Hi On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Richard Pisacreta wrote: > I also believe that evolution is a fact. Species are not > static. Anyone who breeds animals knows that. Last time I > looked, the literature still refers to it as "Darwin's > theories of evolution", as did the recent PBS series. Few > dispute evolution within a species. The argument is whether > one species becomes a new species.
There are actually two arguments embedded in this exchange. One is the dubious understanding that many lay people have of the distinction in science between fact and theory. Often the "evolution is theory" card plays on people's erroneous, everyday understanding of theory as speculative, a guess, and the like. That is not how it is used in science. The second question is within-species variation vs. transformation of one species into another. Again the evidence for both is extremely strong, so much so that biologists believe transformation is as much a fact as anything else in the sciences. Here is Gould on this question back in the early 1980s. More can be found at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html "Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." To my > knowledge, no one has shown through the fossil record how one species > through several intermediary stages became a new species. What they have > found is the sudden appearance of a new species. Many kinds of intermediate forms have been found, and gaps are increasingly disappearing. I thought that was actually one of the strengths of the Evolution series, namely, showing how complete our understanding is now of some quite dramatic transformations. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to make sense of the many biological elements that are shared across radically different species without the mechanism of a shared evolutionary history. Again, one dramatic example from the Evolution series was injecting a gene from a mouse into an insect to stimulate proper development of the insect's thorax. > One doesn't have to choose between Darwin or God as some > extremists think. You can just as well believe that > evolutionary mechanisms are what God uses to create. One is free to believe many things, although you might have to wear different hats when believing some difficult-to-reconcile ideas. Whether they are all equally justified (e.g., merit teaching in the classroom) is, of course, another issue. > One last thing. I don't believe that you should take Genesis > literally. What I find impressive is that the order is nearly > right--the big bang (Let there be light),a formless earth, > oceans, sea life, plant life, animals, humans. Very > impressive for 7,000 BC. This strikes me as a highly selective reading and interpretation of the bible, and also presumably opens the door to rejection of this hypothesis when facts contradictory to it are observed. Best wishes Jim ============================================================================ James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark ============================================================================ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
