Message 46 of 121 (374912) 01-06-2007 12:28 PM

Reply to: Message 41 by MurkyWaters 01-04-2007 11:20 PM

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

This will be long as it has to address several issues that keep reappearing in your posts.

Message 41

Definitions is ONE of the elements to be discussed. Read Message 1 again and you will see this is the case.

Others mentioned are The Age of the Earth, What Evolution "Says", "Information" and Creationists Did it First, with the opening caveat at the beginning of my comments that "I will take these issues to start with (keeping others for later to keep the debate simple) "

The debate is about evolution versus creationism. That starts with definitions that we can agree on, but the definitions are not the whole debate.

Nope.

Regarding Message 21

I have highlighted comments you made in yellow to emphasis elements that will be commented on after the whole quote (including some other irrelevant comments) in order to do this all at once instead of piece-meal:

As noted above I have highlighted your comments in yellow that are pertinent to this following comment:

What you are quibbling about is not that evolution is the change in species over time, but the degree of change. You keep thinking that there is some additional change going on that is not change but something else, and this is your refutation that evolution is not change over time? Please.

The other quibble you have is over the time scale. Again and again you express annoyance at any mention of time that exceeds 6000 years. This really has nothing to do with evolution being change in species over time, but over the age of the earth and the time that has occurred being included in the above definitions, time YOU have a problem with.

In a nut-shell evolution is change in species over time, you have CONFIRMED this with your comments, and the only quibbles you have are the degree of change and the amount of time.

Take your last "conclusion" again:

That is still just change in species over time. What you are including is your preconception of "something else" being included and your incredulity that it could occur to the degree that it has or that it had the time to occur.

That is not a refutation.

A couple of other points regarding two of the above comments of yours:

Hardly, seeing as not enough time passed for speciation to occur. You yourself said "neither resulted in a new type or organism nor did it take a long period of time" thus this is just an example of natural selection on existing traits within a population and has not reached the level of speciation. Given more time that is a possibility but that time was not given.

The Galapagos finches example is still a "genetic difference in organisms from generation to generation" because the frequency of the alleles for the different sized beaks changes within the population, first towards larger more robust beaks and then back to smaller slender beaks. In each case there were existing genes within the population for natural selection to operate on when one type was favored over the other for survival. Yes this is evolution, it just has not been "captured" by the process of speciation yet. This is change in species over time at the sub-species level.

We could work on this basis, and come back to abiogenesis later if you want. I also think you inflate "some" to "many" a bit quickly, but that is a minor quibble. But you keep raising it, as you did later:

This is stone-walling if you keep going back to this issue.

This is you stone-walling on the definition of evolution by trying to exclude elements of evolution that ARE included.

I have suggested a compromise position, that we set the bar a little lower to discuss "micro"evolution so that we then have a basis to tackle the issue of "macro"evolution.

The foraminifera. Message 25

Conclusions

Message 21 does not in any way refute the definition of evolution as change in species over time, rather it confirms it.

Message 21 does show a preconception on your part of some other mechanism being involved that you still define as change, just some mysterious "other" change that somehow is not change.

All your quibbles over evolution being the change in species over time have to do with the degree of change, not whether it occurs, and the time frame over which it occurs.

Back to Message 41

Again your main issue here is the degree of change and the time frame, NOT change in species over time per se.

Personally I find slogans ("molecule to man" and "goo to you") to be more distractive than descriptive, especially when they carry connotations that have nothing to do with the science of evolution and everything to do with the argument from incredulity. But if that is what you need to insulate yourself from the issue then feel free -- as long as we are agreed that abiogenesis is NOT part of our discussion for now.

Yes I've heard of parables before. They make a basic pretense at reflecting the truth, but are not restricted to doing so and there is no validation to the "truth" implied in them, they are fiction stories designed to have a moral implication, and not talk to whether what they say is really the truth or not, just what they want you to believe is the truth.

Emphasis on simple?

They are fantasy.

This particular one is also a fraud and a scam and a con, as it portrays dating methods in a false way and ignores completely the whole issue of validation and testing of the methodology so that the system accurately measures dates rather than random candle drippings.

This is typical of creatortionista lies and misrepresentations designed to cater to the willingness of gullible people who want to believe there are problems with science and who don't spend the time to check and see if what the creatortionista is saying bears any real relevance to the truth.

I'll mix my replies in with your questions in yellow below:

(1) So what is "macro" murk? More change over more time? What is the mechanism for "macro" that is different from and distinguishable from micro? We are still talking about change in species over time (as noted above in the comments on message 21), so in order for us to make any kind of microheadway on this issue you need to define what YOU think this is about -- or we will just get more stonewalling from you on what is "not" evolution according to your personal beliefs.

(2) I have, several times. You need to address those answer to move forward. The main problems you have are with the degree of change involved and the time frame involved. To address these from a logical standpoint we need to discuss "micro"evolution and the age of the earth to show that erroneous thinking based on false preconceptions are interfering with understanding of the issue. I have suggested doing this in several ways and you have refused to participate.

Your third option is you completely stonewalling on the definition of evolution and refusing to accept where you can be wrong. This would be you leaving the debate after failing to deal with the issues.

I'll be happy to answer all your refutations when you post them. And then proceed with more information on why this evidence is valid on so many levels that the refutations cannot apply to all of them equally and at the same time.

I have addressed them before, and I have again. If you don't read them the first time then they will need to be repeated.

Your three choices are (1) You keeping your definition, (2) you keeping your definition while we debate whether to end up at (1) or (3) and (3) you keeping your definition and pulling out of the debate because you can't accept being wrong.

On the other hand I have suggested going to a compromise at a lower level where we CAN agree and seeing where that leads us, and I have also suggested discussing things that affect your ability to accept being wrong, and you have - so far - refused to participate.

In spite of evidence to the contrary you are unwilling to even admit that you could be wrong about your definition and have refused to budge from that position.

The only way to get around that stone wall is to look around the ends and at the foundation for it. Dispel the mythos for the reality. Beating your head against a wall only feels good when you stop.

Again, this shows that you are caught up on the time frame, and not the issue of change in species over time.

If billions of years is disproved, then all that means is that evolution did not occur over billions of years. It would still be going on today, and the only issue would be the time frame.

We can talk about "last-thursdayism" where everything observed was created de novo last thursday, complete with the appearance of immediate history and vast age, and evolution would still be occurring today.

The only issue of time frame is how far back evolution can explain the change in species over time, not whether it can explain it at all.

You have my answer to the first three above.

As for the last one, the earth is old and there was no flood. This invalidates any position based on a young earth model and on a world wide flood.

Feel free to address that issue. Starting with Message 28, Message 33 and Message 36.

No, we deduce that there is no reason to assume a change when we see absolutely no evidence for such a change either in the evidence at hand or any other evidence.

There is no change in the basic way the tree rings look, whether they are from last year or 8,000 years ago, they still have winter growth and summer growth patterns and show typical climate variations with no extreme conditions. Certainly they show no sudden discontinuity in the data that a world wide flood would produce.

Deduction is not presupposition, it comes AFTER looking at the data.

Eyewitness. RIIIIGHT. The evidence for the world wide flood is the bible and the evidence for the bible being fact is? Presupposition. Coupled with denial of evidence that is contradictory - not a solid foundation at all.

quote:

---

delusion –noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

---

Logic requires rational thinking eh?

Natural selection was known about and discussed long before Darwin. It was felt at that time that this caused species to stabilize.

Darwin added that IF there was a mechanism for change THEN the diversity of life we see could be explained, that species would NOT stabilize - even though he did not know what the mechanism for change was (he deduced its existence and made it a theory).

Yes mutation has since been shown to be that mechanism for change, but that does not alter the fact that evolution is change, rather it validates Darwin's prediction based on his deduction.

They looked for and found the mechanism that was predicted by Darwin's theory. That is how science works.

LOL. You've been reading waaay too much ID and creationist propoganda.

Beneficial mutations have evolved, they've been observed, based on mutation and natural selection.

Denial does not make this evidence disappear or render it invalid, it just shows you are in denial.

The only discussion I am aware of that involves significant mechanism other than mutations is during the formation of first life, where horizontal gene transfer may have played a more dominant role.

This is not a "new" mechanism either, as we have known about it for some time (see short list regarding "micro"evolution mechanisms at the end of Message 17:

There is always the possibility of other mechanisms being involved: that is part of this being science and not dogmatic belief - the tacit understanding that what we know is incomplete and therefore subject to change. Over time. Based on new evidence and new deductions and theories.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : otpy

Edited by RAZD, : final wording

Message 47 of 121 (380722) 01-28-2007 2:34 PM

Reply to: Message 38 by MurkyWaters 01-03-2007 12:38 AM

I'll wait to post more when you are ready to confront the evidence.

Message 48 of 121 (381785) 02-01-2007 10:07 PM

Reply to: Message 42 by MurkyWaters 01-04-2007 11:23 PM

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Maybe this will help you understand the difference between the definition and the different applications:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02

quote:

---

The definition

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

---

Evolution is change (modification) in species (population) over time (generations = descent). The amount of change possible is related to the amount of time available.

Within one generation the amount of change possible in a population of a species is a shift in the frequency of alleles within that population. Some alleles are added (mutation), some are eliminated (death before reproduction), and some are more numerous than before while others are less numerous (drift or selection).

Change from generation to generation is sometimes additive -- resulting in a trend -- and sometimes revertive -- fluctuating about a basic pattern.

If you are looking for "macro"evolution to operate on the same time scale (or less) than "micro"evolution, you are looking in the wrong place and the wrong time.

Over the course of 3.5 billion years "micro"evolution adds up to the diversity of life as we know it -- all the living and extinct species on this planet. Yet each step is a "micro" step: change in species over time:

minimum "micro"evolution = ∑(change in species over time)_{generation a to generation a+1}

maximum "macro"evolution = ∑(change in species over time)_{3.5 billion years}

maximum "macro"evolution = ∑(minimum "micro"evolution)_{3.5 Byr/generation-time}

... but every step is by "micro"evolution.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : banners

Edited by RAZD, : wording for clarity

Message 49 of 121 (385936) 02-18-2007 10:59 AM

Reply to: Message 45 by MurkyWaters 01-05-2007 10:22 AM

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Ignoring evidence is not an alternative interpretation. An alternative explanation confronts and deals with the evidence, it shows HOW it came to be and HOW it supports your position. It confronts and deals with the evidence that contradicts the concept or it relinquishes the field.

False.

It assumes that the tree rings are tree rings. Then it looks at the evidence of those tree rings to see where the evidence leads.

Nor is "uniformiarianism" taken, but rather the opposite -- that the environment HAS changed in the past, we have the evidence for it -- just that the evidence is NOT for the extreme "non-uniforitarianism" of the world wide flood or a young earth. Both of these are fantasies not supported by evidence.

You have no reason to introduce extreme non-uniforitarianism without any evidence for it: this is not an alternative interpretation it is clutching at straws, making up myth, and fabricating fantasy.

You particularly do not have any valid kind of "alternative interpretation" to introduce extreme non-uniformitarianism when the evidence shows otherwise. You have to play with the cards dealt. Confront the evidence and explain ALL of it.

There can be evidence FOR any possible conclusion you want to reach - even that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun orbits it. The real issue is dealiing with the evidence that INVALIDATES the conclusion -- that is what science does. The young earth and WWF concepts are invalidated by the evidence.

It is not a matter of an alternative interpretation, it is a matter of explaining the evidence -- ALL the evidence. Without confronting the evidence that invalidates both the young earth model and the WWF concept all you are doing is ignoring evidence, not "interpreting" it.

Ignorance is not interpretation.

Any scientist that does not deal with the evidence that DOES invalidate their theory is not doing science, and will quickly be cut to shreds by his peers. Cold Fusion.

Typical straw man. Again, what the original theory by Darwin included was variation and natural selection, he just did not know at the time what the source of variation was. Now we do. That is an increase in knowledge.

What the evidence shows. All the evidence.

If you can't deal with the evidence that invalidates the theory then you do not have an interpretation of the data.

The earth is old. That is what the evidence shows. Deal with it.

There was no world wide flood. That is what the evidence shows. Deal with it.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Message 50 of 121 (385960) 02-18-2007 1:50 PM

Reply to: Message 26 by MurkyWaters 12-31-2006 5:27 PM

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Continuing with the working definition of "micro"evolution from Message 17:

Speciation is the generally accepted dividing line (currently) between "macro"evolution and "micro"evolution, in both biology and creationism.

In biology the process of "micro"evolution is mutation, genetic drift, etc, causing variation within the gene pool, and then selection by survival and breeding to pass genes on to the next generation, or natural selection of "more fit" individuals over "less fit" individuals for the particular {environmental\inner-population} dynamics that prevail.

In creationism this is often referred to as "variation and adaptation" but is the exact same mechanism, just using a different {words\names} to say the same thing (possibly to hand wave away any implication that we are really discussing "evolution").

In biology the process of "macro"evolution - where the term is used - is simply the accumulation of differences between populations that have become dis-linked after speciation has occurred: the more time that passes the greater the likelihood (or opportunity) for differences to be noticeable as being "significant" to human observers.

In creationism there is often a "cognitive dissonance" issue regarding "macro"evolution (what evolution actually says happens) and a common belief that something else happens on a comparatively brief time-scale and that causes some kind of sudden significant change or some kind of extra change.

The point of this discussion of "micro"evolution is to see how far we can go in explaining the evidence with the mechanisms of "micro"evolution, and see if we need some additional mechanism to explain some additional or extra kind of change.

There are several definitions of "species" that make this "dividing line" a little muddy. Most of the muddiness involves asexual species, species that reproduce only by cell division. In essence each individual is a sub-population that does not interact genetically with the other sub-populations (except by horizontal gene transfer, which is not necessarily species inter-specific either). Thus in asexual species the definition is fairly arbitrary: they are classed into species by the degree of similarity within groups. This is similar to the classification of species into higher taxons in traditional taxonomy.

The real issue for "macro"evolution with creationists apparently involves sexual species, so the species definition for asexual species is not that big an issue. For sexual species it is fairly well accepted that the failure to breed between two populations is sufficient evidence of speciation -- whether the two population can breed and produce viable hybrids is not considered relevant when the two populations by behavior don't breed. Certainly using sexual species and this definition of speciation to show speciation occurs will avoid any concern that the definition involved is arbitrary.

We can use ring species, such as the Asian Greenish Warblers⁽¹⁾ (Phylloscopus trochiloides) to demonstrate that it doesn't take much difference to create a behavior barrier to mating:

quote:

---

In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species. The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations. There is no place where there is an obvious species boundary along the southern side of the ring. Hence the two distinct 'species' in Siberia are apparently connected by gene flow.

West Siberian greenish warblers (P. t. viridanus) and east Siberian greenish warblers (P. t. plumbeitarsus) differ subtly in their plumage patterns, most notably in their wing bars, which are used in communication. While viridanus has a single wing bar, plumbeitarsus has two. Around the southern side of the ring, plumage patterns change gradually.

Male greenish warblers are very active singers, using song both to attract females and to defend their territories. Each male has a repertoire of song units, and songs are made by stringing together units in various ways. There is much geographical variation in both the song units and the rules by which units are assembled into songs.

There is a clear gradient in song characteristics around the ring, with the northern forms viridanus and plumbeitarsus differing dramatically in their songs.

---

One wing bar to two is not a significant change, but it is a change in a feature visible on the two different varieties. Change in mating behavior - song patterns - is a little different: it would not be something that would be recorded in any preserved specimens, but it is a distinctive part of mating behavior for all sexual species.

We can also look at the fossil record to see if there is a similar pattern with such ancestral rather than geographic separations. One such example is Pelycodus⁽²⁾:

quote:

---

Click to enlarge

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.

---

What we see is a gradual trend towards increase in size with time (what has been called "Cope's Rule" as hypothesized by Edward Drinker Cope, who also first identified Pelycodus jarrovii in 1874, the "type" species of the adapid genus Pelycodus), until a branching point is reached at which time one population rapidly (by comparison - still over a period of many thousands of years) decreases in size.

The distinction of species from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus trigonodus to Pelycodus jarrovii can be considered fairly arbitrary: we don't know whether they could interbreed or not, and the classifications are based on small changes in skeletal structures and size.

Likewise the distinctions between Pelycodus jarrovii and Notharctus nunienus or between Pelycodus jarrovii and Notharctus venticolus could be considered arbitrary (especially in the absence of the other), but the distinction between Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus is not arbitrary: there is a clear division between the two populations with no overlap in sizes. Whether they could interbreed or not is not an issue - they were reproductively isolated by the time the top of this diagram is reached. Thus we see the same pattern in ancestral species resulting in non-breeding subpopulations as we saw with the ring species warblers.

Pelycodus is tantalizing here, because the above article goes on to say:

quote:

---

The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

---

Where 'genus' is the next level up from 'species' in the standard taxonomy and thus we have a pending "macro"evolution division of species into two different genus taxons.

Nonetheless, what we have here is "micro"evolution with a speciation event that divides a population of primates into two daughter populations, each of which will continue to evolve by "change in species over time" within their respective populations -- by "micro"evolution.

At this point the population dynamics behavior apparently changes between the sub-populations: previous to speciation they were in cooperation, each sub-population accumulating variation and sharing it by gene mixing between the groups; after speciation there is no further gene sharing and the two populations are in competition for the same resources. I say "apparently" because from the standpoint of each individual there is no significant change: each individual behaves in response to in-group and out-group interactions. Prior to speciation all were in-group, and after speciation part are now out-group, and the only thing that changes for each individual is the definitions of in-group and out-group. In all cases (before and after) evolution proceeds in response to selection pressure for survival and breeding. The mechanism by which this is realized is still "micro"evolution - the change is species over time - within each population. Variation and selection. Change in the frequency of alleles within a population. Adaptation and selection.

This apparent change in population dynamics may be one reason for the appearance of "punctuated equilibrium" (punk eek) in some fossil records. In fact one interpretation for Pelycodus evolution involves punk eek (it also includes some additional species and uses an alternate name for Notharctus nunienus - Pelycodus frugiverous - and moves Pelycodus jarrovii higher on the diagram): Possible "Punk Eek" interpretation⁽³⁾.

Evolution is about opportunity, and what we see here is a gradual evolution of a species to a larger body size until a point is reached where the population divides. One population continues to increase in size, while the other reduces size back towards the original size. The gradual increase in size would mean the species is less adapted over time to the small end of the niche (high tree branches say), but better adapted over time to the large end of the niche (ground foraging, or some other successful behavior), and that at some point the small end would be left vacant by continued increase in size. This would create opportunity for a new smaller species, and this is what we see happening. Initially there is greater opportunity for survival for the two populations to continue to diverge - in size, behavior, habitat, etc - and less opportunity for survival fighting over common ground, until they are sufficiently different that interspecies conflict between them is not significantly different than interspecies conflict with other species. After that point is reached the two diverging populations can co-exist without driving the other towards extinction: this is when non-arbitrary speciation becomes solidified in two viable daughter populations.

Pelycodus is an example of non-arbitrary speciation of one species into two - related - species. The process of that speciation is in accordance with the working definition of "micro"evolution given above.

Enjoy.

References:

1. Irwin, Darren et al, "The greenish warbler ring species" University of British Columbia on-line, 2005 accessed 18 Feb 2007 from http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~irwin/GreenishWarblers.html
   
2. Lindsay, Don, "A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate" Don Lindsay Archive on-line, 25 April 1997 accessed 18 Feb 2007 from http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html
   
3. Carr, Steven M. ""Punctuational" interpretation of Pelycodus evolution" Memorial University of Newfoundland on-line, 2005, accessed 18 Feb 2007 from http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Pelycodus_punctuated.htm
   - Note that this shows there is some disagreement on the exact evolution path that occurred in this lineage, but that both agree that non-arbitrary speciation occurred at the point where Notharctus nunienus (Pelycodus frugiverous) or Notharctus venticolus have diverged into non-breeding populations. He also has "Gradualisitc interpretation of Pelycodus evolution" at http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Pelycodus_gradual.htm.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : added 'extra' change

Message 51 of 121 (386324) 02-20-2007 10:34 PM

Reply to: Message 8 by MurkyWaters 09-19-2006 8:18 PM

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

One piece of evidence that contradicts a concept invalidates it. The onus is then on the person supporting the concept to fully explain the discrepancy. This explanation must not just show that the evidence could be wrong, it must show how and why the evidence is the way it is.

Failure to explain the contradictory evidence means that the theory is falsified as written. The only remaining option is to modify the concept so that it fits the evidence.

There is nothing "supposedly" about it. This is how science is done.

We'll take the Young Earth Creation (YEC) Model as a case in point, where you claim the earth and life is "approximately 6000 years old":

The evidence of just the tree rings is that the earth is older than 6000 years. The evidence is that life is also older than 6000 years. The evidence for both of these includes the tree ring data that has been presented.

The tree ring data invalidates this 6000 year age element of the god-did-it theory. This data alone extends continuously over the last 12,405 years, which not only makes life (trees) older than 6,000 years it makes a world wide flood in that period impossible.

The YEC model of the age of the earth is invalidated.

Explain the 0.5% error over 12,000 years between the three different chronologies.

Claims that it is "not reliable" do not demonstrate anything. Perhaps you think Don Batten will help you.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441

quote:

---

Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology.

Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.

---

This article is discussed in greater detail in another thread (Dendrochronology Fact and Creationist Fraud), however he is (a) talking about a tree selected and bred by the timber industry for fast growth, that is (b) in a different subgenus (all pines are in the genus Pinus, so this is like comparing a car with a bus as modes of transportation), (c) he doesn't discuss other sources of error that can mean the tree is older than the ring data, and finally (d) he can - and did - distinguish the false rings from the annual ones, just as dendrochronologists do ("up to five rings per year").

Suffice it to say, the argument from Don Batten is false and misleading and does not answer the question of how all the different dendrochronologies end up with the same climate and annual ring patterns when the scientists have accounted for the known sources of errors in the different tree lines, errors that would occur at different times in different species in different locations, for different reasons, errors that add up to only 37 years in differences between the Bristlecone Pine and the European Oak chronologies.

And we haven't even discussed how the tree ring data is validated by the carbon 14 data yet. The "carbon-14 age" of a sample is really a measurement of the quantity of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the total carbon in the sample. This quantity measurement is then transformed by a mathematical formula based on radioactive decay into a theoretical "age," but this "age" is really just a mathematical scale for displaying the actual amount of carbon-14 in the sample. The point here is that it does not matter what creationists think about the validity of carbon-14 dating in particular, radiometric dating in general, or radioactive decay, because two samples of the same age - that lived in the same atmospheric environment and absorbed the then existing levels of atmospheric carbon-12, carbon-13 and carbon-14 (the three common isotopes) - will have the same levels of carbon-14 in the samples today. No fantastic scheme invented to change the way radioactivity works will change that simple fact, for whatever is changed in one sample is changed in all the others of the same time. Thus, when sample {A} is dated to {X} years by dendrochronology and it has level {Y} carbon-14 content, and when sample {B} is also dated to {X} years by dendrochronology and it has level {Y} carbon-14 content, the carbon-14 content validates the age - because, growing in the same environment, they could not be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.

The Carbon-14 Environment and Tree Ring Data Correlations

Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0857174.html

quote:

---

Carbon has 13 known isotopes, which have from 2 to 14 neutrons in the nucleus and mass numbers from 8 to 20. Carbon-12 was chosen by IUPAC in 1961 as the basis for atomic weights; it is assigned an atomic mass of exactly 12 atomic mass units. Carbon-13 absorbs radio waves and is used in nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometry to study organic compounds. Carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5,730 years, is a naturally occurring isotope that can also be produced in a nuclear reactor.

---

http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

quote:

---

Three principal isotopes of carbon occur naturally - C-12, C-13 (both stable) and C-14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%.

---

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable

quote:

---

Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.

---

This takes energy to accomplish, and the decay releases this energy: Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 by beta^- decay:

http://education.jlab.org/glossary/betadecay.html

quote:

---

Click to enlarge

During beta-minus decay, a neutron in an atom's nucleus turns into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. The electron and antineutrino fly away from the nucleus, which now has one more proton than it started with. Since an atom gains a proton during beta-minus decay, it changes from one element to another. For example, after undergoing beta-minus decay, an atom of carbon (with 6 protons) becomes an atom of nitrogen (with 7 protons).

---

Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being produced or replenished while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results is a variable but fairly stable proportion of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis in the proportions of C-12 and C-14 existing in the atmosphere at the time.

The level of Carbon-14 has not been constant in the past, as it is known to vary with the amount of cosmic ray bombardment and climate change. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and this can be used to calculate an apparent "C-14 age" from the proportion of C-14 to C-12 in an organic sample (that derives its carbon from the atmosphere) and this "date" can be checked against known dates to determine the amount of C-14 that was in the atmosphere:

Click to enlarge

Note that the "C-14 age" is really a measurement of the actual ratio of C-14 to C-12 isotopes in the sample, and a comparison of that to modern day proportions.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable

quote:

---

A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:

t = {ln (Nf/No)/ln (1/2)} x t_1/2
where t is the "C-14 age", ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t_1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14.

---

These calibration curves have been extended now to the limits of Carbon-14 dating, but it is also of interest to look at just the Carbon-14 calibration curve for dendrochronology - the results of matching tree-rings to Carbon-14 levels and their implied "C-14 age":

http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/radiocarbon/HajdasPhDthesis1993.pdf

quote:

---

Click to enlarge

---

This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the tree-rings were formed and note the following:

• If there were numerous errors in the tree-ring data caused by false rings (as proposed by Dr. Don Batten), then this would show up as a steep rising "C-14 age" that would be much younger than the recorded tree-ring age. This is not the case.
• The false rings would also have to be perfectly matched for each of the species used for the overall dendrochronology ages or the "C-14 age" for each one would be different and the line of calibration would be extremely blurred. This is not the case.
• The age derived from Carbon-14 analysis is consistently younger than the actual age measured by the numerous tree-ring chronologies in pre-historical times, meaning that C-14 dating underestimates the ages of objects.

Conclusions

The actual amount of C-14 in the tree-ring samples match from species to species for the same ages as the tree-rings, regardless of the radioactive decay rate for carbon-14, and this validates that they formed in the same "carbon-14 environment" regardless of radioactive decay afterwards.

Samples that get carbon-14 only from atmospheric sources while living cannot be the same age and NOT have the same carbon-14 content.

False tree-rings for each and every one of the different species that were used on the calibrations curve would have to have occurred at the same time in several different habitats, locations and environments around the world to produce simultaneous false results.

Anyone wanting to invalidate tree-rings as a viable age measurement method needs to simultaneously explain the correlation of tree-rings to climate between each species and the correlation of tree-rings to carbon-14 levels absorbed in each of the tree-rings in each of the species at the same tree-ring age. This is three different systems having matching data on a year by year basis.

In the absence of a consistent overall explanation for these correlations, the logical conclusion is that the carbon 14 data confirms the dendrochronology age for the Bristlecone Pines, the German Oaks, the Irish Oaks and the German Pines.

Minimum age of the earth > 12,405 years based on this data.

This is now older than ALL YEC models for the age of the earth that I am aware of, meaning that the YEC concept is invalidated based on tree-ring data alone.

This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 12,405 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.

And we haven't even gotten to the tip of the iceberg of the data for an old earth.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : updated age information

Edited by RAZD, : added great debate banner

Edited by RAZD, : removed extra sentence

Message 52 of 121 (386350) 02-21-2007 8:41 AM

Reply to: Message 41 by MurkyWaters 01-04-2007 11:20 PM

As noted previously, one piece of evidence that contradicts a concept invalidates it. The onus is then on the person supporting the concept to fully explain the discrepancy. This explanation must not just show that the evidence could be wrong, it must show how and why the evidence is the way it is.

Failure to explain the contradictory evidence means that the theory is falsified as written. The only remaining option is to modify the concept so that it fits the evidence.

There is nothing "supposedly" about it. This is how science is done.

Now we'll take the "Intelligent Design" (ID) concept of "Irreducible Complexity" (IC):

Providing many examples of IC systems does not show that they can ONLY be developed by a designer. To invalidate evolution with it you must show that not a single IC system can evolve. This has not been done. The rest of this is just an argument from incredulity that demonstrates a failure of imagination.

No hand waving needed nor employed. Complex systems evolve by adding mutations to existing systems. No matter how simple you start, mutation adds complexity to the overall system, and selection gives the opportunity for successful mutations to survive and increase. As those systems evolve further components that were previously part of a complex system become redundant and are either no longer needed or are used for something else. Evolution would not prevent the removal of such a redundant component that is no longer necessary, in fact it would actively encourage it as it reduces energy loading.

For every IC system that an IDist has held up as an example there is an explanation for exactly how it evolved AND there are examples of intermediate developments in related species.

See Dover PA trial thread:

Thus there is an absolute failure on the side of ID to demonstrate the exclusive ability of a designer to develop and IC system, and this means that AT BEST it could only be considered a hypothesis that is not tested. To totally invalidate this IC argument all that is needed is for one IC system to evolve within a documented scientific experiment.

But that is not all: The test is in and the concept failed.

There you have an evolved IC system, no designer need apply. The IC concept is invalidated as a marker of ID, and thus the number and complexity of existing IC systems is irrelevant: they can evolve.

It's that simple.

Enjoy.

Message 53 of 121 (387069) 02-25-2007 8:27 PM

Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD 01-06-2007 12:28 PM

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

The debate is about what both of us agree it is about. I sincerely hope that we don’t have to argue about that too. I certainly can’t make you debate something you don’t want to and the reverse is true as well. This is patently obvious since I’ve not been able to convince you to take this debate in the direction I have suggested (and visa versa). The entire point of getting into this debate was to define evolution and creation theory. My opening post was almost entirely about definitions. If you recall, this started with someone raising the Galapagos finches as an example of evolution. I argued that it was a better example of creation theory. It then became immediately obvious that the evidence itself wasn’t in dispute but rather what people were calling evolution and creation. If it was pointless to discuss finches without understanding those definitions, then it will also be pointless to discuss any other evidence. I’ll talk about where I think we should go with this, in response to your remarks regarding the same, later on.

The only reasons we have touched upon evidence is to confirm the plausibility of our definitions. The test of whether change is evolutionary change is in the “definition”. That’s why we don’t agree on definitions. You want to include what we observe today as part of evolution so you attempt to define evolution so that it is included despite the fact that it cannot produce the results that molecules to man evolution demands.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! How in the world, after reading all of your highlighted sections of my comments regarding the definitions could you possibly conclude that? Never once did I mention the degree of change. The “degree” or amount of change is irrelevant. It is the KIND of change that is in question. The kind of change that we observe in Galapagos finches (and moths and whatever we observe today), is not the KIND of change that can change molecules into man. It is not the KIND of change that supports evolution theory which states that all the diversity of life we see today originated from some common ancestor in a “primordial soup” billions of years ago. It does NOT support the direction of movement from simple to more complex organisms, but rather it results in a LOSS (wingless beetles, blind cave fish…) or reshuffling (moths, bacteria…) of function/information, NOT a gain required by evolutionary theory.

The kind of change we observe today is exactly what you would expect from natural selection, mutations and other processes working on the original created kinds resulting in degradation, “downhill” movement, disease, loss of functionality, less genetic variability, slower and even the complete loss of ability to adapt further, sometimes resulting in extinction. However, it cannot account for the formation of new features (genetic information) that were not already present in the original created kinds.

I fail to comprehend why you cannot grasp such a simple concept as this unless you are being purposely obstinate (stonewalling) which is what I suspect. Surely you can admit there are different types of change? Even evolutionists recognize that not all change is evolutionary change. Certainly, growing old is a change in a species over time. In fact at any point in time there is a large portion of the population that is a certain age, so we are not even talking about single individuals here. I wouldn’t assume that the type of change that is responsible for a seed growing into a flower or a tree would continue to change it into a lizard. The type of change that changes a caterpillar into a butterfly is different than evolutionary change.

Many other analogies might be suggested. For example, you would not expect that the type of propulsion system in a water rocket could take it to Venus. A different KIND of propulsion system is necessary to do that. It’s not just the DEGREE of propulsion. There are LIMITATIONS to a water rocket’s propulsion system just as there are limitations to the changes in organisms we observe today. Just because I grow up from a child into a man, doesn’t mean I will continue to grow indefinitely. A different kind of change would be required for that (like that of science fiction movies). There are LIMITATIONS to this type of change. Similarly, the kind of change we see operating to allow adaptation of organisms to their environment is very different from the type of change necessary to change one organism into another.

It’s possible that what you want to include in your definition is inheritable changes. But no matter, even Ernst Mayr, one of the most famous evolutionists to ever live, said that changes in gene frequencies was NOT evolution. This is because that type of change does not move the population to greater complexity required to create new kinds of organisms (not just changes within their kind). However, the definition you have espoused isn’t specific enough to know what kind of change you are talking about.

A definition (by definition) is supposed to make something clear (and definite). If it has to be explained to be understood, then it is NOT a good definition. “Change in species over time” must be interpreted and explained to understand what you mean and is therefore totally incomplete, confusing and misleading.

“This really has nothing to do with evolution being change in species over time” – You are absolutely correct, because evolution is NOT simply change in species over time. I’m not the one having a problem with the time scale, YOU are. Again and again you express annoyance at any mention of millions of years being included in the definition. I am not annoyed with the timescale of millions of years. In fact, I insist it be included in the definition. That is because evolution is intimately connected with the timescale. Evolution becomes VOID if not for this timescale. The theory was based on the fact that evolution is a very slow gradual process. It is essential to evolutionary theory and therefore, as many definitions suggest, it can and should be part of the definition.

As I’ve clearly shown before, we can apply the same principle to creation theory and remove each essential piece of the definition until we are left with “change is species over time” as well. If we do that then what is the difference between the definition of creation theory and evolutionary theory? To define a butterfly as simply something that flies is not a good definition of a butterfly. We must supply more information so that we know what we are talking about. In the same way, defining evolution as simply change over time is not specific enough to know what kind of change we are talking about.

Darwin himself said “The belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration; and now that we have acquired some idea of the lapse of time, we are too apt to assume, without proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had undergone mutation.”

While this indicates that Darwin saw no support of evolutionary theory in the fossil record himself, let’s focus on the time scale. He says here that if the history of the world is thought to be of short duration (ie 6000 years), then it is impossible for evolution to have taken place (species would have remained immutable). Therefore, change in species over time would mean over LONG time according to Darwin.

And “change in species over time” is not a theory. How is pounding on the table and insisting that everything is simply change in species over time when it is no such thing a refutation on your part?

As usual, you are completely missing the point. The definition of evolution (that is, this particular definition, which agrees with most), states that there are 2 requirements to evolution – 1) The formation of a new type of organism and 2) A long period of time. Since the Galapagos finches do not meet either requirement, it is NOT an example of evolution by this definition. That is an indisputable fact, one that is not lost by some evolutionists who are attempting to redefine evolution as simply adaptation.

And what does speciation have to do with anything? Your definition simply states that evolution is “change in species over time”. Are not the Galapagos finches an example of change in a species over time? The beak of a species has changed over time.

“Not enough time passed for speciation to occur” – do you agree then that evolution takes a long period of time? I thought it didn’t matter to you?

“This is just an example of natural selection on existing traits” – My point exactly. No new traits appeared, so this is not evolution (by definition).

“Given more time that is a possibility but that time was not given” – Sorry, but this TYPE of change will not result in a new “kind”, regardless of the amount of time given, whether days or millions of years because it is NOT the type of change that can do that.

I repeat, many scientists do not agree that a change in frequency of alleles is evolution. Billions of years of oscillation between long and short beaks will result in nothing more than finches. This is NOT evolution.

Exactly…no new genes were created. This is NOT evolution.

So its evolution, but you have no proof because it has not been “captured” by the process of speciation yet? Is speciation the yardstick by which evolution is defined? Therefore, it wouldn’t be an example of evolution as it stands.

My statement is a true statement. I made this remark based on quotes from evolutionist sources like Scientific American (which I can document) that made this observation. I believe at least one quote was included in the prior posts somewhere. You have provided an example that could be interpreted as evidence of micro evolution in the fossil record. Another that comes to mind is the horse “sequence” which is quite controversial at best even among evolutionists. These examples do not contradict the statement above.

This is you stone-walling on the definition of evolution by trying to exclude elements of evolution that ARE included. You keep coming back to this issue with no further evidence than simply insisting that everything is change over time when it says nothing of the sort. Before I put this to rest, I’d like to point out a few issues first:

• Please note that it was you, not I, which introduced the plethora of Internet definitions. I have never said that every definition would support my contention. Darwin said that natural selection had gradually caused all life forms on earth to have evolved from a single common ancestor. I don’t think you will find much disagreement from scientists that this is what Darwin considered to be his theory of evolution. The current trend is to redefine evolution as any change in genetic composition so that more deceptive credence can be given to a dying evolutionary theory in order to oppose the tide of valid creationist evidence that is to the contrary. It is also meant to deceive the public in order to affect political policy. Therefore, current definitions can be deceptive.
  
• Neither have I denied that some use the definition that you have proposed. Your constant hawking regarding the fact that I cannot simply re-define something that “scientists” are using is not only wrong but also completely irrelevant. Not only do not all scientists use this definition, but because they use it does not mean that it cannot be challenged. My position is that this definition is misleading and I have presented significant evidence as to why this is so.
  
• On top of that, what the public is being told and taught is much more significant than what a scientist might use (since hearts and minds are in jeopardy) and therefore the source of “what evolution is” encompasses much more than simple internet definitions which also support my arguments. This includes numerous books by leading evolutionists, textbooks, classroom lectures, scientific journals, scientific organizations, print and television media, all of which you have discounted.
  
• The bulk of definitions you have provided are regarding the “process” of evolution rather than the “Theory” of evolution. Because many sources want to be misleading about what evolution really means, they make much ado about the processes for which there is really no disagreement. For example, while Wikipedia talks much about the “theory of evolution”, you would be hard pressed to find where they state what that is anywhere.
  
• Even talkorigins admit that dictionary definitions are suspect. However, like most evolutionary propagandists, he wants to cherry pick the evidence and simply chooses those definitions that fit the convenience of his philosophical position.
  
• The premise was that these definitions were from “universal” sources, but I doubt anyone is going to look at birdlore.com (or whatever) to find the definition of evolution. They are more likely to hear it from the media or consider what they have been taught from textbooks.

All of this confirms the basic premise that these definitions are debatable. Nevertheless, let’s take a last look at them in total. I did discover an omission on your part. I suspect there may be others. You would have accused me of quote mining, but I’ll just say you missed it to be kind. At “laborlawtalk” you included a definition of the evolutionary process, but left out the definition of the theory of evolution, which is what this debate is really about:

“The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin’s theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.”

I’ll add a couple of others I happen to come across from textbooks:

"Evolution - All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today." (Biology, Campbell, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Addison-Wesley, 1993)

"Evolution - The concept that all living things are descended from earlier forms of life, with new species developing over time. According to the theory of evolution, the plants and animals alive today descended from organisms that lived millions of years ago.” (Discovery Works, Silver Burdett Ginn, Inc., 1996)

If we take a look at ALL the definitions that both you and I have referenced in this debate (48 of them) we can conclude the following:

71% stated directly or implied that new features, complexity or speciation is required as part of the theory of evolution.

58% stated directly or implied that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life we see today.

54% stated directly or implied that long periods of time are required (usually corresponding to the age of the earth, assumed to be billions of years old by evolutionists).

21% explicitly mention Billions or Millions of years

46% stated directly or implied the existence of a common ancestor

15% described it as a sequence of steps or events which tells me they were defining a process, not a theory.

Only 25% said it was simply “change over time” (genetic or otherwise)

The majority of definitions make it extremely and undeniably clear that the measure against which any change is considered evolution is whether it supports the concept that all the diversity of life we see today evolved from a common ancestor billions of years ago. Therefore, that IS the definition of evolution, the yardstick against which change is measured. If an observed change supports this concept, then it is evolution. If it does not, than it is not evolution. Period! To say that any change we observe in a species is evolution is simply ludicrous and deceptive. Especially since that change (adaptation) can just as well support the theory of creation as it can evolution.

The dictionary definition of the WORD “evolution” (not the theory of evolution) is a synonym for change. Evolutionary theory qualifies the type of change that would be required to make it evolution. The analysis of the definitions above should basically put this to rest. You cannot rely on any particular definition from a dictionary regarding the theory of evolution because they are not consistent. The bulk of the definitions make my case, not yours – Evolutionary change MUST be qualified to explain what kind of change you are talking about. It’s not the kind of change we see as organisms grow older, taller or larger; it’s not the kind of change that causes them to alter colors or select from already existing traits, it’s not the kind of change that causes them to LOOSE functionality; It’s not adaptation; It’s the type of change that causes them to transform into a different kind of organism – That’s evolution. If you deny all of this evidence and the logic that has been presented, you are fooling no one except yourself.

Now, let’s look at a representative sample of definitions of adaptation (nearly all if not all definitions from any source I looked at agree with these).

“in biology, a change in an organism over time, that better enables it to survive and multiply.”
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=adaptation&matchtype=exact

“Biology - a change by which an organism becomes better suited to its environment.”
http://www.askoxford.com/results/...

“Biology - An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.”
http://www.bartleby.com/61/82/A0078200.html

“Modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment”
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/adaptation

“adaptation (= the process of changing)”
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=944&dict=CALD

“Biol.
a. any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.
b. a form or structure modified to fit a changed environment.
c. the ability of a species to survive in a particular ecological niche, esp. because of alterations of form or behavior brought about through natural selection.”
http://www.infoplease.com/search?query=adaptation&in=dictionary&fr=ipdbot

“Biology - change to suit environment: the development of physical and behavioral characteristics that allow organisms to survive and reproduce in their habitats”
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861695371

“The changes made by living systems in response to their environment”
http://www.bartleby.com/59/21/adaptation.html

“The condition of showing fitness for a particular environment, as applied to characteristics of a structure, function or entire organism; a modification of a species that makes it more fit for reproduction and/or existence under the conditions of its environment.”
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search2.html?bo1=AND&word=adaptation&search_type=normal&def=

“Development of characteristics to fit the environment. As part of the process of evolution, adaptation proceeds by mutation and is closely linked with natural selection”
http://www.birdcare.com/bin/showdict?adaptation

“A genetically changing characteristic that raises an organism's ability to survive.”
http://www.webref.org/anthropology/a/adaptation.htm

“adaptation: changes in gene frequencies resulting from selective pressures being placed upon a population by environmental factors; results in a greater fitness of the population to its ecological niche.”
http://glossary.gardenweb.com/glossary/nph-ind.cgi?scrug=16677&k=adaptation&b=and&r=whole&s=terms

“in biology, a change in an organism over time, that better enables it to survive and multiply.”
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=adaptation&matchtype=exact

These definitions of adaptation make it perfectly clear that what you have been talking about, “change in species over time” (even change in gene frequencies), is ADAPTATION; NOT the theory of evolution. They also make it clear that Adaptation (change in species over time) is only a PART of the story. Adaptation may result in evolution (hypothetical conjecture), or Adaptation may NOT result in evolution (based on real experimental science). Whether it does or does not is determined by whether the change fits the real definition of evolution (molecules to man), not on the wishful revisionist thinking and deceptive practices of some evolutionists who want to redefine evolution to dupe the unsuspecting into believing a lie.

If you don’t like slogans why are you using one? Your slogan of “Change in species over time” is the distractive one, and carries connotations that have nothing to do with the science of evolution and everything to do with the argument from incredulity (species not only change but change into different kinds!), yet I have accepted it without insulting you. Since you have begrudgingly “allowed” me to use my own as well, I will choose “molecules to man”. Although I do want to make it clear that I think abiogeneis does deserve its place in the definition, I have already agreed to leave it out up until now (my compromise).

Hurling insults is indicative of someone who has lost the argument. Most, if not all of us, believed in evolution when we were young, impressionable and/or gullible, but we have moved on. If you do not believe that there are any problems with science than you are no scientist. Science is about questioning our beliefs and investigating the truth, something that evolutionists want to prohibit in our science classrooms. The truth is that evolutionary stories (fairy tales for adults) are typical of evolutionist lies and misrepresentations designed to cater to the willingness of the gullible public who want to believe that these scientists are unbiased and who don’t spend the time to check and see if what the evolutionist is saying bears any relevance to the truth.

Your comments above are indicative of most evolutionists that I have either read or debated at EVC - arrogant, pompous and irreverent. They feel that their opinion is the only valid one and consistently attempt to intimidate and deride anyone who disagrees. In the same way, many in the scientific community attempt to bully and ridicule into silence, those who are skeptics. Science is supposed to be open to challenge and scrutiny. Many scientists operating from a political and personal bias (ie religious atheism) rather than a scientific perspective are trying to end any dialogue on this issue by simply forcing the other side to shut up. We can see this happening in science classrooms and school boards across the country and even at the Grand Canyon where outright lies and scare tactics are being used by evolutionist in deplorable attempts to ban a single book providing a different view of canyon origins.

The motivation is that they fear that they can’t win the argument so they need to silence and stifle those who disagree. That’s bigotry. This is an attempt at thought control, right out of George Orwell. They say you must believe this! You can’t raise any of these subjects before the American public. You must think in a certain way, you must conform to this ideology. This is anti-thought, anti-science beyond demagoguery. They make an argument and demand it be accepted without allowing any points to the contrary. They wouldn’t have to do this if their position was stronger than it is. Stifling of free speech only occurs to them if it’s their speech that is being stifled.

Every scientific discovery that we have ever achieved was the result of someone finding out something that was contrary to what was believed before. Every breakthrough in science, every new thing is essentially the debunking of what the belief was prior to that. Many scientists believe creation theory, but they fear being fired and papers are refused to be published in attempts to stop any kind of debate on this issue and silence scientists pursuing other views. To say that we can’t pursue alternatives to the dogma that is being presented is the exact opposite of science. It is almost an inferiority complex held by those that hold this view. They are terrified that evidence will be raised that’s going to shoot down their theory, so they don’t allow you to raise the evidence. The way they attempt to do it is the worst form of bullying by saying you’re not a real scientist if you disagree. For example, by excluding “creation scientists” whenever you reference “scientists”. This is scientific bigotry. They’re the ones that are being unscientific. You only have the ability to that if you’re a bigot and only have desire to do if your terrified that somebody will be able to come up information that knocks down what you have accepted as Gospel.

Talk about stonewalling! Your answers below are more double talk than answers. My response is in blue (yours previously still in yellow):

#1 – Start with Macro Evolution:

Where have you been? I’ve been defining macro evolution since this debate began. Oh, and now you’ve done a complete reversal…I need to define what “I” think this is about? You’ve said repeatedly in the past that what I think is completely irrelevant. I thought it was about what scientists think? Apparently it’s about YOUR personal beliefs. Macro-evolution is not about just any change in species over time. We’re talking about the kind of change that can change one kind of organism into another. And that’s my point. There IS no mechanism that can account for that type of change.

Micro + Time does not = Macro. So far, this has been proven by operational science to be true. Macro (that is, “evolution”) has not been observed and never will first, simply because of the supposed long time frames involved (that you want to deny have any relevance) and second and more importantly, the type of change involved is simply not capable of changing one kind of organism into another. And if you did observe one kind changing into another, why would that be significant? I’ll answer that - because you’d be showing that evolution were true (by definition). But apparently we’ve already shown evolution to be true, so why bother?

It’s laughable that you accuse me of stonewalling on what is “not” evolution, when in reality it is you stonewalling by insisting that “everything” is evolution. And let’s dispense with these ridiculous accusations regarding “personal beliefs”. This is yet another example from you of ridiculing the opinions of others based on your lack of valid arguments. What you believe, BY DEFINITION, is your personal belief. That belief may be held by others or it may not. Facts are facts and no one is disputing ANY facts. Your personal beliefs are based on interpretations of those facts which we are obviously interpreting differently. Your continual insistence that your personal beliefs are valid and not mine simply demonstrates your pompous arrogance and nothing more.

#2 - Discuss the definitions from a logical standpoint.

Your entire argument up to this point regarding the definitions is to simply ignore all of the evidence to the contrary and insist that “everything is evolution” according to your personal beliefs. To be blunt I don’t have the time to be continually putting together rational arguments simply to have them responded to like a little boy pounding his fist on the table insisting that everything is “just change”. The definitions are there in black and white, which clearly indicate that it is NOT just change. The change is qualified in the majority of the definitions to indicate that it is the TYPE of change which is responsible for greater complexity (increased genetic information content), the TYPE of change responsible for the vast diversity of life we see today (implying one common ancestor that Darwin originally proposed), over billions of years (the age of the earth). I have summarized this and many additional arguments in favor of the correct definition of the theory of evolution at the end of this post. You need to address those arguments in a RATIONAL manner to move forward.

I addressed the “degree of change” and “time frame involved” earlier from a logical standpoint. YOUR erroneous thinking is 1) your reliance on fallible interpretations of past events by fallible science (which you have admitted is fallible) instead of the unchanging and infallible Word of God and his eyewitness account of our origins and 2) Your erroneous extrapolation of observed change to include all sorts of imaginative changes between creatures despite observed scientific evidence which has shown that these variations are limited to changes within a kind. If we interpret the evidence based on God’s word instead of the erroneous presuppositions of naturalism, uniformitarianism and atheism, we arrive at a true picture of our origins instead of the convoluted and “just so” fairytales that comprise evolutionary theory.

I’m not sure how much clearer I can make the following. You are the one that is misunderstanding the issue by continuing to insist we look at evidence. Looking at evidence has NOTHING to do with how evolution is DEFINED. You can look at micro-evolution all you want, but it is NOT evolution unless it meets the test of the definition of evolution. Micro-evolution is misleading because it implies a “small amount” of evolution. However, it is NOT evolution at all, because the observed changes we are talking about DO NOT fit the definition of evolution since they cannot produce the kind of change necessary to change one kind of creature into another. Evolutionists have never shown that this is even possible (I’ll again submit the example of tens of thousands of generations of fruit flies which are still fruit flies), much less that it could happen by natural means. You cannot just define evolution the way you want because it is convenient to your lies.

Therefore, we must define evolution BEFORE we look at evidence. The evidence is NOT going to change our positions on what evolution is, certainly not yours since not a single example of real (molecules to man) evolution has ever been observed and you continue to insist that it is true nonetheless. Even if you could come up with an example of a change which meets the requirements of evolution, you would be admitting that the test of whether it is evolution or not is MY definition (the correct one), not yours.

And that is why you refuse to accept my definition, because then evolutionary propagandists (and I can quote many) will have to admit that evolution is NOT a FACT, that evolution has NOT been observed. That would relegate them to the TRUTH, that evolution is simply a religious belief held by those who do not want to recognize the reality of God, the truth of his Word or his judgment in their lives.

I will ask again, how is keeping your definition a compromise? You have it reversed. We DO NOT agree that micro-evolution is evolution. However, we both agree that Macro-evolution is evolution. So as you seem to be suggesting, why shouldn’t we start where we both agree? Regarding your second point – “affect my ability to accept being wrong” about what? The definitions? The only argument you seem to be able to muster is that “everything is change!” as opposed to the overwhelming logic and many arguments that I have proposed during the course of this debate and in my summary at the end of this post. Since you cannot accept that you are simply wrong about this, you refuse to participate further and want to proceed to another topic.

To be fair I have suggested that we discuss areas that could affect BOTH of our ability to accept being wrong, rather than the one-sided approach you have proposed – that would be my suggestion #4. However, I have already provided ample reason why discussing evidence is throwing the cart before the horse, so I’m taking back that option till we can conclude on definitions since you don’t want to go there anyway. Instead of “seeing where that leads us”, how specifically do you think discussing evidence for micro evolution will affect how we define evolution?

How is you keeping your definition and moving on to another topic because you can’t accept being wrong, a compromise position? You want to talk about micro-evolution and “see where that leads us”, but only a single example of change that does not produce results sufficient for molecules to man evolution is sufficient to eliminate this type of change as belonging to evolution and these examples abound. I have suggested setting the bar a little lower to discuss macro evolution where we both agree so that we have a basis to tackle the issue of micro evolution.

And you have not? LOL! Why do you even bother with ridiculous statements like this! And what evidence??? Your only refutation has been that “everything is change” despite both factual and logical evidence to the contrary. See my summary at the end of this post.

You are living in a fantasy world! So if the earth was “proven” to be 6000 years old, that is sufficient time for “primitive” life to have developed from rocks in a “primordial soup” and then subsequently all the diversity of life we see today arising from that common ancestor? Are you for real?

Adaptation would still be occurring, but not evolution since there wouldn’t be enough time for that. And why do you choose in your fantasy to have everything created with the appearance of vast age? The earth in its actual form today appears to be about 6000 years old to any casual observer that has not been indoctrinated with evolutionary beliefs of vast age. And rather than “last-thursdayism”, why don’t you try “last 6000 years-ism” with adaptation still occurring today from the original created kinds. Then you could actually be talking about reality.

#3 - Summarize our positions and end the debate on definitions.

And tell me where you have accepted where you can be wrong? Perhaps if you could produce even a single shred of logical evidence to support your case I’d consider it. Instead you just arrogantly state that you are right and that all change is evolution despite the evidence. You deceptively use evolution as a general synonym for change when in fact the theory specifically qualifies the type of change that must be involved. No one disagrees that things change. The question is whether that change is evolution or not. However, that question is mute (and indeed impossible to answer) if you define evolution as simply any change that you might happen to observe in order to deceive people into thinking that it is currently happening.

A debate doesn’t have to and in fact rarely does end in agreement. My purpose in debating wasn’t to try and convince you of the truth of creation. I have learned a long time ago that people will believe what they want to believe despite the evidence. My purpose was to find out what arguments evolutionists would use and if my logic could withstand the attack. I can confidently say that it certainly has in regards to the definitions. On the other hand, you certainly feel very highly of yourself, if you think I’m going to roll over just because you say I should.

We seem to be just going in circles now and we could continue this until hell freezes over. Do you really want to be debating this same topic on your deathbed with your laptop computer in hand? If you don’t have anything more constructive than “everything is change” to present, I’m willing to allow you to concede. However, by posting closing arguments, I’m suggesting a way of exiting gracefully because you have obviously lost your case. It is simply a gentleman’s way to agree to disagree. Really, if all of the evidence has been presented and you insist on your definition despite the facts, there is nothing I can do about that. And what issues have we failed to deal with in regards to the definitions? If you feel that there are any issues regarding the definitions that we have not covered, please state them and I will be glad to respond. I simply want to finish one thing first before going onto something else.

#4 - Compile a list (top 5?, 10?) of invalidating evidences and take turns debating them.

How arrogant! This is similar to the rest of your responses. No amount of simply insisting you’re correct is going to make it so. Stating your PERSONAL BELIEFS that the earth is old and there was no flood without evidence invalidates nothing. That is no refutation. The evidence that there was a worldwide flood is simply overwhelming, but it does not belong in this current debate. How do your posts on tree rings and the age of the earth demonstrate that the earth is old? Instead, they show evidence for a YOUNG earth.

While I’m not going to get into the evidence until we end our first discussion, I must interject to correct the obvious. You’re answering too quickly without even thinking things through. A worldwide flood would not leave any trees alive to show a discontinuity! All of the trees alive today have grown since the flood and no single tree has ever been tree ring dated to be older than that. The error is in attempting to cross date with other trees and even fossilized trees, which introduces interpretations of the evidence. In addition, it is a FACT that trees have been known to produce up to 4 rings or more in a single year. Under the post flood climactic conditions, this would be the norm. The presupposition of uniformitarianism excludes evolutionist from considering the effects of the flood, not because of lack of evidence since evidence for a worldwide flood abounds. So you are wrong. Presupposition comes BEFORE looking at the evidence and is then used to interpret the evidence, which leads to a di

Message 55 of 121 (387082) 02-25-2007 11:01 PM

Reply to: Message 53 by MurkyWaters 02-25-2007 8:27 PM

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

One - please revise your link that makes the page too wide to read.

[url=http...etc]title of article[/url]

Two - as noted before, either you use the definitions used by the science to talk about the science or you are NOT talking about the science.

Evolution IS the change in species over time ... whether it is stated as "descent with modification" (Darwin) OR the "change in the frequency of alleles in a population" OR similar.

Sorry. It IS what we see in speciation, it IS what we see in the case of the foraminifera. Your strawman is not evolution.

Three - this concept of "information" is bogus -- there is no definition that can be applied to actually measure the amount. However the biggest problem is that "information" is either irrelevant or it does increase. See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall’s experiments:

quote:

---

Leaving aside the fact that “information” is not defined in any way to measure whether or not there is an increase or a decrease in any evolved changes in species over time, we can still show that the concept is falsified if we can show that ONE such mechanism or function has evolved that would require such an increase. In other words, if we can show that either (P1) or (P2) must be invalid then we have shown that the conclusion is invalid.

...

Thus the deletion of the beta-galactosidase gene MUST have involved the loss of AT LEAST SOME information for the function or mechanism of that gene.

Next what we see is that a DIFFERENT “IC” system evolves to replace the original -- the original “IC” system is not repaired or recovered, but a new and different “IC” system evolved.

Ergo new “information” MUST have evolved that was not in the original organism, the “information” for that organism MUST have been increased. Again, this is the principle of falsification used by science – it invalidates either precept (P1) or precept (P2), and therefore invalidates ALL conclusions based on their combination.

---

This invalidates the claim that there is only a loss of "information".

You can also see the same thing happening in other evidence - see Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy..., Message 18:

quote:

---

See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)
Walkingstick insects originally started out as wingless insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.
And some gained wings (red). And diversified.
And some lost wings (blue again). And diversified.
And one gained wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

---

Gained wings, lost wings, gained wings. The information that is supposedly "lost" is regained no matter how you cut it or where you think this "information" is carried. If the genetic information to make wings is switched off and on then the information that controls that switch is then the "information" that is lost and then gained. You cannot go backwards and forwards and only go in one direction.

This also invalidates the claim that there is only a loss of "information"

You cannot have information defined in any way that can escape the fact that in ONE part of either situation above information MUST be lost and in another it is replaced so that it MUST be gained. By evolution. By mutation and selection. By change in species over time. By the change in the frequency of alleles in a population.

Now that we have disposed of that intellectually vacant (undefined = cannot be measured = useless) concept, AND shown that there is no such barrier, there is no restriction to change in species over time showing new features -- just as we see in speciation and in the fossil record. Just as we see with the lactose and the wings. We've seen it. Change in species over time.

Four - your continued insistence on "something else" being involved than change in species over time.

Sorry but such assertions of arguments of incredulity and ignorance and hyperbole are unsupported by the actual evidence of what evolution really is and what really happens: change in species over time.

Denial of the evidence does not make it go away either.

No, you've just said that it is {something else that it totally undefined} OTHER than change in species over time.

What is your definition of "macro"evolution?

This is not a definition of "macro"evolution, it is claiming that {something else that is totally undefined} happens. Do you think that the fact that there is "no mechanism" for what you think "macro"evolution is could be a CLUE that your concept of "macro"evolution is false?

How much change and in what time-frame? In one sense this occurs at the moment of speciation: one species has become another. They no longer interbreed because they are different. Or do you need the accumulated change from, say, two speciation events, to show that change is continuous and necessarily divergent rather than convergent? That second generation daughter (grand-daughter) species are more different from the original parent species than the intermediate ones?

Either way you cut the evidence, the mechanism by which evolution occurs is change in species over time. That you think one change is bigger or more important than another is irrelevant. All that matters is that species continue to survive and breed to be successful.

Five - you still have totally failed to address the issue of the evidence that shows (1) no world wide flood for over 12,000 years (minimum) and (2) the earth is OLDER than any YEC model.

The evidence invalidates a YEC model and this makes it pointless to discuss any part of a YEC model or any hypothesis based on it. It is falsified.

That's reality.

Enjoy.

ps - hope you enjoyed your rant.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Message 56 of 121 (387083) 02-25-2007 11:25 PM

Reply to: Message 49 by RAZD 02-18-2007 10:59 AM

So if some evidence arises that seems to invalidate a theory, then the theory is automatically invalidated? Scientists should just give up on that theory and go on to something else? Let’s not investigate or attempt to figure out if it really does or not. How ridiculous. Darwin said that the current fossil record invalidated his theory. Even though we know that is still true today, evolutionists will say that now that we’ve found so many fossils, it confirms his theory. How long did that take? When was the theory validated again? “He just did not know at the time what the source of variation was. Now we do.” Let me rephrase that, “Now we THINK we do”. Darwin thought he knew as well – use/disuse. In any case, not having a mechanism for variation would invalidate the theory until one was discovered. How long did that take? You don’t just stop because you don’t happen to have a current explanation for something. If that were true, evolution would have been on its deathbed long ago. However, since there is no acceptable alternative to atheists, that will never happen.

Perhaps what you are saying applies to operational science but not to origins studies. When will you get it through your head that our origins cannot be proved? Were you there when the universe was created? Did you see it happen? Did you see slime evolving into humans? Data is interpreted based on your presuppositions. Evolutionists are the supreme experts at ignoring evidence and cherry picking, so don’t lecture me. And the way you have defined evolution, it cannot be invalidated.

The earth is Young. That is what the evidence shows. Deal with it.

There was a worldwide flood. That is what the evidence shows. Deal with it.

Enjoy.

Message 57 of 121 (387086) 02-26-2007 12:33 AM

Reply to: Message 56 by MurkyWaters 02-25-2007 11:25 PM

Funny that you can't refute it then.

Please. Theory explains all the known evidence or the theory is not complete. That does NOT equate to the "answer for everything".

Scientists deal with this kind of issue every day. Yes the theory - as stated - is invalidated until the new information is explained. This still means that ALL the information is explained by the theory or it is not complete. Sometimes the information can be explained in a manner consistent with the theory. Often it isn't and the theory is discarded.

When it can't be explained the theory is invalidated. That IS how science works.

When it can be explained in a manner consistent with the theory it is done by DEALING WITH THE EVIDENCE AND EXPLAINING IT not by ignoring it.

You still have not dealt with the evidence that shows otherwise. Making this statement is not refutation, nor is it dealing with the issue. Rather it is blatant declaration of denial and a demonstration of your willingness to live in delusion rather than deal with the facts.

I've presented evidence. You've presented opinion and denial. Neither of those refute the evidence presented.

Enjoy.

Message 58 of 121 (387185) 02-26-2007 7:59 PM

Reply to: Message 54 by MurkyWaters 02-25-2007 9:46 PM

Edited by RAZD, : duplicate post deleted

Message 59 of 121 (387187) 02-26-2007 8:04 PM

Reply to: Message 54 by MurkyWaters 02-25-2007 9:46 PM

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Really. Let's see ... (pages up thread to where RAZD Message 9 quotes then answers Murk Message 8 ...):

What I had "trouble" with was the fact that you misrepresented what Berkely said the definition was -- and did not even QUOTE the definition part that CLEARLY says evolution is the change in species over time.

Stop misrepresenting the facts Murk.

Refuting means posting evidence, not reiterating your opinion. This is the heart of your response:

What you seem to fail to understand is that you ARE talking about the degree of change, whether you drag your feet kicking and screaming or not. You are talking about the differences in DNA between species, differences that are still due to mutation and selection (ie -change in species over time \ change in the frequency of alleles in a population \ descent with modification \ etc) and thus all you have is the degree of change in DNA.

Evolution is NOT directed, there is no such thing a a "direction that evolution demands" -- this is a creatortionist misrepresentation of evolution and does NOT deal with the SCIENCE. From Berkeley 101:

quote:

---

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_32

Because natural selection can produce amazing adaptations, it's tempting to think of it as an all-powerful force, urging organisms on, constantly pushing them in the direction of progress — but this is not what natural selection is like at all.

First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This should be pretty clear just by looking at the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.

Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.

---

Thus the site that you think I have problems with contradicts your mischaracterization of evolution and shows that you are NOT "familiar with what it says" ... here's another couple of tidbits:

quote:

---

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_14

Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life — but exactly how does it work?

Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. This section examines the mechanisms of evolution focusing on:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_15

We've defined evolution as descent with modification from a common ancestor, but exactly what has been modified? Evolution only occurs when there is a change in gene frequency within a population over time.

---

Now who does that sound like ...

(1) RAZD: (evolution is the change in species over time)

(2) Murk: (evolution must occur over billions of years and involves some other process)

Pick one. Clue: evolution happens with every generation.

The rest of your "argument" is nothing but your denial of evidence coupled with your incredulity - a classic argument from incredulity and a logical fallacy.

Enjoy.

GREAT DEBATE - RAZD and MurkyWaters only

Edited by RAZD, : deleted superfluous phrase

Message 60 of 121 (387203) 02-26-2007 11:26 PM

Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD 02-18-2007 1:50 PM

False. This simple sentience is rift with misunderstanding. Micro-evolution is not accepted by creationists as being evolution, so there really isn’t any dividing line. Adaptation occurs, is observed and is a fact. Speciation occurs, is a result of adaptation and is also a fact. This is evident by the fact that artificial breeding programs are able to produce various species (ie cats, dogs, flowers) and in the species we have seen develop through natural selection even today, much faster than evolutionist had ever proposed. The dividing line between observed science and the unproven speculation of “macro”evolution is the change from one KIND (not species) of organism into another. In addition, you strangely compare biology with creationism. Biology is a science, which is respected and used by both creationists and evolutionists in supporting their contentions. The misapplication of that science to false interpretations of the evidence is where the disagreement lies between evolutionists and creationists.

This sentence is correct EXCEPT you need to replace the second word with “evolutionism”. This is very strange thing to pin on creationist when evolutionists are the ones that have proposed PE to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. In other words, everything goes along with adaptation working normally and then some sudden significant change occurs which transforms one kind of creature into the next. Creationists do not believe that this ever occurred or can happen. There is no “extra” change, it is a different KIND of change that would be required to make this happen and that’s where creationists and evolutionists part ways. I explain this more fully in my long post (53).

That’s better. However, it’s rather obvious that we DO need a different kind of change. Since this kind of change (macro) has never been observed, it is merely speculation. Not only that, genetics has shown that this mechanism is not capable of producing the kind of change that would add new information necessary to make these transformations. That is why the definition doesn’t depend on your interpretation of the evidence. It is clear and we all agree that things change, but that is NOT the kind of change that transforms one Kind into the next. That’s why the type of change must be specified in the definition. We SEE one kind of change, but evolution requires a different kind, so specify in the definition which one you are talking about.

The theory of travelism says that cars move. So, let’s load the next one up and head out to the planet Jupiter. Ooops, that’s different KIND of movement. I failed to mention that in the definition, but you’ll get there in small steps! Obviously, a car is not capable of getting there (extraterrestrial travel) in any number of steps. The definition doesn’t depend on the evidence, because even if you could demonstrate that change from one type to another can occur (which you will not be able to do), it would only be significant because you would be showing that evolution is possible! What evolution? The theory that says one kind can change into another. Otherwise you wouldn’t have bothered because it’s already been shown to be a fact (any change is evolution). I am getting a little tired of repeating this and I’m not sure why you don’t seem to understand this concept. I sincerely hope that this has made a little clearer.

As far as your speciation examples go, the warblers do not contradict creation theory in any way and do not support evolutionary change from one kind to another. The same can be said of pelycodus, although there is some misinterpretation of the evidence which I can get into when/if I find some time when/if we discuss the evidence.