For Inquisitor, et al: What is Evolution?

Greetings Mams!

quote:

---

Appletoast/Ten-sai/Zephan/Inquisitor will ignore any post where he is required to support for his statements

---

They were questions I was asking, not statements, unless the statement was made IN RESPONSE TO a bold, unfounded assertion of yours like, e.g., "evolution does not say rocks evolved into people over billions of years." I say evolution most certainly DOES, but we'll get to your definition, supra, in a sec. But anyway, suffice it to say, you are clueless as to what constitutes the responsibilities of one who proposes a bizarre theory and thereafter tries to prove it with evidence (btw, evidence is a LEGAL TERM dumbazz).Some of you would even have your adversaries define the terms of the elements of that which you wish to prove which sounds like you really don't have a grasp of the subject matter at all. Hence, this thread asking eachother what is evolution. The logical conclusion is, like whatever it is you people think 'evidence' is, there is no generally accepted scientific definition of the same.Unfortunately, I'm not as gullible as you folks. I don't believe it is scientific to claim rocks turn into living things, YOU DO, and your theory says so too. Therefore, I have to back up nothing, but only probe into whether there is sufficient evidence to back up the bold claims. In short, the entire burden to prove evolution is yours, and your burden also includes answering the challenges to your pet theory. As is seen time and again, when the lights come on, the cockroaches scatter.

quote:

---

Late last year I managed to get him to argue the definition of evolution with me when he at one point claimed it was rocks to humans. I argued the difference between abiogenesis and evolution with him and then at some point he never responded to my posts again.

---

Sure you did, Mams. But you never could identify the line of demarcation between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution must have a beginning, and your mere opinion and speculation as to the beginning of evolution does not constitute credible evidence, scientific or otherwise. I am aware you don't like discussing the achilles heel of evolution, abiogenesis, simply because it is your weakest argument and implies life descended from molten rocks. Nor do you wish to discuss the starting point of evolution, the first population, since there is no more evidence of the identity of the alleged first population than that of abiogenesis. A no win situtation for you. In truth, you didn't contribute ANYTHING at all of substance, and can't since there is nothing of substance to contribute. Glad you are finally realizing this most important observation.

quote:

---

Similarly, there were several threads dedicated to the definition of evidence and how scientific evidence differs from legal evidence

---

Really? I counted only one thread. Embellishments are for your adversaries, and I would advise you to simply, clearly, and concisely stick to the relevant issues lest you fall into the trap of getting off topic and straying away from your proof of evolution.But you never did SHOW how scientific evidence differs from legal evidence. In fact, I said ALL scientific theories could be demonstrated in the courtroom, except of course evolution. Wonder why that is? You, in turn, suggested that it was due to the difference in scientific evidence and legal evidence. But real scientific evidence fits quite nicely in the courtroom.Sooooo, would you articulate that difference? Recall that "evidence" is and always will remain a LEGAL term moron. Scientific evidence is the SAME AS LEGAL EVIDENCE in so far as the alleged scientific evidence can be shown to be relevant, probative but not prejudicial, credible, and reliable. Scientific evidence of this nature is what we seek from evolution, is it not? If scientific evidence truly differed from legal evidence, there would be no such thing has FORENSIC EVIDENCE! False dilemma and non-sequitur.Problem with evolution is defining it and identifying its elements such that, when the elements are proven the theory will be too. So now that you've given us a definition of evolution, what say you are the elements of the proof of evolution? Futuyma painted with a pretty broad brush:

quote:

---

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve.

---

Glad Futuyma is intellectually honest. He CLEARLY includes ROCKS in the definition of evolution. Rocks "change", and after about 600 million years of cooling off, they become life. Fits quite nicely in Futuyma's definition.You are just embarrassed to admit you believe rocks can turn into people over 4.5 billion years. You are too embarrassed to admit you even believe rocks have the capacity to create life. The reason is because such an admission would not be consistent with scientific evidence. Yet, if you don't hold "molten rocks" in the chain of custody of your belief system giving rise to its progeny very shortly thereafter, life, so state. But you would be contradicting your hero, Futuyma.Anyway, it's been fun to expose you people for the frauds you are, especially Crashfrog who LIED about Phillip Johnson allegedly "spreading falsehoods". Crashy never did get around to quoting Johnson (he'd have to read Johnson first!) and identifying the precise "falsehood" Johnson disseminated, only vaguely stating that a mere argument against philosophical naturalism (what precisely that argument was Crashy took issue with we will never know) was a "falsehood" in his mere "belief". Tip for Crashfrog: You make a terrible liar, and if you are ever called to testify in your defense I would advise you not to as you would quickly lose your case.Why you evos stand for this poser to defame, slander, and generally lie about the character of an individual without backing up his statements per forum guidelines is beyond me. Crashy tried to weasel out of saying he called Johnson a liar, by stating Johnson was just ignorantly "spreading falsehoods". But if Crashfrog ever got around to actually PROVING his assertion that Johnson "spread falsehooods", we could've addressed whether Johnson knew what he was saying was false. Instead, Crashfrog has become himself that which he despises in others.Crashfrog will never be reprimanded though, as he is an evolutionist. Reprimands and permanent bans are saved for the most formidable adversaries, like Peter Borger and myself.So, I'll be shutting off the ligts now, and you cockroaches can come out of your holes again.Maybe Pambini can enlighten on the difference b/n standards of proof and burdens of proof. He had much trouble with those concepts in the past. But leave it to the layman to always be an authority on legal terms (like evidence), and without me around, you will at least have some legal advice from Pambini, the guy with zero legal training and experience. I wouldn't advise that you actually rely on Pambini's advice when involved in the legal process, but it's fun to pretend the layman is a legal expert if you think it will help your argument. Competence is the key word here in the real world, which Pambini is not.Oh yeah, and DO make sure you get the last word in...bet your fingers are just a itching for the keyboard right now. Perhaps you could ban me first (?) so as to ensure you get the last word, although this most likely will be my last post.Don't get too upset about it all either. After all, it's only Science!