Evolution true or false?

[kingreaper]

Too bad. I believe that the topic of "Human Origins" is fundemental to Christianity.

If we are nothing more than accidents of nature, the result of random chemical bonds formed in some "primordial soup", then there is no reason to believe that our existense has any significance other than to live and die to feed the next generation of plants. It would stand to reason that there is no God (as far as we are concerned), no sin, no morality, that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fables and stories of possible historical figures, and that we will pass in to the nothingness from which we came.

If this is true,there is no need for Jesus' salvation, or His teaching. There is no need to develop better living standards or medicine because all that will do is prolong our suffering into inevitable and final death.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Wow

You even strawman TE


TE says God knew how it would all turn out, and has a plan for everything

 

[TheUndeadFish]

Too bad. I believe that the topic of "Human Origins" is fundemental to Christianity.

If we are nothing more than accidents of nature, the result of random chemical bonds formed in some "primordial soup", then there is no reason to believe that our existense has any significance other than to live and die to feed the next generation of plants. It would stand to reason that there is no God (as far as we are concerned), no sin, no morality, that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fables and stories of possible historical figures, and that we will pass in to the nothingness from which we came.

If this is true,there is no need for Jesus' salvation, or His teaching. There is no need to develop better living standards or medicine because all that will do is prolong our suffering into inevitable and final death.

Son-cerely,
Nate

But why couldn't God use evolution and such as his method of creation? The theory of evolution does not say God doesn't exist.

 

[h2whoa]

Too bad. I believe that the topic of "Human Origins" is fundemental to Christianity.

If we are nothing more than accidents of nature, the result of random chemical bonds formed in some "primordial soup", then there is no reason to believe that our existense has any significance other than to live and die to feed the next generation of plants. It would stand to reason that there is no God (as far as we are concerned), no sin, no morality, that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fables and stories of possible historical figures, and that we will pass in to the nothingness from which we came.

If this is true,there is no need for Jesus' salvation, or His teaching. There is no need to develop better living standards or medicine because all that will do is prolong our suffering into inevitable and final death.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Sounds suspiciously like a Creationist making this a salvation issue, despite repeated Creationist protests that no Creationists claim that this is a salvation issue and central to being a Christian.

What a strange world of contradictions we live in.

h2

 

[llDayo]

Too bad. I believe that the topic of "Human Origins" is fundemental to Christianity.

If we are nothing more than accidents of nature, the result of random chemical bonds formed in some "primordial soup", then there is no reason to believe that our existense has any significance other than to live and die to feed the next generation of plants. It would stand to reason that there is no God (as far as we are concerned), no sin, no morality, that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fables and stories of possible historical figures, and that we will pass in to the nothingness from which we came.

If this is true,there is no need for Jesus' salvation, or His teaching. There is no need to develop better living standards or medicine because all that will do is prolong our suffering into inevitable and final death.

<sarcasm>Great outlook to life</sarcasm>
So what if there's no real purpose to life (not like there is any purpose to anything, including a god, if you think about it), that doesn't mean we can't enjoy what little bit of time of existence we experience! You certainly didn't miss any of the previous years before you were born, what makes you think you'll miss the ones after you die?

 

[Split Rock]

Too bad. I believe that the topic of "Human Origins" is fundemental to Christianity.

If we are nothing more than accidents of nature, the result of random chemical bonds formed in some "primordial soup", then there is no reason to believe that our existense has any significance other than to live and die to feed the next generation of plants. It would stand to reason that there is no God (as far as we are concerned), no sin, no morality, that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fables and stories of possible historical figures, and that we will pass in to the nothingness from which we came.

If this is true,there is no need for Jesus' salvation, or His teaching. There is no need to develop better living standards or medicine because all that will do is prolong our suffering into inevitable and final death.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Evolutionary theory says nothing about God. It says nothing about whether humans have a "soul." It says nothing about salvation or the afterlife. It cannot comment on any plan God may have. You have tied your faith to ideas which can be tested in the physical world (young earth, global flood, divine creation of man from scratch). The church learned not to do this after the Copernican Revolution.

