I'm still waiting for you to
> condemn him for lying, like you said you would.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Mar 25, 4:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 25, 6:25 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > Variations, both new and existing, are due to mutation.
>
> > Yes, I know, that is the claim - a claim that I am not disputing. I am
> > only saying, and I have only been saying, that these are claims of
> > evolutionary theory and that these claims presuppose the scientific
> > veracity of material causation also known as Materialism.
>
> It is a claim you are not addressing, at all, even though it demands
> addressing. You insist that microevolution does not occur.
Yes, this is true.
> Are you
> saying that variation does not exist,
No, I am not; nor have I ever denied variation to exist. Even so
called "identical twins" are not identical.
> or (despite your statement that
> you are "not disputing" Howard's statements about mutation) that
> mutations are not in fact the cause of variation?
>
It depends on how one defines "mutation." Said word carries a meaning
that is very misunderstood. IF it means and only means "the cause of
variation" then yes. But please note I have said nothing about
mutation causation.
> > > Natural selection (and neutral drift) only comes into play when the
> > > variation actually exists in the population.
>
> > Okay....so....what is the point?
>
> > Steven asked me to define microevolution. When I did he promptly began
> > to clown the discussion. He has not stopped.
>
> I pointed out that you offer multiple definitions of microevolution,
But I did no such thing.
> which contradict one another
Completely false.
> and, in some cases, the textbook
> definition of "microevolution." The fact that you constantly switch
> definitions, and rant about "material causation," "materialism," and
> "divine causation" rather than saying whether you think that mutations
> actually occur, or whether natural selection actually occurs, or
> whether changes in populations over time occur, is a big part of the
> problem.
I have not switched any definitions but remained faithful to one very
simple but very accurate definition. Of course it might do you well to
back up your assertion here and actually list all of these so called
'switched definitions' or drop it and try to understand what I have
been saying.
I have faithfully defined microevolution by saying what it is and how
it allegedly occurs. This means I have repeatedly stated cause and
effect. In this context I have repeatedly said that microevolution
does not occur nor has it ever occurred on this planet. The reason I
have defined microevolution this way is because since 1859 the claim
and/or concept has never, I repeat never existed in any way, shape or
form, minus causation (not counting the period between c.1900 and the
synthesis). Microevolution means slow change or slight modification
performed on an organism by the causal agent of natural selection.
Eventually said organism breeds and passes said modification into its
population. This is what the general theory of evolution claims; this
is what I reject; and this is what I can disprove.
I think it is important at this point to simply tell me if you
understand what I have said.
> I am not "clowning the discussion;" I am attempting to
> figure out what you think (on the rather generous assumption that you
> do think) about evolution. Insisting that it doesn't happen is
> useless, if no one can figure out what it is that you think doesn't
> happen.
>
> > Howard: microevolution is incremental change, more accurately
> > described as modification. Natural selection is the main (but not the
> > exclusive) agent causing modification-evolution. It is error to talk
> > about microevolution unless cause (NS) and effect (modification) is
> > described.
>
> No one except you thinks that it is an error to talk about evolution
> without discussing the mechanisms of evolution.
False!
The main purpose of the "Origin" (1859) was to evidence and explain
HOW evolution allegedly occurs. This is why Darwin began the "Origin"
with a metaphor. This is why the phrase "natural selection" is in the
title of the book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
Selection...."
You need to concede this point. Since 1859 evolution has never existed
except within the context of a proposed mechanism of causation.
This is why I refuse to define or discuss microevolution apart from
causation. Please note that according to Darwin (and modern
theorists): "natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
of modification."
'Micro' implies slight or small; 'evolution' implies change, but HOW?
'How' is very important because it presupposes that God or the
supernatural is not the agent of causation.
> Furthermore, much
> discussion of evolutionary mechanisms by people who actually know
> something about evolution holds that it is often caused by genetic
> drift, or by structural mechanisms of development.
>
I didn't know natural selection had been abandoned. Apparently
Francisco Ayala, as recently in his new book, didn't know either. I
believe Ayala is a molecular biologist.
You are pulling a Dana Tweedy stunt.
> > No matter how times I define or describe microevolution Steven J
> > grossly misrepresents, distorts, and suddenly cannot read with
> > comprehension. I hope you do not choose to engage this path too.
>
> Ray, very few people here (myself included) are going to conclude that
> it is my fault that you cannot express yourself coherently. On the
> other hand, I should give you credit for not committing the error of
> writing more clearly than you can think.
>
> > Mind you: I can support and reference everything that I say with
> > evolutionary scientists - everything. But none of this is the point
> > here. The point here, which has nothing to do with you (as of yet) is
> > that the basic description of microevolution that I have provided is
> > not at issue or in question. This is kindergarten stuff. The issue
> > here is the inexcusable behavior and indefensible actions of Steven J
> > and Dana Tweedy. All posts from these two persons are deliberate
> > distortions each and every step of the way.
>
> Well, perhaps you can quote-mine evolutionary biologists, although I
> note that you don't actually cite any to defend any of your various
> contradictory definitions of "microevolution." But the point is that
> when you insist that "microevolution" has natural selection as part of
> its definition, you are wrong.
Already answered above.
> Another point, of course, is that you
> will not respond to requests for clarification: you will not say
> whether you think that "material causation" plays any role in
> inheritance....
It most certainly does not!
> ....or whether changes in the frequency of inherited traits
> happen in populations
If causation is material, and this is presupposed silently, then NO!
> or whether natural selection occurs at all.
As the main agent causing evolution and responsible for producing
nature, of course not. There is simply no evidence for this absurdity.
A claim like this is better suited for science fiction, Steven. We are
talking about reality. Are you connected to it in some rational way?
> You evade these questions desperately: I cannot help but think that
> the "inexcusable" and "indefensible" actions of mine that you complain
> about consist of asking you to clarify your position.
>
You have my answers.
> > If you want to align yourself with them then fine. I will simply
> > ignore and go about my business with other persons and their messages
> > and not waste my time with howlers.
>
> > > But, if, as you seem to agree, mutation does provide new or re-
> > > emergent variation, there does indeed seem to always be variation upon
> > > which selection can act.
>
> > According to Ernst Mayr it is almost unlimited. Other context he seems
> > to say there is a limit. It doesn't really matter to me which is true
> > or if both are sometimes true.
>
> But can natural selection actually act upon variation? Or is this
> something else that doesn't matter to you?
>
According to evolutionary theory, YES!
> > > Mutation (an event causing permanent change
> > > in a DNA sequence) is the only known mechanism for generating
> > > variation. Do you propose a different mechanism for generating
> > > variation?
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > No, I agree that is the claim.
>
> What an astonishingly evasive statement. Are you capable of even
> describing your position coherently, much less defending it?
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> -- Steven J.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:182680a3-4937-4214...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...snip
>> >> This, of course, is false. You regularly make claims and fail to back
>> >> them up.
>>
>> >Such as......
>>
>> Innews:549515b4-9b5e-45b0...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
>> you stated, regarding some feathers that had been found in amber, that
>>
>> A close-up of rachis and barbules and barbs compared to the
>> pictures in the link does not suport a claim of intermediacy.
>>
>> When are you going to back up that claim?
>>
>
> Are you saying I see something that you do not see? If so when are you
> going to back up your claim?
You were the one who made the claim in the first place. Should we expect
you to keep running away from this too?
>
>
>> >> >None of your assertions are ever supported by scholarship
>> >> >and references - none - ever.
>>
>> >> [snip]
>>
>> Also, now that we're in agreement that "Harun Yahya" misrepresented
>> the contents of a newspaper article, I'm still waiting for you to
>> condemn him for lying, like you said you would.
Still waiting....
DJT
Rupert Morrish
> On Mar 25, 11:04 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 4:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 25, 6:25 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> -- [snip]
>>
>>>> Variations, both new and existing, are due to mutation.
>>> Yes, I know, that is the claim - a claim that I am not disputing. I am
>>> only saying, and I have only been saying, that these are claims of
>>> evolutionary theory and that these claims presuppose the scientific
>>> veracity of material causation also known as Materialism.
>> It is a claim you are not addressing, at all, even though it demands
>> addressing. You insist that microevolution does not occur.
>
> Yes, this is true.
>
>> Are you
>> saying that variation does not exist,
>
> No, I am not; nor have I ever denied variation to exist. Even so
> called "identical twins" are not identical.
>
>> or (despite your statement that
>> you are "not disputing" Howard's statements about mutation) that
>> mutations are not in fact the cause of variation?
>>
>
> It depends on how one defines "mutation." Said word carries a meaning
> that is very misunderstood. IF it means and only means "the cause of
> variation" then yes. But please note I have said nothing about
> mutation causation.
>
>
> I have faithfully defined microevolution by saying what it is and how
> it allegedly occurs. This means I have repeatedly stated cause and
> effect. In this context I have repeatedly said that microevolution
> does not occur nor has it ever occurred on this planet. The reason I
> have defined microevolution this way is because since 1859 the claim
> and/or concept has never, I repeat never existed in any way, shape or
> form, minus causation (not counting the period between c.1900 and the
> synthesis).
"Never, I repeat never (except for 20% of the time)"
> Microevolution means slow change or slight modification
> performed on an organism by the causal agent of natural selection.
This is not a commonly accepted definition of microevolution. Have you
been talking to backspace?
If you insist on that definition, I will agree that is has never
happened. Natural selection only makes one type of change to an
individual organism - it kills it. Therefore there is no such thing as a
"slight modification performed on an organism by the causal agent of
natural selection"
Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a *population* over
time. Microevolution is evolution that does not lead to the formation of
different species.
> Eventually said organism breeds and passes said modification into its
> population.
Variation (by mutation, or whatever word makes you happy) happens first.
Some organisms leave more descendants than others. The variations
occurring in the organisms with more descendants become more widespread
in the population. Variations which kill an organism, or cause it not to
have viable descendants, are filtered out of the population. Evolution.
> This is what the general theory of evolution claims;
Not really. You should learn some actual biology before claiming to
understand it.
> this is what I reject; and this is what I can disprove.
Apparently you have spent two years constructing a straw man. No-one
accepts your definition of microevolution. What you define as
microevolution never happens, and has never been claimed to happen.
>
> I think it is important at this point to simply tell me if you
> understand what I have said.
I think so. It would help if you told us where you got your definition
of evolution.
[minor snip]
>>> Howard: microevolution is incremental change, more accurately
>>> described as modification. Natural selection is the main (but not the
>>> exclusive) agent causing modification-evolution. It is error to talk
>>> about microevolution unless cause (NS) and effect (modification) is
>>> described.
>> No one except you thinks that it is an error to talk about evolution
>> without discussing the mechanisms of evolution.
>
> False!
>
> The main purpose of the "Origin" (1859) was to evidence and explain
> HOW evolution allegedly occurs. This is why Darwin began the "Origin"
> with a metaphor. This is why the phrase "natural selection" is in the
> title of the book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
> Selection...."
So? Everyone already accepted that evolution had occurred. Older forms
are different from modern forms.
>
> You need to concede this point. Since 1859 evolution has never existed
> except within the context of a proposed mechanism of causation.
>
> This is why I refuse to define or discuss microevolution apart from
> causation. Please note that according to Darwin (and modern
> theorists): "natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
> of modification."
Actually there is some argument over this. Some biologists think that
genetic drift is as important as natural selection.
>
> 'Micro' implies slight or small; 'evolution' implies change, but HOW?
>
> 'How' is very important because it presupposes that God or the
> supernatural is not the agent of causation.
No, it doesn't. "God (or the supernatural) did it" can be an answer to a
"How?" question, but asking the question does not presuppose the answer.
>
>> Furthermore, much
>> discussion of evolutionary mechanisms by people who actually know
>> something about evolution holds that it is often caused by genetic
>> drift, or by structural mechanisms of development.
>>
>
> I didn't know natural selection had been abandoned.
No-one has abandoned natural selection. It is still one of the major
mechanisms driving evolution. It is just not the only mechanism, and
no-one has ever claimed that it is. As your Darwin quote above shows:
"natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means of modification."
> Apparently
> Francisco Ayala, as recently in his new book, didn't know either. I
> believe Ayala is a molecular biologist.
>
> You are pulling a Dana Tweedy stunt.
You are misinterpreting Steven J. You would do yourself a favor by
dropping the assumption that your interlocutors are dishonest idiots.
You have embarrassed yourself on more than one occasion in this group by
grabbing the wrong end of the stick and running the wrong way down the
field with it.
>
>>> No matter how times I define or describe microevolution Steven J
>>> grossly misrepresents, distorts, and suddenly cannot read with
>>> comprehension. I hope you do not choose to engage this path too.
>> Ray, very few people here (myself included) are going to conclude that
>> it is my fault that you cannot express yourself coherently. On the
>> other hand, I should give you credit for not committing the error of
>> writing more clearly than you can think.
>>
>>> Mind you: I can support and reference everything that I say with
>>> evolutionary scientists - everything.
I would really like to see the reference to an evolutionary biologist
who agrees with your definition of microevolution.
>>>But none of this is the point
>>> here. The point here, which has nothing to do with you (as of yet) is
>>> that the basic description of microevolution that I have provided is
>>> not at issue or in question. This is kindergarten stuff. The issue
>>> here is the inexcusable behavior and indefensible actions of Steven J
>>> and Dana Tweedy. All posts from these two persons are deliberate
>>> distortions each and every step of the way.
>> Well, perhaps you can quote-mine evolutionary biologists, although I
>> note that you don't actually cite any to defend any of your various
>> contradictory definitions of "microevolution." But the point is that
>> when you insist that "microevolution" has natural selection as part of
>> its definition, you are wrong.
>
> Already answered above.
>
>> Another point, of course, is that you
>> will not respond to requests for clarification: you will not say
>> whether you think that "material causation" plays any role in
>> inheritance....
>
> It most certainly does not!
Ray, it's time we had that talk.
Perhaps you are under the misapprehension that you are the result of a
virgin birth? If not, then material causation certainly does play a role
in your inheritance of characteristics from your parents.
>
>> ....or whether changes in the frequency of inherited traits
>> happen in populations
>
> If causation is material, and this is presupposed silently, then NO!
Ignore the presuppositions. Simply state whether or not you think the
frequency of inherited traits happens in populations.
>
>> or whether natural selection occurs at all.
>
> As the main agent causing evolution and responsible for producing
> nature, of course not.
As one of the main agents, and partly responsible for producing the
diversity of biological species, why not?
> There is simply no evidence for this absurdity.
Except all the evidence that you refuse to look at.
> A claim like this is better suited for science fiction, Steven. We are
> talking about reality. Are you connected to it in some rational way?
Oddly enough, Steven is more rationally connected to reality than you
are. You seem to think that the truth about the real world can be
discovered in books. Steven agrees with almost everyone else that the
best way to study reality is to examine it directly.
[snip discussion of evasion]
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 25, 11:04 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 4:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar
>> 25, 6:25 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> -- [snip]
>>
>> > > Variations, both new and existing, are due to mutation.
>>
>> > Yes, I know, that is the claim - a claim that I am not disputing. I am
>> > only saying, and I have only been saying, that these are claims of
>> > evolutionary theory and that these claims presuppose the scientific
>> > veracity of material causation also known as Materialism.
>>
>> It is a claim you are not addressing, at all, even though it demands
>> addressing. You insist that microevolution does not occur.
>
> Yes, this is true.
>
>> Are you
>> saying that variation does not exist,
>
> No, I am not; nor have I ever denied variation to exist. Even so
> called "identical twins" are not identical.
>
>> or (despite your statement that
>> you are "not disputing" Howard's statements about mutation) that
>> mutations are not in fact the cause of variation?
>>
>
> It depends on how one defines "mutation."
How about in the normal way, as in a change in the DNA?
> Said word carries a meaning
> that is very misunderstood.
What do you think is misunderstood about it?
> IF it means and only means "the cause of
> variation" then yes. But please note I have said nothing about
> mutation causation.
That's because you obviously don't know how mutations are caused. The only
thing that can cause variation in the genes is a mutation. What do you
think causes mutations?
>
>> > > Natural selection (and neutral drift) only comes into play when the
>> > > variation actually exists in the population.
>>
>> > Okay....so....what is the point?
>>
>> > Steven asked me to define microevolution. When I did he promptly began
>> > to clown the discussion. He has not stopped.
>>
>> I pointed out that you offer multiple definitions of microevolution,
>
> But I did no such thing.
Actually, you define it inconsistently.
>
>> which contradict one another
>
> Completely false.
Care to support that claim?
>
>> and, in some cases, the textbook
>> definition of "microevolution." The fact that you constantly switch
>> definitions, and rant about "material causation," "materialism," and
>> "divine causation" rather than saying whether you think that mutations
>> actually occur, or whether natural selection actually occurs, or
>> whether changes in populations over time occur, is a big part of the
>> problem.
>
> I have not switched any definitions but remained faithful to one very
> simple but very accurate definition.
Your definitions may be "simple" but they aren't accurate.
> Of course it might do you well to
> back up your assertion here and actually list all of these so called
> 'switched definitions' or drop it and try to understand what I have
> been saying.
You've claim that microevolution is "modification" and "slight incremental"
and "too slow to be observed". You've tried to claim that microevolution
is always due to natural selection, and you've claimed that it's caused by
natural selection.
>
> I have faithfully defined microevolution by saying what it is and how
> it allegedly occurs.
Except that you got it wrong.
> This means I have repeatedly stated cause and
> effect.
But your ideas about "cause and effect" are both wrong.
> In this context I have repeatedly said that microevolution
> does not occur nor has it ever occurred on this planet.
Which is as absurd as claiming that the moon doesn't orbit the Earth.
> The reason I
> have defined microevolution this way is because since 1859 the claim
> and/or concept has never, I repeat never existed in any way, shape or
> form,
Well, your own idea about microevoltuion is wrong. What has been seen is
the proper definition, i.e. allele frequency change in a population over
time.
> minus causation (not counting the period between c.1900 and the
> synthesis). Microevolution means slow change or slight modification
> performed on an organism by the causal agent of natural selection.
That, of course is wrong. Microevolution does not have to be slow. It
doesn't have to be slight. Natural selection is not the "causal agent" of
microevlolution, as evolution can occur in the absence of selection.
> Eventually said organism breeds and passes said modification into its
> population. This is what the general theory of evolution claims; this
> is what I reject; and this is what I can disprove.
Ray, what you are describing is a single mutation, not evolution.
Evolution happens to populations, not to individuals. A mutation normally
occurs in the germ line that leads to the development of the organism.
Mutations in the genes after birth normally don't get passed on to the next
generation. It's very important to note that natural selection does NOT
cause these mutations. Natural selection acts on variations that exist in
the gene pool. Those variations are ultimately produced by mutations. The
only way you can "disprove" your caracature of evolution is to disprove
the existence of mutations. That would be impossible.
>
> I think it is important at this point to simply tell me if you
> understand what I have said.
It's clear you have a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. You
have mistaken the process that produces a single variation in a population
for the process that causes a particular variation to spread through the
population.
>
>> I am not "clowning the discussion;" I am attempting to
>> figure out what you think (on the rather generous assumption that you
>> do think) about evolution. Insisting that it doesn't happen is
>> useless, if no one can figure out what it is that you think doesn't
>> happen.
>>
>> > Howard: microevolution is incremental change, more accurately
>> > described as modification. Natural selection is the main (but not the
>> > exclusive) agent causing modification-evolution. It is error to talk
>> > about microevolution unless cause (NS) and effect (modification) is
>> > described.
>>
>> No one except you thinks that it is an error to talk about evolution
>> without discussing the mechanisms of evolution.
>
> False!
>
> The main purpose of the "Origin" (1859) was to evidence and explain
> HOW evolution allegedly occurs.
It was to explain the evidence that evolution does occur.
> This is why Darwin began the "Origin"
> with a metaphor. This is why the phrase "natural selection" is in the
> title of the book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
> Selection...."
Still, you are misunderstanding what microevolution is, and you are
misunderstanding Darwin's statements.
>
> You need to concede this point. Since 1859 evolution has never existed
> except within the context of a proposed mechanism of causation.
Why should Steven "concede" when it's you who is wrong? Evolution has
existed before 1859, and has existed since then. Your idea of the
mechanism of evolution is totally wrong.
>
> This is why I refuse to define or discuss microevolution apart from
> causation.
Actually, it's because you don't undestand the concept at all.
> Please note that according to Darwin (and modern
> theorists): "natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
> of modification."
Actually, it's only part of the mechanism, variation (by mutation) provides
the raw material for natural selection to work on. Without variation,
selection can't do anything.
>
> 'Micro' implies slight or small; 'evolution' implies change, but HOW?
By variation and selection, of course. Microevolution is used to describe
evolution below the level of species. It's not supposed to be "slight".
>
> 'How' is very important because it presupposes that God or the
> supernatural is not the agent of causation.
Actually, it "presupposes" that any "agent of causation" be able to be
observed and tested. If God is using natural processes as his means of
creation, science can't say yes, or no. Assuming "supernatural causation"
is inherently unscientific, and can't be tested.
>
>> Furthermore, much
>> discussion of evolutionary mechanisms by people who actually know
>> something about evolution holds that it is often caused by genetic
>> drift, or by structural mechanisms of development.
>>
>
> I didn't know natural selection had been abandoned.
It's not. However drift, is being recognized as being more important than
once thought.
> Apparently
> Francisco Ayala, as recently in his new book, didn't know either. I
> believe Ayala is a molecular biologist.
Ayala doesn't make any claim that natural selection has been abandoned?
>
> You are pulling a Dana Tweedy stunt.
What? He's being correct, and making statements that you are unable to
answer?
>
>> > No matter how times I define or describe microevolution Steven J
>> > grossly misrepresents, distorts, and suddenly cannot read with
>> > comprehension. I hope you do not choose to engage this path too.
>>
>> Ray, very few people here (myself included) are going to conclude that
>> it is my fault that you cannot express yourself coherently. On the
>> other hand, I should give you credit for not committing the error of
>> writing more clearly than you can think.
>>
>> > Mind you: I can support and reference everything that I say with
>> > evolutionary scientists - everything. But none of this is the point
>> > here. The point here, which has nothing to do with you (as of yet) is
>> > that the basic description of microevolution that I have provided is
>> > not at issue or in question. This is kindergarten stuff. The issue
>> > here is the inexcusable behavior and indefensible actions of Steven J
>> > and Dana Tweedy. All posts from these two persons are deliberate
>> > distortions each and every step of the way.
>>
>> Well, perhaps you can quote-mine evolutionary biologists, although I
>> note that you don't actually cite any to defend any of your various
>> contradictory definitions of "microevolution." But the point is that
>> when you insist that "microevolution" has natural selection as part of
>> its definition, you are wrong.
>
> Already answered above.
Your 'answer' was wrong. Deal with it.
>
>> Another point, of course, is that you
>> will not respond to requests for clarification: you will not say
>> whether you think that "material causation" plays any role in
>> inheritance....
>
> It most certainly does not!
So, why doesn't it? Don't humans produce genetic material that is unites,
and produces a new individual? Are you saying that "material causation"
has nothing to do with that? I think you need a refresher in human
biology.
>
>> ....or whether changes in the frequency of inherited traits
>> happen in populations
>
> If causation is material, and this is presupposed silently, then NO!
Again, why not? Please explain why human reproduction is not "material
causation".
>
>> or whether natural selection occurs at all.
>
> As the main agent causing evolution and responsible for producing
> nature, of course not.
Actually, natural selection is not the "main agent causing evolution", and
it's not responsible for producing all of nature. Natural selection plays
an important part in evolution, but does not play a part in non-biological
events.
> There is simply no evidence for this absurdity.
Well, the way you put it, it's absurd, but that's your own strawman.
Natural selection does not cause variation in a population, it makes use of
that variation. It does not cause "nature" but provides a non random
element to evolutionary change.
> A claim like this is better suited for science fiction, Steven. We are
> talking about reality. Are you connected to it in some rational way?
You are just asserting here that it's "science fiction" without any support
for that claim. You are also implying that scientific theory is not
"reality". As for your claims about "rational" connection... want to
explain the eels again?
>
>> You evade these questions desperately: I cannot help but think that
>> the "inexcusable" and "indefensible" actions of mine that you complain
>> about consist of asking you to clarify your position.
>>
>
> You have my answers.
And not surprisingly, they are wrong.
>
>> > If you want to align yourself with them then fine. I will simply
>> > ignore and go about my business with other persons and their messages
>> > and not waste my time with howlers.
>>
>> > > But, if, as you seem to agree, mutation does provide new or re-
>> > > emergent variation, there does indeed seem to always be variation
>> > > upon
>> > > which selection can act.
>>
>> > According to Ernst Mayr it is almost unlimited. Other context he seems
>> > to say there is a limit. It doesn't really matter to me which is true
>> > or if both are sometimes true.
>>
>> But can natural selection actually act upon variation? Or is this
>> something else that doesn't matter to you?
>>
>
> According to evolutionary theory, YES!
So, why do you dispute this? What evidence can you offer that natural
selection does not act on variations in a population?
DJT
Tom McDonald
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:182680a3-4937-4214...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 25, 11:03 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> snip
>
>>>>> This, of course, is false. You regularly make claims and fail to back
>>>>> them up.
>>>> Such as......
>>> Innews:549515b4-9b5e-45b0...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
>>> you stated, regarding some feathers that had been found in amber, that
>>>
>>> A close-up of rachis and barbules and barbs compared to the
>>> pictures in the link does not suport a claim of intermediacy.
>>>
>>> When are you going to back up that claim?
>>>
>> Are you saying I see something that you do not see? If so when are you
>> going to back up your claim?
>
> You were the one who made the claim in the first place. Should we expect
> you to keep running away from this too?
Is that a rhetorical question?
And if so, is it in the 'answer' or 'don't answer' baramin?
<snip>
Ray Martinez
That 20% (if accurate, and some percentage is) represents the period
in evolutionary science before natural selection was universally
excepted. The selectionists always existed since Darwin but their view
was not the majority view until the synthesis.
> > Microevolution means slow change or slight modification
> > performed on an organism by the causal agent of natural selection.
>
> This is not a commonly accepted definition of microevolution. Have you
> been talking to backspace?
>
You are ignorant and do not know what your own theory claims.
My short definition, of course, presupposes natural selection to be
the main (but not the exclusive) cause of modification.
> If you insist on that definition, I will agree that is has never
> happened. Natural selection only makes one type of change to an
> individual organism - it kills it.
False to a silly degree.
Natural selection is a process, a mechanism and a result. It can only
act one way which is understood in different ways. Evolutionists
routinely forget that NS is material phenomenom. This means it can
only act one way: it has no mind or foresight. It is a naturally
occurring phenomenom. To say death is this phenomenom is ridiculous:
"death produced a bat and a rain forrest" - utterly ridiculous. If I
had said that the Group would be in an uproar. Of course the Group
will ignore your ignorance. The simple truism of death is not a
mechanism. Your understanding of natural selection is how a lot of
Creationists intentionally misrepresent natural selection. This is why
I said you are ignorant concerning your own theory.
> Therefore there is no such thing as a
> "slight modification performed on an organism by the causal agent of
> natural selection"
>
You are shockingly ignorant of evolutionary theory.
> Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a *population* over
> time.
Now we can see why you are so ignorant. This is what happens when you
learn biology from a public forum and not from scholars.
You have parroted a gene-centric definition of change - not evolution
in reality. I suggest that you learn about the claims of
modification.
> Microevolution is evolution that does not lead to the formation of
> different species.
>
Agreed.
> > Eventually said organism breeds and passes said modification into its
> > population.
>
> Variation (by mutation, or whatever word makes you happy) happens first.
That was presupposed and never denied.
