Yes, CTD, your position is unmovable, but then both fanatic belief and delusion are like that. Science has the capability of being moved, but the conditions are specific: the concept needs to be tested and falsified.

Quote
Although burdens of proof exist, it would damage my own theory to demonstrate this.
This is standard issue avoidance behavior, and all it shows is that you can't provide any scientific theory that has been proven. You've erected a strawman ("skunk funk"), which unlike scientific theory is not based on evidence as an ad hoc hot air argument so that you can hide behind it.

Quote
You think it's a strength that you change definitions willy-nilly.
And yet you have not in any post shown that there is a significant difference in any definition of evolution or of the theory of evolution. What you bolded is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and it also fits Darwin's original definition of his theory, descent with modification.

What is humorous is that the meaning is the same even though the words used to describe that meaning are different, which means that if you really think all these definitions are substantially different, that you don't understand the meaning.

Quote
And I shall stick to my position so that you may think me weak.
No, I shall think that you don't see that your position(s) have been falsified, and that sticking to them in the face of contradictory evidence is normally a sign of delusion. I shall think that attacking the messenger instead of the message when you are confronted with the evidence is normally a sign of cognitive dissonance, of inability to deal with the issue. I shall think that fabricating false fantasies about the various messengers of reality is normally a desperate attempt to portray the messengers as unreliable in order to tell yourself that the evidence is not real.

Quote
Your dispute with Russ may involve epigenetics, for these things are commonly associated and/or confused with Lamarckism. I hadn't heard that tanning is regulated in this way, but I wouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand.
So you admit that you are clueless, but then assume that Russ could be correct when studies have actually demonstrated that his concept is false? Or are you going to say that we haven't had enough time for white people living in australia and south africa to have measured the effect of tanned parents on offspring skin coloring? Very simply put, the children are not born tanned.

And the issue of acquired muscles is straight classical Lamarckism that has specifically been falsified. Very simply put, the children are not born with more muscles than other children.

Quote
Much of what is called "mutation" in order to promote evolutionism is actually recombination ... operating just perfectly.
Thank you for displaying your lack of understanding of both recombination and mutation: recombination is one of many mechanisms that result in mutations.

Quote
Much of what is called "mutation" in order to promote evolutionism is actually ... gene expression operating just perfectly.
Gene expression under different environments, and the sometimes different effects of those environments on the development of the individual organism is what epigenetics is about.

Of course when I include epigenetics in the discussion, you are quick to ridicule it.

CTD in message #254580
Quote
Quote
Conclusion (2): traits due to environmental effects that result in differences that enable some organisms to survive and breed better, will become more common in following generations for those organisms that remain in that environment, compared to environmental traits that don't, or that hinder survival and breeding, and also compared to organisms that leave that environment (or the environment changes).
If I read the dates correctly this second "theory" is posted when the first is only 2 days old. As this one contains nothing resembling a coherent hypothesis, it would seem to have little value. Claiming observations can be explained, isn't that simply restating the goal of science?
Or were you too busy attacking the messenger and misrepresenting the information to notice what it was about?

Enjoy.