Well CTD, you seem to be running out ... on more than patience.

What do you call someone who says they have done something they have not done?

The fact remains, that Darwin's theory is that descent with modification explains the origin of species, and thus the diversity of life as we know it.

The fact remains that my version of the theory of evolution is that the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.

The fact remains that there is no substantial difference between these two statements.

The fact remains that you have not demonstrated even slight differences in any way shape or form.

The fact remains that there is not something else that is an essential part of Darwins theory that is now omitted as you claimed.

The fact remains that there is not something included in Darwin's original theory that is missing from my version that would qualify as showing my version to be a weakened, watered down or diluted version.

The fact remains that you have not demonstrated even slight elements to Darwin's work that add up to something more than descent with modification.

The fact remains that you have not demonstrated even slight elements to Darwin's work that are missing from my version.

The fact remains that you have failed -- failed to provide evidence, failed to substantiate your argument, failed to deal with reality.

And you have failed to disguise your failures to provide evidence, substantiate your argument, and deal with reality by red herring arguments and distraction.

That you are frustrated by your failures, or my refusal to go along with your fantasy games, is understandable: there is a conspiracy out there ... it is the conspiracy of reality to be totally unimpressed by your opinion or belief.

Actually I have demonstrated that you've shown jack, and further demonstrated that several of your claims are false.

This is one of your red herrings -- it seems to be about the topic, but it has nothing to do, nothing at all, with what is "missing" from my version of evolution that is part of Darwins theory.

Now just for yucks let's list a few mechanisms:

• survival of the fittest (struggle for existence)
• natural selection
• the 'theory' of the preservation of prefered races
• punctuated equilibrium (PE or punkeek)
• mutation
• variation
• genetic drift
• isolation

And then see how many times you mentioned them (I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt that they are discussed as critical missing elements to the theory if evolution):

• survival of the fittest (struggle for existence) 4
• natural selection 1
• the ('theory' of the) preservation of prefered races 1
• punctuated equilibrium (PE or punkeek) 1
• mutation 0
• variation 0
• genetic drift 0
• isolation

Total 7

And how many times I've mentioned them (specifically in regard to the theory of evolution):

• survival of the fittest (struggle for existence) 8
• natural selection 21
• the ('theory' of the) preservation of prefered races 3
• punctuated equilibrium (PE or punkeek) 11
• mutation 3
• variation 14
• genetic drift 2
• isolation 1

Total 63

And how many times they've been mentioned by others (in quotes):

• survival of the fittest (struggle for existence) 3
• natural selection 5
• the ('theory' of the) preservation of prefered races 1
• punctuated equilibrium (PE or punkeek) 19
• mutation 11
• variation 6
• genetic drift 0
• isolation 4

Total 49

Specifically note that in message #255783 I said:
The sad thing is that this is all you have left in your artillery, complaining (or is it just more misrepresentation on your part) that I have not addressed something when I have.

So funny little dancing icons aside, the fact is that the mechanisms have been discussed, some in detail, and that their relevance to the science of evolution is important, but that does not make them a necessary part of the theory that needs to be detailed.

Of course you could still be conflating the process of evolution with the theory of evolution with the science of evolution (as I have noted before, and which you denied). Certainly the science of evolution discusses all the known and theoretical mechanisms, their relative merits and influence on evolution and their validity, and it tests them, but this is because this is what science does.

A theory is just a statement, and can be as simple or as complex as you wish, depending on who you are talking to or depending on the theory. The theory of gravity is that mass attracts mass: do we need to discuss mechanisms by which this occurs?

A theory can also be restated for different purposes: if you want to test evolution in the field you cannot use "the change in frequency of alleles in populations over time" as you cannot measure alleles in the field. Likewise it is impractical to use changes in morphology of fossils in a genetic lab.

As you note there are many different ways to say the same thing, but the fundamental aspect of all these ways of stating what evolution is and what the theory of evolution is remain fundamentally the same, they all involve measurable changes in the hereditary traits of species as a result of mutation variations, ecological opportunities, the relative levels of natural selection and other mechanisms, and the statements that are preferred by different subfields relate to those subfields (ie genetics, lab experiments, fossils and fieldwork)

And there is the matter of the level of detail you want to include in the statement of the theory and how much you want to include in a discussion of the theory in relation to the science, and how much you can assume your specific audience knows about the topic: I can say "descent with modification" to a biologist and he knows what I am talking about, while a layperson may think I'm talking about testicles and individual growth. I've been through a whole thread on another site about the different ways you can describe the theory of evolution:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=771&m=1
Or you could say that evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and that the theory of evolution is that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world today, from history, from the geological and fossil record and from the genetic record.

This has essentially been the sum total of your response on this issue, this is your evidence for my statments being a watered down, weakened and diluted version of Darwin's original theories. Your evidence is a "smiley" denoting bored disregard. Thanks for the (total lack of) effort to defend your own argument. But then we both know that the evidence does not exist because your claim is false.

There is no "rest" of Darwin's theory that has been excluded from modern versions in general and from mine in particular.

Obviously I do not need to continue ... as you have demonstrated what Russ said at the beginning:

You have demonstrated this in spades, thanks.

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]