drafterman

Yes you are. You asked for them, I provided them. Either you accept them or reject them. If you reject them, then let's dive into that.

No I am not.

I didn't ask you for anything before you interjected in a query that wasn't directed at you. By then you had already submitted all of your points. I'm not going to verify or falsify your points, as I've already informed you. You submitted them, so substantiate. If not, move along, and have a nice day.

Well, I did that,

You've essentially done nothing other than list your points.

and then you denied that those observations were real.

Where did I do this? Quote me verbatim.

They can be. Anything can be an explanation.

Anything can be used in an explanation; that is not the same as anything can be an explanation.

I didn't say Evolution explains itself. I said "Evolution is the process which explains what we see today."

What is it that we see today?

A theory is not merely an "attempted explanation"

I never said a theory was an "attempted explanation"--in fact, you quoted my description of a theory:

theories being that which explain phenomena (e.g. processes.)

I refer only to Evolution as an "attempted" explanation.

Theories must be testable, falsifiable, be consistent with observations,

Naturally.

and be better than existing theories and explanations in terms of scope and/or accuracy.

This makes no sense. How can that which constitutes a theory require it to be "better than existing theories"?

Going back to my original post here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3512/evolution?page=1&post_number=9

All of those are real observations. Which of those do you dispute are real?

I'm not the one to dispute which of your points is real;

you are the one to argue the reason each of your points inform a reality that substantiates Evolution because that is what my question asked. Saying that it's real does not suffice.

No, they aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution is the process which explains what we see today.

No. Processes are processes. Processes are explained. They can be incorporated into explanations, but they are not the explanations.

And your statement makes no sense: how can Evolution be the "process" that explains itself?

This is not what Occam's razor is or how it is to be applied. Your simplification is erroneous.

My use is obviously rhetorical given my following statement, and if you're going to claim error, fine. Substantiate your counterclaim.

I suspected as much. Evolution is not a process. Evolution is the attempted explanation; hence it is referred to as the "theory of evolution," theories being that which explain phenomena (e.g. processes.)

"Change" can mean a lot of things.

Exactly. That's the reason Evolution is not merely a statement of change over time, as many mistake it to be. It's a hypothesis delineating a--and this is important--regulatory mechanism which governs this change over time. Evolution is not the mechanism. It is the "why?" to the mechanism.

Are sterilized people life under your standard?

They don't meet the reproduction requirement and you said if a thing doesn't meet a single standard they are not life. Here are the quotes:

I did. Each point has two parts: reality and how that reality substantiates evolution, which is what you were asking. For example: The commonality of genetic code among all living organisms, as there are any number of genetic combinations that produce identical effects, yet all organisms share based building blocks and codings for identical proteins.

No you did not. You don't get to call it "reality" without substantiation. For example, your first point speaks to Mendel's Law of Inheritance, not "Evolution" per se. Evolution's link to inheritance is through modern synthesis, which shifted the consensus from orthogenesis to natural selection. But that's not "Evolution." It's merely the premise that changed the interpretation. Try again.

The above is a reality.

You've yet to substantiate any reality.

Those things are not mutually exclusive. A process can be an explanation.

Yes they are. The process is the actual mechanism. And the explanation is the communication. What Evolution does is hypothesize that known mechanisms inform a regulatory "supra" mechanism of change over time. It's not the actual mechanism; it's the hypothesis.

This is simplification to the point of error.

Occam's razor. It's simple as it needs to be to inform truth. Theories (attempt to) explain phenomena. That is how it is defined. You perceive error, then substantiate your counterclaim.

This is not correct. Evolution is the process which encapsulates the change of living organisms over time. Mutation and replication is the primary underlying mechanism of that process.

The process of change is called change. That is not Evolution. Evolution is an (attempted) explanation as to the reason that change occurs. If it were merely a statement or phenomena of change, then Mendel's Laws, and Darwin's theory of natural selection would've suffice in appeasing once again, the "consensus" that supports Evolutionary Theory.

You are SPEED. You used your mutiny ability to switch to the other tribe.

You are the TURNCOAT. You win with the Town. The first time the Mafia tries to Night Kill you, you will not die, but your alignment will change to win with the Mafia.

Redundant. Substantiate the relevance or move along.

The commonality of genetic code among all living organisms, as there are any number of genetic combinations that produce identical effects, yet all organisms share based building blocks and codings for identical proteins.

The only known mechanism for this is inheritance across generations.

I suspected as much. Evolution is not a process. Evolution is the attempted explanation;

hence it is referred to as the "theory of evolution," theories being that which explain phenomena (e.g. processes.)

Evolution attempts to delineate the mechanism which regulates the change of a species over time. It is NOT the change itself; that simply is referred to as "change" (or more loosely "mutation" in the context of progenation, "mutation" and "progenation" being the actual processes.)

I am not speaking about whether or not they are representatives

So is it normal for people to die or does it happen and you draw the line for them to not be considered a life? 

Please also tell me the difference between the two.

I was talking about life in general I am talking about sterilized people.

Why are you pivoting to well they are a minority when my argument doesn't concern non-sterilized people? 

Explaining myself: You said reproduction is essential to life so why is a human missing that still a life? 

then sterile people are not life?

I'll just stick to this one because you said you require all of them to be considered a life. If you want me to challenge the others do ask. 

You missed me as the receiver. 

That is not what I said, no. Again, as an example, butterflies have wings, but if I clip off a butterflies' wings, it doesn't stop being a butterfly.

It was a question. Is reproduction essential to be called a life?

Of what?

The very thing I quoted. "You have to have the ability to change, not that you have to change."

I don't know how you could've missed what I was referring too. If it wasn't clear give me an example of a life's ability to change.

Metabolism is a mechanism, it is a process in which external chemicals and energy are converted into internal chemicals and energy for use.

Growth is when the increase in material of an organism is greater than the decrease of material.

Metabolism is how organisms grow. It is the process organisms acquire new material.

Talking about this:"maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism."

You basically meant maintaining an increase of material? 

No I do not. And it is not "begging the question."

Okay. I had stuff written down but then I realized it was semantical if you agreed with me at the end so I am going to change my question. 

Referring to this: "but I think it's more important to understand that just meeting one of these requirements doesn't make something a life."

Okay so how many do you need or is something required? 

It is a waste of time for me to challenge this if you simply said well this one isn't important.

So reproduction is not essential for calling something a life?

You have to have the ability to change, not that you have to change.

Can you give me an example?

Metabolism is the method by which growth happens.

So conversion is growth? Please the link the two to me. 

Certainly "response" exists on a spectrum here, but I think it's more important to understand that just meeting one of these requirements doesn't make something a life. But generally a "response" to a stimulus is some change in the internal state of the organism.

This is begging the question. We weren't actually proving God's existence we were proving if it would respond to us. Meaning it was assumed stimuli is life and we are using responses to determine the responsiveness of stimuli not that stimuli is life. Do you think I am correct?

Premise 2 states that if the universe has an explanation of its existence, then that explanation is God. This appears controversial at first, but in fact it is not. This is because atheists typically argue that if atheism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. Thus if there is an explanation of the universe, then atheism must be false (i.e., God is the explanation of the universe). This conclusion follows from the following rule of logic: If p => (implies) Q, then "not Q" => "not P". An example is, "If it is raining, then there are clouds. Thus if there are no clouds, then it is not raining."

So a man or woman who have been sterilized are not life?

Do you have to show change every single instance of your existence or what is passed onto future generations? Don't know how you would respond to this, just seeing what you would say and I will go from there because I don't really know what example you would use.

Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

4. So basically metabolism?

Metabolism (/məˈtæbəlɪzəm/, from Greek: μεταβολή metabolē, "change") is the set of life-sustaining chemical reactions in organisms. The three main purposes of metabolism are: the conversion of food to energy to run cellular processes; the conversion of food/fuel to building blocks for proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and some carbohydrates; and the elimination of nitrogenous wastes.

What does this got to do with growth unless you are saying conversion is growth? Under the assumption I am right anabolism and catabolism are parts of the metabolism. 

I don't consider maintenance to be growth if it wasn't clear already. Maintaining is preserving not improving. 

Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.

6. This doesn't really seem like something to constitute worth as a measurement of life because I think this is begging the question.

X is life because it responds. Well a rock responds to weather by being moved. No I was talking about stimuli. So responding doesn't actually constitutes life only if you have stimuli that works? This is where you come in

Do you consider nano machines that are added genetically added and passed on to be evolution?  

Would someone losing eyesight be considered an evolution or does it have to be passed onto a future generation to be evolution?

This is not concerning the amount of people because you didn't really give that in your definition. You can give that if you want. 

Hell doesn't exist.

It might.

  It's worth checking just to see if it's there.

  If I'm right, we save billions of people.  It's cheap to do as well.

If it did, it's not inside the Earth.

It might.  It's worth checking just to see if it's there.  If I'm right, we save billions of people.  It's cheap to do as well.

Only if you don't particularly want transhumanism within the scope of evolution. Your call, though a bit short sighted perhaps.

Nonetheless as far as I am concerned technological evolution will most likely exceed both humanism and transhumanism.

As I stated, you are only concerning yourself with one small phase of the process of material evolution and conveniently disregarding everything that went before and everything that will possibly come after.

It's one thing to acknowledge the process, but another thing to either ignore or explain why they occur, both prospects should be of interest intellectually speaking.

If you feel it is unnecessary to explain how processes occur all by themselves from inanimate forces that is your personal feelings on the matter.