Hi CTD, thanks again.
It's already been done. Pretending won't change that. You yourself argued that the mechanisms can't be omitted.
No, I can't make you acknowledge that it's been done. SO WHAT?
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.
Actually, this is where my finite patience reaches its limit.
You need something more than repetition if your shuck & jive is to remain amusing, see? And amusement's about my only motive for playing, since there's not much educational value or challenge.
Am I so stupid & proud that I'll continue you're "no you didn't / yes I did" game? No. It is ended. I will play another round at pointing out <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hehehe.gif" alt="" /> the things your insane religion mercilessly <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliewhipit.gif" alt="" /> compels you to produce.
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.
I don't care if you think I've shown jack.
You haven't answered your own question!(responding to "Mechanisms should not be classified within evolution.")[color:"brown"] Again: why? Different mechanisms and processes exist and cause different results. They are part of the reality of evolution. What purpose is served by ignoring them? [/color]
Hoping I'll forget? Hoping I'll <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/reallymad.gif" alt="" /> or <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/taz.gif" alt="" />?
More like <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/boogie.gif" alt="" /> or <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bunnydance.gif" alt="" />
But why should I bother to address all or any of the versions you present? That's the real question. The impression I get is that you change your formula on a fairly frequent basis. I wonder if you change your oil as often.
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.
Why pretend when we have
so many examples?
So the question is, do you want to talk about - reveal - the real definition of evolution -- the one (GASP) used in the science?
* Darwin's original statement in the Origin of Species, where he first described “descent with modification” ...
* the berkeley university definition, “evolution, simply put, is descent with modification” ...
* the university of michigan definition, “changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation” and the “gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity” ...
* the modern synthesis definition, “evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow, and natural selection” ...
* my definition: “evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation” ...
... and what they all have in common ... and how they are radically different from your straw man statement? How none of them mention the evolution of man from single cell life in those definitions.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blah.gif" alt="" /> But no commitment. And just look at that last sentence up there. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
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.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blah.gif" alt="" />
(The long ago asserted prediction in question)Darwin also spent some time theorizing... ...predicting in effect the field of genetics.
So, no evidence of the prediction, even with recourse to your comprehensive online Darwinian library? Could have just said so.
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.
It does? Oh what a genius was this Darwin, that he should be the first to observe that lifeforms reproduce after their kind! One takes it for granted now, and wonders that nobody ever noticed this before.
Now according to your story, how did domesticated stock come to exist before anyone noticed this?
I should think it more correct to say
everybody predicted genetics, than give special credit to Darwin. But then I don't <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/imnotworthy.gif" alt="" /> the prophets of evolutionism.
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.
What theory? How did biologists apply Darwin's "theory" long before there was a Darwin? You provide an observation and call it a theory? Not surprising, I suppose. You've provided conclusions and called them evidence; what next?
In the "Cracking Down" thread I posted a few things about evidence. Don't know if any of that might help, or maybe you're too far gone by now.
You do realize, don't you, that the evidence for natural selection is so pervasive that AiG readily admits that natural selection occurs.
Nevermind.
I mean thanks for trying; but this isn't what I'm seeking.
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.
No. I'm looking for the kind of evidence which Huxley said was required. Darwin said it was about impossible to provide, and maybe he was right.
Why should I? But this wasn't really Darwin's own idea. He borrowed it from Malthus. When his pal Spencer applied "survival of the fittest" to society & economics, he was just taking the principle back to its origin.
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.
No. I said nothing in that part of my post indicating I agreed with Darwin, Spencer, or Malthus. Elsewhere I indicated I disagree. Is this why you say I agree, just to be silly?
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?
You really might want to think before you just <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blah.gif" alt="" /> Neither of your questions make sense, I mean not in hardly any context.
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.
Now if you don't come up with the most backwards junk! It's clear you don't want to defend what Darwin says or what you yourself say. Keep it funny, or I WON'T be wasting very much more time.
In evolutionese: you address only intraspecies competition (fairly indirectly). Darwin discussed both intraspecies and interspecies competition. He concluded that inferior species would be driven extinct in most cases.
