(responding to "Mechanisms should not be classified within evolution.") 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?
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.
This is your third response, and you still haven't answered your own question. Care to make it four?
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.
Nonsense! Every time you post you provide plenty of ammo yourself. But this ammo can only show that you are wrong - it can't force you to care about being wrong.
I haven't complained about you mentioning mechanisms. I've pointed out that Darwin's "theory" includes mechanisms. You mention them, but maintain that they're not part of the "theory" (sometimes). When it suits you, you'll maintain that they are. So what?
How does including elements when it suits you, and excluding them when you're in an excluding mood make you right? How does flip-flopping make your definitions all the same?
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.
Why not? Oops! That's kind of your own question. Sorry...
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.
Or you could be attempting to confuse issues... Is there any reason for you to be so optimistic about the gullibility of everyone present? As long as you're at it, would you care to define the religion of evolution or the philosophy of evolution?
If there were to be a genuine "science of evolution", it would not consist of a definition. It would not consist of assertions. It would consists of procedures. It would need something to test, and it would have to proceed with actual tests rather than contests of imagination. It is easier to imagine things which are vaguely defined, but much more difficult to test them.
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.
Bummer. Guess that sample of equivocation is only useful for rhetoric.
Now I think half of what you're doing here is fishing; hoping someone will, in the heat of argument, provide you with a nice new "theory of evolution" which will satisfy you (for a time). I'm not that generous.
But I will provide you with this: 'Evolution' cannot be defined by stating a single expected manifestation of evolution. If it is to be defined via manifestations, a comprehensive list is required.
Flame me now; plagiarize me later. You're welcome. Or simply note this rule & proceed to break it willy-nilly.
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.
Yes, one must be familiar with a catch-phrase, name, or title to understand it. Talking of Big Bird or the Cookie Monster won't work with someone who isn't familiar with Sesame Street.
"Descent with modification" is good for meteors too. Any meteorologists in the house?
I've been through a whole thread on another site about the different ways you can describe the theory of evolution:
You're too modest. There is not just one such thread.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blah.gif" alt="" />
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.
Is the smiley evidence or not? If it is, how can it not exist?
My evidence was presented, and rather than answer even your own question you produce <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blah.gif" alt="" />.
Indeed, the strongest evidence is found in the actions of evolutionists. What could I say that would demonstrate the content of the tenets of the religion more effectively than the expulsion of anyone who questions a tenet? Behe didn't question the process of "biological evolution". Gonzalez' work was in astronomy! But evolutionists attacked them. These things aren't secret.
