212,944pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page Discuss this page0

backspace wrote:
>> I guess you can say it is redundant, though this isn't obvious.
>> Thus, its inclusion, though redundant, is necessary. Furthermore,
>> indicating it is non-random sets it apart from the underlying
>> mutations and genetic drift which are decidedly random.

> The problem is your making English undefined.

No, the problem is you adding unnecessary rigidity to a language that I
understand quite fine. I am not making English undefined. Far from it. I am
interpreting the use of a certain word, "selection", as literal or

> I don't know what it is
> that materialists are trying

Your ignorance is hardly anyone's problem other than your own.

> to say with "selection" other than merely pointing out that given your
> premises the word is not available to you as Dernavich explained on

He makes the same mistake you do: "We are comfortable with 'natural
selection' as a phrase, because it conjures up images of Mother Nature, or
some cosmic Gepetto tinkering with his toys.  As a technical term, it is a
misleading oxymoron."

It's only misleading to anyone who is predisposed to Intelligent Design or
creation. Evolutionists understand that it is merely a metaphor which
contrasts the selection by humans for desireable traits in domesticated
plants and animals with the how genomes succeed or fail in interspecific and
intraspecific competition in nature.

>>> Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?

>> Would you agree that the sentence above is poorly worded?

> Yes, I would agree let me try again:
> Woland, would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?


Also on Fandom

Random wikia