>>9823736Well, regardless of what you believe about a specific evolutionary path, when people talk about evolutionary standpoints they really are talking about the logical and mathematical change in states.
Take for example a strain of yeast with 10 cells. Each cell has a 60% chance of duplicating its DNA. 6 of them duplicate, however one of those 6 has an error- a change in an amino acid that actually increases affinity for some nutrient, allowing it to more readily be acquired. That one cell has an 80% chance of passing on. At this point you have two variants- the original, and this new one, with 15/16 being type (or allele) A, and 1/16 being allele B. The next generation comes, with now 24 of type A, and 2 of type B. Model this forward, and over many many generations, type B, because it has a higher chance of duplicating, will eventually overshadow A by a lot. The change in frequency that I was talking about is how we define "evolution"- not in the sensationalized way most people are privy to.
All of this is observable in nature, can be generated in a lab, and due to the boom in genome sequencing we can actually measure exactly where DNA changes from generation to generation! It's never been a more exciting time to deal with the concept of evolution.
