Having read the responses above, I think the main thing I missed (mostly because it seems so absolutely obvious to me that I didn’t mention it) is that there is no inherent meaning or goal.
Also, maybe, that evolution is not to be confused with abiogenesis.
It’s a lie promoted by the Great Deciever Satan to cast our beliefs away from the truth that God created all living things in their current form only a few thous…
Oh, hell, I can’t even type that with a straight face.
Evolution is the idea that all life we see today is the result of tiny changes in each generation rather than one act of creation which made life as we see it fully formed. Classically this is called the tree of life with the thought that the first life was simpler and grew more complex as the changes piled one on top of another, and branched as part of a generation grew different from others until speciation occurred.
We know know that is not quite the way it works as genes can be passed laterally between even diverse species as well as with reproduction. The tree of life also leads to the misunderstanding that more visibly complex creatures are somehow more evolved (and therefore somehow better) than less visibly complex, as if the bacteria today have not been evolving all the while. If anything is more evolved than anything else, we could call that which has the shortest generations more evolved than species which take longer to reproduce.
Another idea that has been popular is that the more genes in a genome, the more evolved the creature. To our chagrin, we found we do not have as many genes as rice or many other organisms which don’t do things like talk about the theory of evolution.
One can look at DNA and get an idea of the history of a species. Past changes leave their mark. In some cases similar genes appear different places in the genetic code and serve as a type of copy protection. Genes which no longer active for the most part don’t get the benefit of this and can change without effecting a change on the organism.
Also, not all genes present are expressed in each generation and we don’t understand well how and why that works. Another interesting recent change to our understanding is that environment can play a role in what genes get expressed, and changes to it during the development of one generation can but not necessarily do affect successive generatons even when the conditions revert. This was first noticed in a frog which developed different traits if it grew in dry or wet conditions. The changes were kept in their offspring, even if the conditions which triggered the change were not present during the development of the offspring.
The basics of evolution, that successive generations of an organism show changes to their genome, have been demonstrated in the laboratory in various ways. Another idea that goes along with that is that each generation is more adapted to its environment than the previous one. This leads to the value judgment that newer is better, or at least fitter. This leads to the idea that what we see today in expressed genes has purpose, that any change which was kept is superior to one that was discarded. We can demonstrate that some changes that occur do have benefit for an organism. One scientist did an experiment, watching generations of some bacteria and recording the changes, and preserving samples along the way. At some point the bacteria population expanded greatly and on investigation, the bacteria had obtained the ability to use the medium he was keeping it in as food. On investigation it was found that the change was the result of changes to multiple genes, which occurred at different generations. It was only after the final change was made than any of the changes had any observable use, but nonetheless, the other changes were kept.
Ok, I have more I could say, but I need to get out the door. This all was from the top of my head. Most of the ideas and examples can be found in various articles of New Scientist and Science News, but I did not open them back up to type this post.
Many living things reproduce sexually.
The offspring are not identical to either of the parents.
Occassionally an offspring will have a signficantly different trait from either of its parents - a mutation.
Sometimes such traits are hereditable (a word I just made up?) - if the offspring itself reproduces there is a good chance its offspring will have the same new trait.
If such a trait confers a reproductive advantage then it is likely that it will become more common in the population (and vice versa).
Repeat for hundreds of generations in a range of different environments.
Useful variants prosper to the extent that the species eventually diverge.
Over aeons it looks like the animals are deliberately adapting themselves to exploit their surroundings. They’re not, it’s a product of chance, but it’s not arbitrarily random. Valuable modifications are strongly favoured and this creates patterns of successful adaptation.
Variety exists in organisms (between individuals and between populations), for lots of reasons, including genetic ones.
Variations that are genetic may be passed on to offspring
In any given environmental context, some variations may confer various advantages or disadvantages to their owner (or less frequently, the group in general).
Some of those advantages and disadvantages may impact on reproductive success
So variations that confer reproductive advantage within a given context tend to be passed on to offspring (and therefore accumulated/preserved); variations that confer reproductive disadvantage, not so much.
Because they are dependent on differential success within a given context, the preserved variations tend to accumulate in such a way as to ‘fit’ that context (not necessarily best concievable fit though, unless the process as a whole happens to stumble upon it).
A change to the environmental context (or introduction into/invasion of a new one) may introduce new or different pressures on the organisms in it - if they are able to survive at all in the new conditions, the process will continue to stumble toward a new ‘fit’. Otherwise, the organisms may just die out.
Resources in many environmental contexts are usually limited, therefore, the overwhelming success of a group with a fantastic ‘fit’ may still prevail over another whose fit is merely adequate.
Edited to add: There is nothing (save for viability) to constrain the indefinite accumulation of variations - that is, individual B is the already-modified offspring of its parent A and its offspring C will be a modified version of B, not A
Speaking as a grad student in a population genetics lab…I don’t have the time.
Someone once posted this in a thread about evolution:
Try everything.
Kill whatever doesn’t work.
Repeat.
The problem with the random mutation idea are several, there would be so many bad changes most would die out, and worst of all, the same bad changes would occur over and over because nothing is keeping track. Instead we see animals getting more adjusted to their environment.
Speaking of mutations, sure there are some, cancer, isn’t that a mutation, uncontrolled cell growth. Just what an evolutionist wants to see, but the problem is when has cancer ever grown a new organ, or anything beneficial?
