How do you define the word Evolution?

The most important person to deceive. That one person who absolutely must be deceived at all cost. The same person that every creationist spends all his time working so hard to deceive.Himself.

While evolution does rely a lot on luck and chance the theory proposes rather more than this. Natural selection filters what comes to it to produce non-random results. Your definition does not describe either what evolution does, and has done, or how it works.In my definition I have tried to say what it does rather than how it works.Some people are ready to criticize without providing a definition of their own. Feel free to comment on my definition at Message 87; EvC Forum: How do you define the word Evolution?

It's easy. Your defintion sucks because it doesn't provide any way of measuring genetic information. Yet, your models depend on measuring genetic information. Which can't be measured. Circular. That's why it sucks.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

The basis of luck and chance is luck.Nothing stimulates mutations. These supposed magical mutations or explosions or mis-reads or new combinations do not appear because of a need for them, or because the species thought them up as an improvement, they supposedly only arrive by sheer luck and chance.So evolutionists knowing this and admitting this whole basis of luck on their beloved mutations, try to suggest, its the lucky envirorment that magically selects these mistakes and abberations, or misreads that then produce the magic result. As if a lucky mutation gets even luckier when its compounded by a lucky envirorment.And if it doesnt succeed in the short term, or the life span of that living organism, then they say, try, try again, as it is bound to get lucky if given enough lucky years. Lets say a million or billion years of lucky misrereads and waiting for the right selection process in the right lucky conditions.Yes, I would definitely say Evolution can be summarized or defined as 'LUCK'. Luck waiting for the right chance.

Let's be honest here - mutations are not magical are they - they happen, they're demonstrable - they're observed. My father was a veterinary surgeon and once delivered a kitten with two heads fused into one. I saw it. That was a mutation - mutations are real, not magical. Honesty, please. Well, it appears that it is in the nature of DNA to mutate. That tendency to mutate, I guess (I defer to the genetic scientists on here for this), would itself be a survival trait in a changing environment, enabling a population to adapt and survive.So whilst the particular mutation itself can be seen as random, the fact that there will be mutations within a population is a statistical certainty. So evolution will follow a path, the precise shape of which will be unpredictable, but the general direction of which will be influenced significantly by the selection pressures imposed by the environment and changes to it. Where creationists go wrong is thinking that evolution at any one time dictates the precise shape of the path which happens to have led today to hearts, eyes, lungs etc.Nature ran a lottery - it was virtually certain that some form of life would win it - and the form of life which has won it to date, is the form we see today.

No, you silly liar, they do not say that.

Yes, bad mutations and misreads happen, but where are your beneficial mutations.Why is the original still with us. Where is the advantage of two heads ? Where is the advantage of radioactive mutations, bringing on better normal organisms and animals.There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation that luckily just mutated in time to magically improve a species ? Do answerEvolution is straight out luck and chance, whether one goes to the local gambling casino or one out of state. Magical selection in the envirorment does not change the luck of evolutionary gambling. Its LUCK

Good comparison, Nature ran a lottery and eventually if given enough time, a KIND should mutate and hit the jackpot is their total motivation and ploy and con. It keeps evolutionists gambling and sitting at their mindless tables, wasting their lives away.Meanwhile real scientists are working and studying and finding principles and laws and marveling at how all things fit together perfectly and EXACTLY.Jesus wins, evolutionists are mere gamblers, gambling away their lives, hoping in Mother Nature Providence to deliver them.

Can you name two or three hundred of those "real" scientists who don't accept evolution?

And winning Nobel Prizes, they do that quite a lot.Meanwhile creationists make fools of themselves on the internet. Ah well, each to his own.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Were you literally asleep during science class?

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

quote:

---

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection (Summary)

​

1.) Adaptation to High and Low Temperatures by E. coli.
2.) Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas.
3.) Selection for Large Size in Chlamydomomas
4.) Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast
5.) Evidence of genetic divergence and beneficial mutations in bacteria after 10,000 generations
6.) Adaptation of yeast to a glucose limited environment via gene duplications and natural selection
7.) Molecular evidence for an ancient duplication of the entire yeast genome
8.) Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene.
9.) Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.
10.) 12% (3 out of 26) random mutations in a strain of bacteria improved fitness in a particular environment.

---

By the way, getting an answer to your question required a two second internet search and a quick view of the results.I think this calls for another facepalm:

Well, I just reminded Faith of this one so you might as well see it too. Beneficial mutation tracked to the specific gene. So now you have proof. Have you changed your mind?

quote:

---

Gene mutation that causes phenotype change followed by selection which changes the population has been shown. That's the basic model for all evolutionary change demonstrated in real life today.

​

Message 1 of 76 (785287)
Thursday, 02-06-2016 3:38 AM
After 15 years of analysis and experimentation the gene mutation that was responsible for the change in colour of the peppered moth from white to black has been found.
This is a really important conformation of the theory of evolution - it demonstrates not only the process of natural selection but also the role of beneficial, random, genetic mutation.

---

When scientists refer to the theory of evolution they are referring to the theory that complex life as we know it today evolved from less complex life - a single-cell organism, to be exact. So if a evolutionary scientist offers an example of evolution, one would reasonably expect an example of one organism giving rise to another organism that is more complex, more evolved.

Alas, this reasonable expectation is asking too much in Darwin World. Take antibiotic resistance, for instance, which is commonly cited by evolution science as a sterling example of "evolution".
Antibiotic resistance involves nothing more natural selection, in the form of a cull of most the various strains of a certain species. So antibiotic resistance doesn't produce a more complex, more evolved organism than what was already there. The bugs that survive the antibiotic don't undergo any change to "become" resistant - they were already resistant. Evolution requires more than just natural selection, soit is erroneous to cite antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution. Evidently, the definition of evolution need some clarification. How about dividing it into micro- and macro-evolution? Micro' can be the tangible aspects of the theory that are observable, testable and factual; macro' can be the rest of the theory that no one can observe, test or establish as a fact.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

No. No. Stop making stuff up. But the word "macroevolution" is already being used for things that people can test and establish as a fact. If you want to talk about a different concept, find a different word.