Yes, because anonymous ID trolls like you use to term to discredit the man Charles Darwin. Evolution is the proper term. Use it.
2 Likes
Have you noticed that Dr Swamidass uses the term Darwinism as well 
Yes, I must used the term “Darwinism” to make the statement that “Darwinism” is an inappropriate way to describe modern evolutionary science.
4 Likes
That’s what you should be focusing on, not trying to “measure” this “controversy” by noting that micro- and macro-evolution have different names.
Why the insult?
Is that your proof for Naturalistic Large-Scale Evolution? As you may know that is the ONLY proof that most evolution-believers have to offer for their blind-faith in Naturalistic Large-Scale Evolution…
1 Like
Why can’t a terrestrial mammal’s front limbs with paws evolve into an aquatic mammal’s front flippers in small, one generation at a time steps? We still can see functional intermediate form in otters and walruses.
1 Like
And to indicate the fact that you reject Darwinism.
Here is the problem (as I mentioned earlier).
Modern Evolutionary alleged-science still boils down to Natural Selection + Random Chance Variation… (one or the other, or a combination of the two; that is true for all proposed mechanisms).
One could argue that Sexual selection does not fit that description above, but then what causes the choice of the female that drives the Sexual-selected-evolution of the male? That itself ends being either NS or RC.
Alternatively we could argue that this opens the door for actual non-material causal agents (volition etc), but that would destroy the no-agent assumptions of modern ToE.
Just to refer to the pre-Kimura concept which is obsolete now. Not the way you’re misusing the term.
@swamidass. This guy is an ID Troll. Get rid of him. He has nothing of value to share here. His knowledge of evolutionary science is non-existent.
And to indicate the fact that he rejects Darwinism.
Here is the problem (as I mentioned earlier).
Modern Evolutionary alleged-science still boils down to Natural Selection + Random Chance Variation… (one or the other, or a combination of the two; that is true for all proposed mechanisms).
One could argue that Sexual selection does not fit that description above, but then what causes the choice of the female that drives the Sexual-selected-evolution of the male? That itself ends being either NS or RC.
Alternatively we could argue that this opens the door for actual non-material causal agents (volition etc), but that would destroy the no-agent assumptions of modern ToE.
You keep claiming it is a problem without explaining or supporting why it is a problem.
You are continuing to confirm that you have NO positive case to make for Naturalistic Large-Scale Evolution…
Which one of you is defending God-Guided Evolution? Frankly, it sounds like neither one of you are paying a lick of attention to God-Guided Evolution… you know… the one that MOST AMERICANS AGREE UPON???
There better be someone who is… because that’s who is PAYING THE BILLS here at PeacefulScience.Org!
48% of US Adults
58% of White Evangelical Protestants
66% of Black Protestants
53% of White Mainline Protestants
56% of Catholics!
1 Like
Notice my previous comments.
IF we reject Darwinism, we ARE rejecting Natural Selection as the Core Creative Agency in Evolution.
IF we reject NS as the Core Creative Agent, then ALL that is left is Random Chance (as in Kimura).
But any rational person realizes that appealing to Random Chance for the entire creation of the Biosphere is completely IRRATIONAL.
That is why it is a problem for NALSE evolution to reject Darwinism.
Yet you claim to have verified my IRL identity! And your evidence that I have used 'Darwinism" as a term to discredit Charles Darwin is non-existent. Perhaps it is more important to verify whether someone is making trustworthy claims than it is to verify someone’s IRL identity.
But I get it. Really I do. You’ve been presented with nothing but logical reasoning, and when all else failed you resorted to a personal attack, and one with not a shred of evidence given to support it. Good on you Patrick!
1 Like
This is not true. I’m sorry you have been mislead.
2 Likes
Microevolutionary changes accumulate over time to produce macroevolutionary changes.
1+1+1+1+1 = 5
That’s the positive case and is supported by copious consilient evidence from both the fossil and genetic records.
Joshua, feel free to list the major naturalistic proposals for evolution and we can examine them. You will find that my evaluation above is correct.
They are ALL NS or RC or combinations of the two (with the possible exception of sexual selection which is a problem for materialistic Darwinism; but in principle even SS can be reduced to NS or RC for a dogmatic materialist).
That’s right. Sorry. 
1 Like
That’s the third time you’ve just repeated you unsupported personal beliefs along with your continued ignorance of attacking “Darwinism”. Not very impressive.