How do you define the word Evolution?

Ffs Faith. How many times??Here's the peppered moth mutation - found after years of work. This is real research, properly published and reviewed science. The link is to a layman's article but you can get the actual reseach paper if you think you're up to it.Famous peppered moth's dark secret revealed - BBC News

Oh yeah, TWO, the peppered moth and the pocket mice. two, count em TWO. These examples imply that mutations just appear when needed, which of course in principle nobody accepts. Eventually this phenomenon is going to have to be explained some other way.

No Faith, I gave you ONE example of a beneficial mutation. It identifies the actual gene, its effect, its date and the selection mechanism. It's an evolutionary slam dunk explaining an iconic example of the mechanism for change - mutation - and the mechanism for the selection of it - pollution and bird predation.You can flat out deny it - and of course you will - but it's there Faith; the thing you say can't exist, exists. All you have to do is read the papers.Ignore and complain, hope for alternate solutions, do whatever you need to do. But now you know that beneficial mutations occur and every time you say they can't or don't I'm going to call you on it.Prove the paper wrong or stop staying it.

I'm not reading it right now, sorry. I'm sure you're up to giving the outline to make your point. One example isn't enough in any case.

This is your normal tactic Faith. You put it to one side with an excuse, then you never read it. This is not the first time you've been shown this, or the second. Take your time - but just do it. Or stop pretending and admit that you can't and you won't. I've given you the outline. I've given you the layman's story link and I've give you the paper. We'll be here again in 3 month's time won't we? One example is all that's needed to demonstrate that your claim that beneficial mutations can't and don't occur. I've shown you the black swan.You can't escape it Faith.

You have ZIP support for your claim. ONE lousy example, Tangle. And I'm not going to read something off the board unless it's really really important.I thought I said beneficial mutations were extremely RARE and subject to doubts. Which your argument proves.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

They are not subject to doubt by anyone that is either honest or at least not willfully ignorant.

There's your excuse. Hang on to it.Yes, Faith, it's important. So important it made Nature. It's the bloody peppered moth for Christ sake. A poster child for evolution. It shows the actual mutation - do you have any idea how difficult that was? (That's rhetorical.) Ok, is that an admission that beneficial mutations can and do occur?

I hate to disillusion you, since you do so love your illusions, but even if a mutation is the cause of the switch in the peppered moths all you've proved is that very rarely a mutation does something beneficial, but in any case this is only an example of microevolution which has been known to occur for millennia, certainly no evidence for the ToE.

I am a Bible-bashing, God-bothering, science-hating, fundamentalist, Jesus-freak, "creationist loon" ...and according to Dr. Adequate's definition of "evolution", I'm an evolutionist too! Imagine that - one can reject the theory of evolution and still be an evolutionist. Amazing!According to the good doctor's definition, all those creationists who reject ToE are evolutionists, for no creationist will deny that that "Heritable changes in a population" is a fact.Here - at long last - is a practical use for ToE (the one and only): Medicine is definitely useful and laughter is the best medicine. So thank you, Doc, for this medicine!

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

What you offered are merely examples of biology which don't rely on the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism. If you bothered to examine each example on the list with an open mind, you would find this to be true.The power of the human mind to believe what it wants to believe should never be underestimated.For some reason or other, I"m reminded of Jack Nicholson's immortal line from the movie, A Few Good Men - "You can't handle the truth!"----------------------------------Sorry, I must have overlooked your peppered moth inquiry. My understanding of the peppered moth saga is that there existed white and black varieties. When the soot descended it blackened the trees, thereby affording the black moths a survival advantage (ie, camouflage) and so the black moths came to dominate the population. Later, when the soot was no longer present in the environment, the trees became a lighter colour, which meant the white moths were able to make a comeback. What's your point?

Before Darwin and his theory came along, I doubt if my alien/redhead scenario would have been called "evolution". But nowadays, evolutionists call it "evolution" because they consider it evidence that all life evolved from a single-cell organism. Natural selection is an integral part of ToE, so any example of natural selection qualifies as "evolution". The idea that this misleading terminology wants to convey is, If natural selection is a fact, then ToE is a fact - that is to say, it is a fact that all life evolved from a single-cell organism. If this fallacious spiel is repeated long enough, dogmatically enough and ubiquitously enough, a lot of folks start to believe it. Then having been thoroughly conditioned into accepting it as correct, it is difficult to accept the dissenting views of creationists.----------------------------------------------------Recently I read an article entitled "Evolutionary principles and their practical applications", and the terminology used is interesting. Basically, wherever the words,"biology" and "biological" would be appropriate, the words "evolution" and "evolutionary" appear instead. So the article should really have been entitled, "Principles of biology and their practical application."None of the principles and uses discussed in the article were dependant of the theory that all life evolved from a single-cell organism. If no one had ever heard of Darwin and his theory, this article would contain exactly the same material, because whatever advancements have been made in applied biology would have been made regardless of ToE. This bizarre re-naming fetish is akin to someone removing the "Ford" badges from a Ford car and replacing them with "Volkswagen" badges. So strange.

I read your article and watched the video. I end up wondering how they know it was a mutation, oddly enough. I thought at least they'd prove that much but I don't see that they did. They can date the change from peppered light to black moths to what they call a particular "mutation" but all it amounts to is the first appearance of the black type, the mutation part appears to be assumed, as it usually is. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any evidence here that it was a mutation. All it had to be was the selection of darker and darker types, and that can happen. You don't have to have a black one all of a sudden, the genome is capable of gradations, and if a series of darker and darker moths are selected, which they would be because of the dark surfaces they now have to deal with, eventually the darkest would dominate. This is ordinary microevolution or variation which is seen in every species, in this case subject to dramatic natural selection because of the change in the color of the background.And my suspicion only increases when I watch the video. The scientist here says at one point (1:39) that "you might think that a species is a species, and is unchanging, but this example shows very graphically how that's not the case, that a species can change over time, and in this case it can change very rapidly over time ... because the environment has been changing. .. [which is] an obvious example of evolutionary change that is pretty incontrovertible. "Good thing I did go to that link I guess, because it proves my point, not yours. This is ordinary variation within a species, not any kind of evidence for the ToE. I find this scientist's comment strangely nave considering that we KNOW that there is LOTS of variety possible in most species. I wouldn't be surprised if you could take those moths, black or white, and paint their usual trees red and you'd find them all turning red. From natural options built into their genome, not a mutation.ABE: Dredge said it a lot more simply in Message 252 but since you insisted that it was a mutation and I remember that in the case of the pocket mice it did seem to have to be a mutation, I expected a similar kind of proof here. But it isn't the same, there is no need to assume a mutation was involved.Edited by Faith, : 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."