Post subject: Theory of Evolution
Player (36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2630
To avoid equivocation, there are two parts to evolution. First, there is the fact of evolution. This is the simple observation that life on this planet took a different form in the past. And therefore must have changed at some point, mechanism unspecified. Second, there is the theory of evolution through natural selection. This is the theory that explains the observation of the facts of evolution and makes predictions to what we will find if we begin looking. (For instance, a genetic code was predicted by the theory of evolution.) Like all good scientific theories it is also falsifiable. For instance, if one were to find a fossilized rabbit skeleton that dated back to the Triassic, this would be very strong evidence that the theory of evolution has some problems. If you have an argument that does not relate to the facts of evolution or the theory of evolution. This is probably not the best place for it. If you have an objection to or a question concerning the theory or facts of evolution, this is the appropriate thread for it.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Post subject: Re: Theory of Evolution
nfq
Player (94)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
(For instance, a genetic code was predicted by the theory of evolution.)
Never heard of that, and I couldn't find anything by googling. A source would be interesting :)
Post subject: Re: Theory of Evolution
Player (36)
Joined: 9/11/2004
Posts: 2630
nfq wrote:
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
(For instance, a genetic code was predicted by the theory of evolution.)
Never heard of that, and I couldn't find anything by googling. A source would be interesting :)
I apologize, I misremembered the exact sequence of events, and I retract this claim. My former justification of this claim was due to the following misunderstanding: Previous theories of evolution, such as Lamarckism, claimed that the desires of the parents drove the characteristics of the offspring. While Darwinian evolution rejected the majority of these, he did not (and was thus incorrect) in rejecting the use/disuse inheritance. I was under the impression that he had rejected this form of inheritance as well, and thus implied the existence of some other mechanism (form unknown) that dictated the characteristics of offspring (which was later discovered to be the genetic code.) This is somewhat of an overstatement, due to attempting to be brief and due to a slight misunderstanding of the history. I again apologize, but there it is.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day, Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Editor, Expert player (2479)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Funnily, nobody has been able to show even a single false statement from this wiki page, even though some people boldly claim that the theory is wrong.
Editor, Expert player (2479)
Joined: 4/8/2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Gone for a year, just for varietyyyyyyyyy!!