Replies

Bad definitions good enough?

No. Bad definitions can create ambiguity if their specific meaning in context is not clear, however a bad definition cannot itself falsify a concept.

What is a species? A species is a reproductively isolated population. Ambiguity in the definition of species is the result of attempting to draw rigid barriers on populations of organisms when the various organisms being classified into "species" became diverse through a gradual process. This in no way is problematic for the theory of evolution.

What is a theory vs. fact?

A theory is a general explanation of the cause behind observed phenomenon. A fact is a singular data point, typically derived from a single definition.

Why do evolutionists desire extremely LOOSE definitions of all three?

I see nothing "loose" about the definitions that I have provided.

I won't bother to comment on the unquantifiable Darwinian "Black Box".

If you believe that a point can be made from it, then you should. Otherwise, I fail to see that you have made a point.

The above leads directly to the scientific consequence...evolution does not have any major applications.

This is not true. In addition to understanding the history of life on earth, principles of the theory of evolution can be applied to real-world issues, including antibiotic research and agriculture.

150 years of a thought experiment.

It appears that you are unaware of the extensive evidence for the theory of evolution. It is far more than a "thought experiment".

Eventually someone will start applying scientific standards to it, but in the meantime these threads will have to do.

I do not see that scientific standards are not currently applied to evolution. If you have evidence to the contrary, I will listen.

Bad definitions good enough?

No. Bad definitions can create ambiguity if their specific meaning in context is not clear, however a bad definition cannot itself falsify a concept.<<

You're right. It won't falsify a concept, but does mean you literally don't KNOW what you are talking about. Epistemology hurts.

What is a species? A species is a reproductively isolated population. Ambiguity in the definition of species is the result of attempting to draw rigid barriers on populations of organisms when the various organisms being classified into "species" became diverse through a gradual process. This in no way is problematic for the theory of evolution.<<

Ambiguity in a definition is NEVER good for a scientific explanation. Ambiguity in a central definition in a theory is even worse for a theory.

Reproductive isolation depends on KNOWING isolation occurs. It is a much higher standard than biologists can apply in the real world. Either in bones from the past, or current species there is no island, continent, nor ocean that biologists can can claim with reasonable certainty is isolated. Life finds a way.

What is a theory vs. fact?

A theory is a general explanation of the cause behind observed phenomenon. A fact is a singular data point, typically derived from a single definition.<<

Evolutionist make the claim it is a theory and a fact. Bad definitions again. Crappy science.

Why do evolutionists desire extremely LOOSE definitions of all three?

I see nothing "loose" about the definitions that I have provided.<<

Precisely. See "Black Box" below and then reread your definition of theory.

I won't bother to comment on the unquantifiable Darwinian "Black Box".

If you believe that a point can be made from it, then you should. Otherwise, I fail to see that you have made a point.<<

The Black Box stuff avoids actually having to explain a phemonemon. By your own definitions, it defies being a theory. Crappy science.

This is not true. In addition to understanding the history of life on earth, principles of the theory of evolution can be applied to real-world issues, including antibiotic research and agriculture.<<

Evolutionists love to overstate the importance of the "theory/fact". Again, if you mean principles like "things change" and it is a "Black Box", that is hardly useful. What major applications depend on a ToE in either antibiotic research or agriculure? Or is it good geneticists doing their work in specific, articulable, and scientfic ways with Evolutionists highjacking the credit?

I do not see that scientific standards are not currently applied to evolution. If you have evidence to the contrary, I will listen.<<

Evolution is political science.

DK