Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

You're right, thanks for noticing, . When I was composing the post in my mind I was thinking of the octopus eye, but while writing it became fish. I'll fix it.--Percy

An evolutionist is someone who accepts or buys into ToE. I know that you and others here prefer a term like “evolutionary biologist”, which might be quite apt for those on this thread, but the vast majority of ToE adherents are not evolutionary biologists, and may, in fact, have very little technical background. So the term “evolutionist” is intended to cover the full tent of ToE adherents. If there’s a better term I’m happy to use it.Following, evolutionism is, of course, the acceptance or buying into of ToE.

The quote cited supports creation, however unwittingly. An artistic Creator, in demonstrating beauty and order, would create diverse creatures that share certain functions that would very well show varying degrees of complexity in those functions, based on their role and place/order in Creation. A crustacean’s eye does not need the same functionality as that of a human, or an eagle, or a bat.Creation defines hierarchy, at the top of which is Man.

That Man is at the top of the heap should be obvious, but if it needs discussion it merits its own forum.
The eyeball has been mentioned several times, but never explained, just “possilbly’s” and “could haves”. Darwin’s quote above is the most comprehensive, but even he simply references features of rudimentary and complex eye structures and then notes “I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class”. In other words, ToE/natural selection is truth, so the eyeball has inarguably come about by some evolutionary process, asserted without direct evidence or demonstration. This is a near-perfect illustration of a worldview, i.e., ToE is ultimate truth so everything ultimately conforms to ToE, no proof needed. In other words, ToE is exalted in faith.And this faith explains the how the in-betweens make it through natural selection – ToE is truth, no need to quibble about details.Yes, seriously, about the common ancestor. If we are so knowledgeable of DNA and nested hierarchies, then we should be able to interpret a line(s) down to the bottom of the hierarchy, and we should have a pretty clear picture of what comprised this creature.

You're holding back.Most creationists, especially the professionals (eg, Drs D.Gish and H. Morris of the ICR (the very creators of creation science), Mr Kent Hovind), apply the adjective, "atheist", to "evolutionists". What say you? Are "evolutionists" also atheists by creationist definition?If all you need to do to be an "evolutionist" is to accept evolution, then does that make the many theists, including Christians, "atheists"? After all, Dr. Henry Morris in "defining" their "atheistic Evolution Model" stated outright that it includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern".Actually, in the "Two Model Approach" (TMA) which forms the fundamental basis of "scientific creationism" (AKA creationism) the "Creation Model" is nothing other than young-earth creationism (the "Creation Model" is never revealed in public except when creationists go even more stupid as in Arkansas Act 590 of 1981, entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science Act," where the creationists included their definition of the "Creation Model" which exposed that law as having purely religious purposes -- creationists quickly removed that definition in its sister law in Louisiana). The TMA's "Evolution Model" is then everything else, "including most of the world's religions, ancient and modern", including most Christian teachings (remember that fundie YECs are a definite minority among Christians). So then most Christians are "atheists"?Yeah, you're trying to hand-wave your way out. We need a more complete definition and discussion about "evolutionists".Same with "evolutionism" which is obviously far more extensive than you are trying to hide. Note also that it suffers the same "atheistic" problems as "evolutionist", besides being a gross misrepresentation which has deceived you about evolution and other sciences.I need to leave for class now. 
PSYou seem to believe that evolution somehow conflicts with Creation. Again, WHY? And HOW?You seem to believe that you must choose between evolution and God. Again, WHY? And HOW?You are not making any sense! That is why we have to keep asking you to explain WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!And if you want to claim that there are problems for, with, and because of evolution, THEN PLEASE TELL US WHAT THEY ARE!  Explanation:

The term “evolutionist” is a creationist invention and is normally used by them as a slur. Scientists working in that field of study are called evolutionary biologists.Non-scientists that accept evolution as just another fact of life are called people. It's just another bit of science that they learn at school.What name do you give to people that accept gravitational theory? Do you have a special name for members of the general public that believe in Ohm's Law?You have to accept that the only interest you have in this particular bit of a science is the inconvenient fact that it disproves your personal mythology. Not even Christian mythology, just your version of it.As we're throwing isms and ists around, you're an extremist, a fundamentalist, believing in something that nomalists find utterly bizarre. How a modern person typing in a device that would be considered pure magic only 100 years ago can believe in a 7,000 year old earth is inexplicable.

Adding "ist" is legitimate terminology for referring to those who work in many fields, like meteorologist, biologist, physicist, and scientist, but it isn't generally done for those who accept theories. We don't calll people Big Bang-ists or atomicists or tectonicists or dark matterists or gravitationists or heliocentrists.Evolutionist is a made up term derogatorily used as a slur by creationists. If that's how you want to treat the people in discussion with you here then that's your choice, but I think it would say more about you than about anyone else here, just as those who have treated you in a derogatory manner are telling us more about themselves than about you.My advice is to stick to the facts, be honest, and avoid personal comments.--Percy

I will say that the term is useful within the small world of online debates that deal with creationism and evolution. However, it doesn't make much sense outside of online debates. As to the actual science, there is no debate within the scientific community. They are just biologists.

Darwin thought people might point to "organs of extreme perfection" as a piece of evidence against his theory because, as is common in many modern creationist arguments, all of the parts have to be present at once in order for the organ to function. His point is that it is entirely possible for organs with less perfection and fewer parts to provide function for the species that have them.This isn't a worldview. This is a refutation of a possible argument against his theory. Additionally, he was able to point to eyes with less perfection and fewer parts that were entirely functional. What faith? We can directly observe functional eyes with fewer parts. No faith required.The only faith I have seen are creationists who claim that something like the vertebrate eye could not evolve. We do have a clear picture of what common ancestors would look like. What we can't do is state with 100% certainty how any one fossil is related to other fossils or living species. We need DNA for that.

