Religions > Atheism > When will Mark Johnson cease his selective editing of postings and answer a few questions?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Adam Warlock" |
| Date: |
06 Jul 2004 09:12:29 AM |
| Object: |
When will Mark Johnson cease his selective editing of postings and answer a few questions? |
What is mutation, Mark?
What is evolutionism?
Here, let me help you:
"Evolutionism is..."
"Mutation is..."
Complete the sentences, Mark. It can't be that hard, can it, for one as
wise and "honest" as you?
I'm waiting, Mark.
.
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: When will Mark Johnson cease his selective editing of postings and answer a few questions? |
06 Jul 2004 06:14:56 PM |
|
|
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote
What is mutation, Mark?
Mutation is a heritable change in an organism.
What is evolutionism?
I'm a biologist and I really don't have a clue. "Evolution" is the change in
species due to the accumulation of mutations (and we usually imply
controlled by natural selection). "Evolutionism" could mean the idea that
evolution explains all or most of life, the idea that Homo sapiens arsoe by
a process of evolution, the idea that there is a moral imperative to advance
the evolutionary interests of white people (assuming readers to be white),
or probably many other things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: When will Mark Johnson cease his selective editing of postings and answer a few questions? |
10 Jul 2004 09:26:35 AM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ccfbht$o41$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote
What is mutation, Mark?
Mutation is a heritable change in an organism.
I had a more specific definition in mind, but this will do. Amazingly, Mark
can't even tell us this much.
What is evolutionism?
I'm a biologist and I really don't have a clue.
I am also and I don't, either. That is why I have been asking the question.
"Evolution" is the change in
species due to the accumulation of mutations (and we usually imply
controlled by natural selection).
"Controlled" is not a word I would use, but in this case, it will serve.
What Mark simply refuses to accept is the idea that his "The Theory of" is
not an encompassing theory that explains all evolution, as a "The Theory of"
should. There were many before the Synthesis, for example, who believed
that natural selection was "The Theory of," but that was wrong. Natural
selection is a powerful explanatory force for which I have seen no effective
rebuttal (and certainly not from the likes of a Mark Johnson) but it does
not work in a vacuum. That is precisely why we had the Synthesis.
Again, I would probably consider a more technical definition for the fact of
evolution, as we sometimes say--frequencies of certain alleles are known to
change in populations of organisms over time. Basically, we are saying the
same thing, however.
"Evolutionism" could mean the idea that
evolution explains all or most of life, the idea that Homo sapiens arsoe
by
a process of evolution, the idea that there is a moral imperative to
advance
the evolutionary interests of white people (assuming readers to be white),
or probably many other things.
Yes, it could mean any of these things--or none of them. I'm inclined to
believe that a shallow thinker like a Mark Johnson simply uses
"evolutionism" in place of evolution and that evolution is something that is
"believed," but since he will never define what he means (because he is
afraid to do so), we can only speculate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: When will Mark Johnson cease his selective editing of postingsand answer a few questions? |
10 Jul 2004 09:59:12 AM |
|
|
Adam Warlock wrote:
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ccfbht$o41$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote
What is mutation, Mark?
Mutation is a heritable change in an organism.
I had a more specific definition in mind, but this will do. Amazingly, Mark
can't even tell us this much.
What is evolutionism?
I'm a biologist and I really don't have a clue.
I am also and I don't, either. That is why I have been asking the question.
"Evolution" is the change in
species due to the accumulation of mutations (and we usually imply
controlled by natural selection).
"Controlled" is not a word I would use, but in this case, it will serve.
What Mark simply refuses to accept is the idea that his "The Theory of" is
not an encompassing theory that explains all evolution, as a "The Theory of"
should. There were many before the Synthesis, for example, who believed
that natural selection was "The Theory of," but that was wrong. Natural
selection is a powerful explanatory force for which I have seen no effective
rebuttal (and certainly not from the likes of a Mark Johnson) but it does
not work in a vacuum. That is precisely why we had the Synthesis.
