Theists! What is your understanding of evolution?

I presume you mean "How do you fit in evolution into a creationist religion?"? As otherwise the asking of the question would just be completely rhetorical and for your own lulz.

That said, there's quite an easy way to marry evolution with religion. There are passages that say that a blink of an eye for God could be lifetimes for humans. Who's to say that a day to God could not be millions of years to a Human? The bible says the world, universe, etc was created in 6 days; what it doesn't say, however, is who's days are we talkin' about?

By that thought, god's craft of the denizens of this world could be considered by some to be the miracle of evolution.

That said, the basis of evolution is leveling up your Pokémon to the correct level, and watching it grow stronger.

My understanding of evolution is that over time organisms change to a point in which the later descendants of animal "a" differ so much that they become animal "b".

This change is evident in the fossil record and in the vestigial genetic material inherited by animal "b" from animal "a".

The precise mechanics of this change are not yet fully understood but are believed to be the result of environmental pressures or beneficial mutations or both combined with the selecting gender's choices of partner (in the case of most animals it would be the female that is the selecting gender and their choices of male partners determines the genetic makeup of the following generation).

I don't pretend to have a full scientific understanding of evolution, but then I'm not an evolutionary biologist and as such I only require a basic layperson's understanding, with this basic understanding I accept evolution to be the most likely explanation on offer for the diversity of life on earth.

The theory of evolution by natural selection rests on the premise that there is something which gives rise to traits that can be passed from generation to generation, and which can be modified slightly to produce slightly different traits, which can provide an advantage to survival and reproduction. This something was later discovered to be DNA, which can mutate as a result of improper copying. Most mutations are neutral, and most of the rest are detrimental. Only a very tiny percentage of mutations are actually beneficial in any way. Those that are beneficial quickly spread throughout the population due to the reproductive or survival advantage they provide.

Darwin's theory further depends on the assumption that all diversity can be explained by the accumulation of numerous slight beneficial modifications over millions of years. On a macro scale, this seems entirely plausible, and in fact Darwin himself addressed all the main objections to his theory in "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." However, since in his time there were no microscopes powerful enough to view things on a subcellular level, he was unable to address the problems that occur on a micro scale. There are several subcellular structures for which no one has proposed a viable means of evolution by numerous slight modifications. Where Darwin was very specific in his explanations of how each step would have been beneficial to the organism, the few scientific papers that even attempt to tackle subcellular evolution simply claim theoretical in-between steps could have been useful without explaining how.

There seems to be little doubt that all organisms did in fact evolve from a single common ancestor. Similarities in DNA and the progression of the fossil record basically confirm it. The debate then is exactly how evolution happened. Certainly natural selection is a driving force; however, it would be a mistake to assume that it is the only driving force.

You do know that Theists is a term that covers anyone that believes in some form of God. You do know most are not creationists. I expected more from the so called intelligent atheists. You don't know what the heck you are asking so don't get rude to the people that answer you.

I understand it quite well. Mutations combined with selection ensures that the fit will survive to pass their traits to their offspring.

If, for example, a bird has a stronger beak than his peers, he will be more able to survive a famine by getting to the seeds that the others can't. He will then procreate and pass his stronger beak to his kids.

There is more to it than this, but that is evolution in a nutshell.

Evolutionists act like those who don't believe in evolution simply don't understand it. To them evolution is so obviously true that not believing it is like not believing the earth is round. That is why they call creationists "flat-earthers."

Those who believe in evolution get upset when anyone criticizes it. If I say that a stronger beak won't necessarily be passed on to successive generations, evolutionists will say I know nothing about the subject. If I tell them the unlikelihood of some of their evolutionary claims, they will ridicule the creationist world view. If I point out the fallacious reasoning of evolutionary theories, they will say I know nothing about logic.

Genes mutate. Most mutations are harmful and the animal dies or does not pass on the mutation. Some mutations give the animal a competitive advantage, which when passed on over a long period of time, the species evolves into a new species.

This long period of time if the evolutionist equivalent to God. Theists say God can make anything happen. Evolutionists say given enough time anything can happen.

I agree with it, but I'm not following why I need to prove myself to you. I also don't understand your concern over the confusion aspect, I think it is fair to say that confusion in any scholarly discipline should be expected, and not limited to theists. I doubt you would scolder an atheist for not understanding the same principles, else you would have directed this at people of all religious orientations.

The transfer of genetic materials allows for a change in the frequency in genetic alleles. This along wit genetic mutation leads to evolution.

I would go on but i just woke up... need coffee. For the love of God Angry Candy poped Godwin's Law. We are a comity of trolls never expect any real answers.

Completely in my own words

Over time (both short and long) things adapt to their environment/circumstances both mentally and physically. For example if one studies math they learn these thinking skills. They are practiced and apparently NEEDED. If one works out continually, they're body will get physically "in shape". Same principle applies to all living things, but obviously I can only relate to the physical changes as it relates to other living creatures. Things "evolve" over time. If exercise isn't needed and I see no benefit of doing it, these physical attributes associated with "working out" won't come about. I'll probably pass these "traits" (teachings) onto my children.

These are all things I can personally witness and testify of. I've lived through them. I have also been told by scientist, the outside world, etc. that genetics also plays a part. People have gotten progressively taller since the civil war. Does this mean taller people live longer? Who knows. But obviously I've witnessed 2 good looking people having a good looking baby more often than 2 ugly people having a good looking baby. Hitler was a big believer of "pure" genetics. But this doesn't explain why we still have crippled and retarded babies being born at the same rate as always. It also doesn't explain why there are still ugly people. Perhaps a lizard in a dark cave my develop better eyesight after 10 million years. Perhaps. They may also go blind.

But one thing is for sure. Apes produce apes. Man produces man.

Probably better than yours, since I took sociology for 4 years. (study of civilizations past and present as well) plus Shakespeare, Biology and Chemistry on the side. I was flim-flamming on psychology, and was considering criminology so I know some pretty good torture methods as well. Fun stuff, education.

I ended up wasting my life raising 5 kids though.