Hi CTD, thanks again.

This is where the cognitive dissonance really takes over -- you have now convinced yourself that you have done something that even a cursory reading of your posts will show has not been done. repeating an unsubstantiated assertion does not make it true. Claiming you have done something that has not been done does not make it a fact.

To be explicite once more, you have not shown that there is anything in Darwin's theory that is more than the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, nor that there is any other theory of his that is of such scope that ommitting it would be presenting a weakened version of evolution, a watered down version, a diluted version.

The mechanisms are the ways that descent with modification occurs, the ways that change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation occurs, they are not omitted from either Darwin's theory nor the way I state it. There is still no substantial difference between descent with modification and change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation that amounts to a weakened version of evolution, a watered down version, a diluted version.

This was your thesis. You have now abandoned it, so it appears, and we can presume then, that you are totally unable to defend it, and that rather than admit you inability, your error, your falsehood, you are trying to pretend the issue is about something else. Cognitive dissonance confronted by reality.

Nor have you demonstrated that there is any real change in any of the ways I have stated the basics: that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, that the theory of evolution includes mechanisms by which hereditary traits change in populations from generation to generation, that the theory of evolution is, in essence, that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. Pretending that there are different versions does not make it so: it just makes your position one of make believe.

Nor have you shown, in any way, that the way I have described evolution is in any way substantially different and less than Darwin's theory of descent with modification.

That variation in traits existed was an observed fact in Darwin's time. That traits were hereditary was an observed fact in Darwin's time. What was not known was the mechanism by which variation occurred nor how it was passed from parent to offspring. The theory of descent with modification predicts, in effect, that a mechanism for causing variation exists and that a mechanism for transmitting traits from one generation to the next exists.

One can also logically deduct from the theory, if this process was going on, that the various traits that go to make up the individual organism are hereditary, and that different traits of different hereditary ages (parents, grandparents, etc) would provide a map of ancestry. Biologists used mophology to do this, long before DNA was discovered, and the fact that the DNA ancestry matched the morphological tree of life is just validation of the concepts involve -- it is, in effect, a predicted outcome of the theory.

There are many. The more popularly known ones are the Peppered Moths and the Galapagos Finches. In both cases they show population shift in response to ecological change. That is natural selection. Light moths did not become dark moths, they died in larger numbers as the dark moths were favored. Small beaked finches did not grow large beaks, they died in larger numbers than the finches with larger beaks as the large beaks were favored. There are others: mice that become tan rather than brown as the environment shifts to sandy dessert. Dandelions that grow low to the ground where grass is regularly mowed but tall where it is not. Fishes that are drab in pools with predators but red in pools that have no predators and mate attraction is more important than survival.

You do realize, don't you, that the evidence for natural selection is so pervasive that AiG readily admits that natural selection occurs. See Darwin’s finches, Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation:
This is because natural selection has been observed and it is a fact.

Again, your failure to see anything is not a result of any lack of evidence, rather it is evidence of your refusal to look at the evidence: your cognitive dissonance reaction to the evidence of objective reality.

The basic prediction of natural selection is simple: change the environment slowly and the some organisms will surive and breed better than others, and as a result the following generations will be better adapted to the new ecology than the parent populaitons. If the change is to a drier environment, then future populations will be better adapted to drier ecologies. If the change is to a wetter environment, then future populations will be better adapted to wetter ecologies. Change the environment drastically and suddenly and organisms will perish.

You have yet to show that any "formulas" are watered down. Repetition is not truth.

Those that do not survive the "struggle" do not contribute to following generations in the same degree as those that do survive, and the populations of following generations are thereby modified to exclude their traits. It is one of the mechanisms that cause descent with modification, but it is a mechanism, not a theory.

Those that do not survive the "struggle" do not contribute to following generations in the same degree as those that do survive, and the populations of following generations are thereby changed to exclude their traits. It is one of the mechanisms that cause change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, but it is a mechanism, not a theory.

The "struggle for existence" is part of Darwin's explanation of the basis of natural selection, but his theory is still descent with modification. The fact remains that Darwin says that his theory is "the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection," ... no matter how much you shuck and jive you cannot change that fact. That the bulk of the book discusses the evidence for his theory does not mean that the whole book is his theory. The fact remains that this evidence not only still exists, but has grown as scientists study the science of evolutionary biology, and that there is more evidence that the theory is valid than existed in Darwin's time.

You really are a chuckle CTD

In other words, you agree that the "struggle for existence" is an observed fact, part of objective reality known to Darwin and everyone else, part of the evidence foundation for the theory of descent with modification. Surely we don't think we need to mention every fact involved in the foundation of a theory every time we state what the theory is. That is what the science covers.

But not in the statement of his theory, nor in the statement of other theories, but as part of the evidence of natural selection. You have still failed to show that there is part of Darwin's theory that is missing from the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

Again, you seem to feel that every piece of evidence for evolution needs to be included in the theory of evolution. Perhaps you can tell me how a population that has died out is able to pass on hereditary traits to a following generation? How it is possible to descend with modification afterwards?

Whether extinction occurred or not, it would not affect the reality of evolution, nor would it change the theory of descent with modification, the theory of hereditary change in populations from generation to generation explaining the diversity of life as we see it. The fact is that extinction is part of the natural history, the evidence, the basis, the foundation for the theory of evolution.

Your claim is that Darwin had something in his theory that was more than descent with modification, something that is missing from my saying that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see, in life today, in history, in the fossil record, and in the genetic record. Extinction is just one of those pieces, those facts, of evidence that evolution explains, and explains rather elegantly.

Change in populations is intraspecies?

Now you are waffling. Perhaps you can show where he made these suggestions and then how they are fundamental to his theory, and then how his theory says that people MUST result. Again, good hunting.

No, I mean that Russ claims that humans are a MUST HAPPEN result, while evolution says no such thing: his continued characterization of evolution as rocks to people is false, misguided and misinformed.

What you claim is irrelavant to reality. You are free to claim that the world is flat, or that it is young. Unfortunately for you such claims have no impact at all on reality.

You make up a fantasy world wide conspiracy, and then call me a coward because I don't defend the conspiracy you have invented out of thin air? You really are a chuckle CTD.

Meanwhile your original claim is still undefended, still unsupported - that Darwin had something in his theory that was more than descent with modification, something that is missing from my saying that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see, in life today, in history, in the fossil record, and in the genetic record. You accuse me of cowardice and yet you don't have the integrity to admit your error or to actually do something about it.

What you do with the evidence is your own concern, your denial has no effect on it's continued existence, or on the objective reality that surrounds you. You asked for evidence, and so far all you have demonstrated is a total inability to actually deal with it. This is how cognitive dissonance deals with truth: denial after denial after denial. The stronger the dissonance the stronger the denial of reality, resulting in delusions of conspiracies that expands until it covers the world.

And yet evolution is still just descent with modification, just the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and you have failed to demonstrate any substantial difference between what Darwin says and what I've said. You have still totally failed in any way to provide even a scintilla of a clue of this mysterious missing "something" that is your original thesis. All you have done in introduce diversion after diversion after diversion ... and avoided the issue.

Oh look -- another diversion ... looks like you will continue to fail, fail to support your position, fail to deal with the evidence, fail to acknowledge that you are wrong, fail to face reality.

Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]