From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Mon Aug 25 2003 - 17:44:15 EDT
Imprecise use of language is the source of confusion and conflict.
I thought we were simply trying to agree on a definition of "evolution".
Is yours the consensus definition?
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
To: jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Student perceptions re evolution
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 - 17:45:46 EDT