How do you define the word Evolution?

Can't you think of any possible way that the provenance of a car could be of use to a mechanic?Let's give ourselves a practical medical problem. We have a sick llama on our hands, but no vet who has experience with the species. Of the vets available, three are specialists in cows and pigs, one in sheep, one is from South America and has experience with sloths and opossums, and one has worked in the Middle East with camels.I'm the common descent "evolutionist". I have my tree of life before me. I know which one to call. A creationist does not! Would you like to talk us through what you think is insufficient about the current molecular evidence for us to consider all known life forms as having common ancestry to be a fact? New thread? Expensive fossilsEdited by bluegenes, : grammar

No. Size isn't everything. Here's some info for you

quote:

---

The largest genomes belongs to a very small creature, Amoeba dubia. This protozoan genome has 670 billion units of DNA, or base pairs. The genome of a cousin, Amoeba proteus, has a mere 290 billion base pairs, making it 100 times larger than the human genome.

---

And size is easily achieved because duplications are common.

In Message 522 you claim: I doubt if you meant "limitless" literally, but, if life evolved from one ancestor, then evolutionary processes would certainly have to produce all the "information" around today. In your second sentence, you use "limitless" again. Did you mean to say that genetics cannot demonstrate that lots of new information can be added?As it's off topic here, would you like a thread on which you could support that claim? Shall I start it, or do you want to put the claim (preferably without "limitless" in it) in your own words?You also said this: You could try to support that as well on the same thread, although it might not be wise.

"Functional" is why I mentioned the enormous Amoeba genome in Message 572, and pointed out that size alone is easily achieved by duplication.In Message 593, I suggested a new thread to Dredge, as he seemed to be implying by this: that "genetics science" cannot demonstrate that mutations produce enough increase in functional information for the life we see around us, although his use of "limitless" is presumably not to be taken literally.Perhaps you agree with him.As there's plenty of evidence for past increases in "information" (in the sense of added coding genes) via mutation and selection, I find this kind of claim odd, and think it should be supported.

Do you advise this on the basis that living fossils declaiming from pulpits should understand long dead ones found in rocks?