Re: Social Darwinism


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

Re: Social Darwinism

Posted By: Ben A. Potter Date: 8/11/05 11:10 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Social Darwinism (Dylan)

[snip]
: Evolution is not, and cannot be, an exact field of science, for millions of
: years. This is because the scientific method requires observation (consult
: any dictionary), and we simply have not had sufficient time for this
: observation process. Conincidentally the majority of the existing
: evidence, such as the panda's thumb, does not strengthen the theory.
Evolutionary biology is in fact a productive field of science. According to your (rather incorrect) view, entire fields of astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, archaeology, etc. are not science. I disagree with this inadequate definition. "Observation" is indeed crucial to effective science, but by your restrictive definition, quantum mechanics, subatomic theory, cosmology, etc. are not sciences because no one has directly observed an electron or quark. Scientific observation includes the results of natural processes (i.e., they act in the past and present and future). Forensic sciences and historical sciences (geology, paleontology, archaeology) use the dynamics of the present and the observations of the present to construct and test hypotheses about processes that operate both in the past and present. The panda's thumb is a very good example of certain aspects of evolution. It certainly does not weaken evolution in any way. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html
: The theory has gone through significant changes but evolution is an
: inadaquate term. It means to many things. Have you ever heard of something
: like the evolution of the car? Guess what, cars are designed. (Durandal
: made me write that last sentence.)
"Evolution" used colloquially by non-scientists is not equivalent to "evolution" in a biological sense. The term means specific (and different) things in cosmology, evolutionary biology, and car enthusiasts. The changes in evolutionary theory have not been significant or dramatic since the incorporation of genetics in the standard model in the 1930s-1940s. The mechanisms remain the same: genetic mutation, natural selection, allopatric speciation, genetic drift, gene flow, etc. What has changed since the 1940s are refined discussions of modes and tempos of change, relative importance and interaction of mechanisms, and the like.
Furthermore darwinism is a relevant
: term, for his original theory said all current animals are derived, by a
: natural process of change, from older and different ones.
Which is the fact of evolution, which has been demonstrated since the late 19th century.
While the
: mechanism of the theory has changed the conclusion is still the same.
The importance and interaction of the various mechanisms are what are referred to by the Theory of Evolution.
: Creationism is also a poor term, because the opposition always thinks they
: defend a 10,000 year old earth. One last thought before I go back into
: stasis; Intelligent design is not a theory explaining that the world must
: have been designed, but rather a disproval of Darwinism.
A disproval of evolution is not a scientific theory. ID proponents don't state that they are disproving evolution, only that evolutionary mechanisms cannot (in their opinion) produce the types of features they think they see. They are, of course, mistaken. ID is not a scientific theory, nor even an hypothesis. They have never conducted (or even designed) an experiment, have not described what "design" should look like, and are virtually unpublished in peer reviewed journals. Science isn't done in a dictionary, media, or public schools, it is done in the scientific community (peer-reviewed journals).
Ben

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

Marathon Pfhor D-M.A. 8/2/05 6:01 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/2/05 6:41 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/2/05 9:33 a.m.

tBC's and Frigidman's replies are kinda intriguin *NM* D-M.A. 8/2/05 10:49 a.m.

Yeah, maybe. *NM* Bob-B-Q 8/2/05 11:35 a.m.

that's what i would have done MrHen 8/2/05 2:07 p.m.

Re: that's what i would have done Vid Boi 8/2/05 11:48 p.m.

It's not dead, it's 11 pages long and counting! *NM* D-M.A. 8/2/05 11:54 p.m.

11 pages long, counting, and not about 'Thon... *NM* Vid Boi 8/4/05 1:48 a.m.

*sigh* I'll never get a PC Forge... *NM* reagan64 8/5/05 6:14 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Reiginko 8/3/05 5:31 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor D-M.A. 8/3/05 6:01 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Ori 8/3/05 6:33 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Jacke 8/3/05 10:47 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 1:17 p.m.

ehh... MrHen 8/3/05 1:57 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor D-M.A. 8/3/05 6:06 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 6:32 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 6:59 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 7:06 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/4/05 2:15 a.m.