> Some organisms leave more descendants than others.
Another simple truism....
> The variations
> occurring in the organisms with more descendants become more widespread
> in the population.
But this discussion was never talking about evolution at population
level, but organism level. We know that populations change because a
modified organism has bred and passed said modification into the
population. But since you know nothing about modifications, by your
own admission, it is useless to go any further.
> Variations which kill an organism, or cause it not to
> have viable descendants, are filtered out of the population. Evolution.
>
> > This is what the general theory of evolution claims;
>
> Not really. You should learn some actual biology before claiming to
> understand it.
>
> > this is what I reject; and this is what I can disprove.
>
> Apparently you have spent two years constructing a straw man. No-one
> accepts your definition of microevolution. What you define as
> microevolution never happens, and has never been claimed to happen.
>
I have always said that what this Group believes and what scholars
publish are two different things. I am, of course, correct.
>
>
> > I think it is important at this point to simply tell me if you
> > understand what I have said.
>
> I think so. It would help if you told us where you got your definition
> of evolution.
>
It would help even more if you had a basic 101 grasp of what your own
theory claims and proposes.
> [minor snip]
>
> >>> Howard: microevolution is incremental change, more accurately
> >>> described as modification. Natural selection is the main (but not the
> >>> exclusive) agent causing modification-evolution. It is error to talk
> >>> about microevolution unless cause (NS) and effect (modification) is
> >>> described.
> >> No one except you thinks that it is an error to talk about evolution
> >> without discussing the mechanisms of evolution.
>
> > False!
>
> > The main purpose of the "Origin" (1859) was to evidence and explain
> > HOW evolution allegedly occurs. This is why Darwin began the "Origin"
> > with a metaphor. This is why the phrase "natural selection" is in the
> > title of the book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
> > Selection...."
>
> So? Everyone already accepted that evolution had occurred. Older forms
> are different from modern forms.
>
>
>
> > You need to concede this point. Since 1859 evolution has never existed
> > except within the context of a proposed mechanism of causation.
>
> > This is why I refuse to define or discuss microevolution apart from
> > causation. Please note that according to Darwin (and modern
> > theorists): "natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
> > of modification."
>
> Actually there is some argument over this. Some biologists think that
> genetic drift is as important as natural selection.
>
I said "the main but not the exclusive means...." - SHEESH!
>
>
> > 'Micro' implies slight or small; 'evolution' implies change, but HOW?
>
> > 'How' is very important because it presupposes that God or the
> > supernatural is not the agent of causation.
>
> No, it doesn't. "God (or the supernatural) did it" can be an answer to a
> "How?" question, but asking the question does not presuppose the answer.
>
You do not understand or your comprehension is impaired or you have
made a simple mistake.
Facts or evidence interpreted to support the occurrence of evolution
are a false interpretation of said facts or evidence.
>
>
> >> or whether natural selection occurs at all.
>
> > As the main agent causing evolution and responsible for producing
> > nature, of course not.
>
> As one of the main agents, and partly responsible for producing the
> diversity of biological species, why not?
>
Because the evidence says God is supervising nature hands-on.
Evolution and natural selection are not needed to explain nature; and
these proposals are false.
> > There is simply no evidence for this absurdity.
>
> Except all the evidence that you refuse to look at.
>
> > A claim like this is better suited for science fiction, Steven. We are
> > talking about reality. Are you connected to it in some rational way?
>
> Oddly enough, Steven is more rationally connected to reality than you
> are. You seem to think that the truth about the real world can be
> discovered in books. Steven agrees with almost everyone else that the
> best way to study reality is to examine it directly.
>
Al least Rupert admits he has no source for his views. This explains
his massive ignorance of his own theory.
I only replied to your message out of courtesy because it was somewhat
long and because it was view centered containing no ad homs.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> > I have faithfully defined microevolution by saying what it is and how
>> > it allegedly occurs. This means I have repeatedly stated cause and
>> > effect. In this context I have repeatedly said that microevolution
>> > does not occur nor has it ever occurred on this planet. The reason I
>> > have defined microevolution this way is because since 1859 the claim
>> > and/or concept has never, I repeat never existed in any way, shape or
>> > form, minus causation (not counting the period between c.1900 and the
>> > synthesis).
>>
>> "Never, I repeat never (except for 20% of the time)"
>>
>
> That 20% (if accurate, and some percentage is) represents the period
> in evolutionary science before natural selection was universally
> excepted. The selectionists always existed since Darwin but their view
> was not the majority view until the synthesis.
Not relevant, as has been pointed out. Natural selection is not the only
mechanism of evolution.
>
>> > Microevolution means slow change or slight modification
>> > performed on an organism by the causal agent of natural selection.
>>
>> This is not a commonly accepted definition of microevolution. Have you
>> been talking to backspace?
>>
>
> You are ignorant and do not know what your own theory claims.
Ray, your own ideas about evolution are wrong. You are the one who doesn't
know that the theory claims.
>
> My short definition, of course, presupposes natural selection to be
> the main (but not the exclusive) cause of modification.
But that's wrong. "modification" as you put it is caused by mutations.
Selection is what fixes a mutation in the population.
>
>> If you insist on that definition, I will agree that is has never
>> happened. Natural selection only makes one type of change to an
>> individual organism - it kills it.
>
> False to a silly degree.
This shows you don't understand what natural selection is.
>
> Natural selection is a process, a mechanism and a result.
Where do you get this idea?
> It can only
> act one way which is understood in different ways. Evolutionists
> routinely forget that NS is material phenomenom.
Ray, all phenomena that can be observed is a material phenomena. Where do
you get the idea anyone "forgets" this?
>This means it can
> only act one way: it has no mind or foresight.
So? That doesn't mean it can only act "one way".
> It is a naturally
> occurring phenomenom.
So is everything else we can perceive.....
> To say death is this phenomenom is ridiculous:
> "death produced a bat and a rain forrest" - utterly ridiculous.
Most strawmen are. Natural selection is only part of the mechanism that
produced bats and rain forests. Selection is a either/or process. Either
the individual lives, or it dies. It either reproduces, or it doesn't.
The death of some of the population changes the allele frequency in that
population, because dead individuals don't pass on their genes. Rain
forests themselves are not the product of natural selection, but the plants
that make up the rainforest are. Bats exist because the failed "bats" did
not survive. Only the successful ones did.
> If I
> had said that the Group would be in an uproar.
Again, Ray, it's your strawman, not his.
> Of course the Group
> will ignore your ignorance.
Hint, it's not HIS ignorance on display here.
> The simple truism of death is not a
> mechanism.
Death is part of a mechanism, however. Dead organsims don't reproduce.
Natural selection is the concept that one has to be alive to pass on one's
genes to the next generation.
> Your understanding of natural selection is how a lot of
> Creationists intentionally misrepresent natural selection. This is why
> I said you are ignorant concerning your own theory.
Ray, how can you lecture someone on a theory you have absolutely no idea
about? Your ideas about evolution and natural selection are utterly
wrong. You are arguing from gross ignorance.
>
>
>> Therefore there is no such thing as a
>> "slight modification performed on an organism by the causal agent of
>> natural selection"
>>
>
> You are shockingly ignorant of evolutionary theory.
Ray, you are shockingly wrong here. It's amazing that you can't seem to
grasp that you are wrong.
>
>> Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a *population* over
>> time.
>
> Now we can see why you are so ignorant. This is what happens when you
> learn biology from a public forum and not from scholars.
Ray, one of the most influential and famous evolutionary biologists defines
evolution as:
"Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of
populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of
generations."
Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed.,
Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4
Another textbook author defines it as:
"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
Can you cite any "scholar" who agrees with your definition?
>
> You have parroted a gene-centric definition of change - not evolution
> in reality. I suggest that you learn about the claims of
> modification.
>
>> Microevolution is evolution that does not lead to the formation of
>> different species.
>>
>
> Agreed.
In which case, your claim that microevolution doesn't happen is absurd.
You are denying that dog breeds exist.
>
>> > Eventually said organism breeds and passes said modification into its
>> > population.
>>
>> Variation (by mutation, or whatever word makes you happy) happens first.
>
> That was presupposed and never denied.
Yet you still get the idea wrong.
>
>> Some organisms leave more descendants than others.
>
> Another simple truism....
So, your denial of microevolution is even more bizarre.....
>
>> The variations
>> occurring in the organisms with more descendants become more widespread
>> in the population.
>
> But this discussion was never talking about evolution at population
> level, but organism level.
Ray let me say this plainly, and simply; EVOLUTION HAPPENS AT POPULATION
LEVEL, NOT AT "ORGANISM LEVEL". Individuals don't evolve, populations
do!! Since you won't accept it unless a "scholar" says it:
http://www.brookscole.com/biology_d/templates/student_resources/0534575463_starrtaggart/outlines/ch18.html"Individuals Don't Evolve-Populations Do"http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/cool_stuff/tour_evolution_2.html&text=t"Microevolution: Individuals Don't Evolve, Populations Do"http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio106/nat-sel.htm" One important thing thing to note here is that populations, notindividuals, evolve: individuals can have genetic mutations, but unlessthose mutations are passed along to offspring and thus into the gene pool ofthe population, no real change has occurred."http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html Individual organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve.> We know that populations change because a> modified organism has bred and passed said modification into the> population.Which is microevolution. You have just admitted that microevolutionhappens>But since you know nothing about modifications, by your> own admission, it is useless t
o go any further.Ray, your claim about "modification" is mistaken, misguided, utterlywrongheaded, and totally without foundation.>>> Variations which kill an organism, or cause it not to>> have viable descendants, are filtered out of the population. Evolution.>>>> > This is what the general theory of evolution claims;>>>> Not really. You should learn some actual biology before claiming to>> understand it.>>>> > this is what I reject; and this is what I can disprove.>>>> Apparently you have spent two years constructing a straw man. No-one>> accepts your definition of microevolution. What you define as>> microevolution never happens, and has never been claimed to happen.>>>> I have always said that what this Group believes and what scholars> publish are two different things. I am, of course, correct.Ray, "what scholars publish" does not support your claims. I've givenseveral examples above that contradict your claims. You are wrong, asusual.>>>>>>> > I think it is import
ant at this point to simply tell me if you>> > understand wh!
at I hav
e said.>>>> I think so. It would help if you told us where you got your definition>> of evolution.>>>> It would help even more if you had a basic 101 grasp of what your own> theory claims and proposes.Ray, like usual, your 101 grasp is wrong. Where did you get yourdefinition, if you didn't pull it out of your nether regions?>>> [minor snip]>>>> >>> Howard: microevolution is incremental change, more accurately>> >>> described as modification. Natural selection is the main (but not the>> >>> exclusive) agent causing modification-evolution. It is error to talk>> >>> about microevolution unless cause (NS) and effect (modification) is>> >>> described.>> >> No one except you thinks that it is an error to talk about evolution>> >> without discussing the mechanisms of evolution.>>>> > False!>>>> > The main purpose of the "Origin" (1859) was to evidence and explain>> > HOW evolution allegedly occurs. This is why Darwin began the "Origin">> > with a metaphor. This is why the phrase
"natural selection" is in the>> > title of the book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural>> > Selection....">>>> So? Everyone already accepted that evolution had occurred. Older forms>> are different from modern forms.>>>>>>>> > You need to concede this point. Since 1859 evolution has never existed>> > except within the context of a proposed mechanism of causation.>>>> > This is why I refuse to define or discuss microevolution apart from>> > causation. Please note that according to Darwin (and modern>> > theorists): "natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means>> > of modification."snip>>>> Actually there is some argument over this. Some biologists think that>> genetic drift is as important as natural selection.>>>> I said "the main but not the exclusive means...." - SHEESH!But you are still wrong. Natural selection does not cause "modification"of an individual.>>>>>>>> > 'Micro' implies slight or small; 'evolution' implies change, but HOW?>>>> > 'How
' is very important because it presupposes that God or the>>!
> super
natural is not the agent of causation.>>>> No, it doesn't. "God (or the supernatural) did it" can be an answer to a>> "How?" question, but asking the question does not presuppose the answer.>>>> You do not understand or your comprehension is impaired or you have> made a simple mistake.Actually, Ray, like usual, you are making the mistake, and are too ignorantto know it.snip>> >>> Mind you: I can support and reference everything that I say with>> >>> evolutionary scientists - everything.>>>> I would really like to see the reference to an evolutionary biologist>> who agrees with your definition of microevolution.Shall your audience take it as an admission you can't support your claim?snip>>>> > If causation is material, and this is presupposed silently, then NO!>>>> Ignore the presuppositions. Simply state whether or not you think the>> frequency of inherited traits happens in populations.>>>> Facts or evidence interpreted to support the occurrence of evolution> are a false int
erpretation of said facts or evidence.Why? Just because you refuse to accept the facts, and ignore the evidence?>>>>>>> >> or whether natural selection occurs at all.>>>> > As the main agent causing evolution and responsible for producing>> > nature, of course not.>>>> As one of the main agents, and partly responsible for producing the>> diversity of biological species, why not?>>>> Because the evidence says God is supervising nature hands-on.What evidence is that, Ray?> Evolution and natural selection are not needed to explain nature; and> these proposals are false.Whether or not they are "needed" they are still the best explanation for theevidence. Retreat to "Goddidit" does not answer the questions.snip>> Oddly enough, Steven is more rationally connected to reality than you>> are. You seem to think that the truth about the real world can be>> discovered in books. Steven agrees with almost everyone else that the>> best way to study reality is to examine it directly.>>
>> Al least Rupert admits he has no source for his views.Rup!
ert did
not "admit" anything of the sort.> This explains> his massive ignorance of his own theory.What explains your massive ignorance? Rupert's statements were correct.You are wrong.>> I only replied to your message out of courtesy because it was somewhat> long and because it was view centered containing no ad homs.And you were afraid to answer other ones....DJT
Dana Tweedy
"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0xZGj.92$oR4...@newsfe06.lga...
