How do you define the word Evolution?

Yikes. I had to look that one up. You quote-mined a guy that died in the 19th century? I'm tempted to say that that's a new low, but I know better.Have you really run out of anything sensible to say?

You've been given several perfectly adequate and standard definitions of evolution, what's your problem?

I'm sure that you as an English speaker are aware that a word can have several meanings, the particular one being obvious in context. No reasonable person confuses the evolution of galaxies when discussing biology.All the biological definitions are the same - just different ways of saying them, some simple, some technical. There's nothing more to add.Common descent is a conclusion/requirement of the ToE and no-one is denying LUCA in some form.You appear to be deliberately misunderstanding some simple ideas for reasons of your own.

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

Sort this out for us.How old is the earth?If you deny human and chimp common descent then you DO reject common descent and evolution - so are you able to explain what you mean? And no-one could prove you wrong if you mean that some god thing created a molecule that could copy itself and went on to form all life on earth. But that isn't what you mean is it? Or is it?

Congratulations, you finally agree with what everyone has been saying for dozens of posts.It seems a hard thing for creationists to grasp but science does not consider Darwin's views to be sacrosanct; his book is not a holy book to be considered true in all respects and forever. Our understanding of life on earth has evolved beyond Darwin, though his core ideas have proven sound and held good despite 150 years of scientific advancement.

This is both bad science and bad logic.1. The ToE leads us to a working hypothesis that all life has one - or possibly more - common ancestors which must have started with some form of replicating molecule. On the way, one of those ancestors may have been an ancient version of what we now call a microbe. A microbe is any organism that requires magnification to be seen by us - it's a general catch-all term, not part of a taxa.2 The fact that a specific bacterium can evolve the ability to 'eat' citrate does not tell us anything about whether a humans descended from microbes. It's a single piece of evidence that confirms that organisms can change which adds to the mountain of other evidence supporting evolution. What underpins the idea of common descent is the ToE in its entirety with all its collection of supporting facts.How old is the earth?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Of course there's a connection between the two, but you're going out of your way to misunderstand what it is.How old is the earth? Why are you ignoring this question?

If you remove your default defensive 'nothing shall pass' position and re-read what I said, you might understand the point. At the moment you've got all power committed to your biblical shields. Well that explains a lot, you're actually a closet YEC. That's the equivalent of a flat earther.

No he didn't, he's just attempted - and singularly failed - to do what you're attempting and also failing to do; define macroevolution and common descent out of evolution for purely religious reasons.It's a hopeless task as there isn't, in fact, any difference between them; macroevolution simple being a consequence of multiple microevolutionary events. You might as well say that adding water in 100ml cups to a 1 litre jar can never fill the jar.Find us some non-creationist scientists and you might get a bit more traction.

Totally silly.Both varieties of Peppered moth freely interbreed. There is no process of macroevolution, it's purely a way of describing when an accumulation of evolutionary changes have resulted in non-interbreeding populations. It's irrelevant what caused it. The word macroevolution could be dumped without changing anything in biology - and in my opinion should be.

I keep having to remember what it is that you believe.The earth was made in a single act of creation about 6,000 years ago. It was fully populated with all the organisms we find in the fossil record, plus man and, I'm guessing, all the stuff we have today?Then he floods the earth 4,000 years ago killing pretty much everything.But he takes 2s and 7s of some of the critters and they become the 'kinds' that everything else evolves from?So, for example, he takes two kangaroos and from those two all the marsupials that now exist spring from them? They do it quickly too, because we have records of modern animals being around from way back.So there's enormous genetic diversity in these original kinds - presumably put there by miracle - and a miraculous process to get so much change, so quickly and spread so thickly across the drowned world.So presumably all the species we see alive today are at the end of their capacity to keep evolving?

Yeh, whatever.Is what I wrote roughly what you believe? Have the kinds now run out of diversity and therefore ability to evolve further?

I think we have to regard the act of design and creation as a little miraculous. As would be selecting the marsupial that could evolve in a few generations into all the existing marsupials.Or am I mistaken in imagining that prior to the flood all the stuff that exists today, also existed then? Or was it just a few kinds that existed then - say I kangaroo but no other marsupials? The ones that still have a load of diversity aren't noticeably evolving - that is changing within a few generations into other distinct species. Your wildebeest has remained pretty much the same since records began without splitting off dozens of branches - why would that be?It seems god's work is incomplete. I guess that means that we can relax about the end time prophecies.....Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I'm asking.... Uhuh? How many? Which? I'd say that was fairly close to the amount of time after the flood before we find written records of modern species. Though of course the situation after creation would have been more conducive than after this flood thing. Sounds like god got that one wrong then. If he wanted evolution of wildebeests he needed a different process. Evolution is apparently still happening so god's plan is still unfulfilled.