|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You claim you have proven genetic diversity always increases, right? No, of course not. What a ridiculous lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You claim you have proven genetic diversity always increases, right? And yet some species go extinct? So real world examples disprove your claim. Some species are more limited in their ability to evolve such as the cheetah, which gets to the point we were suppossedly discussing, which you conveniently and repeatedly ignored. You PROVED that this was impossible though, eh? Guess those cheetahs are a creationist conspiracy.....bunch of fearful liars, eh? Having thought it over, what strikes me most is how implausible your fantasies about me are. Surely even you can't believe them?
You also ignored the fact that mutation types are limited.....' If only you could attach meaning to this phrase. Or indicate any place where I assumed the contrary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So it's a lie, eh? You forget you wrote this.
I have proved that in the long term, if total population and mutation rate are constant, this increases genetic diversity. 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".
It's hard to see how in the long run, say, if a species goes extinct, that the species has increased genetic diversity, If a species goes extinct that is a decrease in genetic diversity.
but somehow you think everyone else is ignorant. No I do not.
You also fail to appreciate that there is loss of genetic diversity with species as a result of microevolutionary pressures... This is not, in general, true. Mutatuions increase diversity, genetic drift decreases it, and the result is precisely the equilibrium I modelled.
Edit to add that you did show that "if total population" remains constant, but that once again, avoids the fact that we envision a process where populations do not remain constant. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Reiteration for any lurkers: Evos insist that reality cannot, by definition, include a God or spiritual forces that act upon, within, or uphold, or even originate reality. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The problem with your thinking, Dr Adequate, is you assume that you do not have to demonstrate total population and mutation rate are constant. Whereas perhaps, and this is tenable, the constant mutation rate is workable, it's patently obvious that the population doesn't remain constant....that's something you refused to accept and allow into your dense head. This is clearly untrue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The average Darwinist (believe it or not) does not know that the terms "Darwinist" and "Darwinism" originate from Wallace and Huxley; and that every evolutionary authority uses these words to describe themselves. This means the ordinary Darwinist is uneducated not knowing what their own authorities have written during the last 150 years. Why the heck should I know the etymology of the word? Do you know who invented the word "creationist"?
These same persons are also totally ignorant to the fact that ALL evolutionary authorities, starting with Darwin in 1859, concede the fact that the world looks designed. Evolution simply says the appearance is produced by natural selection and not God, yet ordinary Darwinists do not know this basic fact. 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.
Again, these same persons are also totally ignorant to the fact that ToE presupposes Methodological Naturalism as factually true: It doesn't.
evidence is interpreted to support the suppositions (= anti-Bible) whether it makes sense or not. No it isn't.
In other words, ToE is true by definition as required by the presuppositions of its philosophy. No it isn't. Don't you know anything about the theory of evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Good point on Darwinists deifying nature. Which, of course, none of us do. Whom do you hope to fool?
Incidentally, they also fail to offer a definition for "nature" as well; nor "material" or "physical"... This is not true, as I will now demonstrate. na·turen. 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·aln. 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·caladj. 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.
... and ignore the field of study that involves defining and exploring what constitutes the material world. ... the name of which you seem to have forgotten.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Good points Herepton.....the funny thing is most evos actually understand ToE less than their critics, This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it.
and fail to provide any real evidence...... This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it.
the theory shapes the evidence for them and not the other way around, This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it.
and yet somehow it's their critics that are unreasonable. This is true, and you yourself are the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
BTw, it's interesting that the Darwinists here are afraid to debate/discuss the issue without the cover of evo biased moderation. This is not true, which is why you cannot substantiate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are right, of course, so much so that what's there to debate....there is basically imagining something very unlikely as possible, and then you get into evos insisting that just-so stories are factual... This is, of course, untrue, which is why you are totally unable to quote one single "evo" "insisting that just-so stories are factual".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
where does a law come from? They don't. You are reifying the laws of nature. This is an error.
How is material take discrete and definite form? In accordance with the laws of nature.
Evos live in an outdated Newtonian paradigm of unreality. If that meant something, it would probably be untrue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yes, etymology is very important, educated persons know this. 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?
Adequate then goes on to assert that ToE does not use Methodological Naturalism for its presuppositions. No. I did not say that. I said that no-one claims that methodological naturalism is "true". You said, and I quote:
Again, these same persons are also totally ignorant to the fact that ToE presupposes Methodological Naturalism as factually true: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
This is sheer idiocy. You can claim a law arises via natural means, but to claim laws do not come from anywhere is frankly denying reality. You could claim what we call a law is a mere behavioural description and no law at all and try to argue that. But your stance is simply screaming nooooo without putting forward a real argument at all. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Once again, it is hard for me to accept you honestly believe this when I already named the field of study, quantum mechanics, that involves exploring what constitutes the material world in the sense of what is "material." What is the make-up of what we think of as material or physical. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024