Summations Only

We are going to go around and around in circles until I get a full grasp of what you mean by support by evidence. You have not told me yet so I guess you enjoy going around in circles.

Where has my claim been shown to be incorrect and why do you feel it has been shown to be so?

See Message 61.That showed formation of a new structure where it had not previously existed.That alone falsifies your claim.

It isn't always possible to obtain the "rock" but that doesn't mean the "rock " doesn't exist or is a fantasy. Asking someone to provide that kind of evidence before they will consider the validity of your argument is a ridiculous requirement. If you won't consider any arguement I make until I provide you with the "rock" then I guess there is no reason for you to speak with me. That condition is impossible for anyone to meet. I guess that is why you always demand that condition of creationist's. You know it stops the discussion dead cold and you get to claim victory even though you were too chickenshit to try and dismantle the argument presented.

That doesn't falsify my claim because you are defining a new structure way too broadly. I define new structure as something along the lines of a tonsil. You cannot produce a tonsil from random mutation and natural selection where there was no tonsil before.

I forget which class it was where we were given these terms -- I think it was linguistics (I was a German major at the time) and the terms were used to distinguish between two different ways to compare languages. Here are the terms:
1. synchronic -- at the same time. This form of comparison would compare differences and similarities between related languages at a fixed point in time.2. diachronic -- through time. This form of comparison would compare features of the same language at two different points in time and thus would study how that language had changed over time.I think that keeping those terms and concepts in mind will help here. That is correct. But you need to also keep in mind what we're discussing.Consider one definition of evolution which also gives us a way to measure it: change in a population's genome over time. Or, to avoid the appearance of arbitrarily defining evolution in terms of a population, we could reword that to be change in the genomes of the individuals within a population over time.OK, you and I are individuals within our human population. Our genetic make-ups (AKA our genotypes, AKA our DNA), are slight variations of the overall human genome. Where did you get your DNA from? From your parents, as they had gotten theirs from their parents and so on back through time. When we were conceived, two random packets of half of each parent's DNA combined to give us our own DNA. And that's what we're stuck with for our entire lives.So then, if we observe an individual diachronically from conception to death, do we ever observe that individual evolving? Do we ever observe his DNA, his genotype, changing over time? No, we do not. Therefore, individuals do not evolve.Now observe a population of individuals. First, we observe the population synchronically, comparing its constituent individuals with each other. We find that they have mostly the same traits, though with some variation (eg, some are larger, some have slightly different pigmentation) and we note the kinds of variation and how extensive and prevalent those variations are. We might even observe that some individuals have one or a few traits that the others don't have and we note what percentage of the population has that trait.After we have made a number of synchronic surveys over time (over enough time for the individuals of the previous survey to have died out, so the population now consists of new individuals), we can now observe the same population diachronically. We compare our synchronic observations from different times to see how they may have changed. We may observe that the extent and prevalence of some of the variations have changed; eg, subdued camoflaging coloration may have become more prevalent. We may also observe that some of those new traits have become much more prevalent and are now the norm, or that they have all but disappeared. What we do observe is that the overall genome of the population will have changed over time. Therefore, populations evolve.So then, individuals do not evolve, but populations do. QEDBut let's take it one step further. Individuals themselves consist of individual cells, each of which contains and uses a copy of the individual's DNA and each of which copies that DNA when it reproduces; even though we as individuals reproduce sexually, our cells are constantly reproducing asexually through mitosis. These cells can experience mutation, for example light-skinned individuals exposed to bright sunlight (ie, UV irradiation) over time can suffer mutations in the skin cells that create lesions (actinic keratosis, AK for short) that can develop into skin cancer. However, these mutations are all localized and do not change the individual's overall DNA. Also, these mutations that occur in body cells will die with the individual and not be passed on to any offspring; it is only the mutations arising in germ cells (ie, the cells that produce gametes) that will have any chance of being passed on to the next generation.I hope that all made sense.

In my reply, Message 89, for example. Quite conclusively, I felt.Why do you feel that my reply did not show your claim to be incorrect?

Okay, so you understand what is in that post.Now you understand how evolution happens and that Creationism or Intelligent design are simply irrelevant.Is that correct?

This is so far from actual genetics that it's not even clear what it is you're trying to be wrong about. It's as though someone was to pretend to be knowledgeable about sports by saying: "The second baseman was caught leg before wicket, so the goalie was awarded a slam-dunk" ... it's not merely that this is a description of something that never happened, it's not even a description of something.Perhaps you should begin by learning the meaning of the word "trait". A trait is a possible variant of a character: e.g. if the character is eye color, blue eyes would be a trait; if the character is whether or not one has earlobes, then having earlobes is a trait.Now, obviously it make no sense to talk of the order of traits, there's no difference between having blue eyes and earlobes and having earlobes and blue eyes. The idea of "the same traits in a mixed order" doesn't mean anything. Either that, or geneticists know about genetics and you don't. I have followed your advice and concluded that you are spouting ignorant claptrap.

