From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 17:25:26 EDT
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 16:40:46 -0400 "Jay Willingham"
<jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com> writes:
[combining two posts]
> Then evolution is not a fact but a competing explanation of facts.
>
>Would the observed process be better called "natural selection" and the
>theory of the origin of life or the taxa by natural selection be better
>called "evolution"?
>Jay
Jay,
Why must you keep twisting language? 'Evolution' is, first, the changes
that living things exhibit over time. The primary evidence has been the
fossil record. There is now additional evidence in the comparison of
genomes, for example. This is fact: life has changed. 'Evolution' is,
second, a collection of views about why life has changed. Natural
selection is a part of the explanation for the changes. It is
supplemented by other views. Some of these composite views are not
compatible with other composite views. In this second sense, evolution is
a set of theories. Only in some of these collections is abiogenesis
considered vital. Others consider changes given life.
Also, as a simple matter of fact, no one can observe natural selection in
the remote past.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 25 2003 - 17:30:36 EDT