Again, I would probably consider a more technical definition for the fact of
evolution, as we sometimes say--frequencies of certain alleles are known to
change in populations of organisms over time. Basically, we are saying the
same thing, however.
"Evolutionism" could mean the idea that
evolution explains all or most of life, the idea that Homo sapiens arsoe by
a process of evolution, the idea that there is a moral imperative to advance
the evolutionary interests of white people (assuming readers to be white),
or probably many other things.
Yes, it could mean any of these things--or none of them. I'm inclined to
believe that a shallow thinker like a Mark Johnson simply uses
"evolutionism" in place of evolution and that evolution is something that is
"believed," but since he will never define what he means (because he is
afraid to do so), we can only speculate.
The only legitemate definition of "evolutionism" that I have seen is in
sociology where it appears to describe looking at the changes in societies
over time. It certainly has no valid biological related definition.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: When will Mark Johnson cease his selective editing of postings and answer a few questions? |
10 Jul 2004 06:11:46 PM |
|
|
"Joe Blow" <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:mrSdnXDvqovemW3d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
Adam Warlock wrote:
Snip
Yes, it could mean any of these things--or none of them. I'm inclined
to
believe that a shallow thinker like a Mark Johnson simply uses
"evolutionism" in place of evolution and that evolution is something
that is
"believed," but since he will never define what he means (because he is
afraid to do so), we can only speculate.
The only legitemate definition of "evolutionism" that I have seen is in
sociology where it appears to describe looking at the changes in societies
over time. It certainly has no valid biological related definition.
Indeed, but Mark apparently doesn't use this definition.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: When will Mark Johnson cease his selective editing of postings and answer a few questions? |
10 Jul 2004 09:58:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:26:35 -0700, "Adam Warlock" <go@away.com>
wrote:
Yes, it could mean any of these things--or none of them. I'm inclined to
believe that a shallow thinker like a Mark Johnson simply uses
"evolutionism" in place of evolution and that evolution is something that is
"believed," but since he will never define what he means (because he is
afraid to do so), we can only speculate.
To creationists/fundamentalists, evolution is a competing religion
that they think should answer every possible question, not just
biological variation. Because they're binary thinkers anybody who
isn't a creationist is an evolutionist (and can't be a Christian
either). So "evolutionists "believe in" the big bang, or rather in an
emotionally prejudicial strawman/caricature - in exactly the same
sense that the fundamentalist believes in his deity.
They also imagine that there is some kind of evolutionist/atheist
catechism that provides canned answers to questions we don't even
have, and also tells us what to think and do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: When will Mark Johnson cease his selective editing of postings and answer a few questions? |
10 Jul 2004 06:10:35 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:el00f0di3ui194cfts5l413du3h5rcmvgk@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 07:26:35 -0700, "Adam Warlock" <go@away.com>
wrote:
Yes, it could mean any of these things--or none of them. I'm inclined to
believe that a shallow thinker like a Mark Johnson simply uses
"evolutionism" in place of evolution and that evolution is something that
is
"believed," but since he will never define what he means (because he is
afraid to do so), we can only speculate.
To creationists/fundamentalists, evolution is a competing religion
that they think should answer every possible question, not just
biological variation. Because they're binary thinkers anybody who
isn't a creationist is an evolutionist (and can't be a Christian
either).
This is all true, and I've seen it before. In some of the older creationist
writings, for example, there appears to be the development of a schism
between the "progressive creationists," then represented by Hugh Ross, and
the fiat creationists represented by Henry Morris. The fiat creationists
deemed the progressives "evolutionists" on the basis of disagreement with
finer points of "interpretation."
So "evolutionists "believe in" the big bang, or rather in an
emotionally prejudicial strawman/caricature - in exactly the same
sense that the fundamentalist believes in his deity.
Of course.
They also imagine that there is some kind of evolutionist/atheist
catechism that provides canned answers to questions we don't even
have, and also tells us what to think and do.
I find that to be quite ironic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
06 Jul 2004 09:26:52 PM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I'm a biologist and I really don't have a clue. "Evolution" is the change in
species due to the accumulation of mutations (and we usually imply
controlled by natural selection). "Evolutionism" could mean the idea that
evolution explains all or most of life, the idea that Homo sapiens arsoe by
a process of evolution, the idea that there is a moral imperative to advance
I suppose some do see it as a "moral imperative to advance."
