How do you define the word Evolution?

The medical profession concerns itself with the real world - to wit: helping the sick; it has no good reason to replace "become" with a contrived word like "evolved".
Evolutionary biologist, on the other hand, don't concern themselves with the real world; their "job" is to promote atheist theology - to wit: prop up the utterly useless theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Hence their use of the word "evolved" when it's not necessary to.

The thought of that creepy nutter, Dr. Eugenie Scott, being let loose on clueless university students is truly disturbing,--------------------------------------------------------dwise1: "Science was fun! And still is."Now here is something you and I can agree on.
--------------------------------------------------------dwise1: "That is what evolution does for biology."I look at biology and see the wondrous complexity of God's incredible creation. Naturalistic evolution reduces it to a meaningless accident. Sorry.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The medical profession concerns itself with the real world - to wit: helping the sick; it has every reason to concern itself with phenomena such as the evolution of bacteria which threaten human health, which is why looking at medical journals reveals that they do in fact concern themselves with this. What a bizarre, stupid, insane lie. Whom is it intended to deceive?

Statements like this reduce your credibility to about the vanishing point.

Is there some inherited trait - I dunno, maybe, stupidity - that prevents creationists using the quote system that this board provides so we can see who's responding to what easily?

That appears to be one. One is not impressive. Any more, or is that all?

How about you address my post, not make a comment on my signature.

Ice is a result of The Fall...Before The Fall, there was no ice. Everything was all warm and happy.

Further to my previous remarks, I would point out that only evolution makes sense of the fact that these are adaptations. Why should the neck of the giraffe, which is long and goes up, bear such a striking resemblance to the neck of, say, a pig, which is short and goes along?(If we found two analogous designed objects, such as a footbridge across a short stream and a radio mast, which had the same basic plan, which were so obviously variations on the same theme, this would not make sense to us, we would be deeply puzzled.)Now evolution does make perfect sense of the pig and the giraffe: they have common ancestry, they are adaptations of the same thing, and per the theory of evolution, evolution cannot scrap a design and go back to the drawing board.Without evolution, how would you make sense of it? A creationist might get as far as "God chose to do it that way for some reason", but what is the reason?

And this, CRR, is why "god did it" strikes us as a cop-out. You can always imagine that God did anything, earthquakes, rainbows, giraffes, whatever. He can do anything, he's God. But you then can't explain why God did it, or why he did it that way. But science can explain why things are that way.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The examples I have seen are pretty dubious since they only increase the random mutation rate. They don't mutate a specific base in response to a specific environmental stimulus. It is equivalent to a desperate poor person buying more lottery tickets. It may increase their chances of winning, but it is still a random process.

One of my favorite quotes:"[They say] 'We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it.' You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so."--William of Conches

How so? You don't need to know how the first life came about in order to determine life evolved after that point.Do we have to prove abiogenesis in order to use a DNA paternity test? Do you reject the Germ Theory of Disease because the theory does not tell us where the first germ came from? I suspect that you don't use the same argument for the theories you do accept.

No such thing is excluded. That isn't how science works. Please learn how to use the scientific method.There is no step in the scientific method that says to exclude unevidenced claims at the beginning. Instead, you create a hypothesis that makes positive predictions, and then you look to see if those predictions hold up. it isn't the fault of "materialists" that supernaturalists can't come up with testable hypotheses. The rules of science are known, but creationists refuse to even play the game. No one is stopping them from playing other than themselves.

I'm not sure CRR was trying to suggest anything more than that.