How do you define the word Evolution?

If what you were saying was in any way coherent, it would presumably be a stupid lie.

Obviously, by definition. But not a very interesting one.

"What total crap Louis Bouroune talks" --- lots of other scientists (paraphrased).

For once you are right about something.

What a stupid drooling retarded lie.Whom do you hope to deceive by telling it?

This is also true; why do you mention it?

That's something you made up, remember?

Yes indeed. Once more you are making a trivial, obvious mistake. I question your use of the word "thinking". Apart from the fact that this is not usually how you get new phenotypes, it is obviously the case that natural processes are not intent on producing and then conserving a pure breed. The fact that (for example) the Dalmatian Club Of America wants to produce homogeneity and stasis in dalmatians does not prove that natural forces can do nothing but produce homogeneity and stasis. They can also produce diversity and change; so could the dalmatian guys if they wanted to. You might as well point to lapidaries polishing stones and deduce that there are no forces that can produce rough or jagged rocks.

Well, you'd have to ask Dredge what he means by the adjectives. But in general when we say that something is by chance we do not mean that all results are equiprobable. You are six times more likely to throw a 7 on two dice than a 2, but we still ascribe the results to chance.

Right, not even all the breeders do the thing which you want to make the paradigm for all evolutionary processes ever.This is a clue: I urge you to get it.

The essence of Faith's argument is to redefine evolution in a way that has never occurred to anyone before, nor likely will again. To avoid confusion I shall use the term Evolution to refer to Faith's definition, and evolution to refer to the conventional definition.So, Evolution, according to Faith, consists entirely and exclusively of processes which produce homogeneity and eventually stasis in a population, as exemplified by the actions of breeders trying to maintain the purity of a breed of dog or cat.Clearly Evolution so defined must eventually come to a halt when it has eliminated all the genetic diversity in a population.It follows that the origin of a new trait, which might be the beginning of a new breed or even the first step towards a new species, is not Evolution --- indeed, is the very opposite of Evolution.And so the production of new species from old is not Evolution. (It is of course evolution). In Faith's own words: So, for example, the evolution of humans from australopithecenes is not Evolution, and it would be true --- by definition! --- to say that the one did not Evolve from the other.Of course, what creationists want to prove is that the one did not evolve from the other, and Faith's argument does not even begin to touch on this question. But thanks to her definition of Evolve, she can prove something which is pronounced the same as the thing creationists want to prove.Imagine a man who wants to prove that Oswald didn't assassinate Kennedy. After many long months wrestling with the evidence and getting nowhere, a heaven-sent argument occurs to him. He will take the assassination of Julius Caesar to be so paradigmatic of assassination as to be definitional of it. To be Assassinated, he declares, is to be stabbed to death in the Roman Senate House in 44 BC. He can now prove that Oswald did not and could not have Assassinated Kennedy. Of course, he is not a step nearer proving that Oswald didn't assassinate Kennedy, which was his original goal, but he can prove that Oswald didn't Assassinate Kennedy, which is pronounced the same as the thing he originally wanted to prove.

Whom do you hope to deceive by drooling out this stupid lie?

How it works depends on the antibiotic and the mechanism.If you mean how does it evolve, mutations for resistance arise in the population and spread through it by natural selection and lateral gene transfer.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, I say that when someone is making stuff up and I wish them to stop.If you were smarter you could have figured that out for yourself.

Biologists disagree with you. I have to think they know more about biology than you do, what with them being biologists and you being almost entirely ignorant of biology.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.