Has the Theory of Evolution benefited mankind?

Hi Faith,I'm responding to your last several messages. We know your views contrast dramatically with evolutionists, but please try to keep them from diverting a thread from its topic. This thread isn't about whether the theory of evolution is dependent upon genetics. It isn't about your opinion that evolutionists have changed the definition of species. It's about whether the theory of evolution has benefited mankind.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'd like to encourage you to try to rein in your habit of issuing charges of unfairness in so many threads. Please just focus on the topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You could advance this argument in any thread about evolution, and you were just making this very same argument over at Can Domestic Selection cause Macroevolution?. If you'd like to discuss the evolutionist definition shell game then propose a new thread, but please allow other threads to focus on their topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

To everyone,Please make sure your posts are informative and on-topic. Do not let the thread degenerate into rants about how unreasonable others are being. In particular, the Forum Guidelines specifically prohibit name-calling, so the recent sub-heading that includes name-calling should be edited to something else by anyone replying to these posts.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I did not originally plan to respond to this, hoping that since you were replying to me that no one else would respond, but I see Kuresu has responded and so now I will, too.Please do not use a personal definition of evolution in discussion in any thread. Darwin included descent with modification in his definition, so it has been a part of the definition of evolution from the very beginning.If you feel the definition of evolution is incorrect and would like to propose a different definition then please propose a thread for that purpose.I'd like to close on a more general note. General criticisms that span the entire field of evolution should not be used in rebuttal of specific arguments or evidence. The reason for this is that you could take, for example, the argument that the definition of evolution is wrong into any evolution thread and quickly derail discussion from the thread's topic. Or you could take your claim that evolutionists are playing a definition shell game into any evolution thread and derail discussion of the topic. If you would like to discuss claims like these then please propose threads for them. They will not be permitted to derail discussion in existing threads.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Kuresu,Faith will not be permitted to use personal definitions of terms to advance her arguments. There can be honest differences of opinions about the definitions of terms that can be explored in the threads where they come up, but in this case the difference is so dramatic as to be a thread of its own. I've encouraged Faith to propose a thread to discuss her definition. Please don't discuss that definition here as this moderator believes it has no merit or basis in fact whatsoever.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I guess this could be considered accurate, if by style you mean ignoring moderator requests and persistently posting off-topic. As has been suggested to you several times, if you would like to discuss the definition of evolution and/or propose your own definition then please propose a thread for this purpose. But please do not introduce your own private definition into threads as rebuttal. What you are doing is analogous to entering a debate about which car engine has the most horsepower and arguing that the definition of horsepower is wrong. Your argument would get lots of attention, but debate on the original topic would cease.Because of your persistence at trying to draw threads off-topic, I've removed your posting privileges in all the science forums.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director