How do you define the word Evolution?

What makes you suppose that the amount of information needed is the same as the amount of information present?

So was common descent, by some people.But, as I have pointed out, before Darwin people didn't understand variation and natural selection. They thought of natural selection as being conservative and keeping a check on variation, not as directional and producing adaptation.So that was one of Darwin's contributions: the development of the theory of evolution. The other was to amass a lot of evidence for the fact of evolution and for how much of a role it had played in the history of life.Darwinism is quite a good name for the principle of common descent combined with the theory of evolution. But to say that it "IS the theory of common descent" and to actually exclude natural selection from it is silly; besides which we already have a phrase meaning common descent. It's "common descent".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Havin' a little competition with yourself there to see what's the dumbest thing you can write?

Your link doesn't work, can you fix it? Thanks.

It's curiously contingent, isn't it? Suppose we found Great Danes and Chihuahuas in the wild, and no other breeds of dog to make them into a ring species. Then we would certainly consider them different species, as they would be by any conceivable definition.

Inability to interbreed is what speciation is, Faith. You can still make me laugh out loud. Don't ever change ... by, for example, learning anything.

Well, set us straight. I'd have said that when a polyploid hybrid between Helianthus annuus and Helianthus petiolaris is able to breed with others of its kind but not with either of its parent species, this constitutes the production of a new species. But if it is not, then pray tell us, Faith, which old species does it belong to, and by what criterion? I know that. The word that made me laugh was "logically", which you spelled perfectly but used incorrectly.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, Faith, you have said that over and over. You have never shown it. You never will. It is obvious, childish, pitiful garbage. As everyone except you knows this, perhaps you should stop basing your arguments on it, since no sane person will accept it as a premise.

For that, you must consult other threads. I've already killed your dumb argument, here I'm just commenting on how its festering corpse is stinking up the joint.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.