There are 30 journal papers that describe [[Natural Selection]] as an oxymoron
=== 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.
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 *''
sentences''* 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 *
sentences 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
sentences 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
sentences 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
Reference: See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Premise