Still trying to play "hide the pea," eh CTD?
This from one who has a whole thread, and at least 3 unsmall sections of other threads dedicated to redefining 'evolution'.
Not "redefining" CTD, but providing
alternative definitions that all mean the same thing. It is the
meaning, after all, that is important, rather than how you say it, and it seems that many creationists (you and Russ included) don't seem to understand or use a proper definition of evolution, so one needs to try alternatives to help improve understanding.
We also have had a long discussion about how much difference there is in the definitions used, and you were unable to point out any differences. This failure on your part to demonstrate any difference in effect means that your claim is false. Perhaps you would like to try this time to do so, as without your provision of any actual differences it seems all you are left with is claiming something that is (a) nothing more than your misunderstanding of what evolution is, or (b) false.
Not that I'd say evolutionism has anything other than an antithetical relationship with biology, now, but some try to paint quite another picture.
Yes, you never try to insinuate, or imply by innuendo anything, rather than actually provide something of substance that you could actually substantiate with real evidence.
Anything on the internet, on TV, in books, uh, pretty much anywhere, can be made up to look like this or that. (Anyone who's even moderately familiar with conspiracies knows this quite well.)
Anyone familiar with the falsehoods in advertising in general, and political ads in particular, knows this as well.
That's where verification comes into play. The factual content in many of the videos Russ has posted can be verified to a high degree of confidence without too much trouble.
And yet, curiously, you don't provide any. Perhaps you would like to post some now, or do we again play the game of adding to the list (mountain) of unsubstantiated claims made by CTD that amount to nothing better than
ad hoc fantasy so long as they remain unsubstantiated?
The claim about a lack of transitional fossils is false, and quoting Gould (and others) as done in one video is nothing more than standard creationist quote mining and misrepresentation.
If you want confirmation, that'd be new evidence. Testing against old evidence is circular.
Not quite true, CTD: testing against the evidence used to develop the theory would be circular, but any other evidence can be used to test it. Thus you can develop a theory based on observation of life existing today, and test that theory against the evidence of life that existed in the fossil record.
And, of course, every new fossil find is "new" evidence that did not exist when the theory was formed.
And, as you point out, new evidence, such as the whole field of genetics (which was totally unknown in Darwin's day), can substantiate or invalidate a theory. The problem for you is that genetics substantiates the evolution of species from common ancestors in a way that matches the relationships developed from the fossil record to an astounding degree.
There is no evidence existing today that contradicts the theory of evolution, none, and that is the test of theories:
contradiction by evidence.
Of course "theories" which fail against even pre-existing evidence are invalid. If only more folks had understood this in Darwin's day, a lot of waste could have been avoided.
Perhaps you can provide some of this pre-existing evidence that you think invalidates evolution (keeping in mind that your understanding of evolution has not been shown to match what is used in the science of evolutionary biology).
But your argument is somewhat flawed. If every theory is required to explain all evidence, we're in trouble. I don't think any theory can cut it. There are a lot of unexplained phenomena.
But the fact remains that in considering the validity of any theory you need to look at all the evidence, because you do not know what will invalidate the theory by providing some contradiction. The explanation provided by a theory, though, is necessarily limited to what the theory says.
For instance the theory of evolution can be stated as the theory that the diversity of life is due to (1) evolution, the changes in hereditary traits in populations of organisms from generation to generation, through mechanisms that include mutation and natural selection, and (2) speciation, the division of life forms by reproductive isolation and the subsequent accumulation of different evolutionary changes in different environments.
You can look at a rock and test to see if it is affected by evolution: it is not a living organism, and so the theory of evolution explains that there are no offspring that have different hereditary traits.
You can look at the moon and test to see if it is affected by evolution: it is not a living organism, and so the theory of evolution explains that there are no offspring that have different hereditary traits.
Certainly,
if rocks and moons did have offspring that showed different hereditary traits,
then the theory of evolution would be severely weakened as an explanation of the diversity of life, as it could be due to the same process that was affecting the rocks and the moons.
But no, the theory of evolution does not explain the
orbit of the moon, because the theory does not
talk about orbits, but about the changes in living organisms. The theory of gravity explains the orbit of the moon, and it does not explain the changes in living organisms ... however the two theories combined explain the behavior of many organisms that, among other things, mate when there is a full moon, an explanation that is
incomplete without both of these theories.
If evolutionism could explain the planets, moons, and sun, ...
The theory of evolution explains that these objects are not affected by biological evolution because they are not living. Thus the sun giving birth to a sunlet would be a surprising development.
There are a lot of unexplained phenomena.
Which is what makes science so much fun: trying to explain what has not been explained before. Certainly the "job" is not done, so of course there are many "unexplained" phenomena.
Now in the given context, you could have been trying to establish an impossible standard for creation science, or you could have simply meant "all relevant evidence". In the latter case you have no argument, so my interpretation leans somewhat against this.
Except that you do not get to "cherry-pick" the evidence. That is why you need to look at all the evidence and see (a) how it is affected by the theory (does the theory predict any behavior of the evidence that can be tested to see if it happens), and (b) how the theory is affected by the evidence (does the evidence contradict a prediction of the theory - do the behavior of rocks and moons and stars contradict the theory of evolution).
Indeed, rather than presenting even the most vague, rambling, pseudo-argument; you chose to change the subject rather abruptly. ... (RAZD quote re tanning) ... Has nothing to do with anything under discussion. Nothing whatsoever.
Except that it relates directly to a previous misunderstanding of evolution, a claim that was made by Russ (and supported by you), in spite of the fact that the concept was falsified long ago.
Here we are, again, discussing what evolution
really is, and how it is misunderstood by many creationists, you and Russ included, and that such misunderstandings render the comments made about evolution irrelevant, and thus evidence of such misunderstanding is relevant.
Enjoy
