Quote
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.
It is indeed obvious avoidance, but you seem to think you can accuse me and divert attention. There were several issues being discussed, and the instant you saw my post where I said I wouldn't be attacking my own Skunk Funk theory, you have done nothing but harp on this. All else is to be forgotten, eh? Dream on! Most browsers have scrollbars, you know.
Quote
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.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/saywha.gif" alt="" />

What I bolded was "Macroevolution requires that organisms' morphologies have changed throughout evolutionary history" You know, unstasis.

Quote
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.
I never said it didn't sound like Lamarckism; but until I have evidence one way or another it wouldn't be prudent to make a call.

Quote
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?
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/lame.gif" alt="" />
Out-of-context quoting? How low are you willing to go? (Here's the original.)

Quote
Enjoy.
I shall. I'm already pleased with the thought that as long as this thread exists, people all over the world can see what evolutionism does to a man. Some will <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/watchingtvfunny.gif" alt="" /> and some will just <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/watchingtvscary.gif" alt="" />.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson