Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

I’ll accept that Evolutionism includes a broad category of studies, but there are a couple of essential components in in the Evolutionary process that go beyond mere natural selection and variance within like lifeforms. The notion of a random, non-directed, continuing common ancestry for all life forms is the most critical of these, critical in that it is the prerequisite for refuting Biblical Creation.My effort here is to understand the evidence showing that this is possible. How does one life form evolve into another? What is the mechanism? Can or has it been observed? Can it be reproduced in the laboratory?Scientists and Engineers understand the importance of observation and experimentation/testing, and the proper presentation of conclusions and their Certainty, including the Margin of Error, Probability, and Confidence, all derived using standard statistical methods. Note that Scientific Fact has a pretty high Certainty bar: Zero Error, 100% Probability, 100% Confidence.If measurable testing and observation cannot be performed, then there is no opportunity to substantiate the validity-certainty of a technical proposition. Great minds spending great resources on great explanations is a reasonable start, but it cannot supplant repeatable demonstration.These days the Great Deceit of many scientific theories lies in their presentation to the public as implied fact, and in allowing the misconception of factuality to stand.If Evolutionism can meet the high bar of Scientific Fact, then it should be presented as such. If not, then the Certainty of Evolutionary conclusions must be divulged front and center.

What I'm doing is asking questions, prickly though they may be.Confident Engineers and Scientists are generally eager to explain their hypotheses and address questions, if only to show their knowledge and reinforce their ideas. The good ones can break it down to terms their audience can understand, rather than launching into arcane technospeak.I have had some thoughtful responses, some a bit impatient, and a great many disdainful. To paraphrase a few: "you don't know what you're talking about", "your questions are nonsensical", "go take a class", "...usual lying", "go away".The defensiveness and reluctance to engage are quite telling. When you're over the target you'll take a lot of flak.

If the random, non-directed evolution of one life form to another has been observed in operation and reproduced in the lab then please share the details.Fact is absolute certainty - 100%! Granted there is probably no scientific proposition that can quite reach this point, but that's the target and the benchmark to measure against. If we're not 100%, then how close are we?I'll accept that Evolution is well-documented and well-studied, but how accurate is it, what is its certainty? For example, if we take one of the evolution diagrams showing the myriad life forms emanating from a common ancestor, how certain are we of its accuracy?

The Macroevolution link you provided, unintelligible to most laymen, discusses common materials found across lifeforms, which is as much or more of an argument for a Creator. Much as a refrigerator or bicycle manufacturer would re-use favorable design features across various products.Besides, at issue is the key dynamic of evolution, the linchpin, the one that is foisted ubiquitously on the public, which asserts that one higher lifeform (mammal, reptile) can eventually procreate to a completely different higher life form. Where is the evidence and certainty for that presented, beyond the explanation "Life Form A shares traits with Life Form B and somewhere in-between is where the evolution happened"?

There is much we have learned about biological make-up, chromosomes, DNA, et al., and this has all been accomplished through the painstaking work of sincere scientists. I suspect the majority of the knowledge that has been amassed is observable and, effectively, factual.This notion that biological similarity equals some type of ancestral link between all lifeforms - the linchpin of evolutionary theory - has not been proven nor disproven empirically. Keep searching for this if the will and the resources are there, but presenting this evolution "linchpin" as just another factual biological observation is, simply, disingenuous.

There's a great deal we know about DNA, and any legitimate scientist will concede there's a great deal we don't know.Ancestry.com can tell people whatever they want - who's to argue?We can take a set of known parents and their off spring, compare their DNA, and draw conclusions - this is legitimate experimentation with hard, empirical data
- but extrapolating these conclusions and extending them to all past and present lifeforms is mere supposition.All I would ask of scientists is to maintain overt separation between biological fact and evolutionary supposition.

It appears that there is a danger within Scientific disciplines, that when factuality as determined by empirically demonstrable conclusion cannot be had, an arrogant fervor takes hold and the group simply declares as fact the opinion of the most credentialed within the group.A little more on this in Messages 211 and 213.

Where does the extrapolation cease to be valid? Good question, and it will remain a good question so long as the ancestry in question is/was not available for proper measurement and observation.I accept that Evolutionary biologists read common ancestry into the genetics evidence; however, all genetic evidence points to a Creator.Please not that I would not conspire to prevent biologists from pursuing the common ancestry conclusion, nor would I forcibly prevent them from pursuing this, nor intimidate them into abandoning the pursuit, nor force-feed them my views.Also, the fact that you have drawn a conclusion from a set of evidence does not make that conclusion fact.

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.

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.

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.

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.