But it's one thing to suggest what 'evolution' . . is. It's another to
state some theory explaining it. And I know that people like yourself
toss around the phrase - The Theory of evolution.
And I think you should be able to:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
07 Jul 2004 01:36:47 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
The technical mistake you are making is that "evolution" is the cumulative
result of heirtable changes in organisms.
Lamarck for instance suggested that the changes were caused by parts that
were used becoming bigger, whilst disused parts became smaller. This was a
"theroy of evolution" though it is now discredited.
Darwin suggested "natural selection", and this has now been accepted as the
main mechanism causing the diversity of life that we see around us. However
"gentic drift", or changes not influenced by selection, is also a factor.
"Sexaul selection" is a special type of natural selection, and sometimes
regarded as different.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
08 Jul 2004 03:40:06 AM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
The technical mistake you are making is that "evolution" is the cumulative
result of heirtable changes in organisms.
Lamarck for instance suggested that the changes were caused by parts that
were used becoming bigger, whilst disused parts became smaller. This was a
"theroy of evolution" though it is now discredited.
Darwin suggested "natural selection", and this has now been accepted as the
main mechanism causing the diversity of life that we see around us. However
"gentic drift", or changes not influenced by selection, is also a factor.
"Sexaul selection" is a special type of natural selection, and sometimes
regarded as different.
Sexual selection, I've been instructed on 'good authority', is most
certainly not something that need be included separately, but might be
entirely included in a notion of, natural selection.
Now you know, too.
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, and genetic drift.
Again, as I have it by the same authority.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
08 Jul 2004 11:12:52 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:nu1qe0lkbdlplpvk7ikka6prlj03olltk2@4ax.com...
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
The technical mistake you are making is that "evolution" is the
cumulative
result of heirtable changes in organisms.
Lamarck for instance suggested that the changes were caused by parts that
were used becoming bigger, whilst disused parts became smaller. This was
a
"theroy of evolution" though it is now discredited.
Darwin suggested "natural selection", and this has now been accepted as
the
main mechanism causing the diversity of life that we see around us.
However
"gentic drift", or changes not influenced by selection, is also a factor.
"Sexaul selection" is a special type of natural selection, and sometimes
regarded as different.
Sexual selection, I've been instructed on 'good authority', is most
certainly not something that need be included separately, but might be
entirely included in a notion of, natural selection.
What???? You can't even repeat what you were told. Why don't yuo just cut
and paste it, moron, if you can't remember it.
Now you know, too.
Yes, we all know that you are a liar, anything else you want to tell us?
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, and genetic drift.
Good, now go study the big words and let us know what they mean.
Again, as I have it by the same authority.
Worthless troll.
Peace.
Lying hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
08 Jul 2004 07:43:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:40:06 -0700, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
The technical mistake you are making is that "evolution" is the cumulative
result of heirtable changes in organisms.
Lamarck for instance suggested that the changes were caused by parts that
were used becoming bigger, whilst disused parts became smaller. This was a
"theroy of evolution" though it is now discredited.
Darwin suggested "natural selection", and this has now been accepted as the
main mechanism causing the diversity of life that we see around us. However
"gentic drift", or changes not influenced by selection, is also a factor.
"Sexaul selection" is a special type of natural selection, and sometimes
regarded as different.
Sexual selection, I've been instructed on 'good authority', is most
certainly not something that need be included separately, but might be
entirely included in a notion of, natural selection.
Now you know, too.
Wow, he agreed with me. And you pretend that you have taught him
something. Sheesh.
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, and genetic drift.
Again, as I have it by the same authority.
Go and take a college course on the topic. Or a good high school one,
you can you see this stuff for yourself.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
10 Jul 2004 07:40:47 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:09gqe0pep4po8rg2sf56u2ve6fhsvck9vu@4ax.com...
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:40:06 -0700, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
The technical mistake you are making is that "evolution" is the
cumulative
result of heirtable changes in organisms.
