I'm not inferring that the change is in inherited traits, which is why I left that part out of the definition I am using. I'm not inferring anything from anything, other than since we can observe that different organisms have existed at different times, that life has evolved.
All of these...
You don't have evolutionary theory. For the love of God, people, I haven't even gotten to evolutionary theory. All I am trying to get is agreement that organisms have changed over time. That's it. Can we at least agree to that? Or not?
I disagree with you on the first point: people agree...
Hey, I'm just trying to get them to agree that organisms have changed over time. I can't even seem to get people to agree to that, let alone any evidence supporting any particular proposed explanation for that change.
But that is what I am arguing! Where have I argued anything different? I am merely saying that the evidence that organisms have changed over time is conclusive and inarguable. What particular statement have I made that would lead you to conclude otherwise.
The reference to inherited traits...
They're not different definitions. The wording is different; not the meaning.
Now, I have a question for you which you have so far not even acknowledged, let alone answered: do you agree that the evidence for evolutionary change is conclusive, or not? I'm guessing not. In that case, how do...
Why can't anyone here understand that I am not trying to argue against special creation (yet)? I am not trying to say the current nonexistance of Trilobytes and the past nonexistance of Rabbits is evidence for or against any theory of why evolution happens. I am trying to say the current...
If someone could explain to me, possibly using very small words, ones even an uneducated lout like me could understand, why the statement that since organisms are different now from the organisms in the distant past, evolutionary change must have occurred, I would be very grateful.
So far, no...
A) it's not my "personal defintion" and B) it's not trivial.
Biological evolution is defined as " a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next." That's it. There's no discussion (yet) of what caused that change, whether it was gradual, rapid, due to...
No it is not. Evolution doesn't even imply "gradual change." It states that change has happened. You are STILL not getting the distinction between the observed phenomenon of evolutionary change and the theory of evolution which is an explanation for that change.
I don't have to show any...
I do not have "two entirely different definitions" of evolution. I have one: "Evolution is the observed change in the types of organisms over time." While you may have interpreted what I said earlier as meaning "Evolution is the observed changes in the numbers of organisms over time," that is...
It's not wrong by my personal definition. It's wrong by the generally accepted definition. "Evolution" is not a mechanism. Evolution is the effect of multiple different mechanisms.
Yes. It is the change itself that is the evolution. That change is caused by various mechanisms; it is not a...
Is there any ambiguity in what I mean by "type"? Do you not understand what I mean when I say organisms have changed over time? Do you not understand how it is possible to tell a trilobite from a rabbit? Do you have difficulty distinguishing between the organisms that existed in the Precambrian...
It may suggest one, and what that causal link is, is of course subject to debate.
BUT I AM NOT MAKING ANY STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT THAT CAUSAL LINK IS. That is the part you simply cannot be made to understand.
All I am saying, for the thousandth time, is that there is some observation that...
I did come out and say it. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. People, please try to grasp the difference between observation and a theory intended to explain that observation.
The fact that different organisms have existed at different times is conclusive evidence for...
I'm not even discussing evolutionary theory. My understanding of evolutionary theory has absolutely no bearing on what I am talking about, which is the observed phenomenon of evolutionary change.
Do you understand the distinction? I don't think you do.
If it makes you happier for me to come out and say my earlier definition was wrong, because incomplete, I am more than happy to admit so. I have no difficulty admitting I was wrong, or incomplete.
Now: do you have any difficulty with my definition of "evolution" (as utterly distinct from...
I'd be happy to stop digging, if you could actually give me a reason for thinking I'm wrong.
You have consistently said you think my assertions about the fact of evolution are crap. You have not stated why you think they're crap. Apparently you think the answer is obvious. It's not obvious...
No. Totally wrong. Evolution is the result of various mechanisms. Evolution, itself, is not a mechanism.
That is exactly the point I have been trying to make. The theory of evolution and the fact of evolution are entirely separate things. One is an attempt to explain the other. One is not...
Which is what? What "mess" have I created? I am trying, desperately, to make clear the distinction between the observation of evolutionary change, and theories or hypotheses that account for that change. I'm getting the very strong impression that no one else here is capable of making that...