Evolution by Definition

Technically, no. Specific living things don't evolve. The smallest unit that could evolve is a population. Stellar evolution is directional. Biological evolution is not. No. The word "evolution" is thrown around way too much, me thinks. People go and see the movie 'Underworld: Evolution' and they think they should get a phd on biological evolution.Even writers of the Star Trek series have it totally wrong. In one of the episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise, the ship encounters a planet where two sentient species have survived the "evolutionary process". One of them is technologically advance enough to travel to other star systems while the other still in their stone age. But wait, there's a catch. "Evolution" has decided that the technologically advance species must go in order for there to be room for the stone age species to grow. So, this whole race is dying. Doctor Flox, being a genius that he is, finds a cure for this genetic disease. But he convinces Captain Archer not to give the cure to the dying race because "Evolution" has made a choice and "who are we to question it?" So, the Enterprise leaves orbit with the cure leaving behind 2 billion dying people.What kind of moron wrote that story? The bastard must have thought evolution is some kind of deity./end rant

You forgot to read the question in context of Phat's OP. He was referring to biological evolution. Yes
Yes
Yes
Maybe
Yes No. The term evolution, or more specifically biological evolution, refers to a nondirectional change in allele frequency of a population or species over time due to selective pressure. If you're talking about stellar evolution, it's a directional change in the state of a planetary system or star due to the initial composition and status of the planetary system or star. Two entirely different things. Again, it depends on which "evolution" you are talking about. The only reason I use the word "evolution" for both biological and stellar change is due to the limitation of the English language. They're two entirely different things.Biological evolution is directional while stellar evolution have inevitable results. You are commiting the fallacy of composition. Look it up and try to see why I said that. Actually, as we look more and more at biological systems, we've realized more and more that the line between biological and nonbiological things aren't so clearly defined. And...? There are plenty of complex forms of carbon based molecular arrangement, and most of them are not "alive". You need to be more specific. Yes and no. Yes, it's true that living things are subject to the same "laws" as everything else. No, it's not what you're referring to. Again, you're just using the word "evolution" to describe 2 entirely different processes. This is due to (1) the limitations of the English language and (2) your unfamiliarity with this subject. A layman, more often than not, depends too much on words. Trust me, people who are more educated on these topics don't depend so much on words or semantics. We try to see past the words and actually look at the concepts and mathematics.

What the hell are you talking about? There is only ONE biological evolution. But just to be clear, can you name a few biological evolutions that you think exist? Let me guess, are you thinking about "micro" and "macro" evolution? If so, you've been misinformed.

I really have no reply to this, as others have pointed out that your answers are so off they're not even wrong.Anyway, seeing how this is going nowhere and there really is no way for me to get through your walls of misconceptions, I'm officially out of this conversation. Good luck with your fantastic endeavors.

You are playing a game that many of us would classify as the intellectually dishonest game. Instead of gleaning for the main points from our posts, you guibble at insignificant details, nitpick every mistake in our choices of words, and purposely being extremely dense and playing dumb. This is a game that many people, including myself, do not care to play.In an intellectually honest debate, we try to keep as true to the principlle of charity as we can. Instead of insisting on nitpicking the semantics, we actually try to see past the insignificant details and tackle at the main points.Let me be honest. The game that you are playing is very often used by the less educated because on a quick glance it makes them look really smart. They could literally make a college professor look like an illiterate from some third world country. This is the reason why it's so appealing to people like you.Sure, you could continue to play this game, or you could learn how to be intellectually honest. You're not fooling anyone here. Playing word games and committing every fallacy in the book might fool and impress the ordinary bystander, but you're not fooling those of us here who are honest about our limitations.