Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

It does make me chuckle when they claim "that's just microevolution because they are still bacteria". That's equivalent to saying, "humans and trees sharing common ancestry is just microevolution since they are still eukaryotes".

Ahh, yes, Proteomics. Now that we know how the genome makes the proteins we need to figure out how the proteins go about making a body, the phenotype. Those studies promise to be the magic that opens the entire biosphere to our customizing desires. The crocoduck and the CatDog come into reality.That effort is only about 100,000+- a million times as complex as charting the genome. Many genes contribute coding to more than just a few proteins and many proteins have multiple different uses around the body. That's going to take a lot of computers and a lot of people a lot of time.

We always seem to skip over the big evolution ideas, the ones depicted in schoolkids diagrams, and go straight to the observances performed through a microscope. It is not at all unreasonable to ask for a demonstration showing how a and mammal becomes a whale. If this demonstration is not feasible because it takes a long, long time, then, yes, that does cast significant doubt on the land-to-sea mammal theory. The default is not that something is true, the default is that it has not been shown to be true.There have been many spectacular failures in Science - and many spectacular successes – and many of these failures are discovered when the paper studies are put into practice/experimentation, the point where the unknowns are discovered, the impetus for necessitating that a thing be repeatedly demonstrated before we celebrate.And why can’t a nested hierarchy be explained by Creationism? The Creator, by definition, creates everything we believe we can understand and then some.

I see hypothetical common ancestor, and character change inherited by all descendants. This seems like a paper study, a classification of things that can be further investigated, and I’m not sure what it demonstrates.And I can’t explain your last sentence, and I can’t imagine how it demonstrates that long ago a simple organism developed into all of the creatures we know today, and all of the creatures whose bones we dig up.

I think you misinterpret my response. I am not refuting evolutionary theory, I am demonstrating that there is no concise explanation for these specific features. Microscopic observations do not demonstrate these developments.(…and the unique thing about the chameleon’s tongue is the hinging.)

I won’t disagree with any of this. I will point out that the simplified version of evolution that is presented to schoolkids is precisely the part of evolution that cannot be demonstrated, and is precisely the part that refutes Creation, and is precisely the impetus for this evcforum website. This simplified version is what some scientists believe to be true based on their other observations, but which they cannot show or “prove” to be true.Anywhere else this belief would be known as faith.

OK, Percy, here goes. This may be my last entry, we’ll see, but I want to say it has been fun!
In reply to 388, 389, and 391. Apologies for the long-windedness, tried to just cover some of the main points.REGARDING THE KITZMILLER COURT CASE
Atheism has sold itself as the neutral position in the separation of church and state battle, when in fact it is most doctrinaire in its absolutist approach to theism. How can you be neutral when you’re in direct competition with all other players? But that’s for another forum. Suffice it to say that Science has managed to align itself with atheism when it comes to things legal, and that’s why the court ruled in favor of science. It was just another bow to atheism, not an endorsement of evolutionary theory validity.THE UNANSWERD QUESTION FROM MESSAGE 1
My initial request was for a concise definition of Evolution. The answer has been that it’s not so easy to define (which is odd considering that every layman and schoolkid knows exactly what it is given the Zallinger’s March of Progress-type depictions they’ve been spoon fed their entire lives), and the responses have either been broad abstractions (descent with modification), or they have involved lengthy technical monographs that combine present-day data collection with assumption with speculative application to the past. Neither of these types of answers commits to something clear and absolute; they both leave the door open to evading commitment to any type of concrete definition. This is why my initial request is qualified with “concise” – there’s no point in debating phantom concepts.ADDITIONAL NON-ANSWERS
In this same way the evidence for evolution presented in response to my requests is incoherent to the layman, replete with exhortations to “figure it out before you question it” (general paraphrase). This type of response is perfectly analogous to telling a non-believing secular man who questions the Bible to go read the Bible if he wants to understand the answer to his question, and as a matter-of-fact go read it and understand it before you even raise any questions about it. This is preposterous response, of course, but this is the exact manner and attitude of the “answers” to my questions. A good scientist, like a good preacher, confident in what he seeks to impart, can provide a clear answer tailored to his specific audience.WILLFUL DISREGARD OF THE OBVIOUS
Creationist scientists would agree fully with many of the DNA and other microbiological observations you and the others have presented. The disagreement comes when the Evolutionist extrapolates those observations to explain that all life has descended from the same initial organism(s), in direct conflict with Creation. This common descent concept is the most important element of the debate, yet the Evolutionist has precisely no direct evidence for this idea of “common descent”, just references to DNA and nested hierarchies. This is not acceptable for an E-vs-C forum; the Evolutionist cannot provide mounds of evidence for the peripheral ideas and then wave hands at demonstrating the part that creates the whole E-vs-C in the first place.FURTHERMORE
And “accepted scientific theory” is a curious designation. Accepted by whom and, most importantly, why? If it has not been proven then isn’t it just scientific theory? What does “accepted” mean, is it an attempt to claim some unearned credibility? Like the designation “settled science”, “accepted science” flies in the face of genuine scientific principles: Perpetual inquiry and relentless skepticism.ONE LAST POINT
I may be repeating myself through my entries, but the lack of clear responses demands it (if we want to move the discussion forward). If you want to make a point then it’s incumbent on you to make it very clear. Pressing an argument by hurling out a pile of obscure data is just plain anemic – and very telling. And along with the other points in this entry a very clear pattern emerges.The Creationist attributes his most important observations to processes that he cannot see, that he cannot explain, and that he cannot demonstrate. This is his Faith.The Evolutionist attributes his most important observations to processes that he cannot see, that he cannot explain, and that he cannot demonstrate. This is faith.quod erat demonstrandum

