Hi CTD
Let’s start from the top here. Russ T claimed that
Evolution is the mathematical absurdity. Natural selection occurs after evolution.
Which is obviously false whichever way you look at it. Maybe I was wrong when I took evolution here to mean biological evolution as described in the theory of evolution. Natural selection does indeed occur after change (read here just mutation not evolution) but not after evolutionary change as described in ToE. Where you trying to confuse people here by referring to evolution in the non biological sense while trying to make it look like you were talking about biological evolution in which ToE describes in great detail how that change is lawful so evolution = change is actually false.
Well now...
Let me start by scrolling up to what RT posted in Post #42179
Evolution is the mathematical absurdity. Natural selection occurs after evolution (according to the myth).
Something that occurs after a mutation (that is, natural selection) does not affect the probability of the mutation itself (just a clarification).
Evolution requires a series of mutations in exactly the right way at exactly the right time WITHOUT numerous errors in between (which would destroy the symmetry) in order to reach our current, observable state.
Mathematically absurd.
I’m guessing that Russ T won’t answer this so for the moment I’ll leave it to others here to try to fathom his motives or ignorance on this point.
Well, I'm guessing there isn't much need to clarify things a second time. All your gobble-dee-gouk is for naught. With the de-snipped quote in place, we see you have nothing left about which to complain.
This is just a typical game, and you're not winning.
Ok the thread continued from there
Russell2:- No Russ you have, yet again, misunderstood or misrepresented ToE. Evolution is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process of evolution.
CTD:-Typical evobabble. Change is the result of the process of change.
Note that I said ‘evolution’ and CTD translated that to ‘Change’. Now change is certainly what evolution is about but it’s not what biological evolution is. There’s lots of details he’s ignoring or ignorant off in making that substitution.
You published a circular definition and got caught. Is that such a bummer? If it is, then you should learn, and discontinue such practices.
Just for fun, let's play with evolving your definition.
Evolution is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process of evolution.
From this we could get
Change is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process of change.
Change is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process of evolution.
Change is the evolution from generation to generation produced by the process of change.
Evolution is the changes from generation to generation produced by the process of change.
Evolution is the evolution from generation to generation produced by the process of evolution.
Evolution is the evolution from generation to generation produced by the process of change.
Now you get to play selection god. Which ones die? Which ones survive and mutate? Will the breed go extinct, or evolve into something even more meaningless?
Now read through CTD’s last post and see if he has accurately represented what was said?
I particularly like this line “It is also funny that R2 demonstrates bait & switch so openly, for hope of such trivial gain.” Given that it was Russ T initially who accidentally or otherwise misused the term evolution to mean mutation then it was CTD who explicitly substituted the term evolution for the term change when ‘quoting’ my words.
Given that RT clarified what he said, and even included a happy smiley, I guess you took this as adding a taunting insult (the smiley) to the grievous injury (clarification) done against your cause.
Putting his own junk off on Russ T. R2 is the one who switched terms, not RT.
You’ll have to show me where I switched terms, it was Russ T who said “Evolution is the mathematical absurdity. Natural selection occurs after evolution”. Now how is he using the term evolution here? He’s not consistently using it in the correct sense. He’s not even using in the same sense both times within his own statement.
He's pretty clear. And trying such an old, tired stunt? Not impressive. N - A - W - T.
...Evolution in non biological systems simply means change and that can fit with his second use of the term though mutation would be a more correct term for biological systems but what did he mean the first time he used the term? Is he referring to change only in which case suggesting that change is mathematically absurd because change happens before natural selection is logically self contradictory or did he mean The Theory of Evolution the first time and something else, probably mutation, the second time. Russ T switched his own use of the term evolution within one statement. I’m beginning to suspect that he is not doing this purposefully, that he really is ignorant of the illogic of what he’s saying, I’d prefer that to the notion that he’s a purposeful liar anyway so until I have more information I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Benefit? You give nobody any benefit when you misquote them for such purposes. Well, maybe the benefit of entertainment?
But the pre-butchered words of RT make perfect sense. Like most everyone around here, RT seems to be aware of the countless, ongoing attempts to redefine what evolutionism is about. Many do indeed omit 'natural selection'. You yourself have never given us much to go on regarding your own preferences. I've seen you advocate the "Modern Synthesis", but when presented with it, you disputed.
Like all trendy evopeddlers, you offer 'evolution = change' one minute, and the next you put down anyone foolish enough to accept this. A fair reward, IMO.
But I think we all can form a clear conclusion about what's going on...
I agree, Russ T can’t make a logical argument against ToE, he can’t even express his concerns about it in a logically consistent way and his bulldog, CTD, is going to chew on anyone’s leg who dares to point that out.
Not helping your cause. Thanks.
You bring up logic. I noticed that one of your comrades holds a somewhat unorthodox view (for an evopusher) regarding its merits.
Logic is an abstract concept that has no bearing on or control over objective reality. You cannot invent facts by logical conclusions, they always rest on assumptions.
Likewise math is just another set of abstract concepts resting on assumptions and bears no relationship to objective reality. Math "proves" nothing about objective reality.
(found in and old thread)
http://www.herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=29101#Post29101It is an attempt to profit while retreating from realistic definitions of 'evolution' and the "theory(ies)" they preach as fact.
The problem with this statement is that CTD does not get to make up the definition of the theory of evolution. He may not like it, he may think it’s wrong and he may, time and again define it differently to those who invented it and use it every day but until he actually shows that he understands it better than they I would have to suggest that he has no place doing so. If he wants to complain about straw men and call the Evolution, which seems to be his standard operating procedure, then that’s fine but it would be far less confusing if he’d be open about it and preferably give us a way to tell when he’s doing so. Maybe he should prefix evolution with CTD so we know it’s his straw man and not the scientific theory of evolution as defined by the scientists who actually created it. So how about you start talking about “CTDevolution” when you are doing this CTD and save the word Evolution for when you are talking about the real thing. I think that should help avoid so many of the problems here. So what do you all think, is CTD stupid, ignorant or out of date for failing to accept or even understand ‘ToE’ as it stands today? Or is he actually doing this on purpose?
In reason
Russell
Oh? How can my procedure fail? It does not rely on being an authority, being an expert, or any such. It relies on that
most scientific of procedures: observation.
We have seen that you don't consistently mean any single given thing when you use the term 'evolution'. The same is true of others. But it's not difficult to discover what is meant. Not difficult in the least. And nothing you do will make it so.
