How do you define the word Evolution?

Fuzzy enuf for Darwinist charlatans to play silly-buggers with.

Are you retarded?

You can observe observe the fact of gravity, theorize as to the cause of gravity, and accept the quantum theory of gravity. You can observe infections and germs, theorize as to the cause of infections, and accept the germ theory of disease.The entire field of science involves the facts within a field, theories explaining those facts, and a consensus as to what the best theory or theories are. Evolution is no different. Those changes can include the emergence of a new mutation and then its spread through the population in subsequent generations. It can also include a change in the frequency of already existing alleles, such as in the case of the peppered moth or the case of coat color in pocket mice that I have discussed in other threads. An example in humans is the correlation between latitude and alleles linked to skin color. Neutral theory only makes sense when compared to negative and positive selection, so it is a part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution covers all changes in the genetic makeup of populations over time.

I think I can go with that.
from the fossil record, as mostly laid down during Noah's Flood,
from the genetic record, showing the common designer of all living things,
from the historic record, as recorded in Genesis,
and from everyday record of the life we observe, descent with modification within the created kinds.

quote:

---

from the fossil record, as mostly laid down during Noah's Flood,

---

Except that the fossil record was clearly not laid down by any single event.

quote:

---

from the genetic record, showing the common designer of all living things,

---

Which clearly shows a pattern consistent with descent with modification rather than the introduction of de novo designs.

quote:

---

from the historic record, as recorded in Genesis

---

Which is obviously myth.

quote:

---

and from everyday record of the life we observe, descent with modification within the created kinds.

---

The "everyday record" shows descent with modification but it does not show any created kinds.Reality doesn't really seem to agree with creationism.

Good, then we can go with that and see where the evidence leads us Except that when we follow the evidence through the spacial-temporal matrix we do not see a common bottleneck of breeding populations at a common point in the past, nor do we see any radiation of diversity from a single point on the globe.What we do see are lines of descent tracing paths over the globe that are consistent with evolution of species and the geological changes over time. This explains marsupials in Australia, but not in the Middle East and surrounding continents, it explains marsupials making it to South America and then the lonely Possum making it to North America. It explains placental mammals making it from Africa, Asia and European continents to North and South America, but not to Australia. If that designer uses evolutionary processes with little concern over what species live or die.As a Deist my personal belief is that this designer/god made the universe primed for the development of life, using what we see as scientific processes and laws (from gravity to evolution) with but a single command: "Surprise Me" ...See Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)
and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) - Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks, Part IIWhich, sadly for you, is not a history book. A better source are cave drawings that accurately record species now extinct living at the time of early Cro-magnon humans, where the "earliest known cave paintings/drawings of animals are at least 35,000 years old ..."Which gets us back to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 ... (which also has evidence that no global flood occurred). Microevolution, anagenesis and cladogenesis, causing the hierarchy of nested clades to expand, grow, and add diversity all around us in a continuous process.Enjoy

Stories in books are just that, stories in books. Also, "created kinds" is a throwaway term because you have no criteria for detecting created kinds.

That's not a very nice thing to say.

Taq, as I have shown in other posts there ARE criteria for identifying the bounds of the Kinds.

Mmhmm, I suppose you were only pretending to be retarded:

quote:

---

Fuzzy enuf for Darwinist charlatans to play silly-buggers with.

---

So yeah: FOR

Lenski's E-coli are often cited as an example of evolution, but I've noticed that biologists consider it to be some kind of no-no to cite same as evidence that supports the theory that all life shares a common ancestor. Why? Dredge's fraglie egg-shell mind is confused.
Help ... me ... help ... Dredge ... not waving ... drowning ... Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I'll leave Lenski to others.What's so difficult about common descent such that you don't understand it? You have common descent with your parents and they have with theirs way back in time.The ToE predicts that that relationship goes back further to include ape descendents and then further to mammals etc etc. This allows diagrams like the tree of life to be drawn showing how all living organisms are related.No biologists doubts common descent.The only question is whether there was a single universal common ancestor - one single organism that started all life on earth. There's a lot of evidence for this and the alternative idea of multiple origins is less strong. But note that when biologists talk of multiple origins they're not thinking of seperate origins of chimps and men or cats and dogs, they're talking mostly of micro-organisms. And they're not talking about a few tens of thousand of years ago but million or even billions.

quote:

---

All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organization: genetic information encoded in DNA, transcribed into RNA, through the effect of protein- and RNA-enzymes, then translated into proteins by (highly similar) ribosomes, with ATP, NADPH and others as energy sources, etc. Furthermore, the genetic code (the "translation table" according to which DNA information is translated into proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms, from bacteria and archaea to animals and plants. The universality of this code is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent. Analysis of the small differences in the genetic code has also provided support for universal common descent. An example would be Cytochrome c which most organisms actually share.[16] A statistical comparison of various alternative hypotheses has shown that universal common ancestry is significantly more probable than models involving multiple origins.[1][17]

---

Common descent - Wikipedia

I don't doubt "common descent" either ... or "evolution". But I don't accept that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. ... which makes perfect sense if all life was created by the same Creator.

It's not a no-no so much as a non-sequitur. The experiments show different lines of anagenesis all starting with one cloned organism and then dividing the offspring of following generation.Why would it be evidence for "the theory that all life shares a common ancestor" Dredge?Enjoy

So why did the creator make all those genetic markers in just the right places to show common ancestry?Enjoy