How do you define the word Evolution?

Well, he wrote extensively about variation, he just didn't know that it arose from mutations. He knew that natural selection acted to eliminate some variations and favor others. Simple yet elegant.

Of course, there is not one shred of evidence to support your fantasy. Not a single geneticist agrees with you. You know, they actually study genes. Well, we know that's not going to happen, don't we? What you know about evolution will fit on 2 pages at most.

Ok, so I take it this is the first sentence of your book describing your fabulous new scientific theory that will replace the current Theory of Evolution and account for all the evidence, all the observations, all the genetics, all the chemistry, all the fossils that we think the Theory of Evolution explains. What is the the "atheism factor"? I don't remember reading it in any of the books or papers published about the Theory of Evolution.Do you have any examples of "intolerant dogmatism" that you would like to share?And then"Darwinists' penchant for using misleading terminology" must really get under your skin. How dare they use scientific jargon that relates directly and specifically to biology and evolution.And finding useful explanations from the Theory of Evolution is intolerable. Apparently, you suspect that an evolutionary biologist pissed in your cornflakes, otherwise, why would you get your panties in a bunch and spend so much time alerting the whole web about how nasty WE are?

I like this statement! May I use it in my signature?

Really pisses you off, huh?I don't think it's good for you to carry around that much anger. We're here for you, let it all out.ABE: I read this part again and wanted to comment. Well, in my own study and reading, "that all life evolved from a common ancestor", is not the theory, but a rather the inescapable conclusion of ALL the observations that the Theory of Evolution describes, about 150 years of observations.If you want to overthrow that, you need to up your game a whole bunch.Edited by Tanypteryx, : Added more pith.

Well, you may be correct. I should have said "that all life evolved from a common ancestor or a group of common ancestors , is not the theory, but a rather the inescapable conclusion of ALL the observations that the Theory of Evolution describes, about 150 years of observations.Do you think the ToE describes observations that show something different? That's the truth! I have seen Damselflies that mimic butterflies and tiny parasitoid wasps that look like little robotic machines. I could spend days telling you about all of them. Not even close. We've described most of the stuff bigger than a boot, but probably not more than 10% of the total species (my personal estimate). We have done well with vertebrates, but most of the life on this planet is invertebrates. Earth is the cradle of invertebrates. They make up 33 of the 34 phyla.

I remember reading that as well. I seem to remember that the author was calling for biologists to think about it and tailor observations in their specialty to look for "alien" life.I suspect that if other forms of organic (carbon-based) life arose on this planet that they were consumed before they could become widely established or they were just out-competed over the several billion years when the only life was single celled.The only places we are likely to discover "alien" life is in extreme habitats where there are only a few life forms adapted to the harshest conditions.I think it is interesting that the chloroplast organelles we see in modern plants probably started out as free living cyanobacteria that somehow became adapted to life inside plant cells. I read that mitochondria may have become part of almost all eukaryotic cells the same way.

When I am talking to other biologists we often ask for clarification if we don't quite understand what someone means when they use the various terms for evolution.In papers and books the authors often spend quite a bit of space defining the terms they are using. This is a normal part of good communication. Unfortunately, not all scientists are good writers or communicators.Right now I am reading a fascinating book, The Evolution of Beauty by Richard Prum. So far I am two chapters in and he is still discussing definitions of sexual selection, mate selection, and natural selection and how they relate to evolution and each other.One thing you will rarely find is a creationist who has a definition of evolution or other scientific terms that scientists will agree with.

I am leaving on a road trip in about 10 hours so I will have to be brief, sorry about that. I did not give my definition primarily because it would be a repeat of what a number of others already gave.I like RAZD's definitions best. I can't think of much I could do to improve on them.I have commented numerous times recently that macroevolution is not a unique or separate process. All there really is is microevolution, the change in genetic frequency in populations from generation to generation as a result of mutations and natural and sexual selection. Macroevolution is just the accumulation microevolution over time.Some people say macroevolution is speciation, but it is still microevolution that leads to a split in the population that each continue to microevolve.

But, of course it is still just "species" that are evolving, by the same process, "microevolution". Only now it is two or more daughter species microevolving.Macroevolution is just the continuation of microevolution in the daughter lines. Macroevolution is not a separate process.