That's simply not true. There's vast amounts of data demonstrating evolution above the species level of phylogony. BTW, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". We are called biologist. Evolutionary theory is a foundational theory to all of biology. To discredit evolutionary theory would be to discredit all of biology.
It all depends on who you ask, I suppose. *shrug*
If you believe that then you are uninformed and ignorant about biology and science. You're comment about macroevolution demonstrates both. First, in science nothing is absolutely proven. All of science is tentative. If you were well educated in science you should understand this most basic principle. Apparently you don't. You also don't understand the difference between science and faith. Thirdly, your the one sticking your head in the sand and just simply ignoring data and evidence when it is presented to you. Until you can learn what science and evolutionary theory are and until you can enter into an intellecutally honest discussion, there's no point in even discussing this with you. You're worse then profoundly ignorant on this subject, your willfully ignorant.
I'm asking you. There is a standard modern definition for evolutionary theory used in biology. Just like there is for gravity in physics. Do you know what it is?
Well this is a step in the right direction. #1 is a general definition and not the biological one (obviously). #2 is an adequate definintion and is technically correct.
Um. This starts from a false premise and continues to get worse. This is absolutely written by somebody who has no idea what a Theory is in science, it is written by somebody who doesn't understand the difference between Evolutionary Theory and Origin Theory, and uses that very ignorance in their argument. The entire thing is a fallacy because it is predicated and based on a false premise.
Mott The Hopeless: "I'm a chicken and I don't dare debate issues. So I just holler a lot about how much smarter I am and hope nobody notices that I don't actually debate"........
The laws of gravity hasn't changed much, yet evolutionary theory keeps evolving...
That's not true. There have been significant changes to gravitational theory since it was first postulated. Look at the changes that occured to gravitation theory via the work of Newton, Bohr, Einstein, etc. No different then evolutionary theory. All theories evolve as more is understood about the nature of the phenomena being observed. You should know that. It's what makes science work.
I was talking about the law of gravity, not the theory of it. *shrug*
The problem with definition #2 is that in biological evolution the ontogeny of an individual is not considered biological evolution as individual organism do not evolve. It is the changes that occur within a population that are inheritable via the genetic material wich are considered biological evolution. That important destinction was not made clear in definition #2.
But the law of gravity is part of the framework of gravitational theory. Just as the following biological laws; "The law of inheritence, the law of variation and the law of superfecundancy" are part of the framework of evolutionary theory. These natural laws also hold the same scientific weight as the law of gravity. No serious scientist disputes these three biological laws of nature.
No, the law is a simple mathematical equation to describe its force based on variables of mass and distance. As I stated, that has remained unchanged. Evolutionary theory is still evolving, and likely continue to, forever.
Again, your saying things you can't back up. How do scientist corealate the ultimate orgins of life with evolutionary theory? What are these arguments against the theory of abiogensis? Please answer these two questions and be specific.