Someone thinks I'm bright! Happy joy joy :-) *NM* D-M.A. 8/4/05 3:53 a.m.

if by all men... MrHen 8/4/05 4:55 a.m.

Re: if by all men... Forrest of B.org 8/4/05 6:01 p.m.

I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest? *NM* Steve Levinson 8/4/05 7:18 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Forrest of B.org 8/4/05 8:43 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest D-M.A. 8/4/05 11:09 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Forrest of B.org 8/5/05 7:57 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest John Molloy 8/5/05 2:28 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Forrest of B.org 8/6/05 10:07 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest John Molloy 8/6/05 11:42 p.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Johannes Gunnar 8/7/05 12:31 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Johannes Gunnar 8/7/05 12:31 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Vid Boi 8/7/05 12:49 a.m.

Re: I'm curious - are *you* in that photo, Forrest Andrew Nagy 8/8/05 6:46 a.m.

Off! Weirdness... *NM* Vid Boi 8/8/05 4:10 p.m.

I like the fishnets Forrest blake37 8/5/05 3:06 a.m.

LOL! i like your outfit Forrest! :P *NM* Johannes Gunnar 8/5/05 4:32 a.m.

Re: if by all men... Vid Boi 8/7/05 12:56 a.m.

I hate that term. MrHen 8/7/05 6:15 a.m.

Re: I hate that term. Steve Levinson 8/7/05 10:45 a.m.

agreed MrHen 8/8/05 5:01 a.m.

Re: agreed Steve Levinson 8/8/05 6:03 a.m.

Re: agreed blake37 8/8/05 6:50 a.m.

Re: agreed Steve Levinson 8/8/05 8:14 a.m.

Re: agreed MrHen 8/8/05 10:26 a.m.

Re: agreed blake37 8/8/05 4:03 p.m.

Re: agreed Vid Boi 8/8/05 4:32 p.m.

haha, yeah... MrHen 8/8/05 5:39 p.m.

Re: haha, yeah... Tyler 8/9/05 6:41 a.m.

ah, okay MrHen 8/8/05 9:59 a.m.

Re: I hate that term. Dylan 8/9/05 4:28 a.m.

uh... now i'm confused... MrHen 8/9/05 5:17 a.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... Dylan 8/9/05 8:59 a.m.

hating terminals? *gasp!* MrHen 8/9/05 9:23 a.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... AlfredMordeir 8/9/05 7:00 p.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... MrHen 8/10/05 4:52 a.m.

Re: uh... now i'm confused... Dylan 8/11/05 4:39 a.m.

I usually don't copy articles but, Oh well. AlfredMordeir 8/11/05 8:54 a.m.

Social Darwinism Dave 8/10/05 2:53 a.m.

more on social darwinism MrHen 8/10/05 5:10 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Reiginko 8/10/05 6:47 a.m.

Ohh... MrHen 8/10/05 8:46 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Vid Boi 8/10/05 11:40 a.m.

Haha, that's terrible. *NM* MrHen 8/11/05 5:05 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism MrHen 8/11/05 5:19 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Dave 8/11/05 7:10 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Reiginko 8/11/05 7:49 a.m.

god of the gaps MrHen 8/11/05 8:32 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Forrest of B.org 8/11/05 9:19 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Forrest of B.org 8/11/05 9:17 a.m.

not a fan of the link MrHen 8/12/05 12:56 p.m.

Re: not a fan of the link Forrest of B.org 8/12/05 1:16 p.m.

meh MrHen 8/12/05 2:24 p.m.

Spirituality vs Rationality Forrest of B.org 8/12/05 3:34 p.m.

Re: Spirituality vs Rationality MrHen 8/13/05 10:42 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/11/05 11:20 a.m.

truth MrHen 8/12/05 12:05 p.m.

Re: truth Ben A. Potter 8/12/05 12:40 p.m.

agreed MrHen 8/12/05 1:01 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/10/05 9:04 a.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Steve Levinson 8/10/05 12:25 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/10/05 1:12 p.m.

Re: more on social darwinism Dave 8/10/05 6:35 p.m.

Re: Social Darwinism Dylan 8/11/05 5:02 a.m.

Creationism MrHen 8/11/05 5:15 a.m.

Re: Social Darwinism Ben A. Potter 8/11/05 11:10 a.m.

Re: Social Darwinism Enkidu 8/11/05 4:20 p.m.

"Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes MrHen 8/9/05 5:27 a.m.

Has anybody noticed.... blake37 8/9/05 7:06 a.m.

and talk about off-topic . . . *NM* Steve Levinson 8/9/05 7:30 a.m.

:P MrHen 8/9/05 7:52 a.m.

Re: Has anybody noticed.... D-M.A. 8/9/05 7:58 a.m.

Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes Vid Boi 8/10/05 11:53 a.m.

Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes blake37 8/10/05 12:53 p.m.

oops... *blushes* *NM* MrHen 8/11/05 5:16 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 6:54 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 7:02 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 7:13 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor John Molloy 8/3/05 7:20 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/3/05 7:40 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Reiginko 8/4/05 12:19 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/4/05 2:19 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/4/05 6:19 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Reiginko 8/5/05 6:57 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Forrest of B.org 8/5/05 8:14 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Vid Boi 8/4/05 2:24 a.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor MrHen 8/4/05 5:06 a.m.

oh... that makes much more sense... MrHen 8/4/05 5:11 a.m.

Re: oh... that makes much more sense... Steve Levinson 8/4/05 1:04 p.m.

Rumor update ukimalefu 8/4/05 7:49 p.m.

Re: Rumor update RedMage13 8/5/05 3:49 p.m.

Re: Marathon Pfhor Andrew Nagy 8/8/05 7:53 a.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: [snip] : Evolutionary biology is in fact a productive field of science. According to : your (rather incorrect) view, entire fields of astronomy, geology, : paleontology, biology, archaeology, etc. are not science. I disagree with : this inadequate definition. "Observation" is indeed crucial to : effective science, but by your restrictive definition, quantum mechanics, : subatomic theory, cosmology, etc. are not sciences because no one has : directly observed an electron or quark. Scientific observation includes : the results of natural processes (i.e., they act in the past and present : and future). Forensic sciences and historical sciences (geology, : paleontology, archaeology) use the dynamics of the present and the : observations of the present to construct and test hypotheses about : processes that operate both in the past and present. The panda's thumb is : a very good example of certain aspects of evolution. It certainly does not : weaken evolution in any way. See: : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html : "Evolution" used colloquially by non-scientists is not equivalent : to "evolution" in a biological sense. The term means specific : (and different) things in cosmology, evolutionary biology, and car : enthusiasts. The changes in evolutionary theory have not been significant : or dramatic since the incorporation of genetics in the standard model in : the 1930s-1940s. The mechanisms remain the same: genetic mutation, natural : selection, allopatric speciation, genetic drift, gene flow, etc. What has : changed since the 1940s are refined discussions of modes and tempos of : change, relative importance and interaction of mechanisms, and the like. : Furthermore darwinism is a relevant : Which is the fact of evolution, which has been demonstrated since the late : 19th century. : While the : The importance and interaction of the various mechanisms are what are : referred to by the Theory of Evolution. : A disproval of evolution is not a scientific theory. ID proponents don't : state that they are disproving evolution, only that evolutionary : mechanisms cannot (in their opinion) produce the types of features they : think they see. They are, of course, mistaken. ID is not a scientific : theory, nor even an hypothesis. They have never conducted (or even : designed) an experiment, have not described what "design" should : look like, and are virtually unpublished in peer reviewed journals. : Science isn't done in a dictionary, media, or public schools, it is done : in the scientific community (peer-reviewed journals). : Ben

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

Marathon Pfhor	D-M.A.	8/2/05 6:01 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/2/05 6:41 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/2/05 9:33 a.m.
tBC's and Frigidman's replies are kinda intriguin NM	D-M.A.	8/2/05 10:49 a.m.
Yeah, maybe. NM	Bob-B-Q	8/2/05 11:35 a.m.
that's what i would have done	MrHen	8/2/05 2:07 p.m.
Re: that's what i would have done	Vid Boi	8/2/05 11:48 p.m.
It's not dead, it's 11 pages long and counting! NM	D-M.A.	8/2/05 11:54 p.m.
11 pages long, counting, and not about 'Thon... NM	Vid Boi	8/4/05 1:48 a.m.
sigh I'll never get a PC Forge... NM	reagan64	8/5/05 6:14 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Reiginko	8/3/05 5:31 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	D-M.A.	8/3/05 6:01 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Ori	8/3/05 6:33 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Jacke	8/3/05 10:47 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 1:17 p.m.
ehh...	MrHen	8/3/05 1:57 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	D-M.A.	8/3/05 6:06 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 6:32 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 6:59 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 7:06 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/4/05 2:15 a.m.
Someone thinks I'm bright! Happy joy joy :-) NM	D-M.A.	8/4/05 3:53 a.m.
if by all men...	MrHen	8/4/05 4:55 a.m.
Re: if by all men...	Forrest of B.org	8/4/05 6:01 p.m.
I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest? NM	Steve Levinson	8/4/05 7:18 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Forrest of B.org	8/4/05 8:43 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	D-M.A.	8/4/05 11:09 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Forrest of B.org	8/5/05 7:57 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	John Molloy	8/5/05 2:28 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Forrest of B.org	8/6/05 10:07 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	John Molloy	8/6/05 11:42 p.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Johannes Gunnar	8/7/05 12:31 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Johannes Gunnar	8/7/05 12:31 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Vid Boi	8/7/05 12:49 a.m.
Re: I'm curious - are you in that photo, Forrest	Andrew Nagy	8/8/05 6:46 a.m.
Off! Weirdness... NM	Vid Boi	8/8/05 4:10 p.m.
I like the fishnets Forrest	blake37	8/5/05 3:06 a.m.
LOL! i like your outfit Forrest! :P NM	Johannes Gunnar	8/5/05 4:32 a.m.
Re: if by all men...	Vid Boi	8/7/05 12:56 a.m.
I hate that term.	MrHen	8/7/05 6:15 a.m.
Re: I hate that term.	Steve Levinson	8/7/05 10:45 a.m.
agreed	MrHen	8/8/05 5:01 a.m.
Re: agreed	Steve Levinson	8/8/05 6:03 a.m.
Re: agreed	blake37	8/8/05 6:50 a.m.
Re: agreed	Steve Levinson	8/8/05 8:14 a.m.
Re: agreed	MrHen	8/8/05 10:26 a.m.
Re: agreed	blake37	8/8/05 4:03 p.m.
Re: agreed	Vid Boi	8/8/05 4:32 p.m.
haha, yeah...	MrHen	8/8/05 5:39 p.m.
Re: haha, yeah...	Tyler	8/9/05 6:41 a.m.
ah, okay	MrHen	8/8/05 9:59 a.m.
Re: I hate that term.	Dylan	8/9/05 4:28 a.m.
uh... now i'm confused...	MrHen	8/9/05 5:17 a.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	Dylan	8/9/05 8:59 a.m.
hating terminals? gasp!	MrHen	8/9/05 9:23 a.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	AlfredMordeir	8/9/05 7:00 p.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	MrHen	8/10/05 4:52 a.m.
Re: uh... now i'm confused...	Dylan	8/11/05 4:39 a.m.
I usually don't copy articles but, Oh well.	AlfredMordeir	8/11/05 8:54 a.m.
Social Darwinism	Dave	8/10/05 2:53 a.m.
more on social darwinism	MrHen	8/10/05 5:10 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Reiginko	8/10/05 6:47 a.m.
Ohh...	MrHen	8/10/05 8:46 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Vid Boi	8/10/05 11:40 a.m.
Haha, that's terrible. NM	MrHen	8/11/05 5:05 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	MrHen	8/11/05 5:19 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Dave	8/11/05 7:10 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Reiginko	8/11/05 7:49 a.m.
god of the gaps	MrHen	8/11/05 8:32 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Forrest of B.org	8/11/05 9:19 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Forrest of B.org	8/11/05 9:17 a.m.
not a fan of the link	MrHen	8/12/05 12:56 p.m.
Re: not a fan of the link	Forrest of B.org	8/12/05 1:16 p.m.
meh	MrHen	8/12/05 2:24 p.m.
Spirituality vs Rationality	Forrest of B.org	8/12/05 3:34 p.m.
Re: Spirituality vs Rationality	MrHen	8/13/05 10:42 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/11/05 11:20 a.m.
truth	MrHen	8/12/05 12:05 p.m.
Re: truth	Ben A. Potter	8/12/05 12:40 p.m.