 

[Nathan David]

If we are nothing more than accidents of nature, the result of random chemical bonds formed in some "primordial soup", then there is no reason to believe that our existense has any significance other than to live and die to feed the next generation of plants. It would stand to reason that there is no God (as far as we are concerned), no sin, no morality, that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fables and stories of possible historical figures, and that we will pass in to the nothingness from which we came.

If that's the truth, wouldn't you rather know the truth?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I know this thread has drifted between biology and geology and usually leaning toward evolutionary biology, but I thought I'd go back and address some of the claims that weren't really previously addressed.

Personally, I believe in the appearance of age creation theory....So why can't the earth have characteristics that cause it to appear older than it really is? Why couldn't the earth appear to be millions or billions of years old, the day it was created?

There is a difference between the appearance of age in the sense of a fully-formed, mature earth and the appearance of a false history on earth, which would render such a deity deceptive and untrustworthy.

It's not just that the earth has multiple, independent lines of evidence that point to an old age relative to what Biblical literalists claim. There are features that indicate that the earth has actually existed with a history of events. If the earth is actually relatively young, that creates problems for all the evidence on earth such as:

1. Fossils of organisms that never actually existed
2. Visible light from stars that never actually existed
3. Craters representing meteorite impacts that never actually happened
4. Buried channels of rivers that never actually existed
5. Decay products of radioactive nuclides that never actually existed

And so on. Theoretically, one can have the appearance of age without the deception of also having a false history.

Let me add, that evolution requires an old earth. However, science tells us that the earth is young.

I thought you subscribed to the notion of appearance of age? Why do you claim that the evidence indicates a young earth, which implies no appearance of age at all?

To say that science tells us that the earth is young is a lie. Why do no geology textbooks reflect this assertion? Why do no scientific journals reflect this assertion? Why is there an abundance of evidence discussed in these sources, that anyone can see for themselves, that point to an old earth? Science clearly does not tell us that the earth is young. It tells us the opposite.

If the little fossil evidence evolutionists point to is as old as claimed, how can they turn around and claim that the crust of the earth is being assimilated on one side while added to from the other, and not cause a contradiction of their own claims?

This is the type of black-and-white forced dichotomy reasoning that destroyes creationist arguments and shows them as being too simplistic. Claims that either the crust must be continually disappearing and new crust cannot be developed, or vice versa such that it must be ALL one way or the other illustrates basic misunderstandings.

There are two types of crust: continental and oceanic. They differ by composition and density. That is why the more granitic, continental crust that is less dense appears "higher" than the more basaltic, oceanic crust that is more dense. The continental crust itself is much older than what oceanic crust exists today. Thus, the continents have been accumulating sediments, which preserve fossils, for billions of years. This crust is not destroyed.

Oceanic crust, on the other hand, is much younger, relatively speaking, with the oldest portions being about 220 million years old. New oceanic crust is created at spreading centers like mid ocean ridges such as that running down the center of the Atlantic. It is recycled back into the mantle at subduction zones like along part of the west coast of North America (which is responsible for the recent Mt. St. Helens activity). There is no contradiction here. It's just a bit more complicated than you realize, apparently.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Next, one must consider the geologic and fossil evidence. The fossil record indicates a sudden explosion of fully-formed complexed life, with all known species appearing at once (the Cambrian Explosion). We have evidence of certain species becoming extinct, but no new species being generated.

This is a massive misrepresentation of what is actually found in the fossil record.

There is no record of a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life as you claim. The oldest fossils on earth are relatively simple unicellular prokaryotes. Later we see stromatolites representing early cyanobacteria. We even see simple invertebrates before the Cambrian. The Cambrian represents a time of a greater probability of fossilization due to the evolution of hard parts to organisms who secrete minerals to form shells, for example. These are more readily fossilized than soft bodied organisms. The explosion of diversity is actually a period of 10-20 million years, which is sudden on the 4.56 billion year old timescale of the earth, but is not truly sudden, even on the scale of the time humans have been on the planet.

Furthermore, all known species did NOT appear in the Cambrian. For one example, we don't see any species of mammals at all. We see such species being "generated" later in the fossil record as well as other extinction events. The fossil record reflects both speciation and extinction events.

 

[Natman]

First of all, that's not exactly what mutation is. A single nucleotide "letter" might be changed to another, or a segment of DNA might be deleted entirely, flipped end-to-end or added where one did not previously exist. These changes are mutations. Since cell mutation is so great at copying a mutation has a high probability of being copied into other cells. If the mutation is beneficial to the organism, natural selection will keep it.

