It's a problem because the term is defined to match observations which do not uniquely support evolution and is then used as though it is unique support for evolution. It's a circular thought-pattern and most naturalists don't have the critical-thinking skills to understand that.
Changing allele frequencies over time does not uniquely support evolution. It could equally apply to a created genetic code that is in reproductive error-catastrophe and would never produce men from hominids. You would never know that because you take the definition and apply it to a concept that the observations cannot support. The problem is that you are being misled by the old bait-and-switch and you don't have the critical-thinking skills to recognize that.
"Your statement “No adaptive observation can be identified as having uniquely arisen through natural processes” is ignorant and ignores volumes of evidence in support of both micro and macroevolution. I (re)present to you antibiotic resistance and Darwin’s finches. Have a nice evening."
No, you are projecting ignorance onto me because your credulity is so complete that you cannot begin to understand what I am actually saying.
Antibiotic resistance was already present before antibiotics existed and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there. Darwin's finches have been shown to fluctuate back and forth between beak sizes and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there. It is only in your imagination that such variation could produce the observed variety of life from some proto-life form.
You apparently have believed the naturalist misrepresentation that life cannot have been created with an ability to adapt and that therefore any adaptation is unique support for evolution. That, however, is a metaphysical belief along with the 'a priori' commitment to naturalism.
Your level of understanding on this subject is woefully inadequate, almost child-like. You have a nice evening.
First, please note that I take your insults as compliments because I know where they come from. Provided that the concepts I did grasp were correctly understood, I would much rather have a pre-elementary level knowledge of evolutionary biology (i.e. child-like, your words) than a “God did it, the Bible says so, therefore it’s true” mentality.
To reiterate, I would much rather have an incomplete understanding of science than have a “God did it” mindset. I think relegating everything to God makes life boring. It takes the fun out of inquiry. It makes the quest to obtain strong critical-thinking skills (c.f. “God did it”) enjoyable. Agreed?
Now, on to your points.
It's a problem because the term is defined to match observations which do not uniquely support evolution and is then used as though it is unique support for evolution. It's a circular thought-pattern and most naturalists don't have the critical-thinking skills to understand that.
Sure, you can say that the change in allele frequencies of the moth populations were an act of God as opposed to natural selection, or in your words, “created genetic code.” If that’s what you think constitutes science, be my guest. As I wrote, I’m for your right to believe that. I’m just not supportive of any attempt on your part to try to add that to the public science curriculum.
Antibiotic resistance was already present before antibiotics existed and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there.
I think you’ve forgotten the basic principle of natural selection, so as long as you don’t mind reading an explanation from a college student with a pre-elementary grasp of evolutionary biology, I offer clarification which can be checked by any introductory biology textbook of your choice, as follows:
Natural selection picks traits that are already there; it does not create new ones. New traits can only be created through mutations1. What you wrote does not contradict evolution by natural selection; it just demonstrates poor understanding that can be revealed even by a guy like me. Antibiotic resistance was indeed already present. Some bacteria have this antibiotic resistance, and others don’t. So, when the population is exposed to an antibiotic, only the ones with the resistance-conferring gene will survive to reproduce. The next generation of bacteria in the population is composed of individuals that have this gene. The allele frequencies of the population have changed, therefore the population has evolved.2
Darwin's finches have been shown to fluctuate back and forth between beak sizes and cannot be said to have 'evolved'. That variety was already there.
Woah! Already there? You’re making a pretty bold assertion here. I request some sources. You’re directly contradicting the text I linked to earlier by Dr. Campbell.
Thanks for the nice evening wish. It’s going along nicely thus far.