Summations Only

Actually that is pretty much a hyperbolic statement of what evolutionists claims.
The variation of beak sizes in Galapagos Finches has been called evolution. Evolutionists do claim that elephants evolved from small mammals, and that whales evolved from land animals. (Darwin suggested bears?)

quote:

---

It is believed that 50-60 million years ago, mammals approximately the size of current day pigs, were the roots from which the proboscideans evolved from.
Elephant Evolution

---

It is believed that ~50 million years ago, Pakicetus, a land animal the size of a dog, was the ancestor of whales.So while it is technically incorrect to refer to mice and bears the intent is correct.

That information was in the linked article. Read it.

Actually you're right, they don't give a definition of kind in the linked article. But I have previously given my definition in Message 644
However the question of how members of a kind are determined is covered in there.The creationist ‘orchard’diversity has occurred with time within the original Genesis ‘kinds.’

So the correct quote should be

quote:

---

"That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."
Professor Bounoure, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79.

---

The main objection to using this would be that it is now 60 years old.

I would conclude that Prof Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL, Emeritus Fellow, New College, Oxford, had at last come to his senses.

The Theory of Evolution thinks the root is LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor), Creationists think the roots are the created kinds.

Almost right. However the mutations aren't produced in response to antibiotics. Samples of bacteria preserved from before the use of antibiotics (e.g. Franklin Expedition) have a very small proportion that are resistant. So wild populations have pre-existing variation which includes antibiotic resistance. However the reason these resistant strains are at minuscule levels in wild populations is that the mutation is usually a defect that is detrimental in the absence of antibiotics. The mutations constantly occur and are constantly removed by natural selection. A similar situation applies to insecticide resistance in insects.Since the antibiotic/insecticide gives strong selection against the majority of the population resistance can develop rapidly; within years. On the other hand the mutation is usually only mildly detrimental so it disappears more slowly when the toxin is removed.

HERVs are thought to play at least three major roles. One role is to control the regulation of genes (the expression of proteins from genes). Members of the HERV-K family are typically found in areas near genes. The regulatory role of HERVs has been demonstrated in the liver, placenta, colon, and other locations.Hence it is not surprising that ERVs will be found in similar locations with reference to corresponding genes in different genomes and does not necessarily indicate common ancestry.

‘ resistance to poisons is rarely a free ride for either insects or other organisms, because the selective trade-offs imposed by pleiotropy often maintain polymorphism either within or between populations of a species. Some populations of Norway rats, for example, have evolved resistance to the rat poison warfarin. Where the poison is in widespread use, homozygotes for the allele that confers resistance are common. But that allele also lowers rats’ ability to synthesize vitamin K, a compound essential in allowing blood to clot, and they bleed more easily. For that reason, in places where warfarin is not used, individuals homozygous for this allele are at as much as a 54 percent selective disadvantage compared to wild-type rats, and the allele is far less common. The same sort of phenomenon has been demonstrated for the alleles that confer resistance to DDT and to dieldrin in mosquitoes.’
Levine, J. and Miller, K., Biology: Discovering Life, D.C. Heath, Lexington, p. 257, 1994.Researchers monitoring Culex pipiens mosquitoes overwintering in a cave in southern France (in an area where organophosphate insecticides are widely used) noted a decline in the overall frequency of insecticide-resistant mosquitoes relative to susceptible ones as the winter progressed, indicating a large fitness cost.
Gazave, E., Chevillon, C., Lenormand, T., Marquine, M., Raymond, M., Dissecting the cost of insecticide resistance genes during the overwintering period of the mosquito Culex pipiens, Heredity 87:441—448, 2001

Rejection of the ToE is directly proportional to the incidence of wisdom.Creation is the theory that fits the facts.
Evolution is the theory the facts don't fit.

Cornelius Hunter has a different view in his blog post How the Peppered Moth BackfiredWhile agreeing that it is a recent mutation he says;
First, changing colors is hardly a pathway leading to the kinds of massive biological change evolution requires.
Second, research strongly suggests that the cause of the darkening, at the molecular level, is an enormous genetic insertion not in a DNA coding sequence, but in an intervening region (intron), which have been considered to be junk DNA in the past.

I agree, and as we have seen in other threads neither the word evolution as used in biology nor the theory of evolution can be defined. This leads to almost any example of biological change over time, "evolution", being quoted as evidence for "evolution", the theory of. Nature's "15 EVOLUTIONARY GEMS" provides several examples of this.Of course nobody in this forum would do such a thing but this slippery meaning of the word evolution provides many opportunities for bait and switch tactics.

Technically I was wrong to say "evolution" couldn't be defined. I should have said that neither word nor theory have a consensus definition. Taq did give a definition but from memory nobody agreed with him. Perhaps, for the record, Taq would like to repeat his definitions for the word and the theory with links to the original posts.

Sorry Pressie, I was disappointed to find this was false. No black budgie.

quote:

---

In contradiction to the usual cartoonist caricatures of right-wing extremists, Mr Marais could also laugh at himself. Away from politics, he was a bird fancier dedicated to breeding a pure black budgerigar. When challenged about his lifelong failure to produce such a bird, he said it only went to prove that it was against the laws of nature to challenge the colour bar.
Jaap Marais | The Economist

---

I think that is a reference to;

quote:

---

There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.
Kerkut, G.A. (1927—2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960

---

Further discussion on this probably belongs in the thread How do you define the Theory of Evolution?