Usually when genetic information is flipped or inserted or deleted from DNA, the result is a non-functional or non-reproductive organism, because of the way that replication occurs within the cell.

No, the chances are not that high. They're MUCH better than that when you consider an entire planet filled with material required for replicating cells as well as billions of years for it to take place, and a billion trillion places (star systems) in which it could possibly happen.

Even if you take into account ALL of the atoms in the universe, estimated to be far less that 10 to the 100th, the majority of which is not on this planet and is not the correct elements, the odds are greater than 1 in 10 to the 1,190... far beyond "scientific impossibility".

No, the "Cambrian Explosion" happens over millions of years. By evolutionary terms, it's an "explosion" but they didn't suddenly appear.

That is one "theory". Another, that makes as much sense, is that fossils could have been deposited suddenly as a result flooding or ground liquifaction. This theory is supported by the premise that if an animal died and remained on the ground for enough time to be covered by suffucuent layers of dust, its bones would have been scavenged by preditors or deteriorated by the elements. Another evidence pointing to this form of deposition are trans-strata fossils in which fossils lie accross multiple layers of strata. Further evidence has been noted at Mount Saint Helens where complete fossilized remains of flora and fauna have been found deposited in similar layers in the mud flows from less than thirty years ago.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[Ondoher]

Usually when genetic information is flipped or inserted or deleted from DNA, the result is a non-functional or non-reproductive organism, because of the way that replication occurs within the cell.

Actually, usually when a mutation occurs the result is phenotypically neutral. This is because much of a protein is scaffolding. You can change up to 80% of a protein and still retain function. This does not to even address the vast stretches of noncoding DNA, where mutations also have little to no effect.

Even if you take into account ALL of the atoms in the universe, estimated to be far less that 10 to the 100th, the majority of which is not on this planet and is not the correct elements, the odds are greater than 1 in 10 to the 1,190... far beyond "scientific impossibility".

Your model for abiogenesis is flawed and therefore your probabilitites are irrelevant.

That is one "theory". Another, that makes as much sense, is that fossils could have been deposited suddenly as a result flooding or ground liquifaction. This theory is supported by the premise that if an animal died and remained on the ground for enough time to be covered by suffucuent layers of dust, its bones would have been scavenged by preditors or deteriorated by the elements. Another evidence pointing to this form of deposition are trans-strata fossils in which fossils lie accross multiple layers of strata. Further evidence has been noted at Mount Saint Helens where complete fossilized remains of flora and fauna have been found deposited in similar layers in the mud flows from less than thirty years ago.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Using a flood model explain:

• microfossil stratification
• dessicated strata found between aqueous strata
• the lack of mammal fossils found in the cambrian period
• fossilized foot prints found between layers of strata
• multiple layers of fossilized anual burrows found between layers of strata

 

[Freodin]

Yes acualy I will. There was an article in times not to long ago that explained that scientist found that certian states of mind release certian chemicals in the brain that are harmfull to your body. For instance they found that poeple with cronic depresion release a chemical that couses arthrightes(can't spell sorry) thus destoying joins including the knee joint. Hope this is satisfactory. Oh yeah I forgot if the knee joints are in bad shape and causing fucional problems this could cause adaptation in that area. Changing the knee joint structure.

I´m not familiar with this research and you did not provide a source, but I won´t debate that or doubt it.

But the problem is that none of these effects are hereditary. If these chronically depressed person would have offspring, these would have perfectly un-arthritic knees.

What you would have to do it to show that the state of mind that is connected with sinning (which is not a medical state) is able to change your DNA, so that changes in the morphological state of your offspring are made.

Also you would have to show that these changes would lead or have lead exactly to the morphological structure that we would expect if humans had evolved from non-human ancestors.

 

[Split Rock]

That is one "theory". Another, that makes as much sense, is that fossils could have been deposited suddenly as a result flooding or ground liquifaction. This theory is supported by the premise that if an animal died and remained on the ground for enough time to be covered by suffucuent layers of dust, its bones would have been scavenged by preditors or deteriorated by the elements. Another evidence pointing to this form of deposition are trans-strata fossils in which fossils lie accross multiple layers of strata. Further evidence has been noted at Mount Saint Helens where complete fossilized remains of flora and fauna have been found deposited in similar layers in the mud flows from less than thirty years ago.

