Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (41237)	6/20/1999 9:44:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Natural evolution has not been shown. It has -- even to the extent of speciation as in the case of the Bufo fowleri B. americanus and B regularis complex. The fact that a immunologically distinct flu bug comes around every few years ought to convince you of the fact of evolution. In any event, you are confusing the fact of evolution with the theory that explains it. For example, human beings are different in physical stature now then they were just a few thousand years ago. The genetic composition of natural populations of various species and subspecies have changed significantly over the past several decades. These are examples of evolution. X, theories are never stated as facts by scientists. CTC Speciation is intriguing because it generally requires geographical isolation and significant periods of time to effect genetic incompatibilities. But those incompatabalities already exist in certain natural populations such as the Rana pipiens complex. All that would be required for speciation would a catastrophe that would wipe out intermediate breeding populations. Demonstration of speciation is not necessary for the theory of evolution. You might be interested to know that many evolutionists do not consider Darwinian evolution the sole explanation for evolution. Non-Darwinian evolution is also important. The hallmark of Darwinian evolution is the notion of adaptive change. Yet the literature is replete with examples of non-adaptive evolution. CTC

To: epicure who wrote (41237)	6/20/1999 11:58:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

A point that seems to have been missed in the evolution/creation discussion (though I have not finished reading it yet). The theory of evolution remains incomplete, but it does carry the weight of derivation from a proper scientific process: observation of phenomena, development of a theory to fit the observations, testing of that theory by the most rigorous available means. The theory of evolution has withstood all the tests that have been derived to challenge it, and is the accepted scientific knowledge of the day; for that reason alone it deserves to be taught as such in schools. If we taught only what can be absolutely proven, we would set science back several centuries. Of course our knowledge will evolve, and we will someday know things that we do not know now. That is no argument for rejecting the best explanations that we have to date. Evolutionary speciation in nature has not been observed simply because the process requires the passage of long periods of time. Do we deny plate tectonics because we can't see continents moving? "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. A scientist observes phenomena, looks for a premise to explain them, and tests the premise. If you start with the premise it is not science.