Why would these shared features be forced into a nested hierarchy?Shared features aren't based on their role or place/order in Creation. Whales don't have gills, they lactate, and they have all the other hallmarks found in terrestrial mammals. They don't share the features of the fish around them. This runs completely counter to the claims you are making. The fin of a whale has more in common with the human arm than it does any of the fish around it. You also haven't been able to tell us why fish have a backwards facing retina while an octopus has a forward facing retina when the share the exact same habitat.Can you tell us why this eye would require a forward facing retina?You simply don't understand what a nested hierarchy is which is why you fail to properly address it.

Yeah, it is obvious you think so. But I noticed that dogs have a far more sensitive sense of smell and hearing and can run faster, hell even chipmunks can run faster and they can climb trees, and birds can fly, etc. etc. etc.Humans are social animals and have a larger brain and can manipulate the environment on a far vaster scale than any other species, but you seem to be unaware that every species alive today is the latest survivor of a long line of ancestors. Each one is the top of their heap.This is simply untrue. I am unaware of any actual scientist who would think this is true. You are being dishonest here. Taq gave you details up the wazoo and you complained they were TOO DETAILED Scientists quibble about the details continuously. One of the coolest things about science is its cumulative nature, we build on past discoveries. We do already know quite a lot about molecular biology and nested hierarchies and many papers on those subjects are published in scientific journals every single day!What we have learned so far, gives us clues about some features early ancestors must have had. At the same time, fossils of complex multicellular organisms are being discovered in earlier and earlier strata.That's the nature of science, we keep adding knowledge to our base and reporting it, and complaints that we don't know enough from ignorant laypersons, implying that if we haven't found it yet we never can, are just plain silly.Scientist don't study and do research only focused on knowing everything, on the final result (if such a thing is even possible), but instead most (all I know) scientists are focused on the task of learning, it's the process, not the destination that gives us satisfaction, we love answers when we get them, but the work is the fun part. This is basic human nature.

Top of what heap? Every extant species on this planet, including Homo sapiens, is "at the top of the heap" of a long line of descent, but only in the sense of the most recent descendant.As far as one species being at the "top of the heap" amongst all species, there's no such thing. There is no overall biological measure for comparing species. You could compare specific qualities like speed, weight, population, etc., but there is no "top of the heap" measure that translates to "best," which seems like what you're looking for. Explained how? Why do you keep asking questions like this about eyes and whales and so on. Do you think that countless successive generations of eyeballs from hundreds of millions of years ago should have been preserved until today? Why?It would make much more sense to ask about the evidence that convinced biologists of evolution.And we've already had this discussion. You're just restating your original position as if all that discussion had never happened. I think you should have begun this thread this way. It would have been much more honest. Why do you think this? Even if you had DNA from every member of your extended family it still wouldn't tell you what any of your great-great-great-great-great grandparents looked like. It doesn't work that way. Why do you think it should?The evidence that convinces biologists of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on our planet has been provided in this thread. You reject that evidence, but for religious reasons, not scientific.--Percy

K.Rose doesn't seem to understand what a nested hierarchy is, so let's look at this phylogeny.Notice the characteristics mapped onto the phylogeny. Everything above that dot has those features. You only have to put the dot in one spot to cover all of the species that have that feature.This is exactly what we would expect to see with common ancestry and evolution. The feature evolves once, and it is passed down to descendants through vertical inheritance. Lineages diverge, but carry shared features that they inherited.This is NOT what we would expect from a creator that created separate species. There is absolutely no reason why there couldn't be a species with hair and two fenestrae, or a species with feathers and a placenta. After all, animals with hair and two fenestrae have a common creator, right? So why not mix those features together? What is stopping the creator? Why would a creator be prevented from doing so? Species with either a placenta or feathers have a common creator, so why not mix those two characteristics? Why not have a species whose mouth forms first (protostome) and goes on to have a backbone and jaws?There are additional features we could also put on that chart, such as number of jaw bones, number of middle ear bones, cusped teeth, etc. They all fit the tree. You only have to put them in one spot to cover all of the species.K.Rose mentioned tools in a previous post. What if we did the same there, organizing tools by category (e.g. drills, leaf blowers, lawnmowers, sanders, and circular saws). What would we see? Put them in any tree you want and then try to place a single dot on anyone branch where everything is run by a power cord. You can't do it. What about batteries? Nope, can't do that either. What about internal combustion engines? Nope, that won't work either. Heck, you can even get drills that are run by small combustion engines. Those features are spread out haphazardly across the whole tree. They do not form a nested hierarchy. You would have to put the same dot all over the place.Do the same thing for cars. Organize them however you want. Now, start placing a dot down for automatic transmissions. Again, those are all over the place. Run by electric batteries? Again, all over the place. Front wheel drive vs. rear wheel drive? All over the place. V6 vs. V8? Again, all over the place. You can't put one dot in one spot to cover these features. Cars do not form a nested hierarchy.When a designer creates things those creations never fit into a nested hierarchy because there is no reason they should. However, a nested hierarchy is the only pattern that common ancestry and evolution can produce when vertical inheritance is the dominant mechanism.

he does not understand mutation also.

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man