Summations Only

i hate to be a pain, but that's the definition of "evolution."

---

Ok, I came here to debate about evolution, and I'm not getting the experience I would like. I started about pepper moths, but the argument turns around to me and my words instead of evolution and it's fallacies. I would like to propose a challenge, for a one on one moderated debate (in the appropriate topic - the Great Debate) with anyone who would like, to show the proof that directly relates to evolution, macroevolution. Step right up to the plate. I want a real debate, where the debate will be directly about the evidence and what it shows in regards to evolution. Who's up for it? Razd, you seem to like attacking me in particular, maybe you would like to accept my challenge? Or maybe someone else? Come on now, let's agree so that we can ask for a debate topic to be opened up for us. Either accept the challenge, or deny it, but don't keep on debating about me and what I say, the topic is evolution vs. Creation, so let's do it how it's supposed to be done... I'm waiting...By the way, I do not wish to reply to the attacks at me, if someone has something about evolution, evidence, pepper moths, natural selection, etc, then we may debate and discuss. But discussions about me, my words, what you think of them and what you think they are, etc, is not really on topic here. Remember, try to debate about the information and interpreting it, not the people.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

(shh, you'll spoil the fun ...)Seriously though, SWC had said it was "microevolution" not "macroevolution" so the better response would have been "no, they don't show macroevolution"Nor do they demonstrate speciation, just changes in the frequencies of alleles below the speciation level (so far).

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

First try A Critique of the "Evolution Essay" where Lithodid-Man issued you a challenge to defend your "essay" the last time you were here.If you feel you are being ganged up on, then you can ask for it to be moved to the Great Debate.But you should make some effort to answer the rebuttals that have been posted about your misrepresentations and repeated falsehoods eh?abe: Just to be clear, what I am talking about is a demonstration of a willingness to debate in good faith, actually dealing with the issues raised, and answering them, rather than continued blind unsupported assertion after blind unsupported assertion -- it's the other half of the equation /abeEnjoy.Edited by RAZD, : {abe}

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Someone Who Cares writes: If your words, what anyone may think of them, and what anyone may think they are, etc. are off-topic, how are we to divine what you really mean by your posts or your essay?

However, my take on this particular case (as with the finches the Grants study, for instance), is that it represents a positive demonstration of one of the key mechanisms of evolution, not evolution writ large. Arguing the peppered moths or changes in beak size in Geospiza fortis on Genovese - especially since the allele frequency in both those cases reverted to something approaching the original distribution - shows only how natural selection operates over the short term. It provides one line of evidence for evolution, but in neither case does it show the other key elements of evolutionary theory (such as descent with modification, etc). Therefore, when a creationist claims the experiments with industrial melanism or variation in beak size due to environmental pressures don't show evolution (by which they either mean speciation or long-term evolutionary change and descent with modification = macroevolution), then they are making an extremely trivial observation. Hence my "Duh, no kidding" response.My two cents.

I see no one is brave enough to step up to my challenge so far... Just one brave soul to debate with me one on one...And yes, it is very overwhelming, I feel I am one against a whole army, that's why I want to switch to a Great Debate with someone...Come now, who shall defend their FAITH in evolution?Like I said, I want an accept or deny reply, not more talk about me and my essay and my words to avoid the real matter...I'm still waiting...Now I feel like Goliath when he challenged Israel to send one man to fight him... Who's the David of these forums?

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

I volunteer. However, it may not go as quickly as you may like. I have a life independent of this forum.ABE - It's your move.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

Great!Yeah, me too, I have a life independent of forums as well, so... Oh, and when my classes start, I may not be able to get to this at all, so have that in mind...First we must agree on a topic for the Great Debate, what shall it be? Proof for evolution? Validity of Evolution? My essay? Something else?

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

I believe it should be your essay.Edited by anglagard, : ABE - The reason being for me is it already provides a clear starting point.

Ok then, I'll notify a mod or administrator that we want to have a Great Debate.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

Already taken care of. The essay thread has been moved to Great Debates.

Oh... I already sent an email to the Administrator... If it comes, just ignore it then. Edited by Someone who cares, : No reason given.

---

"If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown

oh, yes, i keep forgetting that creationists opperate under the assumption that 1+1≠2. sorry, my mistake.

---

They also tend to think that there is a "creationist logic" that is different from "evolutionist logic" ... (color mine for emPHAsis, capitals in the original ... false btw, assertion.)when what they are really up against is that their NON{logic}, such as using strawman arguments, arguments from incredulity and the like, ≠ {logic} -- whether actual logic is used on evolution, physics, chemistry, or day to day events, or whatever. Likewise logical fallacies are logical fallacies whether they are posted by creationists, evolutionists, tv ads, pollitical campaigns, etcetera.There are no special creationist or evolutionist subfields -- the arguments are either logical or not, and you don't make something logical by calling it so.Of course they also think that NOT{evolution} == {their creationism}, a basic logical fallacy of the first order.