Editing Oxymoron

There are 30 journal papers that describe  [[Natural Selection]] as an oxymoron

=== notes ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron#Terms_falsely_called_oxymorons_for_rhetorical_effect

=== Ray Martinez ===
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2011-10/msg02062.html Ray Martinez states that under the rubric of ns we have a list of truisms asserted to be a mechanism. I make the same point in the main Tautology article namely that claims of logic are invoked as a mechanism because the universal mechanism - Life1 that spawns us into existence can't be defined under materialism.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/talk.origins/vKnp2x_U1NU/afrzXdUnfgkJ

Rolf: No, you don't have a clear image of natural selection because you don't *want* it to exist.

Ray replies: I understand natural selection to be nonsense and illogic, so yes, it is true, I don't want nonsense and illogic to be true.


Taking  your two posts together you are you saying either: 
1) That a truism is nonsense
2) That it is a logical fallacy to invoke [[claims of logic]] as a mechanism where the expectation for a falsifiable
physics equation.

The most reasonable inference would be 2). Furthermore you mean to say that the concept of invoking truisms as mechanism which are *symbolically* represented with the contracted shorthand natural selection is a fallacy.

Now my point is this: There is nothing in the *dictionary* definition of the terms 'natural' and 'selection' that even remotely indicates your and my mutually agreed *interpretation* of *''[[sentence]]s''* containing the term ns. Hence the meaning we derive from a [[sentence]] is context dependent. 

Natural selection as oxymoronic stand-alone term, can be no more a fallacy than the stand alone [[Pleonasm]] terms 'black darkness' or 'free gift' are , because only *[[sentence]]s can be fallacies, tautologies or illogical''. 

Is the contention that "free gift2" is a tautologytrue? . To assert that such a phrase always says the same thing twice is to miss-frame the particular premise of a user. For example: A man's gift of a dinner and a movie to his date may be a "gift2" but it sometimes comes bundled with expectations. But, if the recipient of the free dinner asks first "if I go with you, are you expecting anything?" and gets the answer "no", then it's accurate to say the invitee got a "free gift" of dinner. It is incorrect that no gift can ever have non-free implications attached to it, therefore the term free-gift is a [[Pleonasm]] and not a tautology: only [[sentence]]s can be tautologies. 

A tautology explains everything under all conditions,from the man providing a 'free-gift' it is clear that the same [[sentence]] could in another context imply non-reciprocating behavior from the person receiving the gift. Thus the sentence doesn't explain everything in all contexts. 

By analogy take the [[sentence]] 'you have a green light' from [[Pragmatics]]: depending on the premise it could mean anything, it doesn't explain everything in all contexts. In fact devoid of a human premise or intent it explains @nothing@. Contradictions like oxymorons explain nothing. Oxymorons have the ''sense'' of explaining nothing because they 
have the sense of being contradictory. Pleonasm has the ''sense'' of explaining everything because in the majority of [[sentence]]s they are used in, the sentence explains everything under all conditions(tautological). 

Only the premise by the human formulator of a sentence can be definitely ''asserted''(no "sense") to be either all
explaining or contradictory. But because only sentences - meaning the premise behind the sentence - can be either contradictions(explains nothing) or tautologies(explain everything)  , it has lead people to erroneously view pleonasms as tautologies. 

Therefore an oxymoron isn't a contradiction because only the premise symbolically represented with a sentence can be
a contradiction: it(oxymoron) has the ''sense'' of being a contradiction.

Finally:
* Pleonasms have the ''sense'' of being tautologies but are not because only a human ''premise'' can be all explanatory. 
* Oxymorons have the ''sense'' of being contradictions but are not because only a human ''premise'' can be a contradiction. 



Reference: See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Premise
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 === Ray Martinez ===
-http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2011-10/msg02062.html Ray Martinez states that under the rubric of ns we have a list of truisms asserted to be a mechanism. [[Jerry Fodor]] makes a similar case.  I make the same point in the main Tautology article namely that claims of logic are invoked as a mechanism because the universal mechanism - [[Life1]] that spawns us into existence can't be defined under materialism.
+http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2011-10/msg02062.html Ray Martinez states that under the rubric of ns we have a list of truisms asserted to be a mechanism. I make the same point in the main Tautology article namely that claims of logic are invoked as a mechanism because the universal mechanism - Life1 that spawns us into existence can't be defined under materialism.
 https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/talk.origins/vKnp2x_U1NU/afrzXdUnfgkJ
@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 Reference: See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Premise
-[[Category:Natural selection]]
-[[Category:Ray Martinez]]