Lamarck for instance suggested that the changes were caused by parts
that
were used becoming bigger, whilst disused parts became smaller. This was
a
"theroy of evolution" though it is now discredited.
Darwin suggested "natural selection", and this has now been accepted as
the
main mechanism causing the diversity of life that we see around us.
However
"gentic drift", or changes not influenced by selection, is also a
factor.
"Sexaul selection" is a special type of natural selection, and sometimes
regarded as different.
Sexual selection, I've been instructed on 'good authority', is most
certainly not something that need be included separately, but might be
entirely included in a notion of, natural selection.
Now you know, too.
Wow, he agreed with me. And you pretend that you have taught him
something. Sheesh.
Incredible.
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, and genetic drift.
Again, as I have it by the same authority.
Go and take a college course on the topic. Or a good high school one,
you can you see this stuff for yourself.
Matt, are you the "authority" to whom Mark refers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
10 Jul 2004 09:05:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:40:47 -0700, "Adam Warlock" <go@away.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:09gqe0pep4po8rg2sf56u2ve6fhsvck9vu@4ax.com...
[snip]
Matt, are you the "authority" to whom Mark refers?
To the extent that anything by Mark represents something in the world,
AFAIK, yes.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
10 Jul 2004 09:18:47 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:k081f0pk5ic5sbjsag1rpcu7gi3bg29m06@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:40:47 -0700, "Adam Warlock" <go@away.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:09gqe0pep4po8rg2sf56u2ve6fhsvck9vu@4ax.com...
[snip]
Matt, are you the "authority" to whom Mark refers?
To the extent that anything by Mark represents something in the world,
AFAIK, yes.
Well, as you have no doubt seen, we can run with our "The Theory of," even
as we insure that it is properly attributed to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
11 Jul 2004 07:11:19 AM |
|
|
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:k081f0pk5ic5sbjsag1rpcu7gi3bg29m06@4ax.com...
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:40:47 -0700, "Adam Warlock" <go@away.com>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:09gqe0pep4po8rg2sf56u2ve6fhsvck9vu@4ax.com...
Well, as you have no doubt seen, we can run with our "The Theory of," even
as we insure that it is properly attributed to you.
Actually, no - _you_ can't. You insisted, in message after message,
that you simply would not confess the following:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, and genetic drift.
So _I_ then have repeatedly suggested you answer the question,
yourself:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . . .
a)
b)
c)
..
..
..
z)
aa)
..
..
..
zz)
aa1)
Or however you prefer to number these many variations.
YOU'VE BEEN ASKED THIS _MANY TIMES_!!! BEFORE, as you know.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
09 Jul 2004 05:06:58 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:40:06 -0700, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
Darwin suggested "natural selection", and this has now been accepted as the
main mechanism causing the diversity of life that we see around us. However
"gentic drift", or changes not influenced by selection, is also a factor.
"Sexaul selection" is a special type of natural selection, and sometimes
regarded as different.
Sexual selection, I've been instructed on 'good authority', is most
certainly not something that need be included separately, but might be
entirely included in a notion of, natural selection.
Now you know, too.
Wow, he agreed with me.
Now if you can just agree with yourself, we might be able to go
somewhere with this:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, AND GENETIC DRIFT.
C'mon, Matt. Don't flake.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
09 Jul 2004 09:12:05 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:7grse0pm77438rv7m26hu1k68ic8dsg7iu@4ax.com...
Matt Silberstein <matts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 01:40:06 -0700, Mark Johnson
<102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote:
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
Darwin suggested "natural selection", and this has now been accepted as
the
main mechanism causing the diversity of life that we see around us.
However
"gentic drift", or changes not influenced by selection, is also a
factor.
"Sexaul selection" is a special type of natural selection, and
sometimes
regarded as different.
Sexual selection, I've been instructed on 'good authority', is most
certainly not something that need be included separately, but might be
entirely included in a notion of, natural selection.
Now you know, too.
Wow, he agreed with me.
