RE:Molecules to man evolution
The Theory of Evolution is one part of a process that nature took moving from molecules to dinosaurs and man. It is an evolutionary process.
It is not all one process and you should not conflate the origin of life with evolution of life. That is against the evidence and concepts. It is so creationist.
You should not conflate the two.
I clearly did not and am not. Why contrive a falsehood against me for correcting a creationist straw man? Do you have a bias against me for my beliefs that I do not assert scientific claims or defenses with? I would remind you that neither of us knows the origin of life.
I don't let creationists define words and word usage. I am well aware of their tactics. However, I will use "evolution" when appropriate and I will use "Evolution" or "Theory of Evolution" or ToE when appropriate.
Curious. My entire argument is based on not allowing a creationist define scientific terms and conditions. On the other hand, you just explained how you use evolution conflating it with abiogenesis where it is only appropriate to your view and right in line with creationists attempts. In science, abiogenesis and evolution are distinct and independent concepts. I never thought I would have to point that out to someone that has, until now, held a sound and logical position based on scientific principles, logic and evidence.
If memory serves, you were responding to WAS's comment. So he set the context. Molecules to man evolution is not a strawman that can be used against ToE. All that is necessary is to insist that all parties use words properly.
Since it was just today and not that long ago, I do not see that you would have to strain your memory and can go right to the posts.
The attempt by Was to conflate the two concepts was incorrect and a typical and persistent straw man attempt to conflate the origin of life with the evolution of life.
Your point about definitions is perplexing, considering that you use a definition combining the two concepts that is outside of the definitions proposed and used in science.
I am not sure what you are saying, but you imply the two are dependent and that is not an established fact and inconsistent with the scope of the theory of evolution and any hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Again, you said you use them as linked, so your statement here is not consistent with your previous statement.
Then what is all this about? You have some reason for dragging us down this rabbit hole. Is it personal. I cannot imagine why. We seem to share the same scientific position. At least until today. The only difference has been in quibbling over details regarding where the line between micro- and macro-evolution is drawn, and that is not a difference in ideology. So, I am left puzzled at this entire dialogue.
It's far beyond a "convenience".
It is only a convenience. It bears no corollary to the position in science. Especially, since no one knows the origin of life, unless you do. Are you claiming to know the origin of life?
I remain very puzzled at the content and tenor of your posts and do not understand why you are defending creationist tactics.
Have I been mistaken and you are a creationist? This would be quite a revelation, but not completely unexpected, given the creationist penchant for lying in defense of their faith.