Evolution.

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?

I'm not the one to dispute which of your points is real;

you are the one to argue the reason each of your points inform a reality that substantiates Evolution because that is what my question asked. Saying that it's real does not suffice.

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

No. Processes are processes. Processes are explained. They can be incorporated into explanations, but they are not the explanations.

And your statement makes no sense: how can Evolution be the "process" that explains itself?

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

My use is obviously rhetorical given my following statement, and if you're going to claim error, fine. Substantiate your counterclaim.

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.)

"Change" can mean a lot of things.

Exactly. That's the reason Evolution is not merely a statement of change over time, as many mistake it to be. It's a hypothesis delineating a--and this is important--regulatory mechanism which governs this change over time. Evolution is not the mechanism. It is the "why?" to the mechanism.

Yes you are. You asked for them, I provided them. Either you accept them or reject them. If you reject them, then let's dive into that.

Well, I did that,

and then you denied that those observations were real.

It would pointless to argue that something substantiates evolution when you deny that said something even exists!

They can be. Anything can be an explanation.

I didn't say Evolution explains itself. I said "Evolution is the process which explains what we see today."

Exactly! That's how it works. I claim error, you ask for clarification, just like I'm trying to get you to do with my original points: you claim error, so substantiate that.

A theory is not merely an "attempted explanation"

theories being that which explain phenomena (e.g. processes.)

Theories must be testable, falsifiable, be consistent with observations,

and be better than existing theories and explanations in terms of scope and/or accuracy.

And Occam's razor isn't a synonym for "simplification" but rather a statement that unnecessary elements from a theory or explanation should be removed.

Incorrect. The mechanism results in a gradual change in populations of organisms over time. It is this change that we call Evolution.

Yes you are. You asked for them, I provided them. Either you accept them or reject them. If you reject them, then let's dive into that.

No I am not.

I didn't ask you for anything before you interjected in a query that wasn't directed at you. By then you had already submitted all of your points. I'm not going to verify or falsify your points, as I've already informed you. You submitted them, so substantiate. If not, move along, and have a nice day.

Well, I did that,

You've essentially done nothing other than list your points.

and then you denied that those observations were real.

Where did I do this? Quote me verbatim.

They can be. Anything can be an explanation.

Anything can be used in an explanation; that is not the same as anything can be an explanation.

I didn't say Evolution explains itself. I said "Evolution is the process which explains what we see today."

What is it that we see today?

A theory is not merely an "attempted explanation"

I never said a theory was an "attempted explanation"--in fact, you quoted my description of a theory:

theories being that which explain phenomena (e.g. processes.)

I refer only to Evolution as an "attempted" explanation.

Theories must be testable, falsifiable, be consistent with observations,

Naturally.

and be better than existing theories and explanations in terms of scope and/or accuracy.

This makes no sense. How can that which constitutes a theory require it to be "better than existing theories"?

You did. You did not ask me for them, correct, but you did ask for them. This is an open forum. If you only want specific replies from specific people, then you should do it in a debate format or take it to PMs.

You're not in position to take anything as anything. You responded to a question that wasn't directed at you. As is your prerogative, you can participate in any query on a public forum.

I am not asking you to verify or falsify anything. I am simply asking you to clarify which of those points you are denying the reality of, all of them?

The descent and modification of living organisms over time.

The descent and modification can be simple-to-complex, or complex-to-simple. Both are evolution.

The only direct observations we have of evolution is with bacteria.  Do we know if this is complex-to-simple or simple-to-complex or neither ie lateral evolution?

The only direct observations we have of evolution is with bacteria.

Incorrect.

Drafterman, is  that simple-to-complex, complex-to-simple or lateral evolution?

<br>

You'd have to define "simple" and "complex"? What makes a genetic change more or less complex?

There are two primary kinds of complexity;

1} Ex numerically speaking 2 is more complex than one.  9 is more complex than 3.  Do you understand? Do you agree?

........Ex a elephant has more atoms than an ant ergo numericall speaking the elephant is more complex than an elephant.

2} Synergetic complexity i.e. the whole is greater than the sum-of-the-parts and specifically when the whole has a greater/wider { more generalized } set { degrees } of abilities. 

........Ex a human  can fly higher and faster than any less complex bird and humans have devised techologies to go to the moon whereas elephants and birds have not.

The evolution of resistance to DDT is complex and arises for a number of reasons.

For example, it could be as a result of additional copies of a key gene that allows them to produce enzymes which assist in breaking down DDT. This would be simple to complex (more genes = more complex).

However, resistance can also be had by reducing the number of bioreceptors that react to DDT. This would be complex to simple (less receptors = less complex).

I don't have examples of those at the moment

No problem. At least your a human that makes a sincere attempt in expressing rational, logical common sense, in regards to evolution.

It is possible to walk ten meters, but there is no way anyone could ever walk a thousand kilometers

- The guy that came up with the term 'microevolution'

It is pretty obvious that I was mocking the people that argue that microevolution is possible but macroevolution is not. It is not an actual quote since it is obvious to everyone that walking thousands of kilometers is possible.

In reality the term microevolution was first coined by scientists as a legitimate scientific term with actual usefulness but has since been hijacked by creationists in order to verbalize the above absurdity, so even as a parody my post is technically inaccurate. Even so I think I made my point.

Many people have contributed to the ToE.

The distinction being made is that the theory of evolution in "On the origin of species"...

The Origin of Species is not "Darwin's theory of evolution". Perhaps you might be good enough to supply me with "Darwin's theory of evolution", I'm unaware of it.

...has long since been iterated and improved upon into the current modern theory of evolution (by other contributors apart from Darwin). While they refer to the same subject matter, they are not equivalent or "the same".

Are you discussing The Theory of Evolution or are you discussing Darwin's On Origin of Species ?