Atheism does not have any doctrines. How can it possibly be doctrinaire? Do you even understand what "theory" means within science?

If, in all of that entry, this is what you choose to take issue with, then I must be hitting the nail on the head.

Hello d,Maybe it's your warm disposition, your thoughtful replies, or your considered empathies, but of all those who have responded, I think you will answer this question best:Take the set of all the knowledge we have amassed regarding Evolution and call that KNOWLEDGE.Now (here's where you suspend disbelief) imagine that tomorrow we discover something that invalidates everything we have come to believe regarding molecules-to-man evolution.How does that affect the process/products to which we have applied KNOWLEDGE? What laws, inventions, customs, and traditions would we have to re-do?(and, seriously, some of your linguistics, though caustic, are actually a bit clever and cause me to chuckle)

This is acknowledged. This is fabrication. Straw man. Evolution does see, does explain and can demonstrate. You just personally do not like the answers. Already defeated.

I disagree with a whole lot more. But it would be a waste of time bringing up issues where you have already shown that you are not willing to listen.

Well, you kind of pulled the old switcheroo on there. If it is KNOWLEDGE, then it is NOT belief.

But if a discovery happens that invalidates our KNOWLEDGE then I can absolutely predict that we would science the hell out of it and learn everything we could about it and figure out how we could have possibly missed something of such a significance that it could invalidate everything we have learned up to this point.
When we consider what effects new discoveries, after they are validated, across all of the scientific fields have had on the accumulated knowledge that defines those fields, it tends to be added to existing knowledge (with whatever revisions are necessary) rather than replacing existing knowledge. And you will find that major hypotheses that have been refuted and disregarded were not well established with lots of research conducted, primarily because when research was conducted the results showed the hypothesis was incorrect. Biologists want to work with the most accurate understanding of all the properties of life possible, just as all other scientists I'm aware of do in their own fields. We want to communicate our discoveries and thoughts to our collogues as precisely as possible so we go into fine details using the jargon of our field. We seldom spend lots of time worrying if the general public or school kids understand it or not, because we've begged the public to become knowledgeable about evolution but we seldom can get them to even finish the first paragraph.If we don't report our observations accurately we will end up being professionally embarrassed and it can destroy a career. Fraud sometimes occurs in science, and every single time it is discovered, it is by scientists and never by creationists. The detection and reporting of fraud is evidence that science functions properly.If you think the regulars here at EvC are all in brainwashed lockstep, just look at the science nerds squabbling over in the Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman thread.

Glad you've enjoyed it. I'll save my reply for if you decide to stick around.--Percy

So even though it gas been explained numerous times, you could not be bothered to learn what a Scientific Theory is.
None of this has anything to do with atheism.