Well, we’re not that far apart, but I am certainly not playing “word-definition games” and not all evolution is “Darwinism” (The Origin of the Species).
Major animal groups: amphibians, birds, fish, invertebrates, mammals, and reptiles
http://animals.about.com/od/animal-facts/tp/animal-groups.htm
Transference between major animal groups is just what it says - something like a fish or its ancestor becoming a horse or its ancestor.
Transference between animal groups is the kind of evolution required by Darwinism becasue it theorizes that all living things evolved from a single organism source. But there is no evidence of this kind of transference. That is why I say Darwinism is a fake and a fraud. It is not true science because the theory fails the rigorous test of the scientific method.
But evolution within a major animal group is another story, like the different breeds of particular types of mammals like wolves and dogs. There is plenty of evidence of evolution WITHIN a particular type of animal or group but that type of evolution, but of course, that is not the kind required by Darwinism.
Here's the real fraud: there's no such thing as "transference" -- it's not a scientific term, it's a non-term perpetrated by anti-scientists. Think about that.
The fact is that no fish ever became a horse, indeed no fish ever became anything other than a fish.
So there was never, ever "transference" between fish and horse.
What actually happened, according to fossils and DNA is that some fish did and still do spend some of their time out of water.
Their descendants adapted more & more to land, and eventually left fish-like fossils we call something else.
Those descendants continued to adapt & diversify and in due time left fossils which we call something else -- proto-reptiles, birds, mammals etc.
My point is there was never a sudden "transference" from fish to something modern.
Instead the fossil record shows relatively small changes of many millions of years.
To cite examples, fossils said to be the earliest proto-mammals and proto-birds look very much like similar fossils which are identified as reptiles -- no "transference".
PapaNew: "Transference between animal groups is the kind of evolution required by Darwinism becasue it theorizes that all living things evolved from a single organism source.
But there is no evidence of this kind of transference.
That is why I say Darwinism is a fake and a fraud."
You have to remember that basic evolution theory consists of just two ideas: 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
That theory has been confirmed innumerable times, and indeed is re-confirmed every day by scientists working in the field.
The further theory of common descent has also been confirmed innumerable times, especially in recent years with DNA analyses comparing changes in genetic codes of closely related, and not-so-closely related, species to calculate years since their last common ancestors.
These calculations are then compared and confirmed against fossil records to help clarify many species' evolution, evolutions which were previously obscure.
And contrary to what you imply here, there has never been a single serious falsification of basic evolution theory.
Therefore, all the "fake and fraud" is coming from somebody other than scientists working on evolution, pal.
PapaNew: "But evolution within a major animal group is another story, like the different breeds of particular types of mammals like wolves and dogs.
There is plenty of evidence of evolution WITHIN a particular type of animal or group but that type of evolution, but of course, that is not the kind required by Darwinism."
But there is no difference -- none -- between so called "micro-evolution within" species, and "macro-evolution between" species.
It is precisely the same thing, shorter term versus longer term.
Shorter term adaptions create new breeds, sub-species and species.
Continued over many more generations of separation and we see new genera, families, orders, etc.
There's no difference in the evolutionary processes, only the length of time they operate.
Remember the dividing lines between biological classifications are strictly human scientific constructs -- for examples, different species within the same genus usually can physically interbreed, but don't (i.e., some zebras), while those in different genera of the same family physically cannot interbreed successfully (i.e., Indian & African elephants).
Bottom line: as with basic evolution theory (descent with modifications and natural selection) the theory of common descent has literal mountains of fossil evidence and millions of DNA analyses supporting it, and not one piece of seriously falsifying data in now over 150 years.
And that's why evolution theory is considered "settled science", FRiend.