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: Chuzzlewit who wrote (41305)	6/21/1999 2:40:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The word evolution means a great deal more than that, you are using only one definition- in the dictionary one of its definitions is "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types, yada yada yada - i.e. the explanation for how life became gradually more and more complex- so used in that sense it would mean the theory- so I am not sure how I am confusing it with anything else when using it as it is defined. The first definition is simply "a process of change in certain direction. If that is all you meant then I would say that "fact" has been demonstrated, or observed. But that is not the observation of the theory at work necessarily- for what has been observed is (imo) way too simple to support such a complex theory. it is evidence, and standing alone they are "facts" for mutation, selection- whatever- but not facts for evolution (big E- big jumps- theory) You are talking about evolution simply as change- as I understand you. That is quite different from what we were talking about on the thread- which was the theory that life has arisen from very simple forms of life, and become more and more complex. I thought somehow you were saying some part of this is proven fact. I mentioned mutations and change myself. The "observation" as you put it, is of very limited changes- as I understand it. Perhaps you have new and revolutionary data at your fingertips. The frog example doesn't sound very promising. The phenotypes are interesting, but do not prove the theory (imo), although they are interesting facts that mutations occur which are adaptive in preventing malaria . Do you see them as somehow more significant? The "explanation (theory)" is, as stated above, very complex and attempts to explain rather significant jumps up the evolutionary ladder. I do not believe significant jumps have been observed in nature or lab, but perhaps I am wrong. When you talk about the creation of mutations being an example of evolution- that is only true if you define evolution down to mean simply "change" or mutation. Why not simply call evolution, mutation? I would argue they are not synonyms because that isn't what it means- and it especially isn't what it means when people argue about teaching it in schools.