How do you define the word Evolution?

Please explain why so much emphasis and seeming importance is placed on a theory that has no use in applied science. Why is said useless theory dogmatically preached at every level of education? Why are any academics, intellectuals and scientists who oppose this useless theory subjected to persecution and ridicule? From the perspective of science, the worship of ToE makes no sense; it only makes sense from the perspective of philosophical-naturalism imperialism (to wit: Atheist totalitarianism). If you bothered to look beyond the myth, you would find that none of the procedures used in applied biology depend on the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. You have been conditioned to think that said theory is essential - it isn't; you've heard Dobzhansky's Lie so often that you've never thought to question it - mainly because you've got no reason to question it; you're happy to believe it. The only folks who question it are Creationists ... consequently they can see it for the gigantic con-job that it is.

I am opposed to the theory that all life evolved from a commn ancestor because it 1) is a myth concocted from fake science, 2) it contradicts the Bible, 3) it has hijacked the science of biology and turned it into a propaganda vehicle for atheist theology.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Except special creation.

Please be advised that coming up with stories about how life was invented is nothing more than an historical curiosity. It is irrelevant to applied biology. To drive a car, or to fix or improve a car, I don't need to know the story of how cars came to be invented or how cars evolved from simpler machines to what they are now. All I need is what is there now and how it works. In other words, fossils are useful for embellishing a useless historical curiosity/theory that cannot be verified as fact. Big deal. Empty beer bottles are more useful than fossils.

From the dictionary. But onsecond thoughts, science is too broad a term to be confined to observation and experiment. Consider forensic science, for example, where conclusions can be drawn from observations, after the fact. Sounds like a form of experiment to me.

Agreed - very useful. But I'm not referring to ToE; I'm referring to the dogmatic preaching of the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor.

Yes, of course, butthe theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor has no use in applied biology. Granted, but ToE is used to conclude that all life evolved from a common ancestor. The two theories have virtually become synonymous; the mentality is, if ToE is true, then so is the theory all life evolved from a common ancestor - which is what Dobzhansky was on about.

Well, my definition is wrong and I have to admit to another mistake: I was under the impression that ToE included the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor, but half an hour ago I discovered that I was wrong. Oh dear ...

Thanks for that CCR. Wow, this is such a convoluted subject - you don't who or what to believe! When someone mentions "the theory of evolution" or "evolution" you really need to get them to explain exactly what they mean. It seems to me that there are least three theories of evolution!

According to Wiki, for example, ToE is "the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioural traits". This sounds like microevolution to me.
Then there is LUCA - macro.
Then there is Darwin's ToE - macro.
Then there is the general theory of evoultion, which is macro.How can a sane discussion proceed about "evolution" or "the theory of evoltion" if you can't be sure what the hell the other person is referring to? Fair dinkum! No wonder the clarifying terms, micro' and macro-evolution were introduced.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The DNA of an earthworm contains 10.465 infos; the DNA of a human being contains 3,356,298,112.2089 infos.

What is the theory of evolution?

Here you have equated "the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor" with "evolution". This is interesting, as it seems to at odds with definitions that some other evolutionists offer. These are harsh words, difficult to accept. If you were my teacher, what would you give me out of ten for my understanding of science? As you pointed out in your post, "evolution" includes that part that says all life evolved from a common ancestor. Please show me the figures that verify your claim that the majority of Christians worldwide accept that all life evolved from a common ancestor.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

If so, then it is possible to accept evolution as a fact without believing that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Your definition seems to be miles away from, say, the definition that Wiki offers:"The theory of evolution is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioural traits." This definition contains nothing at all about "how it happens" - as in your definition. Wiki's definition of the theory of evolution is more like your definition of evolutionie, "heritable change in a population". Quite a difference.Is it any wonder creationists get confused about definitions of "evolution" and "the theory of evolution", when evolutionists themselves can't even agree?

If you did a survey of passers-by on the street and asked them what is meant by "biological evolution" or "the theory of evolution", 99.99% of them will say is the process by which complex forms of life evolved from much more simpler forms of life. They wouldn't refer to the mechanism by which evolution happens, but to the end result - which seems to be the opposite of how those terms are used in biology. Have you ever known Dredge to be wrong?