With Ray, running away seems to be his default position. The only other
response he has to difficult questions is to whine that he's being
misrepresented.
DJT
Rupert Morrish
You have not produced a source for "my" theory. Until you do so, and
until I agree that that source accurately represents my opinion, it is
foolish in the extreme for you to assume that you even know what my
theory is, let alone whether I know what it is.
>
> My short definition, of course, presupposes natural selection to be
> the main (but not the exclusive) cause of modification.
And as I pointed out, this is controversial.
>
>> If you insist on that definition, I will agree that is has never
>> happened. Natural selection only makes one type of change to an
>> individual organism - it kills it.
>
> False to a silly degree.
>
> Natural selection is a process, a mechanism and a result. It can only
> act one way which is understood in different ways. Evolutionists
> routinely forget that NS is material phenomenom. This means it can
> only act one way: it has no mind or foresight. It is a naturally
> occurring phenomenom. To say death is this phenomenom is ridiculous:
> "death produced a bat and a rain forrest" - utterly ridiculous. If I
> had said that the Group would be in an uproar. Of course the Group
> will ignore your ignorance. The simple truism of death is not a
> mechanism. Your understanding of natural selection is how a lot of
> Creationists intentionally misrepresent natural selection. This is why
> I said you are ignorant concerning your own theory.
You have appeared to miss the point that I am talking, as you are, about
individual organisms. Organisms do not evolve. Populations evolve.
Natural selection can affect a population by causing differential
reproductive success for organisms with advantageous traits, but it does
not change the organisms themselves.
>
>
>> Therefore there is no such thing as a
>> "slight modification performed on an organism by the causal agent of
>> natural selection"
>>
>
> You are shockingly ignorant of evolutionary theory.
From you, I will take that as a compliment.
>
>> Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a *population* over
>> time.
>
> Now we can see why you are so ignorant. This is what happens when you
> learn biology from a public forum and not from scholars.
Which scholars have you learned biology from, Ray?
The definition I gave is widely used amongst practicing biologists.
>
> You have parroted a gene-centric definition of change - not evolution
> in reality. I suggest that you learn about the claims of
> modification.
Are you claiming that in reality, genes do not change?
>
>> Microevolution is evolution that does not lead to the formation of
>> different species.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> Eventually said organism breeds and passes said modification into its
>>> population.
>> Variation (by mutation, or whatever word makes you happy) happens first.
>
> That was presupposed and never denied.
>
>> Some organisms leave more descendants than others.
>
> Another simple truism....
>
>> The variations
>> occurring in the organisms with more descendants become more widespread
>> in the population.
>
> But this discussion was never talking about evolution at population
> level, but organism level.
Organisms don't evolve. Organisms are born, live, (sometimes) reproduce,
and then die. At no point are they changed by natural selection.
> We know that populations change because a
> modified organism has bred and passed said modification into the
> population. But since you know nothing about modifications, by your
> own admission, it is useless to go any further.
You could take the opportunity to educate me, instead of insult me.
Modification is such a common word that unless you provide me with more
information I will be unable to find out what you are talking about.
>
>> Variations which kill an organism, or cause it not to
>> have viable descendants, are filtered out of the population. Evolution.
>>
>>> This is what the general theory of evolution claims;
>> Not really. You should learn some actual biology before claiming to
>> understand it.
>>
>>> this is what I reject; and this is what I can disprove.
>> Apparently you have spent two years constructing a straw man. No-one
>> accepts your definition of microevolution. What you define as
>> microevolution never happens, and has never been claimed to happen.
>>
>
> I have always said that what this Group believes and what scholars
> publish are two different things. I am, of course, correct.
Inasmuch as this group collectively believes anything, it is that
peer-reviewed primary literature is an accurate source of information
about the real world.
>
>>
>>> I think it is important at this point to simply tell me if you
>>> understand what I have said.
>> I think so. It would help if you told us where you got your definition
>> of evolution.
>>
>
> It would help even more if you had a basic 101 grasp of what your own
> theory claims and proposes.
My theory is exactly as stated. I do not believe that any biologist has
ever published anything approaching the definition you are using.
>
>> [minor snip]
>>
>>>>> Howard: microevolution is incremental change, more accurately
>>>>> described as modification. Natural selection is the main (but not the
>>>>> exclusive) agent causing modification-evolution. It is error to talk
>>>>> about microevolution unless cause (NS) and effect (modification) is
>>>>> described.
>>>> No one except you thinks that it is an error to talk about evolution
>>>> without discussing the mechanisms of evolution.
>>> False!
>>> The main purpose of the "Origin" (1859) was to evidence and explain
>>> HOW evolution allegedly occurs. This is why Darwin began the "Origin"
>>> with a metaphor. This is why the phrase "natural selection" is in the
>>> title of the book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
>>> Selection...."
>> So? Everyone already accepted that evolution had occurred. Older forms
>> are different from modern forms.
>>
Non-response noted.
>>
>>> You need to concede this point. Since 1859 evolution has never existed
>>> except within the context of a proposed mechanism of causation.
>>> This is why I refuse to define or discuss microevolution apart from
>>> causation. Please note that according to Darwin (and modern
>>> theorists): "natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
>>> of modification."
>> Actually there is some argument over this. Some biologists think that
>> genetic drift is as important as natural selection.
>>
>
> I said "the main but not the exclusive means...." - SHEESH!
And as I said, "Some biologists think that genetic drift is *as*
*important* as natural selection". Do you believe that two equally
important mechanisms can both be "the main" means?
>
>
>>
>>> 'Micro' implies slight or small; 'evolution' implies change, but HOW?
>>> 'How' is very important because it presupposes that God or the
>>> supernatural is not the agent of causation.
>> No, it doesn't. "God (or the supernatural) did it" can be an answer to a
>> "How?" question, but asking the question does not presuppose the answer.
>>
>
> You do not understand or your comprehension is impaired or you have
> made a simple mistake.
You could correct the first and the last by attempting to explain.
However, it is also possible that *you* do not understand, and I will
attempt to explain.
"How were the Earth and the Heavens formed?"
You could answer "By direct divine causation". Or I could give a much
longer and more accurate answer. But both are valid forms of answer,
since the question does not presuppose that God or the supernatural is
not the agent of causation.
>
>>
I would still like to see that reference.
>>>>> But none of this is the point
>>>>> here. The point here, which has nothing to do with you (as of yet) is
>>>>> that the basic description of microevolution that I have provided is
>>>>> not at issue or in question. This is kindergarten stuff. The issue
>>>>> here is the inexcusable behavior and indefensible actions of Steven J
>>>>> and Dana Tweedy. All posts from these two persons are deliberate
>>>>> distortions each and every step of the way.
>>>> Well, perhaps you can quote-mine evolutionary biologists, although I
>>>> note that you don't actually cite any to defend any of your various
>>>> contradictory definitions of "microevolution." But the point is that
>>>> when you insist that "microevolution" has natural selection as part of
>>>> its definition, you are wrong.
>>> Already answered above.
>>>> Another point, of course, is that you
>>>> will not respond to requests for clarification: you will not say
>>>> whether you think that "material causation" plays any role in
>>>> inheritance....
>>> It most certainly does not!
>> Ray, it's time we had that talk.
>>
>> Perhaps you are under the misapprehension that you are the result of a
>> virgin birth? If not, then material causation certainly does play a role
>> in your inheritance of characteristics from your parents.
No answer? Are you like Dr. D@ch, who believes his mother is still a virgin?
>>>> ....or whether changes in the frequency of inherited traits
>>>> happen in populations
>>> If causation is material, and this is presupposed silently, then NO!
>> Ignore the presuppositions. Simply state whether or not you think the
>> frequency of inherited traits happens in populations.
>>
>
> Facts or evidence interpreted to support the occurrence of evolution
> are a false interpretation of said facts or evidence.
I didn't mention any facts or evidence (although they exist aplenty).
Do changes in frequency of inherited traits happen?
It's a simple question of objective fact. You should note that your
statement above indicates you are unwilling to consider evidence that
contradicts your preconceived notions on evolution. If you are unwilling
to be convinced by evidence, you are not going to scientifically
disprove the theory of evolution, even if you understood it.
>
>>
>>>> or whether natural selection occurs at all.
>>> As the main agent causing evolution and responsible for producing
>>> nature, of course not.
>> As one of the main agents, and partly responsible for producing the
>> diversity of biological species, why not?
>>
>
> Because the evidence says God is supervising nature hands-on.
What evidence is that?
> Evolution and natural selection are not needed to explain nature;
Not needed, no. But no other explanation makes testable predictions.
> and
> these proposals are false.
Yet, oddly, every time they are tested, they are not falsified. Why
would a false theory make accurate predictions?
>
>
>>> There is simply no evidence for this absurdity.
>> Except all the evidence that you refuse to look at.
>>
>>> A claim like this is better suited for science fiction, Steven. We are
>>> talking about reality. Are you connected to it in some rational way?
>> Oddly enough, Steven is more rationally connected to reality than you
>> are. You seem to think that the truth about the real world can be
>> discovered in books. Steven agrees with almost everyone else that the
>> best way to study reality is to examine it directly.
>>
>
> Al least Rupert admits he has no source for his views.
My source is reality. I'm sorry that you consider that source unreliable.
> This explains
> his massive ignorance of his own theory.
Again, you have no business assuming you know what my theory is. I do
you the courtesy of not conflating your beliefs with Ken Ham or Michael
Behe, and I would ask that you reciprocate.
>
> I only replied to your message out of courtesy because it was somewhat
> long and because it was view centered containing no ad homs.
Thank you.
Steven J.
> On Mar 25, 11:04 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Are you
> > saying that variation does not exist,
>
> No, I am not; nor have I ever denied variation to exist. Even so
> called "identical twins" are not identical.
>
>
> > or (despite your statement that
> > you are "not disputing" Howard's statements about mutation) that
> > mutations are not in fact the cause of variation?
>
> It depends on how one defines "mutation." Said word carries a meaning
> that is very misunderstood. IF it means and only means "the cause of
> variation" then yes. But please note I have said nothing about
> mutation causation.
>
variation? There are many causes of mutation: radiation, various
chemicals, simple accidents during chemical collisions when DNA
strands are being duplicated, and, of course, deliberate intelligent
action. You seem to be hinting that a great deal (all?) mutations
fall into the latter class: that mutations (or is it just neutral and
beneficial mutations) are "divinely caused" rather than naturally
caused.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > I pointed out that you offer multiple definitions of microevolution,
>
> But I did no such thing.
>
completeness; the first time you attempted to define "microevolution"
you made no mention of its cause.
>
> > which contradict one another
>
> Completely false.
>
about what "microevolution" means, and then in another post insisted
that only changes in populations caused by natural selection are
"microevolution," and that you care neither for "changes in gene
frequencies" nor for genetic drift. Do you deny that you have made
both these statements? Given that biologists routinely DEFINE
"microevolution" to mean "change in gene frequencies in a population
over time," whether due to natural selection, genetic drift, or other
causes, your full definition of microevolution contradicts that of
mainstream biologists. I'd think this was merely eccentric of you,
except, as noted, you said that you went by the mainstream definition.
>
> > and, in some cases, the textbook
> > definition of "microevolution." The fact that you constantly switch
> > definitions, and rant about "material causation," "materialism," and
> > "divine causation" rather than saying whether you think that mutations
> > actually occur, or whether natural selection actually occurs, or
> > whether changes in populations over time occur, is a big part of the
> > problem.
>
> I have not switched any definitions but remained faithful to one very
> simple but very accurate definition. Of course it might do you well to
> back up your assertion here and actually list all of these so called
> 'switched definitions' or drop it and try to understand what I have
> been saying.
>
>
> I have faithfully defined microevolution by saying what it is and how
> it allegedly occurs. This means I have repeatedly stated cause and
> effect. In this context I have repeatedly said that microevolution
> does not occur nor has it ever occurred on this planet. The reason I
> have defined microevolution this way is because since 1859 the claim
> and/or concept has never, I repeat never existed in any way, shape or
> form, minus causation (not counting the period between c.1900 and the
> synthesis). Microevolution means slow change or slight modification
> performed on an organism by the causal agent of natural selection.
> Eventually said organism breeds and passes said modification into its
> population. This is what the general theory of evolution claims; this
> is what I reject; and this is what I can disprove.
>
may be caused by other factors as well. And if you want authority, I
have it going back to 1859, when Charles Darwin stated that natural
selection was (in his opinion) the principle but not the sole cause of
evolution. If you want more recent authority, google "Motoo Kimura,"
an expert in biology of somewhat greater renown than Gene Scott, and a
proponent of the idea that much evolution occurs through genetic
drift, not selection. Oh, and while evolutionists have always assumed
that evolution has "material causes," that's not the same thing as
insisting that it only counts as evolution if it has one particular
"material cause."
>
> I think it is important at this point to simply tell me if you
> understand what I have said.
>
"microevolution" because you think it needs miracles to make it
happen, and you only apply the term "microevolution" to the results of
natural selection. It's natural selection you don't think exists.
Do I have that more or less right?
>
-- [snip]
>
> > No one except you thinks that it is an error to talk about evolution
> > without discussing the mechanisms of evolution.
>
> False!
>
> The main purpose of the "Origin" (1859) was to evidence and explain
> HOW evolution allegedly occurs. This is why Darwin began the "Origin"
> with a metaphor. This is why the phrase "natural selection" is in the
> title of the book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
> Selection...."
>
Yet, as you yourself note, there was a decades-long "eclipse of
Darwinism" in which common descent was accepted, and in which it was
mostly assumed to have "material causes," yet there was a great deal
of controversy and uncertainty about those causes. And, of course, in
the modern age there are many controversies over the relative
importance of selection and drift, or whether material factors other
than natural selection play a role in adaptions. And, as noted,
Darwin himself stated that he thought there were other causes of
evolution besides natural selection, although he thought they were of
little importance.
>
> You need to concede this point. Since 1859 evolution has never existed
> except within the context of a proposed mechanism of causation.
>
Why should I concede it, when it is not really true?
>
> This is why I refuse to define or discuss microevolution apart from
> causation. Please note that according to Darwin (and modern
> theorists): "natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
> of modification."
>
Actually, some modern theorists disagree that natural selection plays
a larger role than other factors. Now, if you said that "natural
selection is the main means of adaption, or adaptive evolution" you
would probably find nearly all modern theorists in agreement with
you. But it seems to me perverse to treat "main but not exclusive" as
though it meant "exclusive."
>
> 'Micro' implies slight or small; 'evolution' implies change, but HOW?
>
> 'How' is very important because it presupposes that God or the
> supernatural is not the agent of causation.
>
Ray, if I recall correctly, you have stated that you hold that human
embryogenesis (where babies come from) occurs through material
causes. You agree that weather occurs through material causes. I
cannot discern why you should insist that even the tiniest degree of
change in populations over time must require a miracle. But it seems
you do.
>
> > Furthermore, much
> > discussion of evolutionary mechanisms by people who actually know
> > something about evolution holds that it is often caused by genetic
> > drift, or by structural mechanisms of development.
>
> I didn't know natural selection had been abandoned. Apparently
> Francisco Ayala, as recently in his new book, didn't know either. I
> believe Ayala is a molecular biologist.
>
Ray, you yourself cite Darwin saying that natural selection was the
"main BUT NOT EXCLUSIVE" mechanism of evolution. Now I, for my part,
have often insisted that one of the differences between evolutionary
biology and religion is that evolutionary biology does not assume its
founders were inerrant prophets. Some evolutionists are interested in
those mechanisms other than natural selection, even if they are not
the main mechanisms of evolution. Some think that Darwin was wrong,
and that natural selection may not even be the main mechanism of
evolution (for most if not all of them, that is equivalent to "most
evolution may not be adaptive").
>
> You are pulling a Dana Tweedy stunt.
>
Trying to be reasonable and explain things to you?
>
-- [snip]
>
> > Another point, of course, is that you
> > will not respond to requests for clarification: you will not say
> > whether you think that "material causation" plays any role in
> > inheritance....
>
> It most certainly does not!
>
Ray, I said "inheritance," not "evolution" or "change in
populations." You've just asserted (and I'm not sure you meant to)
that Mendel and de Vries were as wrong as Darwin: genetics does not
exist and babies inherit blue or brown eyes by miracles.
>
> > ....or whether changes in the frequency of inherited traits
> > happen in populations
>
> If causation is material, and this is presupposed silently, then NO!
>
I'll take that (provisionally, and subject to correction) that you
think that populations change over time, but as the result of
miracles.
Ray, would you like to rethink your earlier statement that babies are
made through material processes? You apparently don't think that
inheritance works through material causes, but a great deal of baby-
making is inheritance. Indeed, I still think that you ought to look
into occasionalism as an ontological system.
>
> > or whether natural selection occurs at all.
>
> As the main agent causing evolution and responsible for producing
> nature, of course not. There is simply no evidence for this absurdity.
>
It might be interesting to discuss what you think is happening in
experiments where biology teachers create a bunch of monoclonal
cultures of _E. coli_, expose some of them to radiation, and then
expose them to penicillin, and see which of the irradiated ones have
survivors of the penicillin.
>
> A claim like this is better suited for science fiction, Steven. We are
> talking about reality. Are you connected to it in some rational way?
>
Considering that I've reached this point in your post, and am still
attempting to reason with you about science, there is some question
about that, isn't there?
>
> > You evade these questions desperately: I cannot help but think that
> > the "inexcusable" and "indefensible" actions of mine that you complain
> > about consist of asking you to clarify your position.
>
> You have my answers.
>
And frankly, your answers are deranged.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > But can natural selection actually act upon variation? Or is this
> > something else that doesn't matter to you?
>
> According to evolutionary theory, YES!
>
Evolutionary theory has a great deal of evidence backing it up on this
point.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<182680a3-4937-4214...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> :
>On Mar 25, 11:03 am, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:30:41 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <612fb84b-79b6-4a2c-a186-14e3302c2...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 24, 3:57 pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:01:34 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> <eb622a80-d8ab-4ace-baa3-93c9232a1...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >> >On Mar 22, 11:30 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Mar 22, 7:55 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 21, 10:22 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> [snip]
>>
>> >> >> You define "evolution" in ways bizarrely different from the
>> >> >> way actual evolutionists define it.
>>
>> >> >Only you do that. ***Everything I say*** I can back up with
>> >> >scholarship.
>>
>> >> This, of course, is false. You regularly make claims and fail to back
>> >> them up.
>>
>> >Such as......
>>
>> Innews:549515b4-9b5e-45b0...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
>> you stated, regarding some feathers that had been found in amber, that
>>
>> A close-up of rachis and barbules and barbs compared to the
>> pictures in the link does not suport a claim of intermediacy.
>>
>> When are you going to back up that claim?
>
>Are you saying I see something that you do not see?
No, I'm saying that you're making things up.
>If so when are you
>going to back up your claim?
I already did that in news:pq2sr312eserenrgh...@4ax.com
when I pointed out that the feathers have no barbules. This is also
explained in the paper that announced the discovery, which you seem to
have ignored.
Now, if you'd like to explain why the absence of a feature that's
present in virtually all the feathers of living birds *isn't* an
example of intermediacy, feel free to do so, as it no doubt would be
very amusing. If not, I'll simply add it to the list of topics that
you're running from.
>> >> >None of your assertions are ever supported by scholarship
>> >> >and references - none - ever.
>>
>> >> [snip]
>>
>> Also, now that we're in agreement that "Harun Yahya" misrepresented
>> the contents of a newspaper article, I'm still waiting for you to
>> condemn him for lying, like you said you would.
Isn't it interesting that Ray condemns lying when evolutionists do it,
but condones it when creationists do it? Could it be that Ray's not
really interested in the truth?
Ray Martinez
Finally an admission that you have been misrepresenting. We know
misrepresentation happens because the perpetrator does not like the
truth, or he cannot refute, or he has an agenda of poisoning the well.
> the first time you attempted to define "microevolution"
> you made no mention of its cause.
>
Completely false.
Evolutionary authorities almost never discuss evolution apart from
causation. I learned it from them. Your ignorance is undoubtedly
caused by a failure to read what your own authorities have published.
> > > which contradict one another
>
> > Completely false.
>
> You stated in one post that you agreed with mainstream biologists
> about what "microevolution" means, and then in another post insisted
> that only changes in populations caused by natural selection are
> "microevolution," and that you care neither for "changes in gene
> frequencies" nor for genetic drift.
Horrible distortion, caricature and misrepresentation.
> Do you deny that you have made
> both these statements? Given that biologists routinely DEFINE
> "microevolution" to mean "change in gene frequencies in a population
> over time,"
I have never denied that some biologists define evolution this way.
> whether due to natural selection, genetic drift, or other
> causes, your full definition of microevolution contradicts that of
> mainstream biologists.
My definition is from mainstream biologists. The problem here is that
you are under the belief that there is only one correct definition of
evolution. The fact that you do not recognize my definition as correct
is because you already believe that there is only one correct
definition. This belief reveals ignorance or stubborn blind allegiance
to gene-centricism. My guess is that you are willingly ignorant
because you have already spoken up for a gene-centric definition of
evolution. Therefore you must deny all other definitions lest what you
have spoken up for is harmed. In other words your ego is the entire
problem here.
I never denied. I was talking about the main but not the exclusive for
the millionth time.
> And if you want authority, I
> have it going back to 1859, when Charles Darwin stated that natural
> selection was (in his opinion) the principle but not the sole cause of
> evolution.
I was the one who first quoted Darwin on this matter in these
discussions. For the millionth time plus one all of my definition
input was made in the context that natural selection is the main but
not the exclusive means of modification.
> If you want more recent authority, google "Motoo Kimura,"
> an expert in biology of somewhat greater renown than Gene Scott, and a
> proponent of the idea that much evolution occurs through genetic
> drift, not selection.
I never denied.
For the millionth time plus two I have written my comments in the
context that natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
of modification.
> Oh, and while evolutionists have always assumed
> that evolution has "material causes," that's not the same thing as
> insisting that it only counts as evolution if it has one particular
> "material cause."
>
I have never denied.
> > I think it is important at this point to simply tell me if you
> > understand what I have said.
>
> You believe in what *I* call "microevolution," but you don't call it
> "microevolution" because you think it needs miracles to make it
> happen, and you only apply the term "microevolution" to the results of
> natural selection. It's natural selection you don't think exists.
>
> Do I have that more or less right?
>
Your comments are noticeably screwball.
I have no idea why you place quote marks around words and what these
words are now supposed to mean, and I have never said microevolution
needs miracles - ridiculous.
> -- [snip]
>
> > > No one except you thinks that it is an error to talk about evolution
> > > without discussing the mechanisms of evolution.
>
> > False!
>
> > The main purpose of the "Origin" (1859) was to evidence and explain
> > HOW evolution allegedly occurs. This is why Darwin began the "Origin"
> > with a metaphor. This is why the phrase "natural selection" is in the
> > title of the book: "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural
> > Selection...."
>
> Yet, as you yourself note, there was a decades-long "eclipse of
> Darwinism" in which common descent was accepted, and in which it was
> mostly assumed to have "material causes," yet there was a great deal
> of controversy and uncertainty about those causes. And, of course, in
> the modern age there are many controversies over the relative
> importance of selection and drift, or whether material factors other
> than natural selection play a role in adaptions. And, as noted,
> Darwin himself stated that he thought there were other causes of
> evolution besides natural selection, although he thought they were of
> little importance.
>
> > You need to concede this point. Since 1859 evolution has never existed
> > except within the context of a proposed mechanism of causation.
>
> Why should I concede it, when it is not really true?
>
The phrase "natural selection" is in the title. Your ego will not
allow you to concede. There is no point in discussing anything with
you if you cannot concede this point.
This is why I point out the obvious; evolutionists are brazen liars
even when the evidence is beyond dispute: evolution since 1859 has
never existed except in the context of proposed mechanism.
"On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection...."
> experiments where biology teachers create ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>'How' is very important because it presupposes that God or the
>supernatural is not the agent of causation.
Since we know of nothing that requires either a god or any other
supernatural cause, your case is lost.
--
Bob.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:482bff10-a44f-4359...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...snip
>> Perhaps I should say that you have offered definitions that vary in
>> completeness;
>
> Finally an admission that you have been misrepresenting.
No, it's an "admission" that your definitions are not consistent.
> We know
> misrepresentation happens because the perpetrator does not like the
> truth, or he cannot refute, or he has an agenda of poisoning the well.
That explains why you misrepresent, perhaps. Steven, however did not
misrepresent you at all.
>
>> the first time you attempted to define "microevolution"
>> you made no mention of its cause.
>>
>
> Completely false.
In what way?
>
> Evolutionary authorities almost never discuss evolution apart from
> causation.
What "authorities" are you claiming do this?
> I learned it from them.
Ray, you show not signs of learning anything.
> Your ignorance is undoubtedly
> caused by a failure to read what your own authorities have published.
Note that you haven't cited any "authorities" that support your claim.
>
>
>> > > which contradict one another
>>
>> > Completely false.
>>
>> You stated in one post that you agreed with mainstream biologists
>> about what "microevolution" means, and then in another post insisted
>> that only changes in populations caused by natural selection are
>> "microevolution," and that you care neither for "changes in gene
>> frequencies" nor for genetic drift.
>
> Horrible distortion, caricature and misrepresentation.
Again, how is this distortion? He repeated what you said, almost exactly.
>
>> Do you deny that you have made
>> both these statements? Given that biologists routinely DEFINE
>> "microevolution" to mean "change in gene frequencies in a population
>> over time,"
>
> I have never denied that some biologists define evolution this way.
But your definition, which you claimed came from biologists, is very
different. You haven't shown any biologists who define evolution the way
you do.
>
>> whether due to natural selection, genetic drift, or other
>> causes, your full definition of microevolution contradicts that of
>> mainstream biologists.
>
> My definition is from mainstream biologists.
Which ones? Why don't you provide any evidence to support that?
>The problem here is that
> you are under the belief that there is only one correct definition of
> evolution.
As far as biologists are concerned, there is only one.
> The fact that you do not recognize my definition as correct
> is because you already believe that there is only one correct
> definition.
Actually, your definition is objectively wrong. That is why no one accepts
it.
> This belief reveals ignorance or stubborn blind allegiance
> to gene-centricism.
Ray, evolution is change in the gene frequencies of a population over time.
What part of that do you not understand???
> My guess is that you are willingly ignorant
> because you have already spoken up for a gene-centric definition of
> evolution.
Can you provide any working biologist who does not accept that evolution is
change in gene frequency?
> Therefore you must deny all other definitions lest what you
> have spoken up for is harmed. In other words your ego is the entire
> problem here.
Ray, you have a strange habit of projecting your own faults onto others.
Your own definition is wrong, and no matter how often you claim that others
are "ignorant" it's your own ignorance that is on display here.
snip
>> No, Ray, as a matter of fact, evolutionists hold that microevolution
>> may be caused by other factors as well.
>
> I never denied. I was talking about the main but not the exclusive for
> the millionth time.
The point is, that you are defining evolution as being caused by natural
selection. That is wrong. Evolution can take place without natural
selection. Even if it were the "main" cause of evolution, it's not the
ONLY cause, which is what you seem to be saying.
>
>> And if you want authority, I
>> have it going back to 1859, when Charles Darwin stated that natural
>> selection was (in his opinion) the principle but not the sole cause of
>> evolution.
>
> I was the one who first quoted Darwin on this matter in these
> discussions.
Like usual, you quoted him out of context. You didn't understand what he
was talking about.
> For the millionth time plus one all of my definition
> input was made in the context that natural selection is the main but
> not the exclusive means of modification.
