Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

quote:

---

So the question becomes whether it is possible to demonstrate that a definition is false in a short and succinct manner.

​

If it can, then this is the proper and preferred course of action.

---

RAZD, time for a little soul-baring.Coyote finds your lengthy posts hard going. Percey, with breath-taking condescension, suggests that you should tailor them to the level of comprehension of your correspondent.The real reason you should consider shortening your posts is far more machiavellian- the more arguments you make, the easier it is for your adversary to evade the truly telling ones.If you posit arguments A, B, and C your adversary will choose the weakest of your points, counter that, and pretend the other two never existed.I know this, because it is a strategy that was used extensively against me (until I shortened and sharpened my posts) and one that I myself employ ( in fact I was called on it once, by Wounded King I think, who advised the rest of the board not to post "extraneous material" to me).You are a skilled and knowledgable debater, RAZD. Don't let me and my kind of the hook by giving us easy options!

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

quote:

---

When was macro evolution validated?

---

Whether or not ICANT returns, he (or she) has illuminated a very salient point in the Evolution/Creation debate.I am a Creationist. And I believe in macroevolution.The problem was succinctly described by Dr Lee Spetner, in the foreword to his book Not By Chance."Evolution" has at least two (and probably more) meanings.Is "descent with modification" evolution? Then I believe in it.Is "macroevolution" evolution? Well, insofar as it means speciation through sexual isolation and subsequent genetic mutation resulting in an inability to reproduce with the previous organism, yes, I do believe in it.The problem is, as Lee Spetner points out, that evolutionists then take these two (observed) processes and use them to "prove" a completely different proposition: the idea of speciation to a higher level of morphological complexity. Eyes, lungs, retractable claws and all manner of mind-numbingly complex features all become the result of genetic copying mistakes and fluctuations in the environment.And that's where "the observed" parts company with "the inferred".Does mutation create a new species? Yes it does. It is observed. Does it create an eye? No. Not in a gogillion years, in a million different universes at once.Edited by Kaichos Man, : too many parasEdited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Oh, RAZD, your slip is showing!So you admit, then, that the theory drives the facts? That the evidence must be worked upon until it fits the theory?Why must anything be "explained by evolutionary processes"? This is the mindset of a dogmatist. Not a scientist.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

From your source, Huntard: Emphasis mine. Our old friend phenotypic plasticity. Made all the more likely by the fact that other lizards belonging to the same family possess cecal valves. Obviously, the researchers realised that genuine random mutation/natural selection was highly unlikely to bring about this change in such a short time frame (36 years, about 30 generations).Which brings us back to the OP. Was the development of cecal valves evolution? Well, it certainly is descent with modification. Did it involve an increase in complexity?Well yes- if it is indeed the result of purely random mutation and subsequent selection.If however, it is merely a pre-existing genetic configuration that could be activated by changed conditions, (a cline, if you will), then it is not. The complexity was there all along- it was just dormant.See the problem? Both of these scenarios are technically "evolution". We creationists agree with one, and not the other.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Forgive my ignorance, but is it normal practice in Canada to educate one's posteria?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin