RE: Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)
June 22, 2016 at 6:38 pm
(June 22, 2016 at 4:15 pm)SteveII Wrote:(June 22, 2016 at 1:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: Science leads to theories. End of story. If you reject theories, you're rejecting science.
If you think something gets to be a theory easily, you don't understand what it means.
Evolution happens. That's obvious. To suggest otherwise is to say that offspring are either (a) identical to their parents or (b) not based on their parents. Natural selection takes care of the rest.
All that remains is to model it as best we can. Challenging evolution and challenging the theory of evolution are two different things. Challenging evolution is like... I don't even know what that's like. Plugging up your eyes and ears I guess.
Here is an good example of using the word "evolution" in multiple ways.
1. Evolution (defined as "decent with modification") happens. Rob referred to this when he mentioned parents. --I don't have any problem with that.
2. Evolution (defined as "the mechanism that accounts for evolutionary change") or as Rob shortened it "natural selection" is not clearly understood and is under active investigation and debate.
3. Evolution (defined as "reconstructing evolutionary history") Rob seems to reference in "all that remains is to model it as best we can". This is the weakest leg of the three legged stool.
People skeptical of the case being made for evolution are referring to the second and/or third, yet you use the first definition (which they agree with) to make statements like "evolution happens" or evolution is a fact.
Natural selection is one of the cornerstones of modern biology, so I don't think there is really any debate about it.