Sigh, Ray, your claim about "modification", as you explained it, is what
biologists would call "mutation". Mutations are not caused by natural
selection. Natural selection acts on variations in a population, not
individuals. Your claim that natural selection is the main cause of
mutation is wrong. Also, you were attempting to define evolution as
change by natural selection. You can't then say that it's the main, but not
exclusive mechanism.
>
>> If you want more recent authority, google "Motoo Kimura,"
>> an expert in biology of somewhat greater renown than Gene Scott, and a
>> proponent of the idea that much evolution occurs through genetic
>> drift, not selection.
>
> I never denied.
Ray, have you forgotten your own claims?
>
> For the millionth time plus two I have written my comments in the
> context that natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
> of modification.
Which, is wrong, as your definition of "modification" is inapplicable to
natural selection. You seem to be claiming that natural selection is what
causes modification of individuals. That is wrong.
>
>> Oh, and while evolutionists have always assumed
>> that evolution has "material causes," that's not the same thing as
>> insisting that it only counts as evolution if it has one particular
>> "material cause."
>>
>
> I have never denied.
So, you do accept that evolution can be caused by a supernatural being?
Then why do you claim that evolution always means natural causes?
>
>
>> > I think it is important at this point to simply tell me if you
>> > understand what I have said.
>>
>> You believe in what *I* call "microevolution," but you don't call it
>> "microevolution" because you think it needs miracles to make it
>> happen, and you only apply the term "microevolution" to the results of
>> natural selection. It's natural selection you don't think exists.
>>
>> Do I have that more or less right?
>>
>
> Your comments are noticeably screwball.
How so? Maybe you should be more clear in your claims?
>
> I have no idea why you place quote marks around words and what these
> words are now supposed to mean, and I have never said microevolution
> needs miracles - ridiculous.
Actually, Ray you have said that. You've refered to evolution as "atheist
miracle claims". Also, if microevolution isn't produced by "miracles",
why are you claiming it can't be by natural processes?
snip
>> > You need to concede this point. Since 1859 evolution has never existed
>> > except within the context of a proposed mechanism of causation.
>>
>> Why should I concede it, when it is not really true?
>>
>
> The phrase "natural selection" is in the title.
So? That doesn't mean that mutations are caused by natural selection.
>Your ego will not
> allow you to concede.
I rather think it's the other way around.
> There is no point in discussing anything with
> you if you cannot concede this point.
As Steven, and I have pointed out, why should he concede when it's you who
is wrong? Natural selection is only part of the mechanism of evolution,
and can happen without natural selection.
>
> This is why I point out the obvious; evolutionists are brazen liars
> even when the evidence is beyond dispute: evolution since 1859 has
> never existed except in the context of proposed mechanism.
Which is just your own fantasy. It's not true. Evolution existed even
before Darwin recognized the mechanism by which evolution happens. It's
existed since then as well. Evolution will operate even if no one knows
the mechanism.
>
> "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection...."
Yes, and even Darwin was aware that evolution could happen without natural
selection. Where you are wrong is your are assuming that natural
selection is what causes variation. It doesn't. Natural selection is a
non random mechanism that explains adaptation in populations, not change in
individual organisms.
snip
snipping many points that Ray has ignored, and most likely cannot answser
DJT
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:482bff10-a44f-4359...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...> On Mar 27, 10:01 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> Perhaps I should say that you have offered definitions that vary in
> >> completeness;
>
> > Finally an admission that you have been misrepresenting.
>
> No, it's an "admission" that your definitions are not consistent.
>
Deliberate misrepresentation.
> > We know
> > misrepresentation happens because the perpetrator does not like the
> > truth, or he cannot refute, or he has an agenda of poisoning the well.
>
> That explains why you misrepresent, perhaps. Steven, however did not
> misrepresent you at all.
>
Plagiarism while defending deliberate misrepresentation.
>
>
> >> the first time you attempted to define "microevolution"
> >> you made no mention of its cause.
>
> > Completely false.
>
> In what way?
>
>
>
> > Evolutionary authorities almost never discuss evolution apart from
> > causation.
>
> What "authorities" are you claiming do this?
>
My last two messages (which you posted responses to) cited Darwin
1859. Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting via feigning
ignorance.
> > I learned it from them.
>
> Ray, you show not signs of learning anything.
>
> > Your ignorance is undoubtedly
> > caused by a failure to read what your own authorities have published.
>
> Note that you haven't cited any "authorities" that support your claim.
>
>
Deliberate misrepresentation. I cited Darwin 1859 in my last two
messages. Darwin placed his causation idea in book title; began book
with a metaphor attempting to explain its reality and function. You
know and knew this. You are lying brazenly. You are enraged for some
unknown reason since these points are self-evident and have no effect
on the veracity of ToE.
Darwin did not explain or discuss evolution except in the context of a
proposed mechanism. Everytime you evade and distort this simple point
you show the world how brazen a liar that you are.
>
> >> > > which contradict one another
>
> >> > Completely false.
>
> >> You stated in one post that you agreed with mainstream biologists
> >> about what "microevolution" means, and then in another post insisted
> >> that only changes in populations caused by natural selection are
> >> "microevolution," and that you care neither for "changes in gene
> >> frequencies" nor for genetic drift.
>
> > Horrible distortion, caricature and misrepresentation.
>
> Again, how is this distortion? He repeated what you said, almost exactly.
>
Feigning ignorance concerning deliberate distortion and misquotes.
>
>
> >> Do you deny that you have made
> >> both these statements? Given that biologists routinely DEFINE
> >> "microevolution" to mean "change in gene frequencies in a population
> >> over time,"
>
> > I have never denied that some biologists define evolution this way.
>
> But your definition, which you claimed came from biologists, is very
> different. You haven't shown any biologists who define evolution the way
> you do.
>
Because I am showing the world how ignorant or dishonest the Group of
evolutionists here at Talk Origins is, and I am relishing in that
fact. My definition is basic evolution 101.
Steven J, Rupert and yourself are embarrassingly ignorant about
evolution. This is what happens when you learn evolution from the
Internet instead of scholars.
>
>
> >> whether due to natural selection, genetic drift, or other
> >> causes, your full definition of microevolution contradicts that of
> >> mainstream biologists.
>
> > My definition is from mainstream biologists.
>
> Which ones? Why don't you provide any evidence to support that?
>
> >The problem here is that
>
> > you are under the belief that there is only one correct definition of
> > evolution.
>
> As far as biologists are concerned, there is only one.
>
This proves how ignorant that you really are.
> > The fact that you do not recognize my definition as correct
> > is because you already believe that there is only one correct
> > definition.
>
> Actually, your definition is objectively wrong. That is why no one accepts
> it.
>
> > This belief reveals ignorance or stubborn blind allegiance
> > to gene-centricism.
>
> Ray, evolution is change in the gene frequencies of a population over time.
> What part of that do you not understand???
>
False.
It doesn't matter what the Laurence Moran Talk Origins page says:
evolution is not a change in gene frequencies. This belief is not part
of reality.
> > My guess is that you are willingly ignorant
>
> > because you have already spoken up for a gene-centric definition of
> > evolution.
>
> Can you provide any working biologist who does not accept that evolution is
> change in gene frequency?
>
Question presupposes one correct definition of evolution. Dana has
already been corrected on this but refuses to listen. Dana is really
saying that he will deny that there are other definitions because he
has already spoken up for evolution having just one definition.
Gene-centricism requires 100 percent trust in (Atheist) evolutionism
and has no point of reference or correspondence to reality.
Nobody cares if gene frequencies change. The same does not support
evolution in reality. Science is supposed to be acessible to anyone
with ordinary intelligence. Gene-centricism is a esoteric discipline
complete with secret handshake. Nobody intelligent is impressed.
> > Therefore you must deny all other definitions lest what you
> > have spoken up for is harmed. In other words your ego is the entire
> > problem here.
>
> Ray, you have a strange habit of projecting your own faults onto others.
> Your own definition is wrong, and no matter how often you claim that others
> are "ignorant" it's your own ignorance that is on display here.
>
> snip
>
> >> No, Ray, as a matter of fact, evolutionists hold that microevolution
> >> may be caused by other factors as well.
>
> > I never denied. I was talking about the main but not the exclusive for
> > the millionth time.
>
> The point is, that you are defining evolution as being caused by natural
> selection. That is wrong. Evolution can take place without natural
> selection. Even if it were the "main" cause of evolution, it's not the
> ONLY cause, which is what you seem to be saying.
>
Deliberate misrepresentation. I have done the exact opposite in this
entire thread: defined evolution by natural selection as the main but
not the exclusive cause. It is pointless to not define evolution by
the main cause first.
>
>
> >> And if you want authority, I
> >> have it going back to 1859, when Charles Darwin stated that natural
> >> selection was (in his opinion) the principle but not the sole cause of
> >> evolution.
>
> > I was the one who first quoted Darwin on this matter in these
> > discussions.
>
> Like usual, you quoted him out of context. You didn't understand what he
> was talking about.
>
Deliberate misrepresentation.
I quoted book title and its beginning content.
You are enraged and brazenly lying. The degree of deliberate lie seen
in this comment shows what type of person Dana Tweedy is. More
importantly, it shows how dishonest the Group is for saying nothing.
Where is the honesty policeman Augray on this one?
> > For the millionth time plus one all of my definition
>
> > input was made in the context that natural selection is the main but
> > not the exclusive means of modification.
>
> Sigh, Ray, your claim about "modification", as you explained it, is what
> biologists would call "mutation". Mutations are not caused by natural
> selection. Natural selection acts on variations in a population, not
> individuals. Your claim that natural selection is the main cause of
> mutation is wrong. Also, you were attempting to define evolution as
> change by natural selection. You can't then say that it's the main, but not
> exclusive mechanism.
>
Total deliberate misrepresentation.
>
>
> >> If you want more recent authority, google "Motoo Kimura,"
> >> an expert in biology of somewhat greater renown than Gene Scott, and a
> >> proponent of the idea that much evolution occurs through genetic
> >> drift, not selection.
>
> > I never denied.
>
> Ray, have you forgotten your own claims?
>
>
>
> > For the millionth time plus two I have written my comments in the
> > context that natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
> > of modification.
>
> Which, is wrong, as your definition of "modification" is inapplicable to
> natural selection. You seem to be claiming that natural selection is what
> causes modification of individuals. That is wrong.
>
Again, you are horribly ignorant of ToE.
Deliberate misrepresentation for the umpteenth time.
Why does Dana choose to misrepresent to this degree over and over?
It shows how enraged he is with me and the inability to refute.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 28, 2:51 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:482bff10-a44f-4359...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...>
>> On Mar 27, 10:01 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> Perhaps I should say that you have offered definitions that vary in
>> >> completeness;
>>
>> > Finally an admission that you have been misrepresenting.
>>
>> No, it's an "admission" that your definitions are not consistent.
>>
>
> Deliberate misrepresentation.
How is this a misrepresentation? Ray, this dodge you have been using is
really getting old. You can't evade an issue just by whining that someone
is "misinterpreting". Either explain why you feel it's a
misrepresentation, or stop using this excuse to run away.
>
>
>> > We know
>> > misrepresentation happens because the perpetrator does not like the
>> > truth, or he cannot refute, or he has an agenda of poisoning the well.
>>
>> That explains why you misrepresent, perhaps. Steven, however did not
>> misrepresent you at all.
>>
>
> Plagiarism while defending deliberate misrepresentation.
Ray, do you even know what plagairism means? Where did I use another
persons words without giving proper credit?
>
>>
>>
>> >> the first time you attempted to define "microevolution"
>> >> you made no mention of its cause.
>>
>> > Completely false.
>>
>> In what way?
Here's one of the questions you avoid, while you earlier claimed that you
answer all questions put to you.....
>>
>>
>>
>> > Evolutionary authorities almost never discuss evolution apart from
>> > causation.
>>
>> What "authorities" are you claiming do this?
>>
>
> My last two messages (which you posted responses to) cited Darwin
> 1859.
But you are not providing any "authorities" that support your claims. Your
out of context quotes from Darwin don't support this claim.
> Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting via feigning
> ignorance.
No, you claimed that "evolutionary authorities" don't discuss evolution
apart from causation. I'm asking you what "authorities". Quoting Darwin
out of context does not equal "evolutionary authorities".
>
>> > I learned it from them.
>>
>> Ray, you show not signs of learning anything.
>>
>> > Your ignorance is undoubtedly
>> > caused by a failure to read what your own authorities have published.
>>
>> Note that you haven't cited any "authorities" that support your claim.
Note you still have not.
>>
>>
>
> Deliberate misrepresentation. I cited Darwin 1859 in my last two
> messages.
Again, you need to cite the "authorities" that support your claims. Darwin
doesn't support your claims.
> Darwin placed his causation idea in book title; began book
> with a metaphor attempting to explain its reality and function. You
> know and knew this. You are lying brazenly.
No, Ray, I'm not the one that is lying. If you had actually read Darwin,
you'd see that he never claimed that natural selection causes variation in a
population . Natural selection acts on variations. It does not cause them.
> You are enraged for some
> unknown reason since these points are self-evident and have no effect
> on the veracity of ToE.
Ray, why do you assume that when I point out your errors, that I'm
"enraged"? Your points are wrong, they aren't "self evident" as you have
got Darwin's statements wrong. I'm not the least bit angry, and I'm
certianly not enraged. Your assumption of "rage" on my part seems to be
just more projection on your part.
>
> Darwin did not explain or discuss evolution except in the context of a
> proposed mechanism.
Actually, Darwin gave many examples of evolution without discussing the
mechanism of evolution, which he identified. I'm not sure where you get
this idea, or why you seem to think that natural selection is what causes
variation.
> Everytime you evade and distort this simple point
> you show the world how brazen a liar that you are.
Since I haven't "evaded" or "distorted", then it's clear I'm not a liar.
You, on the other hand have been caught in several rather foolish lies.