Now if you can just agree with yourself, we might be able to go
somewhere with this:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, AND GENETIC DRIFT.
Sorry Markie, we've already agreed with Matt. No one would trust anything
that you wrote anyway.
C'mon, Matt. Don't flake.
Wow Markie, did you miss your psychiatric appointment yesterday?
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ChucklesPF1" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
09 Jul 2004 11:06:55 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
This Mark Johnson guy is obviously the most popular writer around
here. He puts up a simple post containing a few lines and in a couple of
days accumulates many dozens of replies. He did this same thing in
another post as well. Mark, you are a master troll! I wish I could do
as well....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
09 Jul 2004 11:09:52 AM |
|
|
"ChucklesPF1" <ChucklesPF1@Ihatespam.com> wrote in message
news:zozHc.221562$Gx4.200405@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
This Mark Johnson guy is obviously the most popular writer around
here. He puts up a simple post containing a few lines and in a couple of
days accumulates many dozens of replies. He did this same thing in
another post as well. Mark, you are a master troll! I wish I could do
as well....
He is definitely that. I called him a professional troll and asked him how
much money he made by being a professional troll but as usual he won't
answer any direct questions :-).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
07 Jul 2004 07:57:44 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:crnme0hhic31jfs4bb5334g7gb3881kuio@4ax.com...
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I'm a biologist and I really don't have a clue. "Evolution" is the change
in
species due to the accumulation of mutations (and we usually imply
controlled by natural selection). "Evolutionism" could mean the idea that
evolution explains all or most of life, the idea that Homo sapiens arsoe
by
a process of evolution, the idea that there is a moral imperative to
advance
I suppose some do see it as a "moral imperative to advance."
Great clip Markie!! Where is the rest of his post? Couldn't reply to it? You
don't have the intelligence to 'suppose'.
But it's one thing to suggest what 'evolution' . . is. It's another to
state some theory explaining it. And I know that people like yourself
toss around the phrase - The Theory of evolution.
And I think you should be able to:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
Oh, so you can't define 'evolutionism". You know "Honest" Mark, you really
shouldn't use big words that you don't understand.
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
06 Jul 2004 10:04:54 PM |
|
|
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
(SNIP
And I think you should be able to:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
Done and done and done ad infinitum. Bloody aida.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
06 Jul 2004 11:47:06 PM |
|
|
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
Done
Here's one as done:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift.
Now - c'mon - what's not to like? Elmer?
You there?
Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
07 Jul 2004 07:59:04 AM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:r00ne0d43ekj1orfefg5i9etr39vn3movv@4ax.com...
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
Done
Here's one as done:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift.
Now - c'mon - what's not to like? Elmer?
You there?
The professional troll, unable to make a substantive argument, trolls on.
Peace.
Lying little hypocrite for Jesus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Mark Johnson's "The Theory of" Evolution |
10 Jul 2004 07:55:14 PM |
|
|
"The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation, natural
selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift."
This statement seems to have finally be properly attributed to Matt
Silberstein.
Let me suggest to my fellow scientists and those interested in these kinds
of threads that, for the sake of argument, we accept this as a
single-sentence statement of "The Theory of" evolution, as Mark Johnson has
been insisting. I believe that Mark wants to represent that if we can just
agree with this, he can take it on as a debate subject. Comments by
Ray--that Mark ignored, of course--show this to be probable. So, for proper
attribution, let's allow that this single-sentence statement be allowed as
"Silberstein's Statement of The Theory of Evolution." If we can get a
reasonable concensus on this, at least for the sake of argument, perhaps we
can actually get some substance out of Mark Johnson.
Those who wish to agree or not, simply state "yea" or "nay" in this thread.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: My fellow scientists (wasRe: Mark Johnson's) |
11 Jul 2004 08:50:20 AM |
|
|
"Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
"The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation, natural
selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift."
This statement seems to have finally be properly attributed to Matt
Silberstein.
Always was, even as he was changing it.
You just haven't been reading. That's all you're saying, here.
Let me suggest to my fellow scientists
"My fellow scientists"?
