Summations Only

Not really. I agree with Taq.The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms involved in life changing over time.

Really? From The Economist?

Nope. I can't find any reference to "The general theory of evolution' except from a book written by someone in the sixties. That guy also had a 'Special theory of evolution' in the same book.

It's like they think religion is a bad thing ...

Something I got from this forum, though I can't remember where and when, was: So true.

No consensus on a single definition, but definitely a consensus of several different definitions saying essentially the same thing in different ways, ways that actually reinforce each other. When explaining words to people it is often useful to use synonyms to convey the particular meaning you want them to understand. Similarly defining the word evolution or the theory of evolution in similar but different ways is done to clarify meaning.see several synonymic definitions: Your attempts to parse definitions to highlight the minor differences so that you can say there is no consensus is a failed tactic (and one typical of creationists that try to blur and hide the reality).The failure to breed a particular bird coloration is not a failure of evolution -- mutations don't occur because you want them too.Enjoy

I don't know the general theory of evolution. It's something foreign to me. Not really. Some forms of life (difficult to define) found in and around the MOR's don't adhere to that general "rule" you set out.

That's, like, the exact opposite of what I was saying.Faith has no place in science.It is the Creationists who are the ones that say that evolution requires faith - as if requiring faith is some sort of denigration of the idea...Which is hilarious because if that was true then they'd be poking fun at their own religious beliefs.

He-he-heThey automatically do it by calling scientific theories 'faith'. Not many of the average creationists on this forum seem intelligent enough to get why it's such a ridiculously stupid argument.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

There is one big difference you are trying to gloss over.Science is based on evidence, theology is the study of God(s) or of religion.

Utter bullshit. Complete and utter stupid dishonest bullshit.There is no equivalence between science and religion and to make such an assertion is simply a dishonest unsupported assertion.

"We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. "
We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5′-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.

That is just utter bullshit, as others have mentioned. Just because people use different words to define evolution does not mean it lacks a definition.Is this all you have, a really stupid semantic argument? Why give you anything when you will just lie about it?

You're not coming off as honest... I pretty sure I've said this to you before.I am a religious person. I practice theology.
I also accept evolution. That is very different from religious belief.Evolution science is in no way equivalent, or even similar, to theology.

Along those same lines, their "atheistic" "evolution model" consists of all the ideas of origins that are not part of their "creation model", which is pure YEC. Hence their "evolution model" consists mainly of "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern" as Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR wrote to me. Although he did not say it, that would include all the Christian ideas that do not conform to all aspects of YEC.So that "evolution model", consisting mainly of theistic ideas including Christian ideas, is "atheistic."Which begs the question of how Dredge defines "atheistic". Since 1970 I have seen it applied many different ways, including anything that does not comply with their narrowly sectarian beliefs. I've come across fundamentalists who would probably consider Faith, a Calvinist, to be an atheist just because they consider her theology to be wrong.Dredge needs to explain his understanding of what "atheistic" means. And how he defines evolution; I strongly suspect that his idea of evolution is that false "evolution model" in which it is built up as much more than just a scientific idea.Of course, he repeatedly refuses to clarify those things.