You have done a good job explaining why fossilization is a rare event. Indeed, most fossils that are recovered are not complete because of the reasons you gave. On the other hand, if the geological column were all layed down by a massive global flood, then we would expect the earth's sediments to be teeming with complete fossils! We wouldn't find fossil bones with bite marks on them as we do, or just a few scattered teeth for many specimens.

The record does show evidence of Local Flooding and Mud Slides, which will sometimes produce, so-called "polystrate" fossils. Strangely, we find no evidence of a global flood!

 

[Natman]

Actually, usually when a mutation occurs the result is phenotypically neutral. This is because much of a protein is scaffolding. You can change up to 80% of a protein and still retain function. This does not to even address the vast stretches of noncoding DNA, where mutations also have little to no effect.

What you are saying is partially true. It is true that there are vast areas in a strabd of DNA that may be "unused", in that it seems that it doesn't matter what coding is present. But if information is added to or subracted from a strand, it causes a misalignment in the replication process. It's like mating a 100 too zipped to a 150 tooth zipper, when every tooth is supposed to match up with a counterpart.

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[gluadys]

Ten pages, 93 posts, the OP poster withdrawing already, and I wouldn't be surprised if we have a record for the most errors about evolution in the shortest time on one thread.

Let me count the ways.

Personally, I believe in the appearance of age creation theory.

As Mechanical Bliss notes (post #87) there is a difference between appearance of age and appearance of history. What the universe shows in many ways is appearance, not just of age, but of history. This leads to the untenable proposition that the Creator is a liar since it was not only an appearance of age that was created, but an actual false history that was planted into a young creation.

the evolution theory eplains as much as why i get 6 when i throw one die, i.e. not at all.

This is the "evolution is pure chance" fallacy.

Let me add, that evolution requires an old earth. However, science tells us that the earth is young. Not enough space dust has been collected for the earth to be here as long as required for the old age earth evolution myths to be true. There are a myriad of other reasons, that's just one.

A PRATT from someone who has never studied geology and is just repeating misinformation--possibly from a Hovind lecture. Recommended treatment: a thorough study of the Index to Creationist Claims http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html


Obviously, so much misinformation is hard to deal with all at once. But I would like to zero in on the one I consider truly basic.

OneManSows and Natman: Just what do you think a species is, and how do you tell if one species has become a different species?

That said, name one documented change of species. Just one. Show where any living creature changed from one type of creature to another (in real life, not on star trek), other than your mere speculation.

A real live example of specitation in North American Salamanders, you can take a walk and SEE evolution happen from species to species:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html

Oh, and here is another, the British Gull:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/ring_species.html

Let me know how the trip goes, ok?

Are they still birds, herring gulls being sub species?

"There are seven recognized subspecies of this salamander" Are they not all still salamanders?

Talk to me about a fish becoming a turtle, or a bird becoming a bear, or a dog becoming a cat or a horse, not variations within a species.

And here we have the typical request for evidence of speciation, properly supplied by Fore-runner and promptly rejected, because OneManSows does not understand what a species is. And, that, of course, means that he hasn't the foggiest idea of how evolution works.

Exaclty, scientist have found the of the complete DNA strand, some of it is doramate. When a simple bug was studied it was found that the bugs DNA strand was ready and able to adapt in a way that would change it's apearence. If creation was formed to adapt like this, who's to say that the "different spiecies" that are claimed to have become another where not that first spiecies, just dramaticly different in form and function? Humans for example lived a much more rugged life 5000 years ago they needed stronger bodies to deal with the life style, but as time passed and knowlege increased, they didn't need such sturdy bodies, or as much hair.(for warmth) Expaditionist find bones of old humans and because the bones are thicker and the brain is smaller that supposedly means that evolution is supported, because the structure of the body closely resembled an ape. I think this same evedence only further supports creationism, because it shows how the God incripted information can adapt to certian enviromental or lifestyle changes. Humans have a very different level of inteligance when compared to any animal, we where not apes we where humans. Apes will not become humans, they will stay apes, no matter how much one looks like the other, or how much time passes.

Too bad Jesusfreak has decided to leave. We might discuss why he describes evolution but refuses to call it evolution. (The most recent technique of creationist debate tactics http://christianforums.com/t736563) We could also discuss why, under the biblical scenario, species cannot come equipped to infinitely adapt to various environmental pressures, but need to adapt through evolving.

Natman in post #51 clearly deserves a prize for presenting the most PRATTS in a single post.

There are two types of changes commonly referred to by the term "evolution". One is "micro-evolution" - change within a species, and the other is "macro-evolution" - change that results in a new species.

1. The fallacy that macro-evolution is a different process than micro-evolution rather than being simply the continuation of the same process to the point of speciation and beyond.

However, we can not breed a cat and a dog to produce a "cog", "cag","dat" or a "dot".

2. The fallacy that new species are chimeras of impossible hybridization.

The only tool available for "macro-evolution" to work is "mutation", the adding or removing of DNA information.

3. The fallacy that mutation applies only to "macro-evolution" and is not necessary to all evolution.

In the natural world (outside of the lab), this is a totally random occurance. The problem is that except in the case of single celled organisms, assuming, by some chance, that an entire organism is mutated (a phenominally improbable task in itself), there would have to exist another organism that has been mutated EXACTLY in the same manner and in close enough proximaty for them to mate and reproduce, or the new species would die off in it's first generation.

4,5 & 6 Just what is a "totally random occurrence"? And it is a fallacy that macro-mutations are needed or that they are needed in two genders simultaneously.

As far as life on Earth coming about sponaniously from the "primordial slime" (biogenesis), one must consider it's extreme improbability from a mathematical standpoint, as well as conflicting conditions required for life to begin and continue in earths atomsphere, even millions of years ago (the Miller-Urey controversy).

7. The fallacy of confusing evolution with abiogenesis

Scientists consider odds of 1 in 10 to the 50th (1 followed by 50 zeros) to be "statistically impossible". Mathematician Emile Borel calculated the odds of randomly assembling a 100-amino-acid-string, under perfect conditions, to be 1 in 10 to the 125th. He also calculated the odds of producing a 227-amino-acid-string (the smallest known string for a living organism) at 1 in 10 to the 119,000th. This does not include any of the machinery necessary for replication and cell function.

8. The fallacy of relying on bogus probabilities.

Next, one must consider the geologic and fossil evidence. The fossil record indicates a sudden explosion of fully-formed complexed life, with all known species appearing at once (the Cambrian Explosion). We have evidence of certain species becoming extinct, but no new species being generated.

9. Misrepresentation of the Cambrian explosion. All phyla are found in the Cambrian, not all species, but as we have noted before, creationists do not understand what a species is.

I believe that all of the evidence, when considered as a whole, points to an "Intelligent Designer".

The commonality of organisms (the knee example) point to a "common designer" rather than to a common ancestor, in a similar manner that a hammer might resemble a mallet or a sledge, parts of a car might resemble similar parts on a baby carrage or a jet airliner.

10. The fallacy that common design explains actual patterns of morphology in either fossils or living creatures.

Good work Nate. Can anyone do better at putting so much misinformation in one post?

Too bad. I believe that the topic of "Human Origins" is fundemental to Christianity.

If we are nothing more than accidents of nature, the result of random chemical bonds formed in some "primordial soup", then there is no reason to believe that our existense has any significance other than to live and die to feed the next generation of plants. It would stand to reason that there is no God (as far as we are concerned), no sin, no morality, that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fables and stories of possible historical figures, and that we will pass in to the nothingness from which we came.

If this is true,there is no need for Jesus' salvation, or His teaching. There is no need to develop better living standards or medicine because all that will do is prolong our suffering into inevitable and final death.

Son-cerely,
Nate

The fallacy that science--notably the science of evolution--is anti-Christian and atheistic.

That is one "theory". Another, that makes as much sense, is that fossils could have been deposited suddenly as a result flooding or ground liquifaction. This theory is supported by the premise that if an animal died and remained on the ground for enough time to be covered by suffucuent layers of dust, its bones would have been scavenged by preditors or deteriorated by the elements. Another evidence pointing to this form of deposition are trans-strata fossils in which fossils lie accross multiple layers of strata. Further evidence has been noted at Mount Saint Helens where complete fossilized remains of flora and fauna have been found deposited in similar layers in the mud flows from less than thirty years ago.

Son-cerely,
Nate

The fallacy that geological stratification and fossil deposition can be explained by a universal flood. A must read are the numerous refutations of this fallacy by Frumious Bandersnatch. http://www.christianforums.com/t95378

What you are saying is partially true. It is true that there are vast areas in a strabd of DNA that may be "unused", in that it seems that it doesn't matter what coding is present. But if information is added to or subracted from a strand, it causes a misalignment in the replication process. It's like mating a 100 too zipped to a 150 tooth zipper, when every tooth is supposed to match up with a counterpart.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Yet exactly this kind of mutation (a point insertion leading to a 131 base frameshift) brought about the nylon bug.

1. Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Ohno, S, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81:2421-2425, 1984. Frame shift mutation yielded random formation of new protein, was active enzyme nylon linear oligomer hydrolase (degrades nylon) http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

 

[Ondoher]

What you are saying is partially true. It is true that there are vast areas in a strabd of DNA that may be "unused", in that it seems that it doesn't matter what coding is present. But if information is added to or subracted from a strand, it causes a misalignment in the replication process. It's like mating a 100 too zipped to a 150 tooth zipper, when every tooth is supposed to match up with a counterpart.

Son-cerely,
Nate

Not really, no. The insertion of genetic material outside of a coding gene is not likely to change gene expression, or gene makeup. The start and stop of a gene is signaled by specific codons, called start and stop codons.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

I can't resist!!!!! no!!!!!!!!!!! Don't respond!!!!!!!!!!!!! no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! uhg ok I give up I have to post I can't help it I'm weak, and I love debate.

gluadys,

You seem to know a lot about evotution. Before I debate on what you said about my post I would like to clear one thing up. I have always iterpetated(bad spelling) evolution as being all of the living creatures we know today evolving from a onr celled organism over time. Under this pretence I would imagian that evolution and adaptation are two completly different things. Is this definition correct, incorrect, or partial. Please tell me because I don't want to be one to misinform. Thanks.
p.s. I'm a female.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I can't resist!!!!! no!!!!!!!!!!! Don't respond!!!!!!!!!!!!! no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! uhg ok I give up I have to post I can't help it I'm weak, and I love debate.

gluadys,



You seem to know a lot about evotution. Before I debate on what you said about my post I would like to clear one thing up. I have always iterpetated(bad spelling) evolution as being all of the living creatures we know today evolving from a onr celled organism over time. Under this pretence I would imagian that evolution and adaptation are two completly different things. Is this definition correct, incorrect, or partial. Please tell me because I don't want to be one to misinform. Thanks.

That would be wrong; evolution is simply the ongoing process of adaptation. It is the need to adapt to new and/or changing environments or to stay the same because the environment is not changing that drives evolution.

 

[Ondoher]

I can't resist!!!!! no!!!!!!!!!!! Don't respond!!!!!!!!!!!!! no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! uhg ok I give up I have to post I can't help it I'm weak, and I love debate.

gluadys,

You seem to know a lot about evotution. Before I debate on what you said about my post I would like to clear one thing up. I have always iterpetated(bad spelling) evolution as being all of the living creatures we know today evolving from a onr celled organism over time. Under this pretence I would imagian that evolution and adaptation are two completly different things. Is this definition correct, incorrect, or partial. Please tell me because I don't want to be one to misinform. Thanks.

Adaptation is the result of evolution. Character variability is created via mutation and those characters traits which are best suited to reproductive success within an environment tend persist and propagate within the population. This is adaptation.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Adaptation is the result of evolution. Character variability is created via mutation and those characters traits which are best suited to reproductive success within an environment tend persist and propagate within the population. This is adaptation.

Sorry I am not trying to be rude but, This does not answer my question. I belive in creation, that every animal was made seperatly and that, although I don't deem it imposable in rare cases, I don't think all of the living creatures are speiceis that came from one single celled organism. That's why I want a better explination of the scientific definition of the term evolution.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

That would be wrong; evolution is simply the ongoing process of adaptation. It is the need to adapt to new and/or changing environments or to stay the same because the environment is not changing that drives evolution.

Is this the complete scientifical explination?