YECs do NOT reject speciation (macroevolution)

No, I think it is important when having a conversation with someone is how we define our terms to communicate, so we understand one another. I have had to deal with medical terms, religious terms, among others, and not everyone has a common knowledge in any field; there are disagreements, and sometimes those are very sharp.

I've just had enough defending myself here, where I, not the topic, is the topic. I will be taking a break. I will not be reading here for a while; respond if you want; I will not see it any time soon.

You may not think what you are doing and saying isn't personal; you may think you are doing people a favor; you don't come off that way. Conversations are two-way things; how people receive what you say is as important as what and why you are saying things; you should work on that.

That's essentially what I said!  I said go ahead and keep your definition if you want but recognize that scientists define the terms differently than you do and communicate that to others so that people don't get confused.  I completely agree with you that there are some words that are ambiguous and no consensus definition on.  Ironically, "life" in biology--the study of life--is one of those.  There is no consensus definition among scientists for "life."  But then there are other words that do have more accepted, consensus definitions and that's the case here. 

So I'm sorry if you feel picked on, but I can't in good conscience just let you spout things that I know to be wrong without me saying anything.  You criticize me but from my perspective you have a lot of audacity insisting that I (and other scientists) are wrong in our understanding of our own fields of expertise--and that even our definitions for our own words are wrong!  

You have the audacity to insist that my understanding of paleontology--as a paleontologist--is wrong and that paleontology is not the way I describe it.  You make statements that are not just wrong they're ludicrous, like saying paleontology is little different from a witch doctor throwing bones.

I know you would like to characterize this as a difference of opinion but often times it's not.  You make factually erroneous statements about how you think genetics works that are simply wrong.  You do the same with evolutionary biology.  And it's not so much the errors--we all make mistakes and have errors in understanding--it's your staunch insistence and audacity that presumes to lecture experts in a field about things that you frankly do not understand and do not know what you're talking about (even though you misguidedly think you do).  And worse, you refuse to learn more about the subjects you criticize and instead just keep repeating the same erroneous statements out of ignorance and refusal to even consider the possibility that what you *think* you know about genetics and evolutionary biology might just be wrong.  I don't know everything nor claim to, but I do know my own fields of expertise and know that many of the statements you make are indeed factually wrong and evidence deep misunderstandings.

I'm sorry if me saying all this offends you.  But I have a real problem with people spouting blatant misinformation (and insisting it's fact!) and from my perspective that is exactly what you are doing a lot of times.  So as long as you continue to do so, I will continue to call you on it.

Part of your post is repeated. Might want to edit that.

Thanks!   Fixed

Unless you are suggesting every single person who is a scientist define and looks at everything the same way I think you are being too general in your declaration. I've brought a few posts where people of science spoke about evolution and abiogenesis, you think they agree on all terms as you do? Clarifying terms is part of communication I expect even among scientists that has to occur when dealing with terms that can mean different things while using the same words.

The issue is quite simple: your personal, private definition of macroevolution as "a major system change, not just a tweak or lost information in an already established system," is not a recognized scientific definition.  Clear, recognized scientific definitions have been communicated to you.

I clearly defined things as I see them, which is the only thing I could do.

Why do you call it macroevolution, which can cause some confusion, but could it rather be a “ Major system change”? It would clarify things up especially if you are talking to a biologist.

It's like six of one and half dozen, another major change or a minor one. There are simply millions of people who use language the way they see fit. In a conversation, we need to know what the other person is saying. We cannot even use the word evolution without defining what we mean by saying it because so many have defined it differently, and the meaning over time has changed. The word faith is not much different; it has been the focus of change for many. I'm not going to alter the way I view things just because it disagrees with someone else, they are welcome to use whatever definition they choose, and I will want to understand what they say when they say it. 

No, it's not the only thing you can do.  You can have a conversation using recognized scientific definitions of terms instead of using your own made-up, vague, ambiguous private definitions that only one person in the world recognizes--you.  Your stance is really quite ridiculous, imho.  If you truly want to promote clear communication, then use conventional language and recognized definitions that minimize the opportunity for misunderstanding and miscommunication.  If you want to have a scientific discussion, then you will have to do this anyway, because you will still have to put your own private definition aside and address any macroevolutionary claims of evolutionary biologists in the context of how the ones making the claim are defining macroevolution.

For example, in the case of macroevolution with the "ring species" of Arctic gulls I described to you earlier

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/yecs-do-not-reject-speciation-macroevolution?page=1#comment-56940458

which you acknowledged that you have no problem with, biologists classify the final two populations as different species of Arctic gulls because they don't interbreed and have viable offspring.  Evolutionary biologists define macroevolution as evolution at or above the species level with speciation being the most basic type of macroevolution  (vs microevolution, which is defined simply as change in genotypic frequencies in a population over time).

