@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:Okay, I'll admit that was a poor definition for 'evolution.'
You cannot 'admit' anything for this is the definition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, based on the Oxford English Dictionary and its Supplements. With all due respect but you do not have the IQ level to dispute. litigate, and debate that definition.
cicerone imposter wrote:It seems the person who quoted that definition was trained in the same misinformation about evolution.
It seems that you hardly understand 20% of the world in which you are living.
cicerone imposter wrote: Here's a much better and more thourough definition
Much better in terms of what - cherry picking and confirmation bias perhaps. Don't you understand that this is a road to nowhere. There is no way to arrive anywhere in that way.
cicerone imposter wrote:Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Can you provide an example for the appearance of a new species on the grounds of mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Are you curious to know how does your mutation looks like. Watch this for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwp6_o_PcgY
Why don't you explain to us how many new species have emerged out of that case of mutation. Pay attention that the dental surgery should not have imposed any changes to the DNA & the RNA sequences, having caused that misfortune ... and its hereditary abilities ... according to your fake theory.
If you are talking just so ... to avoid falling asleep - this is another issue.
This case shows also something else - it shows that any lost teeth, anywhere throughout the normal row of teeth could be recovered to its former glory if only you and FM knew what you are talking about ... and where and how the genetics driving this is encoded.