Your projection of your own faults on me does not make me a bad person. It
just makes you look bad.
snip
>> >> You stated in one post that you agreed with mainstream biologists
>> >> about what "microevolution" means, and then in another post insisted
>> >> that only changes in populations caused by natural selection are
>> >> "microevolution," and that you care neither for "changes in gene
>> >> frequencies" nor for genetic drift.
>>
>> > Horrible distortion, caricature and misrepresentation.
>>
>> Again, how is this distortion? He repeated what you said, almost exactly.
>>
>
> Feigning ignorance concerning deliberate distortion and misquotes.
Odd that you can't point out any "deliberate distortions" or "misquotes" on
Steven, or my part. You just assert that something is distorted, but can't
show where anyone distorted your own words.
>
>>
>>
>> >> Do you deny that you have made
>> >> both these statements? Given that biologists routinely DEFINE
>> >> "microevolution" to mean "change in gene frequencies in a population
>> >> over time,"
>>
>> > I have never denied that some biologists define evolution this way.
>>
>> But your definition, which you claimed came from biologists, is very
>> different. You haven't shown any biologists who define evolution the way
>> you do.
>>
>
> Because I am showing the world how ignorant or dishonest the Group of
> evolutionists here at Talk Origins is, and I am relishing in that
> fact. My definition is basic evolution 101.
What you are showing is only your own ignorance and dishonesty. Your
definition is not only wrong, it's a basic misunderstanding. Again, if
you think that your defintion is correct, provide some evidence. How about
providing a citation to any working biologist who thinks that mutation is
the same as evolution.
>
> Steven J, Rupert and yourself are embarrassingly ignorant about
> evolution.
Then why can we provide examples of evolutionary biologists who define
evolution as allele frequency change in a population over time, and you
can't cite a single biologist who agrees with you?
> This is what happens when you learn evolution from the
> Internet instead of scholars.
The problem is, of course, that you are the one ignorant here, and you can't
admit it. No biologist defines evolution the way you do.
>
>>
>>
>> >> whether due to natural selection, genetic drift, or other
>> >> causes, your full definition of microevolution contradicts that of
>> >> mainstream biologists.
>>
>> > My definition is from mainstream biologists.
>>
>> Which ones? Why don't you provide any evidence to support that?
Did you miss this question, Ray???
>>
>> >The problem here is that
>>
>> > you are under the belief that there is only one correct definition of
>> > evolution.
>>
>> As far as biologists are concerned, there is only one.
>>
>
> This proves how ignorant that you really are.
So, what biologists define evolution in the way you do?
>
>> > The fact that you do not recognize my definition as correct
>> > is because you already believe that there is only one correct
>> > definition.
>>
>> Actually, your definition is objectively wrong. That is why no one
>> accepts
>> it.
>>
>> > This belief reveals ignorance or stubborn blind allegiance
>> > to gene-centricism.
>>
>> Ray, evolution is change in the gene frequencies of a population over
>> time.
>> What part of that do you not understand???
>>
>
> False.
Ray, this is silly. Your definition is wrong. Why can't you admit that
you've made a rather simple error. All you have to do is read what actual
biologists are saying.
>
> It doesn't matter what the Laurence Moran Talk Origins page says:
> evolution is not a change in gene frequencies. This belief is not part
> of reality.
Ray, this is the definition of evolution: the one that actual biologists
use. You have not cited a single biologist who agrees with you. I can
provide any number of biologists who are willing to state that evolution is
change in gene frequencies in a population over time. You claim that
your definition was from evolutionary biologists, and you can't cite a
single one that defines it the way you do.
You have a very serious credibility problem. Your denial of this simple
point illustrates why.
Here are several links that support my statement:
http://plato.wilmington.edu/faculty/kcipolli/evolution.htm
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1510.htm
"When one speaks of biological evolution, one is implicitely referring to a
number of mechanisms all of which either do or can result in the occurrence
of change in allelic frequencies with time."
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/definition.htm
>
>> > My guess is that you are willingly ignorant
>>
>> > because you have already spoken up for a gene-centric definition of
>> > evolution.
>>
>> Can you provide any working biologist who does not accept that evolution
>> is
>> change in gene frequency?
>>
>
> Question presupposes one correct definition of evolution.
There is only one that biologists use.
> Dana has
> already been corrected on this but refuses to listen.
That's because your "correction" is wrong. Biologists, when they talk
about evolution, mean change in allele frequency in populations over time.
They don't mean a mutation in a single individual.
> Dana is really
> saying that he will deny that there are other definitions because he
> has already spoken up for evolution having just one definition.
What I'm saying is that your "definition" is wrong. 'Other definitions'
are not relevant, when we are talking about one particular definition. If
we were to be talking about a type of fish, any defintion of "bass" that
didn't to a species of fish would be irrelevant. It would be absurd to try
to argue that it wrong fro me to refuse to accept a definition of "bass" to
mean "low voice".
>
> Gene-centricism requires 100 percent trust in (Atheist) evolutionism
> and has no point of reference or correspondence to reality.
Evolution is not atheist, and using the definition of evolution that
biologists use does not require a "gene centric" view. Are you trying to
claim here that genes don't exist, and they have "no point of reference" to
reality?
>
> Nobody cares if gene frequencies change.
They do care, if they are talking about evolution. Gene frequencies are
the raw material by which evolution operates.
> The same does not support
> evolution in reality.
Ray, do you have any idea, at all, about what genes are, and how they are
the agent of heredity? Evolution is change in gene frequency in a
population over time. That is how evolution is defined, by any and all
working biologist. To claim that "no one cares" about gene frequencies
only shows that your supposed "research" is worthless. All inheritable
biological change is the result of changes in the genes. All change in
populations is the result of gene frequency change.
How, exactly do you think that traits are passed on from parent to
offspring?
> Science is supposed to be acessible to anyone
> with ordinary intelligence.
In general, it is. However that would seem to leave you out. That's not a
problem for science, if you can't grasp the basics of evolution.
> Gene-centricism is a esoteric discipline
> complete with secret handshake. Nobody intelligent is impressed.
How would you know what anyone intelligent thinks?
Ray, your own inability to grasp the basic points of evolution is not a
fault of science, or evolutionary theory. The gene has been identified as
the basic unit of inheritance. If you dismiss genes as being too
complicated for you to understand, that's not the fault of scientists. If
you really think you can discuss evolution without acknowledging the
importance of genes ,and gene frequency change, you are, in effect showing
up for a baseball game, carrying a tennis racket.
You are so far out of your element here, that you can't even see how
utterly clueless you are.
For more information about genes, and their importance for evolution, see:
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/ghr/glossary/gene
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003548/gene.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564762/Heredity.html
snip
>> > I never denied. I was talking about the main but not the exclusive for
>> > the millionth time.
>>
>> The point is, that you are defining evolution as being caused by natural
>> selection. That is wrong. Evolution can take place without natural
>> selection. Even if it were the "main" cause of evolution, it's not the
>> ONLY cause, which is what you seem to be saying.
>>
>
> Deliberate misrepresentation.
Again, this whine is getting old. I have not misrepresented you here, or
elsewhere.
> I have done the exact opposite in this
> entire thread: defined evolution by natural selection as the main but
> not the exclusive cause. It is pointless to not define evolution by
> the main cause first.
Again, what you are claiming is evolution, ie "modification" of an
individual does not, and cannot be caused by natural selection. Natural
selection ONLY works on variations in a population. Natural selection is
not the "main" cause of mutations. It's not a cause of mutations at all.
That is why your definition of evolution is wrong. As Steven, myself
and others have pointed out, microevolution cannot be defined as being by
natural selection, because not all evolution requires natural selection.
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> And if you want authority, I
>> >> have it going back to 1859, when Charles Darwin stated that natural
>> >> selection was (in his opinion) the principle but not the sole cause of
>> >> evolution.
>>
>> > I was the one who first quoted Darwin on this matter in these
>> > discussions.
>>
>> Like usual, you quoted him out of context. You didn't understand what he
>> was talking about.
>>
>
> Deliberate misrepresentation.
More whine...
>
> I quoted book title and its beginning content.
Which does not mean what you claim is correct. Darwin didn't use the term
"microevolution" and he knew that not all evolution requires natural
selection. Natural selection is what produces ADAPTIVE evolution, but not
every form of evolution is adaptive.
>
> You are enraged and brazenly lying.
Wrong on both counts.
> The degree of deliberate lie seen
> in this comment shows what type of person Dana Tweedy is.
Since I haven't lied at all, it shows that I'm not a liar....
> More
> importantly, it shows how dishonest the Group is for saying nothing.
The "group" is not saying I'm wrong, because I'm right. You are the one
who is wrong here, and can't admit your error.
> Where is the honesty policeman Augray on this one?
He is most likely agreeing with me. Where is your own honesty here?
>
>
>
>
>> > For the millionth time plus one all of my definition
>>
>> > input was made in the context that natural selection is the main but
>> > not the exclusive means of modification.
>>
>> Sigh, Ray, your claim about "modification", as you explained it, is what
>> biologists would call "mutation". Mutations are not caused by natural
>> selection. Natural selection acts on variations in a population, not
>> individuals. Your claim that natural selection is the main cause of
>> mutation is wrong. Also, you were attempting to define evolution as
>> change by natural selection. You can't then say that it's the main, but
>> not
>> exclusive mechanism.
>>
>
> Total deliberate misrepresentation.
How? Come on, Ray, your whine about misrepresentation is getting old, and
everyone can see it's just a dodge. I have not misrepresented you, which
is probably why you are so upset. I have represented you correctly, which
is worse for you.
snip
>> Which, is wrong, as your definition of "modification" is inapplicable to
>> natural selection. You seem to be claiming that natural selection is what
>> causes modification of individuals. That is wrong.
>>
>
> Again, you are horribly ignorant of ToE.
When you claim that "no one cares about gene frequencies", and you seem to
think that natural selection causes mutations, it's safe to dismiss this
claim as unfounded. Natural selection does not cause a modification of
an individual. It causes change in populations by favoring particular
genotypes over others.
snip
>>
>> > "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection...."
>>
>> Yes, and even Darwin was aware that evolution could happen without
>> natural
>> selection. Where you are wrong is your are assuming that natural
>> selection is what causes variation. It doesn't. Natural selection is a
>> non random mechanism that explains adaptation in populations, not change
>> in
>> individual organisms.
>>
>
> Deliberate misrepresentation for the umpteenth time.
Again, everyone sees this whine as a dodge.
>
> Why does Dana choose to misrepresent to this degree over and over?
I haven't misrepresented you at all. Why do you keep asserting what anyone
can see is a falsehood?
>
> It shows how enraged he is with me and the inability to refute.
Ray, I've refuted everything you've claimed, and I'm not in the least
'enraged'. You really need to stop projecting your own anger and
fustration onto others.
DJT
Steven J.
> On Mar 27, 10:01 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
-- [snip]
>
> > > > I pointed out that you offer multiple definitions of microevolution,
>
> > > But I did no such thing.
>
> > Perhaps I should say that you have offered definitions that vary in
> > completeness;
>
> Finally an admission that you have been misrepresenting. We know
> misrepresentation happens because the perpetrator does not like the
> truth, or he cannot refute, or he has an agenda of poisoning the well.
>
Charles Darwin, among others, that's an interesting admission on your
part. But I am simply bending over backwards to be reasonable. The
first time you responded to my request for a definition of
"microevolution," you did not insist that any particular mechanism was
part of the definition, and said that you agreed with mainstream
biologists. Then you added this requirement for, variously, "material
causation" (actually, many biologists would probably go along with you
on that) or natural selection as the cause of change in a population
(and I do not think that, now that Ernst Mayr is dead, that you would
find any biologist who agreed that it's only evolution if it's caused
by natural selection). And now you "do not deny" that natural
selection is "...not the exclusive cause" of evolution. So what am I
to make of your constant evasion and definition-shifting? I *still*
do not know what you mean by the term "microevolution." It *sounds*
as though you think that no changes in biological population occur,
except through miracles ... except you seem reluctant to actually
commit to such a position. You *say* that you reject microevolution,
but I think no one here -- including yourself -- know what you mean by
that.
>
> > the first time you attempted to define "microevolution"
> > you made no mention of its cause.
>
> Completely false.
>
>
> Evolutionary authorities almost never discuss evolution apart from
> causation. I learned it from them. Your ignorance is undoubtedly
> caused by a failure to read what your own authorities have published.
>
you are wrong, here, but it makes no difference. Master chefs rarely
discuss food without mentioning cookware, but food is not the same
thing as cookware, and evolution is not the same thing as natural
selection, and natural selection is not and never has been part of the
definition of "microevolution."
>
> > > > which contradict one another
>
> > > Completely false.
>
> > You stated in one post that you agreed with mainstream biologists
> > about what "microevolution" means, and then in another post insisted
> > that only changes in populations caused by natural selection are
> > "microevolution," and that you care neither for "changes in gene
> > frequencies" nor for genetic drift.
>
> Horrible distortion, caricature and misrepresentation.
>
misrepresented you? Why do you never bother to provide an undistorted
account of your views? I am confirmed in my suspicions: you do not
know, yourself, what you mean by "microevolution," nor has your "two
years of intense study" aquainted you with any of the evidence for
either evolution or natural selection; all you have left is your own
refusal to admit that your position is untenable.
>
> > Do you deny that you have made
> > both these statements? Given that biologists routinely DEFINE
> > "microevolution" to mean "change in gene frequencies in a population
> > over time,"
>
> I have never denied that some biologists define evolution this way.
>
who defined evolution so that it did not include the above concept?
You cannot admit that changes in gene frequencies in populations over
time occur, and then deny that microevolution occurs, since ALL modern
biologists count that as evolution.
>
> > whether due to natural selection, genetic drift, or other
> > causes, your full definition of microevolution contradicts that of
> > mainstream biologists.
>
> My definition is from mainstream biologists. The problem here is that
> you are under the belief that there is only one correct definition of
> evolution. The fact that you do not recognize my definition as correct
> is because you already believe that there is only one correct
> definition. This belief reveals ignorance or stubborn blind allegiance
> to gene-centricism. My guess is that you are willingly ignorant
> because you have already spoken up for a gene-centric definition of
> evolution. Therefore you must deny all other definitions lest what you
> have spoken up for is harmed. In other words your ego is the entire
> problem here.