Change in populations is intraspecies?
Fine. Omit that too. Won't take you closer to Darwinism.
He made suggestions along those lines, but was reluctant to say anything firm. His followers are no longer reluctant. They define anyone who questions this doctrine as unscientific, and take action to expel them. Or have you not noticed.
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.
Waffling? Clarification is waffling? No. It's not. You're making a false accusation to draw attention away from the accuracy of my statement. Time for the bold.
He made suggestions along those lines, but was reluctant to say anything firm. His followers are no longer reluctant. They define anyone who questions this doctrine as unscientific, and take action to expel them.Is this fundamental? Not much of an origin myth without it, is there?
Do you mean happens today, or happened in the past?
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.
Right... I think you read Russ about as well as you read Darwin.
My claim is that evolutionism's purpose is to provide a replacement for history. To that end, evolutionists are compelled to account for origins. Thoroughly. I acknowledge that they've tried. Do you?
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.
Actually, my claims are some of the most relevant elements if we are to discuss very much. I never said they had an impact on reality, but they do have an impact on what gets posted. Surely your refusal to properly deal with my claims will have an impact as well. You might consider that in the future.
I also acknowledge that some are too cowardly to defend what they stand for. Shall I number you among the cowards, or have you the guts to either renounce or defend evolutionism's claims?
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.
Your response is duly noted.
You accuse me of cowardice and yet you don't have the integrity to admit your error or to actually do something about it.
I said there were cowards. Did I say you were one of them?
Neither am I preventing you from arguing that such persons are not cowards.
As for my integrity, I do not fear. You cannot jeopardize it. A false accusation
might harm one's reputation, but it's impotent against one's integrity. Evodefine those terms, why don't you?
Your links just lead to a bunch of conclusions. At least the horse "evidence" link and the Pelycodus link (I wasn't interested in forams, but I'll take a peek).
Okay, I peeked. I suppose it's going to get me accused of being stupid or blind or something, but I don't care. I don't see anything jumping out & crying "I evolved". I'm guessing it's one of those "fossils mean something evolved" deals, eh? Because they're fossils I'm supposed to buy evolutionism? Or because someone says they're old? But rocks are already old and they're fossilized by definition, so how does that straw man thing go again?
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.
You can show me a snowcone and call it evidence of evolution. Still won't mean jack. Calling it "evidence" doesn't turn it into evidence.
Seriously! Think if that was true. One could make any claim out of the clear blue sky - anything! And then one could start calling things "evidence" for that claim, and they'd have to be evidence because you said so. I think I'll pass on that offer.
Now I have a question for all the evolutionists. Regarding speed, has the imagined evolution of man from monkey (or ape or apelike imaginary ancestor) been slow or fast? I mean if 1 is the slowest and 100 is the fastest, compared to the imagined evolution of other lifeforms, where does this rate? Shoot, define your own speed scale if you don't like mine.
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.
Diversion? from what? Your never-ending, nonsensical quest?
More junk like this?"Things change" is a simplification, a strawman, as it doesn't include what changes nor how it changes: in evolution what changes is the hereditary traits, and how they change is that some are better suited for survival and breeding under prevailing environmental conditions than others, and thus will become more "popular" within the populations.
"Descent with modification" isn't an oversimplification, but "things change" is?
It's subject to the exact same criticism! What's descending? What's being modified into what? What's modifying it?
See folks, I'm playing too much now. I should exercise restraint, because this doesn't promise to get any funnier. I predict the funny/sad spectacle's going to devolve into just about pure sad.
But anyhow, we know what's changing & what's evolving. Nothingness is said to have evolved into everything that exists. Not one link in the fantasy holds up; no part of the story dares to be well-defined, lest it be shown defective. They have to keep the camera from zooming in or focusing.
Whenever things are clearly examined, the myth is shown false & they pretend not to notice. They say "look at the rest of this"; but a broken chain's no use. Protest & they'll say "we didn't need that part anyhow." But why did they make it if they didn't need it? Cause & effect.
