How do you define the word Evolution?

Yes. It is certainly possible to believe in some of the evolution that has happened without believing in all of the evolution that has happened. Excuse me, Dredge, but are you completely stupid? Only it looks like you're trying to distinguish between how a thing happens and the process by which it happens. These are synonyms, Dredge. As I am in complete exact agreement with Wikipedia we must look elsewhere for the source of your confusion. Have you recently hit your head on something?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you did a survey of passers-by on the street and asked them what is meant by "biological evolution" or "the theory of evolution", 99.99% of them will say is the process by which complex forms of life evolved from much more simpler forms of life. They wouldn't refer to the mechanism by which evolution happens, but to the end result - which seems to be the opposite of how those terms are used in biology. Have you ever known Dredge to be wrong?

The nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestors within the spacial-temporal matrix? Ah yes, I'd remember doing an assignment on this in Grade 5 in primary school. You seem to have overlooked that this is just a theory, so it's a bit much to expect special creation to explain some dubious evolutionary theory.

Thank you for that very interesting information. But somewhere in the mix a human being contains more genetic information than an amoeba.

Chicko gave them to me.

Thank you, but I would like to see Taq's definition.

Again, you seem to be trying to distinguish between the process by which something happens and the mechanism by which it happens. These are synonyms.Are you feeling quite well?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

In Message 522 you claim: I doubt if you meant "limitless" literally, but, if life evolved from one ancestor, then evolutionary processes would certainly have to produce all the "information" around today. In your second sentence, you use "limitless" again. Did you mean to say that genetics cannot demonstrate that lots of new information can be added?As it's off topic here, would you like a thread on which you could support that claim? Shall I start it, or do you want to put the claim (preferably without "limitless" in it) in your own words?You also said this: You could try to support that as well on the same thread, although it might not be wise.

Really? How do you measure genetic information to write "more genetic information"? Without a unit of measurement you can't make any such a claim.

Luckily for humanity scientific explanations and definitions are not done by passers-by on the street, but by preople who are knowledgable in that specific field.

In Message 582 you ask: Actually the "nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestors within the spacial-temporal matrix" refers to the fossil evidence for the nested hierarchy and the locations in space and time when speciation occurred, it is not theory but fact. Sorry for not being clearer. Let's expand and review little, first by differentiating the process of evolution from the theory of evolution: This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level.The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, when the breeding population evolves, when other organisms within the ecology evolve, when migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, and when a breeding population immigrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next.Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesisNeutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies.If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life. The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process. If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.An additional observable result of speciation events, however, is a branching of the genealogical history for the species involved, where two or more offspring daughter species are each independently descended from the same common pool of the ancestor parent species. At this point a clade has been formed, consisting of the common ancestor species and all of their descendants.With multiple speciation events, a pattern is formed that looks like a branching bush or tree: the tree of descent from common ancestor populations. Each branching point is a node for a clade of the parent species at the node point and all their descendants, and with multiple speciation events we see a pattern form of clades branching from parent ancestor species and nesting within larger clades branching from older parent ancestor species. The process of forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of anagenesis and cladogenesis, and resulting in an increase in the diversity of life, is sometimes called macroevolution. This is often confusing, because there is no additional mechanism of evolution involved, rather this is just the result of looking at evolution over many generations and different ecologies.The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations). This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.Fossils are tests for the theory of evolution, not just in their stages of evolution from one species to another but in their temporal-spacial distribution. They have to be in the right time and the right place for evolution to explain them.They do not have to be in those time and space locations for special creation to explain them.Curiously when we look at their distribution in time and space they fit the evolution expected (predicted) patterns. New kangaroo species appear in Australia and only in Australia, not anywhere else in the world.Special creation would explain a new kangaroo species occurring anywhere anytime, as on the Island of Denmark in 1850 for example, evolution wouldn't. Thus special creation cannot explain the observed distribution of fossils in time and space and their proximity to older less derived species in time and space. The actual distribution of fossils in time and space is not theory, but fact, so yes it is entirely reasonable to ask how this observed and documented empirical pattern occurs via an arbitrary creation process. EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

A large group of scientific explanations that attempt to model how populations of organisms change over time.

The nested hierarchy is an observed fact with reference to complex eukaryotes. The theory of evolution explains why we see this observed pattern of shared derived features.

If you asked a person on the street about the theory of relativity they would probably say something very different than what the scientists say. Does that mean the theory of relativity is not a sound theory? Does that mean the scientists are wrong about relativity?

Why do creationists have such a fascination and obsession with definitions?