snip
>>> I haven't dismissed----quite the contrary. I have explained these
>>> people as having been initiated into Materialism----that's why they
>>> "understand."
>>
>> Many who understand believe in God.
>
> Correction: these people **claim** to believe in God.
You too claim to believe in God. Why is their claim any less valid than
yours?
>
>> Some of those reject most or all
>> evolution. So apparently not much materialism is required.
>>
>
> Comment attempts to conceal the fact that **these** people accept
> Darwin's main conceptual claim (natural selection/microevolution) to
> exist in nature.
The fact is that natural selection and microevolution are both directly
observed to happen in nature. Darwin was correct, and even die hard
creationists can't honestly deny it.
>
> As for those who accept species immutability: Greg needs to provide
> evidence supporting his claim (that they understand natural
> selection). But I admit that it is **possible.**
>
> Yet even if a fixist understands natural selection the exception
> doesn't explain the rule.
What 'rule'? It's only you who claims not to understand the idea that
those organisms which produce the most offspring will be
disproportionally represented in the next generation.
> And we have very many evo arguments that
> dismiss those who reject evolution as misunderstanding.
That's because they are addressing those who equate natural selection
with "only the most savage survive".
> Greg needs to
> offer an explanation here.
And Ray needs to explain why he rejects what has been directly observed
to happen.
>
>>
>>>>>> Thanks so much for this, I have added it tohttp://
tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Quotations_on_Natural_selection
>>
>>>>> Your most welcome.
>>
>>>>> By the way, it is my position that natural selection is nonsense, and
>>>>> the only way it becomes "sensible" is when one becomes initiated into
>>>>> the philosophy of Materialism.
>>
>>>> The only materialism required for Natural Selection is Mendelian
>>>> genetics. Do you accept Mendelian genetics? Meaning, do you accept that
>>>> we inherit our biological characteristics through the DNA we receive
>>>> from our parents?
>>
>>> Natural selection says biological production is caused by known
>>> material things, not an immaterial God. You appear woefully ignorant
>>> in this basic matter.
There's nothing about natural selection which could possibly rule out
the existence of an immaterial God. Biological production is a material
process, no matter if it is entirely material, or has an ultimate
"immaterial" cause.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question, or at least I don't think you did.
>> I'll ask it again, more simply this time. Forget for a moment how life
>> got started; does material biology produce offspring from parent
>> organisms? Are you - the material bones, flesh, nerves, organs etc.
>> anyway - the result of the generally accepted biological processes?
>> Sperm and egg, cell division, DNA, biology and chemistry?
>
> Yes, most living things were born. What's the point?
The point you are missing, Ray, is that development of a material being
from material components is a material event. He's asking if you
accept that the production of a new individual, from conception to
death, involves material processes.
Whatever influence an "immaterial" being might have, the process by
which an organism develops is material.
>
>> Or does God
>> need to intervene to create each new rhododendron, each new starfish,
>> each new Martinez?
>>
>
> Nobody ever denied ordinary sexual reproduction.
The question is, if God does not make use of material processes, what is
the point of "ordinary sexual reproduction"? Why would a creator who
must micromanage everything allow the random combination of genes
produced by sexual reproduction? Why add that element of chance at
all? Why isn't God simply creating replacements out of clay, if that's
how he created the originals?
>
> The main issue of dispute in the Creo-Evo debate is how sexually
> reproducing species (Paley's watches) come to exist in nature?
Of course, that's not the 'main issue', as science seeks to explain the
existence of all living things, not just a subset of life. It's only
you, Ray who makes this artificial, and irrational distinction.
>
>> Now Natural Selection does indeed depend on that much material
>> biology, but only that much.
>>
>
> Natural selection is much more than ordinary reproduction.
Natural selection is differential reproductive success, as has been
explained to you, over and over. It involves 'ordinary reproduction',
with some variants accomplishing that "ordinary reproduction" more than
other variants in that population.
> The claim
> made in behalf of the concept is that it, not God, causes species
> (Paley's watches) to exist in nature.
Of course, natural selection does not rule out a belief that God exists,
or that God is making use of natural selection to produce new species.
Natural selection, by itself, is insufficient to produce a new
species, but natural selection, combined with random variation in a
population is sufficient.
> The claim is fully material (=
> Materialism). I fail to see what you don't understand?
What you don't seem to understand, Ray, is that the existence of
material processes does not rule out the existence of a supernatural
being. All processes that operate in the universe today are "fully
material". It's not just natural selection that is "fully material".
Every last process, from condensation, producing rain, to sexual
reproduction producing babies, is "fully material". Any supernatural
role is above, and beyond the material.
snip
>>>> You really have no ability to focus on a particular question.
>>
>>> Such as.....
>>
>> Such as natural selection as a tautology, the claim under discussion.
>>
>
> Okay....is natural selection true by definition, yes or no?
No. Natural selection is true, but not by definition. Natural
selection is true because it can be observed happening.
>
>>>> Backspace
>>>> tells us that Natural Selection is a tautology. He's wrong. I, among
>>>> many others, have told him why. You're arguing something else, as best I
>>>> can tell.
>>
>>>> IF
>>
>>>>> they understood they would readily accept your arguments showing the
>>>>> falsity of natural selection.
>>
>>>> He hasn't said it's false.
>>
>>> True.
>>
>>>> He says it's a tautology, claiming that it is
>>>> true by definition,
>>
>>> Which is also true. How is it that you are unable to see the gimmickry
>>> in defining yourselves correct?
>>
>> Show me where that us done. As a hint, reducing natural selection to
>> four words to critique it won't work.
>>
>
> Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
> differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?
Differential reproductive success, Ray. Not just "differential
reproduction". The word "success" here is very important.
If you accept that variation happens in a population, and that
variation is inherited, that's part of the process. What's missing is
that some of those variants reproduce more than others, due to some
environmental factor. That's reproductive success.
>
>>
>>>> and thus meaningless. He does this by "rephrasing";
>>>> in every case poorly.
>
> He shows each and every time how ridiculous the claim is.
Actually, he just shows how ridiculous he himself is.
> I have
> explained your inability to understand.
Making up fantasies about others is not the same as an explanation.
>
>>
>>>> Since their minds have been absorbed by
>>
>>>>> Materialism they are incapable of understanding natural selection
>>>>> correctly.
>>
>>>> You're telling Backspace, of all people, that only those who don't
>>>> understand Natural Selection actually understand it properly. There's
>>>> exquisite perfection in that level of irony.
>>
>>> No, I've said very plainly: Anyone who doesn't understand natural
>>> selection as nonsense doesn't understand natural selection. Seems you
>>> are also unable to understand any argument that is offered against
>>> natural selection.
>>
>> I haven't seen any from you, none that actually address it in any
>> detail. Start by explaining how future populations won't increasingly
>> resemble (possess the traits of) those creatures that contribute the
>> most progeny to future generations.
>
> Request presupposes natural and cumulative selection true by
> definition. Yet Greg rejects natural selection to be a tautology.
Nothing Greg has said indicates he believes that selection is "true by
definition". You are just using wishful thinking.
DJT
>
> Ray
>