Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[John V]

You prove the OP's point. You do not understand the Theory of Evolution.

I disagree. I quoted TalkOrigins, which is a fairly well-respected site on evolution. IMO an article on TO carries more weight than the opinions of you or Exlax.

---

Even in the definition you posted there was a definition, and then three paragraphs of refining. Your first paragraph contained the definition, two had additional explanation, the third explored the largely arbitrary micro/macro distinction- and if anyone would like to assert that there's any significant difference in the mechanisms of macro-evolution then they can present evidence that this is the case, like any other scientific claim- and the fourth corrected the "evolution= abiogenesis" misconception, and the common ancestry inference.

To characterize any of those as additional definitions is just absurd.

The piece said straight out that "The word evolution has a variety of meanings." If you just want to go with their first definition - Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time - then I accept evolution. I fully accept that the gene pool of one generation is not an exact duplication of the generation before it.

I will, however, concede that my question could have been broader, to encompass those weird "micro, not macro" believers.

According to TO, that includes some biologists: "Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change."

Perhaps a third question: to what extent do you accept evolution, and why?

As noted above, I accept the first definition, as it is demonstrable.