Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Agreed, 100% can never/almost never be attained. Offhand I can't think of anything that does, nor anything that might potentially do so.Regarding morphology, relatedness, and species designations: The concept of common ancestry - maybe this is better described as something else, perhaps? - is the part of evolutionary biology that put its supporters at such stark, sometimes virulent odds with the Creationists.

However, you present NO supporting evidence. Please note, you could not accomplish any of that, even if you wanted to. Without a shred of supporting evidence, everything you wrote can be dismissed as pure BS.

How old is the earth K. Rose?

No, what puts evolutionary biologists at odds with creationists is when creationists attempt to force their creationist bullshit into science classrooms.And why would we want to describe common ancestry as something else when common ancestry is the perfect description of common ancestry that everyone already understands.

The link Taq provided was to the section on Prediction 1.2: A nested hierarchy of species from 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1. It makes clear that nested hierarchies cannot be formed from things like refrigerators or bicycles, and it clearly explains why. The nesting is a reflection of the evolutionary branching that took place in the past, something that doesn't happen with refrigerators or bicycles.A nested hierarchy means that the phylogenetic tree is objectively formed, which means the node characteristics (primarily DNA) drive the organization. With refrigerators and bicycles many tree-like organizational structures are possible. One person might organize bicycles with manufacturers at the top level, bicycle types at the next level, and size at the next level. Another person might put bicycle types at the top level and manufacturers next. Other manner of organization are possible, too.But with a nested hierarchy only one organization is consistent with node characteristics. This means that only one node qualifies for the top position. For mammals the top node would be the common ancestor of all mammals. The top node could never be, for example, cetaceans, because no mammalian order, like primates, rodents and carnivores, are descended from cetaceans. DNA analysis makes this very, very clear.A nested hierarchy means you have a tree with evolutionary branching. Life isn't the only thing that produces a nested hierarchy. Languages do, too. If I come across other things that produce a nested hierarchy I'll mention them. Evolution occurs in all life, not just in "higher" life forms, and again, "higher" isn't really meaningful.Evolution is an accepted scientific theory and is no more foisted on the public than any other accepted scientific theory. You're free to believe evolution is wrong and misguided and atheistic and whatever else you like. No one can stop you. But if you want to knock evolution from its perch as accepted science then you're going to have to do science yourself and produce the evidence that accomplishes that.But this has already been tried. ICR, CRS, Answers in Genesis and a host of others all tried to make inroads into scientific circles to make creationism or Intelligent Design into accepted science, and they all failed. Because they're religion, not science.Sometimes "Einstein was wrong" people come here. They, like you, complain about a false theory being foisted on the public. Again, there is no certainty within science. All science is tentative.And evolution is ubiquitous. Evolution occurs every time there is reproduction. How could that not be so given that mutations are inevitable and selection is unavoidable?--Percy

It's important to recognize that the unknown outweighs the known. This is the purpose for empirical testing - it's a big step in removing the unknown as a factor.As a starting point it's reasonable to assume that past life has been lived much as it is today, in general, and albeit in much less physical/material comfort and with far mor day-to-day threat to life and health.But the unknown outweighs the known. We can take the scraps of data that we do have and put together an explanation of how it all went down, giving meticulous consideration to each data point. But, absent any proper record-keeping, we can never really be certain of how accurate that explanation really is.- Ancestry.com may be one of the foremost DNA experts, I don't know. But based on the timing and presentation of their product hey seem to be more oriented toward curious pre-neophytes, rather than actual biologists.

Throughout this string I have requested empirical testing that demonstrates common ancestry for all life forms. I have yet to see it. However, here is an aggregate summary of the responses I have received:"Many highly knowledgeable scientists have been working on this for a very long time, and this explanation represents their conclusions. Anyone who challenges this explanation is either uneducated in the matter or willfully ignorant."Again, with no empirical test data presented, and no accounting for the unknowns.

I subscribe to the Times - I think I might have read that article when it first came out. Yes, this is what I was thinking of when I mentioned law enforcement tracking down criminals.--Percy

It is supposition, that's why it is prefaced with "It appears".See Message 247 for an example of why it appears this way, a.k.a, Fact as Established by the Concurrence of the Credentialed.

Also, most coins are not perfectly balanced, as with US coins whose heads side has more metal than the tails side. This would bias the flip slightly to prefer one side over the other, so that it's not a pure 50/50 probability. Ever so slight, but in a large number of tosses that bias should show up.Also, there's a third possible event, namely the coin ending up on its edge -- that was even used in a film where the coin landed on the floor and rolled up against the wall. Extremely unlikely, but still possible. After all, adding those two green numbers to the other 36 numbers on a roulette wheel biases the otherwise pure odds in favor of the house. That's how the casino makes money ... unless it's owned by Trump.

I don't mind that there are those that there are those who disagree with me vehemently. I have come to expect this on every front of life. So I choose my battles very carefully.In this matter a large-scale misrepresentation is being foisted on the public, even though it may be as subtle as "it is" vs. "it seems to be".

Yes 100% is a high bar, and in other posts I have addressed the fact that this essentially unachievable. But it remains the goal, the thing against which we can track the progress of our efforts.

You are correct, I do not have any empirical test data that conforms to the Scientific Method.

I don't have the exact number, but somewhere between 6000-7000 years.

And yet ICANT worships a human clone, though he has the gender completely wrong.Biologists are well aware of parthenogenesis (AKA "Virgin Birth") and have studied it thoroughly, I'm sure. There are species in which a female can produce offspring without benefit of a male -- that was even a plot device in Jurassic Park when the dinosaurs started reproducing on their own (they blamed the frog DNA used in reconstructing their genomes). While it has been observed in several animals, including a few vertebrates such as some fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, it has not been observed to occur in mammals in the wild, though it has been induced artificially in mice.One of the things about parthenogenesis is that the offspring it produces are genetically identical to the mother. In the case of the XY/XX sex determination mechanism, that would mean that they would all be female. Which means that "Jesus" would have to have been a woman, hence the more accurate exclamation: "Jessica H. Christ!".Share and enjoy!