agreed	MrHen	8/12/05 1:01 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/10/05 9:04 a.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Steve Levinson	8/10/05 12:25 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/10/05 1:12 p.m.
Re: more on social darwinism	Dave	8/10/05 6:35 p.m.
Re: Social Darwinism	Dylan	8/11/05 5:02 a.m.
Creationism	MrHen	8/11/05 5:15 a.m.
Re: Social Darwinism	Ben A. Potter	8/11/05 11:10 a.m.
Re: Social Darwinism	Enkidu	8/11/05 4:20 p.m.
"Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes	MrHen	8/9/05 5:27 a.m.
Has anybody noticed....	blake37	8/9/05 7:06 a.m.
and talk about off-topic . . . NM	Steve Levinson	8/9/05 7:30 a.m.
:P	MrHen	8/9/05 7:52 a.m.
Re: Has anybody noticed....	D-M.A.	8/9/05 7:58 a.m.
Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes	Vid Boi	8/10/05 11:53 a.m.
Re: "Fundamentalists" and slippery-slopes	blake37	8/10/05 12:53 p.m.
oops... blushes NM	MrHen	8/11/05 5:16 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 6:54 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 7:02 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 7:13 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	John Molloy	8/3/05 7:20 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/3/05 7:40 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Reiginko	8/4/05 12:19 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/4/05 2:19 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/4/05 6:19 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Reiginko	8/5/05 6:57 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Forrest of B.org	8/5/05 8:14 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Vid Boi	8/4/05 2:24 a.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	MrHen	8/4/05 5:06 a.m.
oh... that makes much more sense...	MrHen	8/4/05 5:11 a.m.
Re: oh... that makes much more sense...	Steve Levinson	8/4/05 1:04 p.m.
Rumor update	ukimalefu	8/4/05 7:49 p.m.
Re: Rumor update	RedMage13	8/5/05 3:49 p.m.
Re: Marathon Pfhor	Andrew Nagy	8/8/05 7:53 a.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : [snip] : Evolutionary biology is in fact a productive field of science. According to : your (rather incorrect) view, entire fields of astronomy, geology, : paleontology, biology, archaeology, etc. are not science. I disagree with : this inadequate definition. "Observation" is indeed crucial to : effective science, but by your restrictive definition, quantum mechanics, : subatomic theory, cosmology, etc. are not sciences because no one has : directly observed an electron or quark. Scientific observation includes : the results of natural processes (i.e., they act in the past and present : and future). Forensic sciences and historical sciences (geology, : paleontology, archaeology) use the dynamics of the present and the : observations of the present to construct and test hypotheses about : processes that operate both in the past and present. The panda's thumb is : a very good example of certain aspects of evolution. It certainly does not : weaken evolution in any way. See: : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html : "Evolution" used colloquially by non-scientists is not equivalent : to "evolution" in a biological sense. The term means specific : (and different) things in cosmology, evolutionary biology, and car : enthusiasts. The changes in evolutionary theory have not been significant : or dramatic since the incorporation of genetics in the standard model in : the 1930s-1940s. The mechanisms remain the same: genetic mutation, natural : selection, allopatric speciation, genetic drift, gene flow, etc. What has : changed since the 1940s are refined discussions of modes and tempos of : change, relative importance and interaction of mechanisms, and the like. : Furthermore darwinism is a relevant : Which is the fact of evolution, which has been demonstrated since the late : 19th century. : While the : The importance and interaction of the various mechanisms are what are : referred to by the Theory of Evolution. : A disproval of evolution is not a scientific theory. ID proponents don't : state that they are disproving evolution, only that evolutionary : mechanisms cannot (in their opinion) produce the types of features they : think they see. They are, of course, mistaken. ID is not a scientific : theory, nor even an hypothesis. They have never conducted (or even : designed) an experiment, have not described what "design" should : look like, and are virtually unpublished in peer reviewed journals. : Science isn't done in a dictionary, media, or public schools, it is done : in the scientific community (peer-reviewed journals). : Ben
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: