Natural Selection and what it didn\'t do for dogs... (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 09:07 (5225 days ago) @ George Jelliss

GEORGE: dhw quotes a definition of natural selection from The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. [..] Then he deliberately misquotes it.-The original line, which I reproduced in full, was: "It is now generally accepted that natural selection, acting on MUTATIONS which are in their origin non-adaptive, is the primary cause of evolution."-In the list with which I ended my post, I expressed my disapproval of "statements like the following": "Natural selection [...] is the primary cause of evolution."-It did not seem necessary to me to reproduce the whole quote, since this is the part of the statement that I object to, as I had already explained in my post. I clearly indicated the omission, as is customary when one edits quotes. The implication of "deliberately misquotes" is that I have cheated by changing both the words and the meaning. I have not done so, and would hardly have provided the full quote if I had intended to do so.-You go on to say: "Natural selection" means nothing without something from which to select. Quite right. Why have you put this in?-You have provided us with the full title of the first edition of Darwin's book. My own is a later edition without the alternative (which is rarely used), but it doesn't make the slightest difference to the argument, because the title you've quoted still contains the claim that species originated by means of natural selection. I'm sorely tempted to think that your whole post is designed to distract attention from the main argument, not to mention the embarrassing Dawkins quotes, but no, you wouldn't stoop that low, would you, George?