How do you define the word Evolution?

I know, but I like it ... and it's apt, considering the quasi-religious attachment atheists have to ToE. That depends on your definition of evolution. The bottom line is, nothing in applied biology depends on the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. You have no doubt been conditioned to believe that is does. Take away Darwin and said theory and applied biology won't notice the difference.And be aware that a major part of said conditioning involves the gratuitous, ubiquitous and misleading use of the the word, "evolution" and it's variations. Modern biology has been saturated with this loaded word and it's effect is to create the illusion that evolution and biology are inseparable. The unsuspecting biology student sees and hears the "evo" word so often that pretty soon he starts to believe Dobzhansky's lie that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. But it's a big con. The truth of the matter is, if you get rid of the word "evolution", you're left with biology - 100% intact and ready to go.Theorising about the origins of life is not applied science - it's not even science! It's nothing more than a useless historical curiosity (unless you're an atheist - then it becomes all-important theology).How's this as an example of supreme irony: Evolutions often use the mantra that creation/intelligent design isn't science, but they seem blissfully unaware that the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor isn't science either, as it cannot be verified by observation and experiment.

I'm not changing the subject. If you can't name one application of medical science that depends on the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor, you will have to concede that said theory is useless in the field of medicine.Now back to your evo' word-games: It depends on what you mean by "evolution of bacteria". If you mean that some bacteria are naturally resistant to antibiotics and that bacteria mutate, then I agree with you - this is very important to medical science. But what you call, "the evolution of bacteria", I'd simply call, "bacteria being bacteria".

Thank you, Mr. Percy. Nicely explained, once again. You should be a teacher.

Ok, so the mutations appear to be independent of the antibiotic. In that case, all I see going on with antibiotic resistance is natural selection - bacteria mutate before and after the toxin, but it's still no more than natural selection. Natural selection alone can't account for how all life evolved from a common ancestor. so in this sense, antibiotic resistance is not an example of evolution.On the other hand, if bacteria mutating can be called "evolution", then ok, bacteria "evolve". Therefore, saying "bacteria evolve" is just another way of saying "bacteria mutate".

You can't. This might come as a shock to you, but a solid understanding of the foundations of biology doesn't require the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor.
What Dobzhansky was obviously referring to by "evolution" was the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor; a theory that is irrelevant to applied biology.

Ok, there are aspects of evolutionary science that pertain to the real world, but their usefulness to the real world is the question. For example, of what use are fossils to applied science? And it seems to me that many aspects of embryology are irrelevant to applied science. Fossils and embryology are used as evidence to support the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor - big deal; of what use it that to applied science?

As stated, the mutations are random with respect to fitness. And that, dear chap, is evolution - descent with modification caused by random mutation followed by natural selection which allows those bacteria with beneficial mutations to survive and reproduce. Hohum. Mutation followed by selection causes evolution. Bacteria mutate. Then natural selection ensures that those random mutations that confer a resistance to the toxin - if any - survive to further reproduce.That's evolution in a nutshell and it's a very simple concept.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You had nothing to do with it. I'd already admitted my "speciation" mistake in post #358 in the whale evolution forum, April 9 - seven weeks ago.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Why are you so afraid of the idea that existing life evolved from a common ancestor?

Yet all the evidence seems to show that life did begin with a common ancestor. There is the evidence that for millions and millions of years the only life was simple single celled organisms. Then there is the genetic evidence showing common ancestry.What is not evident is any other explanation.

And mutation. The evolution of antibiotic resistance is an example of evolution. And undergo natural selection.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What quasi-religious attachment? If we are using the scientific definition, then it is used in applied biology. In fact, I already gave you an example:"We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy."
Protein molecular function prediction by Bayesian phylogenomics - PubMedEvolution is used to predict protein function.Evolution can also be used to predict which parts of genomes are functional.Added by edit:After writing the above, I suddenly thought of another good example of evolution being the foundation of applied medicine. That example is micro RNA's, or miRNA.The process by which miRNA was discovered has everything to do with evolution. Scientists were puzzled by why they kept seeing these short ~20 base sequences that were very highly conserved between very different species. By applying evolution, it became apparent that these had to have a vital function that was very specific to their sequence which is why they were highly conserved.As it turns out, miRNA is vital for cellular function, and its sequence is absolutely vital for that function. miRNA bind to the 3' end of messenger RNA through complementary bases (hence the vital role of the miRNA sequence) and downregulate the translation of that messenger RNA into protein. It is a form of post-transcriptional gene regulation. If you increase expression of an miRNA you will downregulate the production of proteins that correlate to that miRNA.miRNA is now a focus of cancer and disease research. We can manufacture these short miRNA sequences, place them in little fat bubbles that bind to cells, and directly downregulate different genes, be they oncogenes or genes related to to the immune system. This research directly spawns from the discovery of miRNA by the application of evolution to genomic data.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

In order for life to evolve from a common ancestor you have to get an accumulation of mutations over time that cause lineages to diverge from one another and from their ancestor. That is exactly what mutations and natural selection do. The bacterial population after mutation and selection in the presence of antibiotics has a different genome than the ancestral population. That population has at least 1 mutation that separates it from its ancestors, and probably more than 1. If you keep repeating the process over and over you get an accumulation of mutations over time.

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?

You don't think understanding the history of biological species is useful in and of itself?You seem to have a serious lack of curiosity. I would say that biologists are very curious as to how the world works, even if it doesn't have immediate application in the medical sciences. Fossils are VERY useful for figuring out why we see the species we do see, which is something that biologists are very curious about.If you don't think that knowledge for the sake of knowledge is worth pursuing, then I pity you.