By using a broken definition of evolution. You haven't justified why any change in organisms should be termed evolution. Show me the scientific consensus that this is what evolution is.
I don't understand why you believe that any mechanism can cause evolution rather than the specific set of mechanisms outlined by evolutionary theory.
I don't believe this. I am not even DISCUSSING any mechanisms for evolution. How many times do I have to say that? Can
anyone here distinguish between observation and inference?
Nor do I understand why you feel that outlining such a requirement is to equate evolution with evolutionary theory.
Then what is it? What would you term the change in organisms over time,
without reference to any mechanisms proposed by any theory? Do you understand what I'm trying to do here? I simply cannot
believe the inability of seemingly everyone here to distinguish between inarguable observation and inferences drawn from observation. Inferences can always be argued with. Observations can only be denied. They cannot be argued with.
If change in organisms is caused by something outside of this set then it is not evolution. For example if God does it or we do it, then it is not evolution. Therefore, you need to provide extra evidence/reasoning in order to justify this part.
Then what is it? Can we
please come to agreement on
some term for the observed changes in living organisms over time
that does not appeal to some mechanism to explain those changes? I'll use whatever term you want to use; I'm not picky. But you need to find some term that does not presuppose that evolutionary theory is true. The whole
purpose here is to avoid accusations from creationists of circular reasoning. If you use assumptions that evolutionary theory is correct in order to come up with evidence that evolutionary theory is correct, you're sunk.
It would be helpful if you could explain why, under the creationist account of diversity your definition of evolution would not still apply and, if it still does, why you then feel it is appropriate?
I'm not saying it won't apply. I'm not trying to demolish all creationist arguments with one fell swoop. That living organisms have changed over time is not incompatible with the belief that god created all life. It
does demolish the argument that there was a single act of creation in the past, which is what a majority of creationists appear to believe.
I feel like I'm expected to justify all of evolutionary theory here,
right now, and to demolish all creationist claims
right now. I'm not even trying to do that. I am trying to lay a simple groundwork for a much more expansive argument. That groundwork begins with the very simple assertion that life has changed over time,
and that some explanation is needed to explain that change.
If we cannot get agreement that life has changed over time, then there's no way to proceed further with the argument. This is exactly why creationists can get away with arguments that evolution doesn't happen. I'm saying it
does happen, it's
inarguable that it does happen, and I'm using very simple, obvious, unarguable observations to show that it happens.
Why do you have such insurmountable problems with that?
Also members on this thread have repeatedly and explicitly outlined the difference between evolutionary theory and evolution. If you are concerned with whether Jay understands the difference that you are trying to draw then you need not be. His posts on the topic in the past indicate that his knowledge of the subject is extensive.
Then why does he apparently have such a huge problem with distinguishing between observation and inference? That is the distinction I am trying to make here, but Jay either does not understand the distinction, or he is pretending not to understand the distinction. I don't see a third possibility.
