A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists

No, of course not. What a ridiculous lie.

Me: If a non-empty gene pool is divided into two non-empty isolated gene pools, without reducing the total population, and the mutation rate is constant and non-zero, then the equilibrium combined heterozygosity of the two gene pools is strictly greater than the equilibrium heterozygosity of the original population.Randman: You claim you have proven genetic diversity always increases, right?

Having thought it over, what strikes me most is how implausible your fantasies about me are. Surely even you can't believe them? If only you could attach meaning to this phrase. Or indicate any place where I assumed the contrary.

Yes, it is a lie, and I have not forgotten that I wrote that. You will note that the passage you quote does nothing to substantiate your lie, since it has nothing to dso with a claim that "diversity always increases". If a species goes extinct that is a decrease in genetic diversity. No I do not. This is not, in general, true. Mutatuions increase diversity, genetic drift decreases it, and the result is precisely the equilibrium I modelled. Obviously, an increase in population increases diversity and a decrease decreases it.I bet you could have worked that out for yourself given long enough.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't quite see who you and Herepton hope to fool with this garbage about atheism. You of course know perfectly well that there are theist "evos", and so, I suspect, do all the lurkers. So what's the point? It's just like having the word LIAR tattooed on your forehead.

This is clearly untrue.

Why the heck should I know the etymology of the word? Do you know who invented the word "creationist"? Again, I don't see whom you hope to deceive. Of course evolution poroduces the superficial appearance of design, this is what we've been trying to explain to you guys for the last 150 years. It doesn't. No it isn't. No it isn't.Don't you know anything about the theory of evolution?

Which, of course, none of us do. Whom do you hope to fool? This is not true, as I will now demonstrate.na·ture
n.
1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: "She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble" Gertrude Stein.
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: "Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill" Percy Bysshe Shelley.
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.ma·te·ri·al
n.
1. The substance or substances out of which a thing is or can be made.
2. Something, such as an idea or information, that is to be refined and made or incorporated into a finished effort: material for a comedy.
3. materials Tools or apparatus for the performance of a given task: writing materials.
4. Yard goods or cloth.
5. A person who is qualified or suited for a position or activity: The members of the board felt that she was vice-presidential material.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or composed of matter.
2. Of, relating to, or affecting physical well-being; bodily: "the moral and material welfare of all good citizens" Theodore Roosevelt.
3. Of or concerned with the physical as distinct from the intellectual or spiritual: "Great men are they who see that spiritual is stronger than any material force, that thoughts rule the world" Ralph Waldo Emerson.
4. Being both relevant and consequential; crucial: testimony material to the inquiry. See Synonyms at relevant.
5. Philosophy Of or relating to the matter of reasoning, rather than the form.phys·i·cal
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit. See Synonyms at bodily.
b. Involving or characterized by vigorous bodily activity: a physical dance performance.
c. Slang Involving or characterized by violence: "A real cop would get physical" TV Guide.
2. Of or relating to material things: our physical environment.
3. Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics.There you go. ... the name of which you seem to have forgotten.

This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it. This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it. This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it. This is true, and you yourself are the evidence.

This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it.

This is, of course, untrue, which is why you are totally unable to quote one single "evo" "insisting that just-so stories are factual".

They don't. You are reifying the laws of nature. This is an error. In accordance with the laws of nature. If that meant something, it would probably be untrue.

So, you have not answered my question. You say that "etymology is very important, educated persons know this".So who invented the word "creationism"?I asked you another question. Why does it matter who invented the word "Darwinism"? You didn't answer that. I don't care, but apparently you do. It was Huxley, you say. That sounds plausible. What is that to me? No. I did not say that. I said that no-one claims that methodological naturalism is "true".You said, and I quote: This is false, and I rebuked your falsehood.Why don't you argue with what I actually say? Why do you have to argue with imaginary statements of mine which I didn't say but which you made up in your head?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But this is a lie. I said nothing of the sort. This bears no relationship to anything I said. It's a lie. You're a liar. I did not say that. I did not say anything like that. You are a liar.What I pointed out was that you were reifying the laws of nature, which is an error. I put forward an argument. When you claim that my "stance is simply screaming nooooo without putting forward a real argument at all", you are lying, and everyone who reads this thread can see that you are a liar.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I didn't realise that you were claiming that quantum mechanics is the same as ontology.In fact, I can't see where you claimed that.You didn't, did you?I also can't see where you showed the relevance of either of these subjects to the theory of evolution, maybe you could start a thread on this subject?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.