Hi foreveryoung, Well you are the one that keeps going back to the beginning, while apparently ignoring all the comments that have been made to guide you to a better understanding.Objective evidence is something that can be verified by someone else as actually existing.You can pick up a rock, put your hand on another rock and smash it with the first, and you will have substantial objective evidence that rocks exist.I can do the same. The existence of rocks is a fact of reality, and denial of rocks would be delusional, yes? Do you agree that denial of the existence of rocks would be a false belief or opinion? Yes NoDo you agree that denial of the existence of rocks after smashing your hand with one would be a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence? Yes No In the replies to your posts - you can go back and look at them - and if you don't understand how they refute your assertion THEN reply to those posts on that issue. So you would rather occupy 2 hours of your time here trying to learn something available in a textbook? AND waste 2 hours of our time trying to teach you fairly simple concepts? Are we supposed to be nursemaids for incomplete education? Curiously, this is precisely the level of evidence required by science and the scientific method. This level of evidence is what separates scientific theory from hypothesis and conjecture.If it is too much work for you, then perhaps you are not cut out to be a scientist or to debate scientific concepts ...This is precisely why scientific experiments need to be verifiable and precisely why scientific articles on the development of new science information are peer reviewed before they are published in scientific journals.Do you agree that an argument supported by a rock is much stronger than one that is not supported by a rock? Yes No There is little reason for you to make posts that cannot supported by that level of evidence if you want them to be considered as scientifically valid rather than fantasy. The choice of how you present your arguments is up to you. And yet you concede that rocks exist, so obviously it is possible to talk about concepts supported by this kind of evidence.The fact that this level of evidential support is required by science means that if you are going to challenge science you need to do it with the same level of support, and not by make believe fantasy. That is why people demand that condition for anyone that challenges science. Creationists just tend to be a particular subset of that category.You challenge scientific concepts by doing science, not by popular vote or under educated opinion. Yes it stops the discussion of any and all unsupported imaginary fantasies dead cold, just as it SHOULD when talking about science and scientific concepts.Concepts that cannot be supported by evidence are not scientific concepts. They are hypothetical and philosophical concepts at best, fantasy and delusion at worst It is a loss every time someone fails to understand and refuses to learn. Or because you are "too chickenshit to try and" support "the argument presented" ... ?Or are you just completely unable to support your argument, and you want us to just accept it out of some bizarre misguided sense of pity, thinking it will somehow make you a better educated person as a result?Edited by RAZD, : clrty

To: Dr Adequate I knew that. That is why I had given you example so that you will know where you will be using that word "trait" because ToE loves to make explanation without any realistic application.Let us go back to our example:If generation1 (gen1) had the following traits as a whole (take note: as a whole)t1, t2, t3, t4, t5...., t100, (from t1 until t100)then gen1 will reproduce the same traits to gen2, but since there is no "perfect clone", then, the traits will be mixed up in arrangement, like thist3, t50, 67, 80, ....t1...(the same complete genes/traits with gen1).That is how we see "changes" that was incorrectly labeled by ToE as "evolution" to the point of making new species.The problem is: when gen1 reproduces gen2, will t200 or t500, new traits, will be formed? No! Since how could genes mutates if that t200 or t500 is not present in gen1?You see, ToE is messing up science and making fantasy.Am I rght?Edited by intellen, : No reason given.Edited by intellen, : No reason given.

Wrong. The answer is yes.

Again, you're not exactly painting a picture. What, in the real world, do you want to correspond to the "arrangement" of the traits?Instead of a hundred traits, let's consider two --- the two I've mentioned. Let t1 = having blue eyes, and t2 = having earlobes.What is the difference between the "arrangement" t1, t2 and the "arrangement" t2, t1? Now you need to learn the meaning of the word "mutate". No. You are pathetically, ludicrously wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

OK, then you need to start with an operational definition of a new structure. "Something like a tonsil" isn't any use. You need to supply a set of tests and/or operations that anyone can perform when trying to decide whether or not something is a new structure. Anyone can apply that definition and everyone who does will come the the same conclusion for a particular structure.Of course, you can't supply such a definition, partly because you don't have a clue and partly because it's just so much easier to dismiss anything we present as "defining a new structure way too broadly".

OK, let us use your scenario.Yes, that is a change! From this combination: t1, t2 to this combination, t2, t1...that is exactly a change.If gen1 has t1, and t2, then, gen2 will also must have t1, and t2, too. But since there is no perfect clone, then, t2, t1 is a possibility since we have only two traits. And that is not evolution. That is only a change. In my own discovery, I called it "interrelation."So, where is evolution and where is mutation? Do you imply that t3 will be formed? That is a fantasy! OK, I'll play. BUT you need to be sure that you know the meaning of "inheritable traits" because this will be the biggest blow to ToE.How can you show that t3 will be formed by mutation or evolution?