How do you define the word Evolution?

Science isn't religion. You guys burn heretics; we laugh at fools.

Faith, Dredge, the two of you need to talk. Wait 'til I get a big bucket of popcorn.

Laughing out loud here. ... which is your definition of evolution, Faith. No, it's one of the things that is considered to be evolution. It's the only thing that you'll admit is evolution, but when literally anyone but you is doing the considering, lots of other things are considered to be evolution too.

Well, that's odd. Why would you do that?

No. I know no discovery on the part of Franklin and his crew that would support Lamarckism.

Here's an example. Enjoy.Experimental evolution of resistance to an antimicrobial peptide - PMC

Then if you were aware that evolution is not Lamarckian, why did you ask if it was? There is enough genuine ignorance among creationists without you feigning ignorance on one of those occasions when you actually possess knowledge. On the 27th of last month; though of course it is not "my" definition, it is the one used by everyone who can remember their middle-school biology classes.

We are in different time zones. I should hope not. You people have got to learn that it's not within your power to change the meanings of scientific terms. I cannot, since the term "evolutionist" is generally reserved for people who accept the evidence for large quantities of evolution, whereas you, as I understand it, ignore the evidence and deny the inference.

Again, it's not my definition, it's science's definition. That's the meaning of the term. If you want to discuss a different concept, for example common ancestry, I suggest that you use a different term, for example, ooh, I dunno, how about "common ancestry"? That might just work. That's not a change in the population, that's a change of the population. You wouldn't say, would you, that it would be evolution if you drove all the sheep out of the field and replaced them with cows? A heritable change in a population is evolution. By definition. If you mean that that doesn't prove common ancestry, then, ooh, let's think about how you might express that concept. Hmm, tricky one. Wait, I have an idea! Perhaps you could say "That doesn't prove common ancestry". Though it would be superfluous to say so, since no-one claims that it does. No it doesn't. A definition of microevolution would be "a small amount of heritable change in a population". Because in the word microevolution the prefix "micro", meaning small, qualifies the word "evolution", meaning heritable change in a population.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Are you under the impression that those are qualities you possess?Oh my dear chap.

If you've quite finished making a fool of yourself, you could read post 219.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No they don't. It is not misleading, nor is that what it is intended to convey. "A lot"? Then perhaps you could find just one person outside of the vivid absurd fantasy world in your head who says that "If natural selection is a fact then it is a fact that all life evolved from a single-cell organism."

That willful and disingenuous obfuscation would not in fact produce clarity.And, again, it is not my definition. It is the definition used in this branch of science called "biology", I wonder if you've heard of it?

How about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, can they speak for science? 'Cos they say: Oh really? Population Genetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) http://www.biologyreference.com/...netics.html#ixzz4eSzR4K00 http://www.life.illinois.edu/ib/201/lectures/PopGen.pdf

Have you never bothered to read up on this? The environment changed. I suppose you could frame that as "the mutation became detrimental", but it sounds really odd: if I drowned, would you say "The mutations which produced land-dwelling tetrapods from fish suddenly became detrimental to him?"