Evolution.

That is not what I said, no. Again, as an example, butterflies have wings, but if I clip off a butterflies' wings, it doesn't stop being a butterfly.

Of what?

Metabolism is a mechanism, it is a process in which external chemicals and energy are converted into internal chemicals and energy for use.

Growth is when the increase in material of an organism is greater than the decrease of material.

Metabolism is how organisms grow. It is the process organisms acquire new material.

No I do not. And it is not "begging the question."

That is not what I said, no. Again, as an example, butterflies have wings, but if I clip off a butterflies' wings, it doesn't stop being a butterfly.

It was a question. Is reproduction essential to be called a life?

Of what?

The very thing I quoted. "You have to have the ability to change, not that you have to change."

I don't know how you could've missed what I was referring too. If it wasn't clear give me an example of a life's ability to change.

Metabolism is a mechanism, it is a process in which external chemicals and energy are converted into internal chemicals and energy for use.

Growth is when the increase in material of an organism is greater than the decrease of material.

Metabolism is how organisms grow. It is the process organisms acquire new material.

Talking about this:"maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism."

You basically meant maintaining an increase of material? 

No I do not. And it is not "begging the question."

Okay. I had stuff written down but then I realized it was semantical if you agreed with me at the end so I am going to change my question. 

Referring to this: "but I think it's more important to understand that just meeting one of these requirements doesn't make something a life."

Okay so how many do you need or is something required? 

It is a waste of time for me to challenge this if you simply said well this one isn't important.

Yes.

then sterile people are not life?

I'll just stick to this one because you said you require all of them to be considered a life. If you want me to challenge the others do ask. 

You missed me as the receiver. 

Did you not understand my analogies?

Explaining myself: You said reproduction is essential to life so why is a human missing that still a life? 

Because that is an abberation from the norm, not a representative example.

So is it normal for people to die or does it happen and you draw the line for them to not be considered a life? 

Please also tell me the difference between the two.

I was talking about life in general I am talking about sterilized people.

Why are you pivoting to well they are a minority when my argument doesn't concern non-sterilized people? 

Because sterilized humans aren't representative, they're exceptions

I am not speaking about whether or not they are representatives

I see no benefit to me simply copying and pasting information from one place to another. The arguments are there if you are truly interested in having a conversation about it.

I am not asking you to have a conversation with a website, I'm asking you to have a conversation with me about information that happens to be contained on a website.

Do you have any questions or objections you would like to raise to me about that information?

A. I think therefore I am, as far as I can be certain, which is all there is. So I evolved. As far as I am aware I am not a carbon copy of everything that         predates me.

B. I communicate with you electronically. 

A. and B. are both relative to the processes of Material evolution, as is Darwinian Theory.

As far as I can be aware A. and B. are real.

He seems okay with you going more in-depth on one thing at a time he just doesn't want to choose which one. Just start at the top of your list and work your way down, the two of you are both being overly pedantic.

Dude, his question is tantamount to "prove science."

Find, let's start again:

At a general level, the following observations substantiate evolution:

• The commonality of genetic code among all living organisms, as there are any number of genetic combinations that produce identical effects, yet all organisms share based building blocks and codings for identical proteins. The only known mechanism for this is inheritance across generations.
  
• The natural hierarchical grouping of species which implies a branching evolutionary process;
  
• Agreement among independently derived phylogenetic trees, which supports the objective validity of phylogenetic organization of living organisms (see above);
  
• Agreement of phylogenetic tree with fossil records; Again, independent support of phylogenetic organization;
  
• Existence of vestigial structures, implying that organisms inherit structures from previous generations which must then be reused for other purposes;
  
• Existence of atavism, implying that organisms inherit structures which lose their purpose altogether;
  
• The agreement of phylogeny with ontogeny; the developing of organisms in utero parallels evolutionary developments among related species;
  
• The agreement of phylogeny with geographical distribution of animals; more independent support of phylogenetic organization.
  
• The existence of similar structures among animals used for different purposes; see: vestigial structures;
  
• The existence of structures that are suboptimal for their function, implying that organisms can only use the structures they are provided with via inheritance.
  
• The existence and replication of transposons; transposons being alien genetic material whose primary replication mechanisms is via genetic inheritance.
  
