How do you define the word Evolution?

It was just a random mutation.

That makes no more sense than adding blast furnaces to the definition of "automobile".

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

First, I asked for two or three hundred. You're short by 189.Second, I asked for real scientists who don't accept evolution. The first five on your list died before evolution was ever explained so they clearly don't follow. Did anybody on your list actually reject evolution?You could have just said, no, you can't name real scientists who reject evolution.

The proper question is: Name anybody who has discovered any law who rejects evolution. None of whom rejected evolution.

It's like a parakeet fighting with his own reflection in the mirror.

Name 300.

Why single out "applied" biology? How can you "apply" biology without a solid understanding of the foundations of biology?What Dobzhansky said is the equivalent of, "Nothing in aviation makes sense except in the light of aerodynamics." You seem to be implying that you can build and fly aircraft without understanding aerodynamics.

The foundations of biology may not "require" that all life evolved from a common ancestor - but the evidence shows that all life DID evolve from a common ancestor. If you're not understanding that part of the foundation, what else are you missing?Consider the analogy again: If you don't understand that aerodynamics requires air, how can you be trusted to build an aircraft?

Yes, there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution.Evolution is what happens. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how it happens.If there was another explanation - say special creation - that wouldn't change the fact that it does happen. But of course, special creation doesn't explain anything.

How are those "instructions" written on the DNA molecule? What is the ink?

A lazy Creator. And an unimaginative one.

We're not talking about form or strategies for survival here. We're talking about biochemical organization. Why would a designer use only one possibility? Why use DNA at all? For that matter, why use chemistry at all? Three sentences:

quote:

---

Gen. 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

---

quote:

---

Gen. 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

---

quote:

---

Gen. 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

---

There's nothing unimaginative about using it ONCE. What's unimaginative is doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again. Well, of course real designers DO develop those things using different methods: flight can be lighter-than-air, heavier-than air, fixed-wing, rotary-wing, etc. Echolocation can be by sound, by radio waves, by lasers, etc. Show me a biological zeppelin. That designer would be a redundancy duct-taped onto an already satisfactory explanation.

So why wouldn't a brilliant designer come up with TWO brilliant designs to do the same thing in totally different ways? Or twenty?