How do you define the word Evolution?

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.

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.

I would say that it is as conclusive as it gets. The cincher for me is transfer RNA (tRNA). These are short RNA molecules that have an anti-codon that binds to mRNA and an amino acid attached to them. These are the molecules responsible for turning an RNA 3 base codon into a protein.There is simply no law requiring a strict correlation between an amino acid and the anti-codon of a tRNA. We see that the codon AUG results in a methionine in the protein, but there is no reason that an independent origin of life couldn't produce tRNA that uses AAG for methionine, or GGG.The universal nature of codon usage just screams universal common ancestry, at least to me. And I would bet all the money I have that they use the same sets of tRNAs that the rest of life uses.

A different set of tRNAs and codons would stick out like a sore thumb and couldn't be missed by biologists. Usage of different amino acids would also be an indication of a separate origin of life, and that would be obvious as well. A separate origin of life could also produce a very different genetic molecule that differs from DNA.What we should see with different origins of life is fundamental differences in genetic systems, and it just isn't there.

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.

You don't seem to understand the relationship between historical contingencies and theory. Let's use gravity as an example. The theory of gravity explains the orbit of Mercury. However, the theory of gravity does not require the existence of Mercury in order to be correct. In the same way, the theory of evolution does not require a universal common ancestor. If there were multiple origins of life, and life evolved from those multiple ancestors, then that would be the theory. However, the theory does explain how the evidence points to a universal common ancestor with the evidence we do have.

All of the genetic differences between humans and chimps was produced by this process. Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary events. As an analogy, taking a single step is microevolution. Walking to the curb is macroevolution, and it works by repeating the process of taking a single step. How can a sane discussion proceed when you refuse to listen to what other people are saying?

How did you arrive at those numbers?

As discussed before, the theory doesn't require an universal common ancestor."There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"From the very start of the theory an universal common ancestor was not required. It just so happens that the evidence points to an universal common ancestor, so that is the conclusion that scientists have adopted. That is true of every single theory in science. As it turns out, human language can only approximate reality, so it will always fall short when describing reality. This is why the semantic arguments, which creationists are all too fond of, tend to fall flat. Instead of trying to understand what reality is like, ID/creationists want to obscure the subject by focusing on definitions for words. I have yet to see anyone claim that the peppered moth proves that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes. Perhaps you could cite any of us saying that?What the peppered moth does do is give a real world example of how the mechanisms of evolution work, namely the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. The evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other species like chimps is found in things like endogenous retroviruses or transitional fossils.

A large group of scientific explanations that attempt to model how populations of organisms change over time.

The nested hierarchy is an observed fact with reference to complex eukaryotes. The theory of evolution explains why we see this observed pattern of shared derived features.