Greg still seems to be avoiding the lettered questions. Greg, do you care to respond to them?
Already given.
Greg wrote:
You can consider it anything you want. Philosophers, english teachers, biologists, and so on can see it isn't tautological. In fact, you can see that by the fact that you misstated it. A correct statement of it is:
An organism which fits its environment better is more likely to have a greater number of children that survive to reproduce. It's not tautological because it requires heritability and because it contains the indepdently measureable factor of surviveability.
Apologetics Press - 15 Answers to John Rennie and Scientific American’s Nonsense—Argument #2
No, as myself and others here have pointed out many times, the experiments do not simulate millions of years of natural selection.
Natural selection is negated as a preserver through pressures like predation, but preservation is in fact simulated. As already pointed out to you, natural selection does not create organisms. All that is needed is for random mutations to be isolated and induced and the variety postulated which will be preserved through various environmental pressures will be observed. If Darwinists assert that various random mutations will turn a fruit fly into a grasshopper or any other creature through random mutation while selective pressure from changes will preserve a given change, like weather patterns, predators, etc, even without the predator random mutation should be able to produce the change. Even without the predator wiping out those without the mutation, random mutation should be able to produce those that have the mutation. If it were produced it would be documented. But all we see is that given by Dobzahnsky. Fruit flies become only weaker fruit flies.
Natural selection removes the harmful mutations (so it doesn't matter if there are more of them, which there are), and propagates the useful ones. I hope that's more clear than your statement.
What useful ones? Only weaker fruit flies were produced.
You are aware, I hope, that many beneficial mutations (thousands, in fact) have been documented, right? Should that be put on the list?
"As far as timing of natural genetic engineering is concerned, McClintock emphasized the importance of stress events she called "genome shocks" for activating the built-in systems of DNA rearrangement. Now that these systems have been investigated at the molecular level, we have many examples illustrating how natural genetic engineering can be kept latent during normal proliferation but specifically activated in response to particular signals (see 9, 10, 16 for specific references not given below). � In repair responses, we know that DNA damage triggers the activation of mutator polymerases and non-homologous end joining activities (34, 36). � In specialized DNA rearrangement systems, like the ones used in our immune cells to generate an enormous variety of coding sequences for antibodies and T-cell receptors, the necessary genetic engineering functions turn on in response to developmental controls.
� Similarly, a yeast retrotransposon undergoes transcription, reverse transcription and integration in response to mating pheromone.
� In bacteria, the phenomenon of "adaptive mutation" occurs when cells activate MGEs and mutator polymerases in response to long-term starvation signals (16, 47).
� A particularly important source of rapidly-activated natural genetic engineering called "hybrid dysgenesis" takes place when individuals mate with individuals from a distinct interbreeding group or species (7). Hybrid dysgenesis results in extraordinarily high rates of mutation and chromosome rearrangements caused by DNA transposons and LINE elements in fruit flies, DNA transposons in nematode worms, and retroviruses in mice and wallabies (48)."
These are some of the parameters within a which hundreds if not thousands of beneficial mutations have taken place. You compare that to the 80 years study on random mutations which reveals
"The clear-cut mutants of
Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."
—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126."
Of course, by your reasoning and appeal to natural selection being able to produce the plethora of organisms here today, the fruit flies in the lab have escaped a major disaster which wiped out all the other fruit flies in the wild which means that the fruit flies which are deformed, dying from diseases, inferior in every aspect, are naturally selected, hence this is evidence for Darwinism.
You said you would do it, now you are saying you won't? There are many more features on any classification system than two. I hope you know that.
I said that I "could". Youve changed it to "would"
could
 
 /kʊd; unstressed kəd/
Show Spelled[koo
d; unstressed kuh
d]
Show IPA
–verb 1. a pt. of
can1 .
–auxiliary verb 2. (used to express possibility): I wonder who that could be at the door. That couldn't be true.
3. (used to express conditional possibility or ability): You could do it if you tried.
would
2  
 /woʊld/
Show Spelled[wohld]
Show IPA
–noun
weld2 .
will
1  
 /wɪl/
Show Spelled [wil]
Show IPA auxiliary verb and verb, present singular 1st person will, 2nd will or ( Archaic
) wilt, 3rd will, present plural will; past singular 1st person would, 2nd would or ( Archaic
) wouldst, 3rd would, past plural would; past participle ( Obsolete
) wold or would; imperative, infinitive, and pres. participle lacking.
–auxiliary verb 1. am (is, are, etc.) about or going to: I will be there tomorrow. She will see you at dinner.
2. am (is, are, etc.) disposed or willing to: People will do right.
That section really makes me wonder again if you understand what a nested hierarchy is. Transitional forms do not violate nested hierarchies, or classification wouldn't be possible.
Im taking examples from your
own people.
"While it might seem that this arrangement is obvious and unavoidable, it is not. Taxonomic groups are defined by traits and it should be possible to mix traits from multiple defined groups. An example from classical mythology is the Pegasus, a creature with features defined as both mammal (produces milk like a horse) and
bird (has feathers). Mammals and birds are both orders, so, if Pegasus existed, it would be a violation of the nested hierarchy, a creature that belonged to two separate groups. Likewise for satyrs (human torso, goats legs), jackalopes (rabbit body with an antelope head) and crocoducks (crocodile head, body of a duck). "
In other words, not finding a croco duck is evidence of Darwinism. Finding a crocoduck is evidence for Darwinism. Seeing that we are not finding crocoducks, nested hierarchy is now put into the limelight as the prime product for circulation. A creationist who would get into an argument to disprove nested hierarchy by providing a crocoduck, would then be proving Darwinism by providing evidence for supposed transitional fossils. But lets look at why cars cannot be used.
"For instance, motor vehicles do not show conservation of traits to single taxonomic groups, no matter how you choose to define your taxonomy. Whether a car has air-conditioning is completely independent of whether it has power-steering,"
There are many examples in living organisms where features do not depend on the other. Whether or not an organism has a digestive system is completely independent of whether it has wings.
"Life, however, shows a clear nested hierarchy, at least with regards to multicellular organisms. An animal that produces milk (
Mammals), will also have hair, have four limbs, be
endothermic (warmblooded) plus possess many other characteristics."
An animal that produces milk does not always have four legs. A crocodile has four legs but does not produce milk for example. Likewise you can always find similar features in a car. A car with a steering wheel may always have wheels for example. A car with a speedometer will always have an engine.
"Why should this be? Why do no other animals or plants produce milk? Why do no mammals have four limbs plus a pair of wings, like the Pegasus or angels? This fits easily with the idea of common descent, but is not what would be expected from special creation (although it isn't completely at odds with creation either, as the creator(s)
could create life in any configuration imaginable)."
Precisely. But if you do find a mammal with wings of an eagle and the body of a horse, with four legs, this would be "transitional".