Is there any evidence for evolution?

[lesliedellow]

That's not the scientific definition.

Yes it is.

You just define Darwinism. Now I have already defined it and differentiated it from Darwinism.

You can define it to be sausage and mash if you like, but that won't make it so. The meaning of a word is determined by its popular usage, either within a specific group, or amongst the population as a whole. It is not determined by Mark Kennedy's usage.

That's what happens when you don't bother to think seriously about meticously crafted scientific terminology

Coming from you, that is a joke and a half.

 

[lesliedellow]

Yes Nature magazine wants me to do an article on the deleterious effect of Darwinian fallacious rhetoric on brain cells. Would you consider donating a sample? I need it for my research.

Um, you could simply use the word 'no', in place of obfuscating verbage.

 

[mark kennedy]

He seemed to be having a little trouble with knowing what words meant, so, like the good samaritan that I am, I thought I would help him out.

I'm not the one struggling with the meaning here and as usual you abandoned the context of the question. I was asked in circles to make an argument against the theory of evolution which is ridiculously easy to do. The problem is that evolution and the theory of evolution are two very different things. Evolution is a naturally occurring phenomenon. TOE is a misnomer for the Darwinian a priori assumptions of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. The definition you offered is the latter.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yes it is.

Is not is not

You can define it to be sausage and mash if you like, but that won't make it so. The meaning of a word is determined by its popular usage, either within a specific group, or amongst the population as a whole. It is not determined by Mark Kennedy's usage.

Sure but Mark Kennedy can determine the definition without your permission or approval and prove you wrong at will.

Coming from you, that is a joke and a half.

None of this is above a six grade level and you don't have to struggle with the semantics here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes Nature magazine wants me to do an article on the deleterious effect of Darwinian fallacious rhetoric on brain cells. Would you consider donating a sample? I need it for my research.

Ouch!

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm not the one struggling with the meaning here and as usual you abandoned the context of the question. I was asked in circles to make an argument against the theory of evolution which is ridiculously easy to do. The problem is that evolution and the theory of evolution are two very different things. Evolution is a naturally occurring phenomenon. TOE is a misnomer for the Darwinian a priori assumptions of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. The definition you offered is the latter.

The definition I offered is that used by the scientific community, and it is also what the man in the street understands the word "evolution" to refer to. "Micro evolution" is a term creationists invented when even they couldn't deny the hard fact that bacteria were evolving to become antibiotic resistant.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Micro evolution" is a term creationists invented when even they couldn't deny the hard fact that bacteria were evolving to become antibiotic resistant.

Ya.

We should have used the term you guys use here: "baby steps," shouldn't we have?

Then you guys would probably pluto it to "fetus steps."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ya.

We should have used the term you guys use here: "baby steps," shouldn't we have?

Then you guys would probably pluto it to "fetus steps."

... no... just no.

 

[AV1611VET]

... no... just no.

Which term is more scientific: "microevolution" or "baby steps"?

 

[mark kennedy]

How many times have you complained about others using semantic arguments?

Please stop with the semantics and get to the meat of the argument.

We are at the meat of the argument. These discussion are riddled with poisonous fallacious logic specifically of the issue of equivocated meaning. The actual scientific literature is the down hill slope. You just have to get past the shallow debate tactics first

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which term is more scientific: "microevolution" or "baby steps"?

Neither. Microevolution is a term created by creation scientists and baby steps is an idiom.

 

[lesliedellow]

We are at the meat of the argument. These discussion are riddled with poisonous fallacious logic specifically of the issue of equivocated meaning. The actual scientific literature is the down hill slope. You just have to get past the shallow debate tactics first

Excuse me sunshine, but "equivocated" is the past simple tense of the verb "to equivocate". Only in Mark Kennedy's version of English is it an adjective.

 

[mark kennedy]

The definition I offered is that used by the scientific community, and it is also what the man in the street understands the word "evolution" to refer to. "Micro evolution" is a term creationists invented when even they couldn't deny the hard fact that bacteria were evolving to become antibiotic resistant.

The change of allele in populations over time was the working definition in the modern synthesis. There are usually four selective qualifiers mentioned along with the founder effect genetic drift and speciation. Unlike you I take the specificity of scientific terminology seriously when attempting to navigate detailed research.

 

[mark kennedy]

Which term is more scientific: "microevolution" or "baby steps"?

Its ok because they now know what the definition for evolution is so they can't use two definitions. I always have to do that or they forget that evolution is defined by genetics not atheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither. Microevolution is a term created by creation scientists and baby steps is an idiom.

QV please: How many forms of evolution, are there?

I'm surprised Rick isn't correcting you.

Birds of a feather, I guess.

 

[RickG]

Um, you could simply use the word 'no', in place of obfuscating verbage.

When we receive obfuscation for a direct question, it is more than obvious, that the obfuscator realizes that their view is incorrect but is unwilling to acknowledge that fact, thus goes off on a tangent, quite often with a Gish Gallop.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

QV please: How many forms of evolution, are there?

I'm surprised Rick isn't correcting you.

Birds of a feather, I guess.

You know I'm right.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know I'm right.

Ask Rick.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ask Rick.

Don't have to.

 

[RickG]

QV please: How many forms of evolution, are there?

I'm surprised Rick isn't correcting you.

Birds of a feather, I guess.

I don't know the origin of its use or the context of that original use with respect to evolution in general. However, it has become quite a favorite term misused by creation science in general. With respect to biology, that is not my field of expertise and I do not mind admitting mistakes when I make them. My descriptions of micro and macro evolution are mine and how I understand them.