How do you define the word Evolution?

Theodosius Dobzhansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."Mr. Dobzhansky, why have you drooled this stupid lie? Nothing in applied biology depends on your useless atheist theology - that all life evolved from a common ancestor - or will ever depend on it. Science is defined by observation and experiments; so go away, silly atheist space cadet.

I take your point. When you think about it, inanimate matter becoming animate matter is a form of evolution. But I understand atheists' reluctance to tackle abiogenesis and their insistence on separating it from evolution - even the vivid imaginations of atheist scientists can't come up with an plausible explanation. So best to separate it and sweep it under the carpet; out of sight and out of mind.

Thank you. Percy, for this clear and concise explanation. Since, as you say, the antibiotic doesn't change the way bacteria populations mutate, how is it possible to determine if particular post-antibiotic mutations are due to the antibiotic or due to "natural" mutations (that may have occurred without the antibiotic)?

If changing the subject is the best you can do, then you've lost the argument.

Name one use of medical science that depends on the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor.

I know, but I like it ... and it's apt, considering the quasi-religious attachment atheists have to ToE. That depends on your definition of evolution. The bottom line is, nothing in applied biology depends on the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. You have no doubt been conditioned to believe that is does. Take away Darwin and said theory and applied biology won't notice the difference.And be aware that a major part of said conditioning involves the gratuitous, ubiquitous and misleading use of the the word, "evolution" and it's variations. Modern biology has been saturated with this loaded word and it's effect is to create the illusion that evolution and biology are inseparable. The unsuspecting biology student sees and hears the "evo" word so often that pretty soon he starts to believe Dobzhansky's lie that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. But it's a big con. The truth of the matter is, if you get rid of the word "evolution", you're left with biology - 100% intact and ready to go.Theorising about the origins of life is not applied science - it's not even science! It's nothing more than a useless historical curiosity (unless you're an atheist - then it becomes all-important theology).How's this as an example of supreme irony: Evolutions often use the mantra that creation/intelligent design isn't science, but they seem blissfully unaware that the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor isn't science either, as it cannot be verified by observation and experiment.

I'm not changing the subject. If you can't name one application of medical science that depends on the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor, you will have to concede that said theory is useless in the field of medicine.Now back to your evo' word-games: It depends on what you mean by "evolution of bacteria". If you mean that some bacteria are naturally resistant to antibiotics and that bacteria mutate, then I agree with you - this is very important to medical science. But what you call, "the evolution of bacteria", I'd simply call, "bacteria being bacteria".

Thank you, Mr. Percy. Nicely explained, once again. You should be a teacher.

Ok, so the mutations appear to be independent of the antibiotic. In that case, all I see going on with antibiotic resistance is natural selection - bacteria mutate before and after the toxin, but it's still no more than natural selection. Natural selection alone can't account for how all life evolved from a common ancestor. so in this sense, antibiotic resistance is not an example of evolution.On the other hand, if bacteria mutating can be called "evolution", then ok, bacteria "evolve". Therefore, saying "bacteria evolve" is just another way of saying "bacteria mutate".

You can't. This might come as a shock to you, but a solid understanding of the foundations of biology doesn't require the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor.
What Dobzhansky was obviously referring to by "evolution" was the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor; a theory that is irrelevant to applied biology.

Ok, there are aspects of evolutionary science that pertain to the real world, but their usefulness to the real world is the question. For example, of what use are fossils to applied science? And it seems to me that many aspects of embryology are irrelevant to applied science. Fossils and embryology are used as evidence to support the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor - big deal; of what use it that to applied science?

You had nothing to do with it. I'd already admitted my "speciation" mistake in post #358 in the whale evolution forum, April 9 - seven weeks ago.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

You can call antibiotic resistance and example of "evolution" if you like, but I fail to see how it can be used as evidence to support the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor.In order for all life to have evolved from a common ancestor, mutations must produce limitless increases in the information stored in DNA. But genetics science cannot demonstrate that mutations produce limitless increases in the information stored in DNA. The mutations seen in bacteria are like a merry-go-round ... they are constantly in motion but they don't actually go anywhere.

No.

This is a worthy example of an evolutionist gratuitously and misleadingly saturating biology with his favourite word from the atheist-theology lexicon. Can anyone guess what that word is? (Hint: Sesame Street's letter of the day starts with "E")Show an evolutionist a chicken and he sees a feathered dinosaur; show him natural selection and he sees all life evolving from a common ancestor.