Now you may disagree with how professional scientists define their own terms and dispute that the Arctic gull "ring species" is an example of macroevolution, but that doesn't change the fact that *evolutionary biologists* still see it as an example of macroevolution.

So, you can maintain your private definition of macroevolution all you want, but that still doesn't change the fact that there are many examples of what *evolutionary biologists call 'macroevolution'* (like the Arctic gull "ring species") that you accept and have no problem with. 

......And *that* is the point of this thread.

In a closed group where terms definitions are accepted and used daily for specific reasons, you are absolutely correct, but that is not where we are talking about. The broad world isn't so closed, and it isn't so neat, so as I have been pointing out, it behooves us as we make ourselves known to define what we mean as we discuss things. Clearly, you want to live in a cookie-cutter world; you do no live in one, rules and terms are no so cleanly defined.

Thanks for telling me the type of world I want to live in.  That's very informative, lol.  And also irrelevant to my point that there are many examples of what evolutionary biologists call macroevolution that you accept and have no problem with.  

I'm not trying to be insulting; on a test floor, we use the same terms for the same thing, we must, but that doesn't mean they would be the same elsewhere. I see many terms used at a different job though they say the same words and acronyms don't always mean the same thing. The audience will always be the main sticking point; we always have to clarify what we mean when speaking to someone new. I'm still surprised you think some fraction of the populace owns the definition of words concerning the rest of humanity.

Lucky for you I've clarified how biologists define macroevolution repeatedly, so there should be no confusion.  Hence, my point that there are many examples of what evolutionary biologists call macroevolution that you accept and have no problem with.  I also don't think anyone 'owns' word definitions, nor did I say so.  You're putting words into my mouth.

"As a biologist I certainly do get to lay claim.  Microevolution, macroevolution, and speciation are terms that biologists came up with and that biologists defined and you are misusing those terms.  So no, you can't just lift technical terms from a scientific field of study and make-up your own private definitions to suit your whim."

We all use the same words to communicate, and we don't always mean the same things when we say them.

Yes, you've made your point (repeatedly now) that you have your own made-up private definition of 'macroevolution' that no one else in the world but you recognizes and knows about (and that is also quite *unclear*, vague, and ambiguous).  I've explained to you (also repeatedly) that your 'definition' is not a recognized scientific one, and communicated to you how evolutionary biologists--who coined the word--define macroevolution.  I've further communicated to you that there are many examples of what evolutionary biologists call macroevolution that you accept and have no problem with (particularly when speciation results in little to no change in morphology), which was the point of this thread.  So we seem to have exhausted the topic.

My "made up" I don't think you can help yourself in being condescending. I'm not putting words into your mouth; you do seem to believe you own the English language.

It's not condescending, it's just a fact.  It's a definition of your own making, is it not?  And no, I don't believe I own the English language.  That's absurd.  I think you're confusing the two of us.  You're the one who's insisting that the rest of world adopt your own personal definition, whereas I'm simply following convention and consensus scientific understanding.  I didn't come up with the definition of macroevolution, so I don't know why you're blaming me and saying I "think I own the English language."  It's not my definition; it's the recognized scientific one.  Ironically, you're the one insisting that everyone else is wrong and only you are correct, so perhaps you should look in the mirror.

I also see no reason to continue going on about it.  We have an intractable disagreement that won't be resolved.  You refuse to use recognized scientific definitions and insist everyone else adopt your own definition of your own making.  But I do not recognize it.  I reject your personal, made-up definition and choose to work within standard conventions and recognized definitions of scientific terms. 

We're at an impasse.  So that's that.  Further discussion seems pointless.

A final word of advice though for what it's worth: it's things like this that make YECs seem uneducated.  You will no doubt take that as a personal slight or insult, but it's not.  I said as much in the first post of this thread to people in general.  When YECs do not use scientific terms correctly in the way scientists use them, then it truly does make them look bad, uneducated and lacking in credibility, and they're less likely to be taken seriously.  The difference here is that you *are* educated and know better, but still insist on using a definition that is not recognized by scientists.  This will make you look bad and like you don't know what you're talking about.  Just something to keep in mind when talking to other people.  If you don't care about such perceptions, then no worries.  But it's still going to make convincing people more difficult.  But hey, that's up to you.

I think I've been clear there are quite a few scientific points of view I disagree with. So the terms used in many of these discussions are just part of the issues. You can continue to belittle if you want.