(October 28, 2017 at 4:24 am)Mathilda Wrote:(October 27, 2017 at 2:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: The mechanism is not understood.
I find it amazing how religionists like Stevell and Godschild will just blatantly say something to be the true because they wish it were. Yes, the mechanisms in evolution are well understood. Just because it is being ever refined does not mean to say that it is not understood. It has been this way for a while now. The theory of evolution has been tested many times, both in theory using computer programs and in practice through experiments with breeding animals, on bacteria, and through observations in the wild.
Thank you for the perfect example of conflating (a fallacy) the word 'evolution'. You state that "the mechanisms in evolution are well understood"--a reference to definition #2 and then go on and cite support all having to do with #1.
It's perfectly reasoned to believe all these things, but attempting to oversell our knowledge produces nothing but long, unproductive arguments. #2 and #3 are not well understood and for obvious reasons are hard to study.
For Reference, the word can be used in at least three senses. The reason you need to keep track of which meaning is being used, is because there is proof and universal agreement on #1. There is less on #2 and even less on #3.
1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification")
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change")
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history")
