Satan Disproves Christianity

[Esquilax]

If you claim that all the others have analogues to mine, it's certainly your job to show that. You're apparently unable to do so.

Truth is, you've already been shown a few in this thread; you claim that willingness to take injury for a belief is evidence for it, and you've been shown suicide bombers from other religions, just off the top of my head.

You're compounding the dishonesty. What do you mean by "we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record"?

Precisely what I said; the evidence we find in genetics and the fossil record uniformly supports evolutionary theory. Everything fits into the correct stratographic layer pretty much where it should, so much so that scientists can and have made predictions based on this and found transitional fossils in exactly the layer they thought they would. Our genetic evidence is entirely concordant with evolution, including our ability to map the lineage of a number of species, and every objection raised by intelligent design or creationism has been summarily struck down.

What more do you want?

I'm waiting for you to clarify your statement, as I suspect if I go first you'll move the goalposts, as you're already attempting by softening to the ambiguous "disagree with evolution" already.

Clarified. I really would be interested in examining any counter-evidence you think you might have, by the way. That wasn't combative sarcasm or anything.

I think there are a number of definitions, some broader and some narrower, and the context indicates the one which is (or should be) being used. While simple change in allele frequency is one definition of evolution, discussions of evolution on atheist sites generally go well beyond that to include common descent.

Even if I did go to including common descent (something I'm in no way obligated to do, incidentally) how would any of those definitions exclude artificial selection as a mechanism?

Actually, dog breeding raises questions for evolution. I.e., why did wolves carry so much unused variation potential in their genomes?

Hmm, that really is an interesting question. A bit of cursory research shows a concept called neoteny, plus a comparable phenomenon occurring in artificially selected silver foxes. I'll keep looking into it, but this is exactly the reason I like talking about this subject.

Sure - in fact, I'll use another page from your source.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...isms.shtml
Note that artificial selection isn't listed as a mechanism of evolution. Also note that they use the more restrictive definition of evolution, as I did above: "Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors."

You'd rather debate definitions again, a sure sign that you've lost a grip on your position. If I was willing to play that game, which I'm generally not, I'd point out to you that Charles Darwin himself used artificial selection as a springboard for discussing and supporting his ideas of natural selection in "On the Origin of Species." And that Berkeley seems to use the term interchangeably, and considers it evidence for evolution anyway.

But I'd rather debate the issue, and I'm rather interested in why you think this: evolution concerns changes in organisms over generations. Why do you think human selection of breeding partners somehow invalidates that process?

Not "what dictionaries can you find that might support you," but "why do you think this is so?"