It is just that sort of random error you all say makes these new organs and such and then the stronger of those survive, OK, where are the beneficial changes from cancer then? Why aren’t we seeing new organs and tissues develop in animals randomly all the time and some better than before?
We are also supposed to always adjust to stuff that lasts a long long time, so why can’t we look at the sun? It has been at about same brightness billions of years. Why also don’t we love to feed on the most common thing that could sustain us, grass and leaves? Wouldn’t this selection process of who survives favor those who can eat the most common things available?
Above all how would we have evolved to eat cooked food, with none of that to be found in the environment and to only like 70 degree temperatures when no where on earth has that regularly? Then look at our lousy feet, we can’t even walk in the jungle or run from prey in bare feet, yet we are at the TOP of the evolution process?
Where is our night vision and blood hound nose and wide temperature range if we are at the top? Why do we burn up with sunburn with only a few hours exposure, animals don’t, even those with little fur, how is our skin an improvement and where would we develop such skin when the sun is everywhere? Lots and lots of holes in that evolution theory.
Cancer is not what we’re calling a “mutation” here. A mutation is a change in an individual organism’s genetic code that is propagated to its offspring (i.e., either a change that occurs really early on in embryonic life, or one that affects the sex cells)
There is no “top” to the evolution process; there is no goal. There is no distinct advantage to being able to look at the sun, for example – so there is no Selection Pressure for this trait to be propagated differentially more onto future generations, once it happens.
None of this has anything much to do with evolution.
Biological Evolution is change in allele frequency over successive generations within a population that shares a gene pool. This occurs by natural selection (either punctuated or gradual, take your pick) and genetic drift. I can expand on any big words if anyone needs me to, but that’s the Cliff Notes about what I know about evolution.
The theory of evolution can also be applied to other entities with similar variation as biological organisms (all that is needed is heritability and differentiation), so some people have tried to apply it to memes, to computer programs, etc. These haven’t all been that convincing, IMO.
You do realize that this is not actually a debate about evolution, don’t you? Do you have anything more to add about your personal knowledge about the subject?
It’s clear that you’re quite mistaken about what the theory of evolution actually is. I would reserve your criticism of it until you at least understand what you’re disagreeing with.
You contradict your first statement. Changes bad enough would cause the organisms to die out. Changes that are mostly benign but not fatal may not have a huge effect initially, but could mean a group containing this change may fare just-a-little worse against a group that doesn’t contain the change - and die out too, or adapt in other ways.
Well yeah, that’s the point. The ones that didn’t, died out.
We evolved to eat anything we could get our hands on. That cooked food is easier to digest is a happy accident, yay us! But we are perfectly capable of digesting both raw meat and fruit and vegetables. All of which are calorifically denser than the grass you’d have us grazing on. And plenty of places on Earth are regularly that hot or hotter, some of them very close to where we evolved.
Are you under the delusion that your soft Western feet are natural? Or even the norm, historically? It’d only take a few weeks of running barefoot for you feet to toughen up have to hobbit-level soles.
In the best place to keep them - our brains! Brains that have led us to develop IR goggles, domesticate wolves and breed bloodhounds from them to do our sniffing for us, and brains that combine with our nimble fingers to make the clothes, houses, AC and furnaces that let us have a wider living range than any other animal.
What do you mean “We”, White Man? I don’t burn in my natural environment, even naked.
I’d explain the cost/benefit analysis of UV damage vs vitamin D production, but I’m not sure you’ll care.
Interesting, how when the questions get hard, well just tell him it is not a debate. I think it being in “great debates” kind of weakens that argument a bit. Then a guy says well we are not at the top, yet everything that survives and reproduces after all these eons is supposed to be the winners in natural selection. Hmmmmm…
So why do we get sunburned so easy and want 70 degree temp all the time and need cooked food, under a “strongest, best survive” natural selection process? Where were we all those years to develop “evolve” these traits, which are so bad for living here? How would that happen if the theory is true? Why aren’t we eating a live mouse whole and loving it? I am giving my view on evolution, that it is a false theory and here is why, so I am on topic folks.
MrDibble, well then under your ideas, why didn’t the white man die out then? The problem with us developing brain instead of better abilities would make us lunch for the animals with the better organs while we were slowly getting that brainpower. Yes, still lots of holes in the theory.
I am quite vexed that you remembered to include time when I did not. 
I always love when people show, demonstrably, that they have absolute no clue what evolution posits and then claim holes in the theory. To make such a claim you’d have to actually understand evolution in the first place. And if you did you would not ask such ridiculous questions. We need cooked food? We can’t survive barefoot? White skin? Really? Wow, read a book, man. It’s not even worth debating such preposterous claims when they are so demonstrably wrong. Instead, some facts: We can eat just about anything organic and don’t, in any way, need to cook food. Walk around barefoot for a summer and then ask about your feet. You do realize there are many indigenous cultures around the world that never where shoes right? White skin evolved in northern climes where the sun is less intense to boost Vitamin D production. And I have no clue what you’re talking about animals with “better organs”. WTF does that mean?
There’s a beaver colony in northern Ontario with an absolutely awesome pipe organ. Prettiest thing I ever heard. And the lead organist operates it using only teeth and tail.