Replies

jda: "But, in recent years, as the theory of evolution has been progressively disproven, evolutionists have begun to describe adaptation as evolution."

First, only in your own little parallel universe has evolution been "progressively disproven."

In the real world basic evolution theory (descent with modifications, natural selection) has been repeatedly confirmed, in every way imaginable.
It has never been scientifically falsified in any way.

Second, the dictionary's definition of evolution is simply:

"1.The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

Practically speaking: any successful, natural biological modifications resulting from DNA mutations are classified "evolution" -- regardless of how great or small the DNA modifications were.
Of course, the natural cause of any particular DNA mutation might be debated, but regardless of the cause, the resulting modification -- if successfully reproduced -- is called "evolution".

Finally, I suspect your problem is that, having never actually studied the science of evolution, your mind is chock full of misinformation about it.

Typical emotional response by evolution zealots when they have no rational argument.

So, let’s see just how much you have studied the “science” of evolution.

First, a very simple question: Where are the transitional remains of the woodpeckers that hadn’t evolved enough to survive the tremendous force of hammering their beaks against a tree? And, this question ignores the fact that they had to mate very quickly before they tested the first tree.

Now, a test (I’ll provide the answers if you make even a small attempt to learn from this exercise, although, given your initial response, I’m not very optimistic):

1. How many nucleotides are in the human genome?

2. So, then, how many nucleotides are different in the human genome versus that of a chimpanzee?

3. How many natural DNA changes per generation are considered non-lethal?

4. How many years would it take for a chimpanzee to evolve into a human if the changes were in the exact right sequence and there were no “dead ends”?

5. How many years ago did evolved man supposedly “branch off” from chimpanzees?

6. Using this analysis, has there been enough time for man to “evolve” from chimpanzees?

7. How many fossil records show the 25 million year “evolution” of chimpanzees into man.

8. Finally, to see if you’re paying attention: 50% of our DNA is the same as a banana - why aren’t we considered half banana and to have “evolved” from a banana (although I do know some whose intelligent matches that of a banana, so maybe we are and did)???