Is Evolution Intellectually Viable?

"Can anyone tell me the fallacy he is using here? "
--Strawman? Or maybe Misrepresentation? Wait, even worse, a misrepresented strawman. :\------------------

"Than you don't actually believe in evolution."
--Evolution = Change through time. Or would you rather prefer a change of allele frequencies over time. Either way, as I too find no difficulty with accepting this, is accepting evolution.--Edit - With your edited addition of "What you believe in is a creationist's cartoon version of evolution." It is obvious that as I explained above, this is not a 'creationist's cartoon', dispite how much you may desire that it be the contrary.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-05-2002]

"You had said that you didn't believe in the "molecule to man" theory of Evolution, but this is the accepted and accredited version of Evolution. If not than what is your version of Evolution?"
--Those are Tranquilities words. I explained to you what evolution is in my last post. The 'accepted and accredited version of Evolution' you speak of is not mere 'evolution' but is the 'biological theory of evolution' or something more specific along that line.------------------

"When I speak of evolution I mean all parts of it, not just the narrow definition creationists try to pin on it."
--Evolution is as I said it is above. This is not the 'narrow definition creationists try to pin on it' but the definition included in my available biology text-books.------------------

"Molecules to man" is not the ToE. Evolution deals with the adaptations of populations to their environments. This excludes the 'molecules' part, which is dealt with by those studying abiogenesis. TC is correct, though the fuzzy line between the two is disconcerting. Funny, it is much more comon for creationists to want to mix the two fields."
--While this is also correct, the differentiation nos & me are tumbling over was evolution vs. the theory of evolution (which in its semantic self would not be adequate, though the use of the wording 'theory of evolution' has come to be known as evolution over geologic time.) 'evolution' simply implies change over time, or in biology a change in allele frequencies over time. the word used singularly does not have a given period of time by which phylogenies may be expanded by inherited mutation.------------------

Back in post #13, Tranquility said:

quote:

---

And I believe in evolution too - just not the molecules to man extrapolation.

---

I think that is where nos got the impression for writting post #17. Of course he incorrectly may have thought that was me speaking.------------------