Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Seeing this I tried Firefox and was able to access it. Thanks.--Percy

Nope, you're the one espousing a "worldview" that evolution as a science has to fit some framework that you have in your mind. Biology is messy, it's analog and doesn't always fit into nice neat formulas or laws like some other sciences but it's still science and there are literally mountains of evidence that has been gathered and reviewed and similar mountains of published papers about said evidence. You're in Michigan, the University of Michigan does research into evolution. I'm sure you could find someone there who would be more than happy to educate you all about evolution. I was a student there back in the early 80's and had the honor of taking a paleoanthropology class from Dr. Milford Wolpoff.

Apologies, I received these links in previous discussions. Though I must say I found them of little interest, also.And please see Message 60 for a better understanding of meaningful data I am looking for.

Well, I guess you haven't been paying attention, because that's exactly what we find. All fossils are "in between" their ancestors and their descendants. In fact, that's kind of a standard principal of life, all organisms are between their ancestors and their potential offspring. Do you disagree? Please provide specific examples of what you are talking about, since almost all species that have ever existed are extinct. Are you saying they didn't have ancestors because they are now extinct? That's true. Do you dispute that organisms with a spinal chord and internal skeleton are all members of Phylum Chordata? Do you dispute that the only organisms with feathers are birds and avian dinosaurs? Do you dispute that organisms with 3 major body regions, 6 legs and at most 4 wings are all insects? Actually Evolution is a scientific field of study and not a thinking, acting entity.I think you will find that any speculations in reputable scientific papers or texts are clearly labeled and discussed. This is often to encourage further exploration or observation and discovery. Scientists build on the discoveries of their predecessors, that's part of the repetition in science.

Could you explain your reasoning? The latter might require a little contemplation to see the implications, but isn't descent with modification overtly obvious everywhere? Haven't you observed this yourself with every baby? I'm not certain enough of your meaning to comment. I certainly hope so. All theories, even those of physics, are subject to change in light of new information or improved insights. You were offered a number of concise definitions. My own favorite short definitions are descent with modification winnowed by natural selection, and changing allele frequencies in populations over time.--Percy

Would that your conclusions possessed the same rigor. For just a single counterexample, give this a click: Google Scholar search for "creating new species"Your conclusions seem to ignore mountains of empirical research on evolutionary topics.--Percy

Why?Why do you think that evolution is something that you must debate against?Do you think that it somehow conflicts with something that you support? If so, then what? And, again, why? And in what manner?But at the foundation of these questions is the big one: What do you think evolution is?You are obviously a creationist. I've been involved with discussing creationism online since about 1986, so for about four decades.In all that time, no creationist has ever answered the question of what he thinks evolution is. All creationist claims and arguments and statements "about evolution" must be based on what they think evolution is, but everything they say about "evolution" makes absolutely no sense at all. Obviously, their "evolution" is something completely different from what evolution actually is. It would help us greatly in helping creationists to understand what evolution is so that they could actually address and criticize evolution instead of wasting all their time attacking a stupid strawman (ie, their "evolution") that has nothing to do with evolution.And yet one thing that they will never do is to tell us what they are talking about. Indeed, the one question that terrifies creationists the most is, "What are you talking about?"Corollary questions are:

1. How do you think speciation works?
   They seem to think that it's the abrupt massive change of one individual, described by one creationist as "a snake lays an egg and a bird hatches out of it" (seriously, though he was using that as his "definition" of punctuated equilibrim). And that kind of bizarre idea leads to arguments like "Where did that new species find a mate?", or that the new species (eg, the first chicken) would have to have also "evolved" all its major body systems instantaneously.
   ​
   Creationists come up with the most insane and insanely stupid ideas. And they refuse to tell us where they're getting that nonsense from.
   ​
2. Just what the hell is an "evolutionist"?
   You just used that word yourself in the OP. What are you talking about?

I need to leave for class now. Gotta hustle! (that's the first class)

Can you provide an exceptional example of such a fossil sequence?

A good part of this discussion string has been me pleading for a definition of Evolution. I provided my own understanding of Evolution in Message 5 in that hopes that I might be corrected with the official definition of Evolution. Alas, I only managed to bring scorn upon myself.Evolution strikes me as remarkable in that it is so widely accepted yet so thoroughly unsupported by the Scientific Method. And the farther we delve into the details the more incoherent it becomes, the more debatable it becomes.

I'm very interested to see just a small sample of this mountain of evolutionary process empirical data. Keeping in mind that empirical data is derived from experimentation, or from direct observance & recording of the phenomenon.And no, direct observation of the fossil record doesn't count.

And, indeed, there is a lot of experimentation and empirical results.

Says who? You don't make the rules about what science can or cannot observe.

Please see Message 70.

Please see Message 68.

Now you are at the point in your trollish arc where you claim answers were already answered, their challenges met.If that is so, quote or briefly summarize your rebuttal. Otherwise you are taking up bandwidth that could contain actual meaning. Shall we now debate the progress of the debate? Soon you will tire of this and leave to troll something else you don't understand -- the opportunities are legion.Why waste your time and ours?Please see yourself out.