>
I define "evolution" as "change in the frequency of INHERITED TRAITS
in a population over time;" I don't insist that genes be the only
cause of these traits. My point is that there is no competent
biologists who defines evolution so that it does not include the
concept of change in gene frequencies over time, whether he thinks
that is the only form of evolution, or the most important aspect of
evolution, or not. My point, in other words, is that *you* are
implicitly insisting that there is only one correct definition of
evolution (and, just to boost the irony, your definition is not, in
fact, one of the correct ones).
>
-- [snip of points ignored by Ray]
>
> > > I have faithfully defined microevolution by saying what it is and how
> > > it allegedly occurs. This means I have repeatedly stated cause and
> > > effect. In this context I have repeatedly said that microevolution
> > > does not occur nor has it ever occurred on this planet. The reason I
> > > have defined microevolution this way is because since 1859 the claim
> > > and/or concept has never, I repeat never existed in any way, shape or
> > > form, minus causation (not counting the period between c.1900 and the
> > > synthesis). Microevolution means slow change or slight modification
> > > performed on an organism by the causal agent of natural selection.
> > > Eventually said organism breeds and passes said modification into its
> > > population. This is what the general theory of evolution claims; this
> > > is what I reject; and this is what I can disprove.
>
> > No, Ray, as a matter of fact, evolutionists hold that microevolution
> > may be caused by other factors as well.
>
> I never denied. I was talking about the main but not the exclusive for
> the millionth time.
>
something only counts as "microevolution" if it is caused by natural
selection.
>
> > And if you want authority, I
> > have it going back to 1859, when Charles Darwin stated that natural
> > selection was (in his opinion) the principle but not the sole cause of
> > evolution.
>
> I was the one who first quoted Darwin on this matter in these
> discussions. For the millionth time plus one all of my definition
> input was made in the context that natural selection is the main but
> not the exclusive means of modification.
>
by natural selection" was made in the context of knowing that, in
fact, "evolution" means "modification by any of several different
means." You have an interesting approach to definitions, Ray, to go
with your interesting approach to epistemology.
>
> > If you want more recent authority, google "Motoo Kimura,"
> > an expert in biology of somewhat greater renown than Gene Scott, and a
> > proponent of the idea that much evolution occurs through genetic
> > drift, not selection.
>
> I never denied.
>
>
> For the millionth time plus two I have written my comments in the
> context that natural selection is the main but not the exclusive means
> of modification.
>
frequency of inherited traits in populations? After all, to the best
of my knowledge, you still hold that microevolution has never
occurred, and you appear to acknowledge that any number of causes
might in principle cause such changes in populations.
>
> > Oh, and while evolutionists have always assumed
> > that evolution has "material causes," that's not the same thing as
> > insisting that it only counts as evolution if it has one particular
> > "material cause."
>
> I have never denied.
>
reasonable or honest, could you at least vary your irrelevant and
dishonest ripostes?
>
> > > I think it is important at this point to simply tell me if you
> > > understand what I have said.
>
> > You believe in what *I* call "microevolution," but you don't call it
> > "microevolution" because you think it needs miracles to make it
> > happen, and you only apply the term "microevolution" to the results of
> > natural selection. It's natural selection you don't think exists.
>
> > Do I have that more or less right?
>
> Your comments are noticeably screwball.
>
what, if anything, you actually believe.
>
> I have no idea why you place quote marks around words and what these
> words are now supposed to mean, and I have never said microevolution
> needs miracles - ridiculous.
>
about the word, not the thing: a name, not the thing named. I call
changes in the frequency of inherited traits in a population over
time, which is not sufficient to produce a new species, by the term
"microevolution." It seems to me that you admit that such changes can
happen, but that you call it something else (you do not offer a term
of your own). And you insist that such changes are not produced by
"material causation," so I assume that you hold that changes in the
frequency of inherited traits in a population results from "divine
causation," or "miracles."
Is that any clearer?
In point of fact, it is possible to discuss evolution without
discussing natural selection, no matter what is in the title. Please
pay attention: Darwin is not the prophet of evolutionary theory, and
evolutionists neither hold his views to be inerrant nor feel a need to
ask, at every juncture, "what would Darwin do?" It doesn't matter
what was in the title. In point of fact, since Darwin's day, it has
been suggested that there might be mechanisms of evolution other than
natural selection; some of these proposed mechanisms have been
rejected and others have become very important.
>
> This is why I point out the obvious; evolutionists are brazen liars
> even when the evidence is beyond dispute: evolution since 1859 has
> never existed except in the context of proposed mechanism.
>
> "On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection...."
>
You are, of course, wrong, and quoting the title (which should be
underlined, not in quote marks) does not make you right.
But perhaps we should move on to a new topic. How do you define
"natural selection," and why do you assume it does not happen?
>
-- [snip of points ignored by Ray]
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Ray Martinez
> On Mar 28, 12:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 27, 10:01 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > > > I pointed out that you offer multiple definitions of microevolution,
>
> > > > But I did no such thing.
>
> > > Perhaps I should say that you have offered definitions that vary in
> > > completeness;
>
> > Finally an admission that you have been misrepresenting. We know
> > misrepresentation happens because the perpetrator does not like the
> > truth, or he cannot refute, or he has an agenda of poisoning the well.
>
> Given the way you have, in the past, misrepresented me, and Dana, and
Confirming an admission of misrepresentation via "you did it to me so
I will do it to you."
> among others, that's an interesting admission on your
> part. But I am simply bending over backwards to be reasonable.
You should have said 'UNreasonable.'
> The first time you responded to my request for a definition of
> "microevolution," you did not insist that any particular mechanism was
> part of the definition, and said that you agreed with mainstream
> biologists. Then you added this requirement for, variously, "material
> causation" (actually, many biologists would probably go along with you
> on that) or natural selection as the cause of change in a population
> (and I do not think that, now that Ernst Mayr is dead, that you would
> find any biologist who agreed that it's only evolution if it's caused
> by natural selection).
No comments to scatterbrain commentary.
> And now you "do not deny" that natural
> selection is "...not the exclusive cause" of evolution.
I have said that over and over and you have ignored over and over.
> So what am I
> to make of your constant evasion and definition-shifting?
Let me know when you are done misrepresenting?
> I *still*
> do not know what you mean by the term "microevolution."
Slight change called a modification caused mainly by natural selection
(= material causation). A population inherits said modification (=
microevolution). Please note I have said nothing about the cause of
variation, the same is presupposed and not addressed.
> It *sounds*
> as though you think that no changes in biological population occur,
> except through miracles ... except you seem reluctant to actually
> commit to such a position. You *say* that you reject microevolution,
> but I think no one here -- including yourself -- know what you mean by
> that.
>
> > > the first time you attempted to define "microevolution"
> > > you made no mention of its cause.
>
> > Completely false.
>
> Are you lying, or do you simply misunderstand?
>
I have argued strenuously and repeatedly that causation is part of
microevolution; and since 1859 evolution does not exist except in the
context of proposed mechanism.
> > Evolutionary authorities almost never discuss evolution apart from
> > causation. I learned it from them. Your ignorance is undoubtedly
> > caused by a failure to read what your own authorities have published.
>
> Evolution has experts, Ray; religion has authorities.
Biassed opinion rooted in paranoia.
> I suspect that
> you are wrong, here, but it makes no difference. Master chefs rarely
> discuss food without mentioning cookware, but food is not the same
> thing as cookware, and evolution is not the same thing as natural
> selection, and natural selection is not and never has been part of the
> definition of "microevolution."
>
I have explained why you are mistaken only to be ignored or
misrepresented. I cannot force you to address.
> > > > > which contradict one another
>
> > > > Completely false.
>
> > > You stated in one post that you agreed with mainstream biologists
> > > about what "microevolution" means, and then in another post insisted
> > > that only changes in populations caused by natural selection are
> > > "microevolution," and that you care neither for "changes in gene
> > > frequencies" nor for genetic drift.
>
> > Horrible distortion, caricature and misrepresentation.
>
> Ray, why is it that you never bother to point out where and how I have
> misrepresented you? Why do you never bother to provide an undistorted
> account of your views? I am confirmed in my suspicions: you do not
> know, yourself, what you mean by "microevolution," nor has your "two
> years of intense study" aquainted you with any of the evidence for
> either evolution or natural selection; all you have left is your own
> refusal to admit that your position is untenable.
>
> > > Do you deny that you have made
> > > both these statements? Given that biologists routinely DEFINE
> > > "microevolution" to mean "change in gene frequencies in a population
> > > over time,"
>
> > I have never denied that some biologists define evolution this way.
>
> Can you cite a single biologist since the start of the 20th century,
> who defined evolution so that it did not include the above concept?
Yes, I can.
> You cannot admit that changes in gene frequencies in populations over
> time occur, and then deny that microevolution occurs, since ALL modern
> biologists count that as evolution.
>
Evolution is NOT a change in gene frequencies. The same does nothing
to prove macroevolution.
Will finish ASAP.
Ray
Rupert Morrish
[snip]
> I cited Darwin 1859 in my last two
> messages. Darwin placed his causation idea in book title; began book
> with a metaphor attempting to explain its reality and function. You
> know and knew this.
"Origin of Species" is not the Bible. If it were, there would be an
evolutionist Ray running around claiming that Darwinist typology proved
that eels could only have evolved under a flying pyramid, which comes
from the words "pyre" and "midden", i.e. flaming garbage.
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 28, 9:47 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 12:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar
>> 27, 10:01 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>> -- [snip]
>>
>> > > > > I pointed out that you offer multiple definitions of
>> > > > > microevolution,
>>
>> > > > But I did no such thing.
>>
>> > > Perhaps I should say that you have offered definitions that vary in
>> > > completeness;
>>
>> > Finally an admission that you have been misrepresenting. We know
>> > misrepresentation happens because the perpetrator does not like the
>> > truth, or he cannot refute, or he has an agenda of poisoning the well.
>>
>> Given the way you have, in the past, misrepresented me, and Dana, and
>> Charles Darwin....
>
> Confirming an admission of misrepresentation via "you did it to me so
> I will do it to you."
Actually, what Steven was doing is pointing out the irony of you claiming to
be "misrepresented", when it's you who misrepresents others. Steven did
not "admit" any kind of misrepresentation on his part.
>
>> among others, that's an interesting admission on your
>> part. But I am simply bending over backwards to be reasonable.
>
> You should have said 'UNreasonable.'
Why? You are the one who appears to be unreasonable.
>
>> The first time you responded to my request for a definition of
>> "microevolution," you did not insist that any particular mechanism was
>> part of the definition, and said that you agreed with mainstream
>> biologists. Then you added this requirement for, variously, "material
>> causation" (actually, many biologists would probably go along with you
>> on that) or natural selection as the cause of change in a population
>> (and I do not think that, now that Ernst Mayr is dead, that you would
>> find any biologist who agreed that it's only evolution if it's caused
>> by natural selection).
>
> No comments to scatterbrain commentary.
So, why not comment to Steven's commentary? Do you feel your evasion is
warranted?
>
>> And now you "do not deny" that natural
>> selection is "...not the exclusive cause" of evolution.
>
> I have said that over and over and you have ignored over and over.
Ray, then why did you define evolution has being the result of natural
selection?
>
>> So what am I
>> to make of your constant evasion and definition-shifting?
>
> Let me know when you are done misrepresenting?
He hasn't started. What do you think has been misrepresented, Ray?
>
>> I *still*
>> do not know what you mean by the term "microevolution."
>
> Slight change called a modification caused mainly by natural selection
> (= material causation).
That's not how it's defined by biologists. A "modification" is not caused
by natural selection at all.
>A population inherits said modification (=
> microevolution). Please note I have said nothing about the cause of
> variation, the same is presupposed and not addressed.
Microevolution is a change, not in the organism, but in the gene frequency
of the population. The cause of the variation is known, it's mutations.
snip
>>
>> > > the first time you attempted to define "microevolution"
>> > > you made no mention of its cause.
>>
>> > Completely false.
>>
>> Are you lying, or do you simply misunderstand?
>>
>
> I have argued strenuously and repeatedly that causation is part of
> microevolution; and since 1859 evolution does not exist except in the
> context of proposed mechanism.
Which is just wrong. Evolution existed before 1859, and afterward.
Darwin's theory explains the change, but the changes were known even before
Darwin.
>
>> > Evolutionary authorities almost never discuss evolution apart from
>> > causation. I learned it from them. Your ignorance is undoubtedly
>> > caused by a failure to read what your own authorities have published.
>>
>> Evolution has experts, Ray; religion has authorities.
>
> Biassed opinion rooted in paranoia.
How so? Why do you assume that Steven has the same paranoia you do?
>
>> I suspect that
>> you are wrong, here, but it makes no difference. Master chefs rarely
>> discuss food without mentioning cookware, but food is not the same
>> thing as cookware, and evolution is not the same thing as natural
>> selection, and natural selection is not and never has been part of the
>> definition of "microevolution."
>>
>
> I have explained why you are mistaken only to be ignored or
> misrepresented. I cannot force you to address.
You have not "explanied" why you claim misrepresentation, just repeated the
charge. Worse, your "explanations" you have given are completely wrong.
snip
>> Can you cite a single biologist since the start of the 20th century,
>> who defined evolution so that it did not include the above concept?
>
> Yes, I can.
So, do so.
>
>> You cannot admit that changes in gene frequencies in populations over
>> time occur, and then deny that microevolution occurs, since ALL modern
>> biologists count that as evolution.
>>
>
> Evolution is NOT a change in gene frequencies. The same does nothing
> to prove macroevolution.
Ray, why do you claim that evolution is not change in gene frequencies, when
that's how the term is defined? Change in gene frequencies IS evolution,
how does that not "prove" it?
snipping many ignored points.
DJT