Hi all. I just have a general comment about this subject not specifically directed at any one member.
A reoccuring pattern I see here on EvC is an opponent of evolution will argue a point to which the response will be "That's because you don't understand what evolution is" and "Go read a biology book". While at times these responses are justified, I think the discussion would be more productive if the Evo community would reconize that there IS a general confusion about the meaning of evolution and some of that confusion is caused not by ignorance, but by simple misunderstanding and in some part misrepresentation. Look at these two links:
Timeline of the evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia
EVOLUTIONARY/GEOLOGICAL TIMELINE v1.0
Notice both timelines begin at 4600 Ma with the formation of the earth and continue on through the formation of simple life and then onto what is actually defined as evolution. I think this is the view of evolution from the average layperson's understanding. If evolution only deals with the changes after life emerged, everything before 3900Ma should be left off these timelines. I am not argueing about what the true meaning of the theory of evolution is or isn't. I am pointing out where some of the confusion comes from.
I believe this understanding of evolution to be pretty well engrained in society's thinking and when you see headlines that read "Darwin was right!" and "Evolution is True!" people tend to understand that in context of the above mentioned timelines. The evolutionary community is not ranting against wikipedia or talkorigins about their misrepresenting the ToE by including the formation of early life (but if you do so on this forum expect a thrashing), so one could expect that it is an accurate representation of the theory.
It also seems that evolution IS a theory about our origins - about how we came to be. And we have a tendancy as human beings to connect how and why. Even though science doesn't intentionally deal with the "why", I feel unintentionally it does. What is the "why" implied by evolution? random chance and undirected change.
Even if science was able to discover the very first organism to exist it would still beg the question where did it come from, and where did that come from, and so on and on and on ... So I think it is a natural, human tendancy to put more burden on the ToE than it is intended, or capable of answering.
Just my thoughts ...
™ Version 4.2
