Evolution by Definition

thats the point of this post. this post points out the lack of clearer definition.biological evolution can refer to any points of biological evolution, and because there are so many different types of biological evolution, the term is misunderstood by which biological evolution is the topic.there needs to be clearer definitions of individual types of biological evolution to discuss the different aspects without going too far off topic of the posters discussion.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i can try.hmm. DNA has a decided outcome if the variables are understood. since only some variables are understood, some changes appear random. but the DNA makes specific decisions based on its construction.the analogy of wood, can wood decide not to burn? of course. if it is too wet.people are not really so different. if you understood a mans life, you could determine what his actions would be.ie: who after being married for 25 years does not know the routines of their mate? and not know them and perhaps even call them "predictable?" of course the predictability can change, as the biochemistry changes, and attitude changes, or environment or (too many variables to list)but DNA is simpler. it doesn't change its mind. it reacts as its coded to act. much like a computer program. and if their are glitches, there's reasons for the glitches, if you can discover them.did i answer your question?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

don't you mean "apparently" random?your right. this is getting off topic.if you can understand what introductions to DNA prompt it to mutate, then you can understand the condition that caused the mutation, or at least, know what condition had to be available.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

if you are saying absolutely that you understand DNA, and that identical strands of DNA will behave differently to introductions of the exact same amount(in identical conditions):then DNA has a mind of its own to make decisions just because it "wants" to.if you are telling me everything that CAN be known about DNA IS known, then why is there any research at all left in DNA?i cannot accept that mutations are random. its illogical. introductions can be random. mutation is definite by coding and base construct.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

if its not sentient, its not random. its like wood. it will burn, or will not burn, based on the conditions.the randomness is only apparent. either a: the strands are NOT identical, or b: the conditions are not identical.variables are being overlooked. and probably the greatest is the base compositions of its environment.for instance, what is the DNA composed of? (what kind of atom) what atoms are present in the body the DNA is housed? how does the separate DNA in mitochondria, act to mutations in the cell it houses? what was the reaction on atomic levels in the cell and mitochondria? what is the evolution over time of these base atoms for its condition? how does that affect mutation? what mutations are possible by electric fields being present? at what levels? what about gravitational forces? at what levels? what about outside pressure? at what levels? what about other waves? microwaves, sound, low sound waves, high sound waves? at what levels? whats the reaction to heat of the base elements within DNA? at what levels?i could continue but the questions would never stop.that is why it is illogical to me. these questions have not been answered.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

if you took into account all variables of the dice being thrown, the throwing equations, gravity, rebound etc positioning initially etc. and ALL variables relative to the dice, the dice outcome could not be concealed.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

now is where my work on this topic stops, and yours begins. because you realize this truth. and have now asked the proper question.God be with you always,-Tim Brown

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

but the need for clearer definitions of what is considered biological evolution should now be clear.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

glad you asked =) let me see..course i will probably miss some, and not properly name others..but in the spirit of solution ill try. ill shade the new terms.ill start at the top and work down: b-evolution being short for biological evolutionthis evolution would describe only the overall effects of b-evolution, such as the evolution of man or dog or full bodied creature. topics included would be: environmental evolution and its effects on the creature as a whole, and whole scale evolution of the creature within environments of the whole body. this evolution would focus on the inner workings of the bodies of the creature in question that is evolving, this topic would include massive evolutions of full body changes, as well as the cell evolutions within the bodies of the creatures and its DNA this evolution would describe the atomic evolutions within the DNA and components , but also would have to cite the relevance of changes by the environment that the creature did or does exist in, that could affect the cells on the atomic level.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

i wouldn't "expect" anything accept a pure evolutionist and biologist to understand what I'm saying.the scope of biological evolution is very large, encompassing archeology to chemistry, and a man needs to divide and work out the science in cooperation of the other fields in order to gain a greater understanding.the evolving of biological things are tied to its base components, and should not be ignored. thats why i added "atomic" evolution.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

it was just a suggestion.if someone is talking about biological evolution by archaeological evidence, and says "evolution" and wishes to remain scrutinizing the archaeological aspects, but another person pipes in with evidence from biological evolution concerning the chemistry of the body, and begins arguing points concerning that, not on topic of the archaeological aspects the poster wishes to discuss;then both are right in saying "evolution", but the topic of discussion that was wished to be pursued by the poster, has taken a turn for the worse.i didn't make these terms up to hurt anything, it was just a suggestion concerning how "biological evolution" can be misinterpreted when discussed in topics.all apologies for any offense

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

this is a lie.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides