The Science of Biological Evolution (no politics or religion)

Aparently it's like calling a hair dresser a cutist.  You should rather call them scientists.  I've started using the words proponents of evolutionary theory as code.  Also they are a little touchy when it comes to the use of the phrase 'survival of the fitest' you should rather use the words 'natural selection'.  I know, it's a minefield right.

Evolution is fundamental to biology. It would be practically impossible for a biologist who is actively doing work to not "believe" evolution (I would use the word know).

I'm sure if you looked hard enough, and worded it absurdly enough, you could find physicists who would sign off on disagreeing that gravity exists... but that's pretty silly.

The fact is over 90% of scientists (probably 99% of biologists) understand evolution. As an example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

Has more signatures, and more biologists, than creationist lists in spite of being limited to people named Steve.

 It's a made up world used by evangelicals to undermine the fact of evolution by painting those who understand evolution as having blind faith instead of real knowledge. 

Because someone accepts the GIANT MOUNTAINS of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, doesn't make them a "proponent" necessarily.

I accept chemistry, electricity, and geography too, but I don't consider myself a proponent of any of them.  They don't need my help.

Carbon based life isn't the only kind of life possible, that's what I meant by "life as we know it."

Also I'm not sure that carbon based life needs water... I know we do, but I mean a hypothetical different life form.

GIANT MOUNTAINS, hardly.  The only evidence I find mildly convincing is that based on DNA and as I've already mentioned the common factors in DNA in different animal spicies can be attributed to either a common ancestry or a common designer.  Honestly, the way proponents of evolutionary theory talk you'ld think they had access to some sort of haggunenon.

Touchy, perhaps. But largely those who point out the difference are merely trying to communicate concepts accurately. Those that might interchange the phrases are probably not as familiar with the material. There is no slght - we are trying to share and understand each other?

A designer is both unnecessary (occams razor) and not as good an explanation (vestigial structures / DNA and in some cases very poor design). A natural process makes the most sense. And yes, the evidence is as good for evolution as it is for anything. 

Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle.  Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle attributed to William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar.  How I chuckle at the invocation of Occam's razor as the reason why we don't need God as it's author was firmly within the theistic fold.

The fact that we don't know what things are doing at present doesn't mean the're doing nothing.  DNA is a poor design... pull the other one!

Even from your point of view evolution through natural selection is a design processes and evolution is smarter than you are.

This is probably a common design flaw to point out, but for example the way the eye connects to the brain (optic nerve) is not ideal (we have blind spots in both eyes because of it).

But I would also ask why things like viruses and prions exist. They're sort of not even living biological remnants (that can make us sick / kill us). Why would that stuff exist everywhere if there were a designer?

 Yeah, it doesn't prove or disprove anything. There could be 100 gods for all I know. It just shows what's more or less reasonable. For example 100 gods is sort of redundant yes? You only need 1. Why is it bad to point out you don't even need 1 then? Sure God may exist, but it's not necessary.

I would like to explain but Elroch tends to frown.

Natural selection is effective, but not intelligent.

The same way rain is an effective way to make the ground wet, but clouds are not intelligent. Cold air holds less moisture than warm air. If warm wet air gets cold enough, water falls out of it. That's all.

If a species has offspring, and those offspring have offspring (etc) then it's successful for its environment. If not, it becomes extinct. Couple this with the fact that our cells can't perfectly copy our DNA 100% of the time and you get evolution in a nutshell.

I was directly quoting Orgel's Second Rule, if you disagree you'll have to take it up with him.  Unfortunately you will require the services of a necromancer.

The whole idea of evolution hangs on the idea that the information there in the first place is not all that great.  If the information there in the first place has a value then any imperfect copy will have a detrimental effect.

There is no such thing as macro vs. micro evolution.Evolution is small changes the accumulate over time. This has been going on for 3.8 billion years.

Evolutionist is in the dictionary --> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evolutionist 

I'm right the dictionary is wrong.

I think the distinction between these terms and why they are used is mainly due to evidence.  Most people would concede that there is evidence to support adaptation in a spicies due to environmental factors.  However they would dispute that there is evidence to support the view that we and an ameoba share a common ancestor.

People are taller than they were several thousand years ago.   Would you call that evolution?  Technically perhaps, but to me microevolution describes it better.  BTW, while there was life 3.8 billion years ago (latest research says even before that, which would put it before the late bombardment period was over) there was no evolution to speak of before the Avalon explosion around 600 to 700 million years ago. 

Technicaly you've given a definition to the word evolutionist: It's a made up world used by evangelicals to undermine the fact of evolution by painting those who understand evolution as having blind faith instead of real knowledge.

Who knows that could be the dictionary definition.