You're how old?
of threads that, for the sake of argument, we accept this as a
single-sentence statement of "The Theory of" evolution
Of course you don't. You've said in maybe 100 messages, by now, that
you refuse to confess that as The Theory of:
So _I_ asked:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . . .
a)
b)
c)
..
..
..
z)
aa)
..
..
..
zz)
aa1)
Or however you prefer to number these many variations.
YOU'VE BEEN ASKED THIS _MANY TIMES_!!! BEFORE, as you know.
The fact is, you don't have a clue what you're talking about - true?
You confess evolutionism not because you understand it, but because it
appeals to you as superstition. The science doesn't interest you, such
as there is with evolutionism.
Peace.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer Bataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
07 Jul 2004 06:14:36 AM |
|
|
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
Elmer Bataitis <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
From: Mark Johnson <102334.12@compuserve.com>
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by . . .
and complete the sentence.
Done
Here's one as done:
The Theory of evolution is that evolution is caused by mutation,
natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift.
Now - c'mon - what's not to like? Elmer?
You there?
Not a problem.
Now come on Mark, what do you think? Mark? What's wrong? You there?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Moral imperative to advance (wasRe: me) |
10 Jul 2004 08:00:34 PM |
|
|
Mark Johnson wrote:
"Malcolm" <malcolm@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I'm a biologist and I really don't have a clue. "Evolution" is the change in
species due to the accumulation of mutations (and we usually imply
controlled by natural selection). "Evolutionism" could mean the idea that
evolution explains all or most of life, the idea that Homo sapiens arsoe by
a process of evolution, the idea that there is a moral imperative to advance
I suppose some do see it as a "moral imperative to advance."
Mark's is to do what he's told, with the promise of pie-in-the-sky
reward in retunr.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "• R.L.Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: When will Mark Johnson cease his selective editing of postings and answer a few questions? |
06 Jul 2004 12:08:20 PM |
|
|
In article <nryGc.20147$Ch.1187@okepread04>, "Adam Warlock" <go@away.com> wrote:
What is mutation, Mark?
What is evolutionism?
Here, let me help you:
"Evolutionism is..."
"Mutation is..."
Complete the sentences, Mark. It can't be that hard, can it, for one as
wise and "honest" as you?
I'm waiting, Mark.
** Good luck.
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Johnson" |
|
| Title: Complete the sentence (wasRe: me) |
06 Jul 2004 09:26:54 PM |
|
|
(• R.L.Measures) wrote:
I'm waiting, Mark.
** Good luck.
He's waiting for me to step into his own madness. I'm not playing that
game. I like to stay 'on message'. It's important.
And don't suggest that I've never replied to you. It's seems all I've
done of late. Some thanks, huh?
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Warlock" |
|
| Title: Re: Complete the sentence (wasRe: me) |
10 Jul 2004 06:17:20 PM |
|
|
"Mark Johnson" <102334.12@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:drnme0971bci875ppqgn9c9kajd5it6g25@4ax.com...
r@somis.org (. R.L.Measures) wrote:
I'm waiting, Mark.
** Good luck.
He's waiting for me to step into his own madness. I'm not playing that
game. I like to stay 'on message'. It's important.
No, Mark, you don't like to stay 'on message.' That's not true at all.
What you like to do is repeat the same nonsensical, already-answered
question as if you are a wind-up toy, mostly because anything else seems to
require you to think.
Your selective snipping once again betrays you, Mark. If one were to read
only your message, which I am sure you hope, one would not know what it is
that is awaited. But they are really just a couple of question:
1. Explain your understanding of 'evolutionism.'
2. Explain your understanding of mutation.
You have tried to avoid answering by protesting that you do not believe in
these things, but you were asked that. You were asked to explain them to
the extent (or perhaps "within the limits" would be more appropriate) that
you understand them.
And don't suggest that I've never replied to you. It's seems all I've
done of late. Some thanks, huh?
Some in other newsgroups have explained the difference between "reply" and
"answer," Mark. You should consider it. One can reply until the cows come
home and never answer a single question or provide a single substantive
response. So really, your numerous replies are beside the point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
