Okay, I'm clarifying the defintion. Here's my NEW, IMPROVED DEFINTION: evolution is a change in types of organisms over time.
I did answer your question. I've answered it twice. I'll answer it again: changes in the numbers of organisms over time is not evolution. Changes in the types of...
I would, if I were making any hypothesis that needed justification. I am not making any hypothesis about anything. I am making an observation, which I believe to be undeniable, that living organisms have changed over time.
Do you deny that living organisms have changed over time? Because if...
So you're saying that life has not changed throughout time. Is that what you're saying? Because what I am saying, the only thing I am saying, is that life has changed over time.
I don't think you even get what my "silly wabbit" argument even is. I think you believe I'm claiming rabbits...
I see that you still are confusing the observation of evolution and the theory of evolution. There is no practical difference between the changes in your mother's face over time and the changes in the types of organisms over time.
I'm about ready to give up on trying to explain the...
I already answered this question. I said I was talking about changes in types of organisms, not changes in the number of organisms. Did you miss this earlier statement from me?
It is extremely generic. It's generic for a reason. I am trying to make the point that it is simply impossible to deny that evolutionary change has happened. The reason it is impossible is because different organisms existed in the past than exist today. Organisms existed in the past which no...
That's why I included the appearance of organisms which exist now but did not exist in the past. If all we saw in the fossil record was fewer and few organisms, i.e, organisms which existed in the past but do not exist now, that would not be evidence for evolutionary change. The two together...
Apparently I am. So let's get our nomenclature straight: what is the distinction, in your view, between "evolution" (which is an observation), and "evolutionary theory (which is an explanation for that observation)? What term do you use for the former? I've already explained what I mean by the...
Sure it does. All "evolution" is, is changes in populations over time. You cannot have gotten from a state of trilobites but no rabbits to a state of rabbits but no trilobites without changes in populations over time.
All it is is an observation of evolutionary change. It's not evidence of...
How can it not? If different organisms existed in the past than exist today, and different organisms are alive today than existed in the past, then how is it possible for evolution not to have happened? How did we get from one state to another?
Because that is what I am writing. I am not...
For the last time, I am not talking about the theory of evolution. I'm not talking about any explanation for the observed fact of evolution at all.
I am stating it is a fact that evolution has happened. I am not talking about any theory or explanation that accounts for that fact.
Stop...
It is. In the context I'm using it, it is. You're treating "evolution" as a synonym for "evolutionary theory." They are absolutely not the same thing.
That is the problem.
These are all discussions of mechanisms of how we got from a state of having trilobites to not having trilobites, and from a state of no rabbits to a state of rabbits. None of these mechanisms (except for the plainly silly ones) are inconsistent with the observation that the kinds of organisms...
That's what I've been trying (and failing) to do for ten pages now. I've been trying to make the distinction between the observed fact of evolution, and attempts to explain that evolution. I can't seem to get anyone else to see that there's even a distinction between the two.
Then why do you keep arguing with me the factual nature of evolution? I've given you reasons why I believe evolution is a fact. You keep denying those reasons are valid. Since you believe evolution is a fact, then there must be a reason why. What is (or are) those reasons?
I haven't given a reason. I'm not even there yet. All I'm saying is that evolution has happened. I haven't even proposed a reason why or how it happened. Everyone keeps assuming I have, but I have not.
I'm not even talking about explanations! I haven't even gotten there yet. What I am...
Yes it is. If different organisms exist now than did in the past, change has happened. There's no way different species can exist at different times without change happening. This is such an elementary concept I don't get why you're having such a hard time with it.
If I were saying species...