How do you define the word Evolution?

It's a conclusion flowing from the ToE.Why do you think you can comment so provocatively - and so erroneously - on the ToE and biology in genereal, without even a vague understanding of what it is?

Let me re-order and rephrase that.You're opposed to the ToE because it contradicts the bible.The other two items are simply required beliefs created by the first.

You're not wrong about that, Dredge. The theory of evolution does include the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) unless the person you're talking to doesn't want that. See Evolution - Wikipedia

Perhaps part of the problem is that there is a difference between the definition word Evolution as used in Biology and the definition of the Theory of Evolution.

What is it with you guys? What is it you're objecting to?No one disagrees that LUCA is part of evolutionary theory. It's a prediction/conclusion of the theory and it's obvious from the 'tree of life'. It doesn't mean that all life came from the very first life - although it may have done.

quote:

---

The last universal common ancestor (LUCA), also called the last universal ancestor (LUA), cenancestor, or (incorrectly[R 1]) progenote, is the most recent population of organisms from which all organisms now living on Earth have a common descent.[1] LUCA is the most recent common ancestor of all current life on Earth. LUCA should not be assumed to be the first living organism on Earth. The LUCA is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (sometime in the Paleoarchean era).[2][3] The composition of the LUCA is not directly accessible as a fossil, but can be studied by comparing the genomes of its descendents, organisms living today. By this means, a 2016 study identified a set of 355 genes inferred to have been present in the LUCA.[4]

---

How does special creation explain the nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestors within the spacial-temporal matrix, the fact that each new species arises in close proximity to an ancestral population both in time and space?It doesn't.Special creation could happen anywhere anytime without constraint, but the Theory of Evolution is constrained and the evidence and empirical data conform to the constraint, not the lack of it.This is an epic fail of special creation. To be good enough to be worthy of actual use as an explanation it must explain ALL aspects of the evidence.See Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography (1855) for more information. A hundred and fifty years later "The Law of Sarawak" still holds.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Special Creation, like the flood and Exodus and Conquest of Canaan and Garden of Eden and Young Earth has been refuted by reality.Sorry Charlie but that's the facts.

That's not a problem. That's normal. There's also a difference between gravity and the theory of gravity.Evolution is heritable change in a population; the theory of evolution is how it happens, i.e. mutation, selection, drift, recombination, lateral gene transfer.

What a strange phrase. Did you notice that it is entirely unsupported by the article you linked to, which was evidently written by sane people?

And I never said it did. Certainly, but that's not its definition, any more than one would define fingerprinting as "the technique that proves Jack murdered Fred".

So a number of questions occur to me.First, you guys apparently wish to change the meaning of a well-defined English word. You know you can't do that, right? So why are you trying?Second, again, if we can't call evolution evolution, what should we call it? Instead of talking of the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, we should call it ... what?Third, what would be the point if you did succeed in changing the language? Do you think this would affect any substantive point? Do you think it would bring one single person one step closer to believing the story about the talking snake?All creationist activity is in a sense futile, since creationists are, y'know, wrong. But this seems especially futile, in that you are trying to do something which would be impossible even if creationism was true, and which would be no help to you if you could do it.

That screeching sound you hear is you dragging the goal posts.The evolution of antibiotic resistance is an example of how the mechanisms of evolution work, namely the process of random mutation and natural selection. That's completely false. Mutations only need to produce the limited information we see in living and fossil species. If I showed you the 40 million mutations that separate chimps and humans, could you determine which mutations were going somewhere? What criteria do you use to determine this?

Do you lack curiosity? It isn't worthwhile to sate our curiosity? Fossils are the facts that verify the theory of evolution.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Then you are using a double standard. Just because something is not directly applicable to medical science does not make it false.

First, you call evolution a myth because it contradicts your religious beliefs. You have demonstrated time and again that you don't even understand how science works.Second, evolution has nothing to do with atheism. The majority of Christians wolrdwide accept evolution.