How do you define the word Evolution?

The DNA of an earthworm contains 10.465 infos; the DNA of a human being contains 3,356,298,112.2089 infos.

No. Size isn't everything. Here's some info for you

quote:

---

The largest genomes belongs to a very small creature, Amoeba dubia. This protozoan genome has 670 billion units of DNA, or base pairs. The genome of a cousin, Amoeba proteus, has a mere 290 billion base pairs, making it 100 times larger than the human genome.

---

And size is easily achieved because duplications are common.

Ah, size of the genome equates to "genetic information", according to you.Then, according to your definition a protozoan, called Amoeba dubia, has more than 670,000,000.0000 "infos". Hey, according to you, personally, a unicellular organism has a hundred times more genetic information than you! And, unlike you, those protozoans don't even pretend to have brains!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

So, Dredge.Now that you know something about genome sizes; are you going to answer the following question? You don't want to prove yourself to be more brainless that protozoa, do you?

"Development" is a poor choice of words because it is the word we use for ontogeny, for growing from a zygote to an adult.

And since no-one ever does say that, what you think is an insane paranoid delusion that bears no relationship to reality. But one of those definitions is yours, CRR!If you are genuinely worried that one day someone will conflate the two definitions, you can withdraw yours and use the same definition as everyone else does.

A little of that would be microevolution; a lot of that would be macroevolution. Sane people are not confused.

When a creationist tries to deceive you, thanks are not in order. CRR's deception is indeed convoluted, but it is not the subject. I do: the scientists. And then if they're talking crazy creationist crap you need to ask them to stop. And you are pathetically, ludicrously wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

All of the genetic differences between humans and chimps was produced by this process. Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary events. As an analogy, taking a single step is microevolution. Walking to the curb is macroevolution, and it works by repeating the process of taking a single step. How can a sane discussion proceed when you refuse to listen to what other people are saying?

How did you arrive at those numbers?

As discussed before, the theory doesn't require an universal common ancestor."There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"From the very start of the theory an universal common ancestor was not required. It just so happens that the evidence points to an universal common ancestor, so that is the conclusion that scientists have adopted. That is true of every single theory in science. As it turns out, human language can only approximate reality, so it will always fall short when describing reality. This is why the semantic arguments, which creationists are all too fond of, tend to fall flat. Instead of trying to understand what reality is like, ID/creationists want to obscure the subject by focusing on definitions for words. I have yet to see anyone claim that the peppered moth proves that humans evolved from a common ancestor shared with other apes. Perhaps you could cite any of us saying that?What the peppered moth does do is give a real world example of how the mechanisms of evolution work, namely the mechanism of random mutation and natural selection. The evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other species like chimps is found in things like endogenous retroviruses or transitional fossils.

What is the theory of evolution?

Here you have equated "the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor" with "evolution". This is interesting, as it seems to at odds with definitions that some other evolutionists offer. These are harsh words, difficult to accept. If you were my teacher, what would you give me out of ten for my understanding of science? As you pointed out in your post, "evolution" includes that part that says all life evolved from a common ancestor. Please show me the figures that verify your claim that the majority of Christians worldwide accept that all life evolved from a common ancestor.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The explanation of how evolution works.

If so, then it is possible to accept evolution as a fact without believing that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Your definition seems to be miles away from, say, the definition that Wiki offers:"The theory of evolution is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioural traits." This definition contains nothing at all about "how it happens" - as in your definition. Wiki's definition of the theory of evolution is more like your definition of evolutionie, "heritable change in a population". Quite a difference.Is it any wonder creationists get confused about definitions of "evolution" and "the theory of evolution", when evolutionists themselves can't even agree?