• The direct observation of individual elements of evolution, such as morphological changes, functional changes, different stages of speciation, and actual instances of speciation.
  

Evolution is the process, which is ongoing. It has no end unless all life ceases to exist.

Redundant. Substantiate the relevance or move along.

The commonality of genetic code among all living organisms, as there are any number of genetic combinations that produce identical effects, yet all organisms share based building blocks and codings for identical proteins.

The only known mechanism for this is inheritance across generations.

I suspected as much. Evolution is not a process. Evolution is the attempted explanation;

hence it is referred to as the "theory of evolution," theories being that which explain phenomena (e.g. processes.)

Evolution attempts to delineate the mechanism which regulates the change of a species over time. It is NOT the change itself; that simply is referred to as "change" (or more loosely "mutation" in the context of progenation, "mutation" and "progenation" being the actual processes.)

I did. Each point has two parts: reality and how that reality substantiates evolution, which is what you were asking. For example: The commonality of genetic code among all living organisms, as there are any number of genetic combinations that produce identical effects, yet all organisms share based building blocks and codings for identical proteins.

The above is a reality.

And that is why that reality substantiates evolution.

Those things are not mutually exclusive. A process can be an explanation.

This is simplification to the point of error.

This is not correct. Evolution is the process which encapsulates the change of living organisms over time. Mutation and replication is the primary underlying mechanism of that process.

He's essentially stonewalling my challenge by questioning "genuine interest" and seeking a referendum placed on me to question his references rather than his explaining the relevance of each of his points in the first place.

I did. Each point has two parts: reality and how that reality substantiates evolution, which is what you were asking. For example: The commonality of genetic code among all living organisms, as there are any number of genetic combinations that produce identical effects, yet all organisms share based building blocks and codings for identical proteins.

No you did not. You don't get to call it "reality" without substantiation. For example, your first point speaks to Mendel's Law of Inheritance, not "Evolution" per se. Evolution's link to inheritance is through modern synthesis, which shifted the consensus from orthogenesis to natural selection. But that's not "Evolution." It's merely the premise that changed the interpretation. Try again.

The above is a reality.

You've yet to substantiate any reality.

Those things are not mutually exclusive. A process can be an explanation.

Yes they are. The process is the actual mechanism. And the explanation is the communication. What Evolution does is hypothesize that known mechanisms inform a regulatory "supra" mechanism of change over time. It's not the actual mechanism; it's the hypothesis.

This is simplification to the point of error.

Occam's razor. It's simple as it needs to be to inform truth. Theories (attempt to) explain phenomena. That is how it is defined. You perceive error, then substantiate your counterclaim.

This is not correct. Evolution is the process which encapsulates the change of living organisms over time. Mutation and replication is the primary underlying mechanism of that process.

The process of change is called change. That is not Evolution. Evolution is an (attempted) explanation as to the reason that change occurs. If it were merely a statement or phenomena of change, then Mendel's Laws, and Darwin's theory of natural selection would've suffice in appeasing once again, the "consensus" that supports Evolutionary Theory.

I am.

Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.

Okay so how many do you need or is something required? 

All of them

Evolution is a fact.

I evolved because, in short I am a product of genetic variation, rather than a carbon copy from a masterplan.

One assumes that at a moment of creation, Charles Darwin and computer technology did not instantly spring into existence.

Real is what we think we know. Both instinctive data and sensory acquired and stored data. 

As far as I am aware, we can only deduce things from our own, individual human standpoint. Therefore this would probably be the limit of a human beings reality.

Are sterilized people life under your standard?

They don't meet the reproduction requirement and you said if a thing doesn't meet a single standard they are not life. Here are the quotes:

His exact words (copy-pasted) were "Which would you like to discuss more in-depth?"

You were screwing around by not picking a topic to discuss in-depth

My charge of obstinacy is objectively justified by a simple read-through of the conversation.

Going back to my original post here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3512/evolution?page=1&post_number=9

All of those are real observations. Which of those do you dispute are real?

No, they aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution is the process which explains what we see today.

This is not what Occam's razor is or how it is to be applied. Your simplification is erroneous.

"Change" can mean a lot of things.