Question Evolution!

--Percy

There's a couple other details I like to mention when this come up. First, evolution does not require change. Species that reside in a consistent environment or who can maintain a consistent environment by changing their geographical location are unlikely to change significantly.Second, species that appear to change very little if at all do so in spite of a turmoil of change at the genetic level where mutations of a variety of types and influences flit into existence and are assessed by how well they perform in the environment, i.e., natural selection.--Percy

Hi Mike,You and Paul are talking about two different situations.When one is creating theory, then evidence is the antecedent and theory is the consequent. The record of species change in the fossil record is one of the evidences that led to the theory of evolution. This is the situation Paul was referring to.When one is seeking specific evidence as further confirmation of a theory, or as a test of a hypothesis, then the theory or hypothesis is the antecedent and the evidence is the consequent. Neal Shubin reasoned that if our theories of evolution and geology were true that he would be most likely to find a fish/amphibian transitional in the arctic, and when he found Tiktaalik it was further confirmation of those theories. Physicists reasoned that if Einstein's theory of general relativity were true that we should find frame dragging effects, and when Gravity Probe B found those effects it was further confirmation of that theory. This is the situation you're referring to.Latin phrases like "modus ponen" will be unfamiliar to most people, or at least to me.--Percy

I think you meant to say, "Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as *natural selection*?"--Percy

There are some things that we know about the world. Science tries to fit these things that we know into frameworks of understanding called theories. Your approach to opposing theories you don't accept seems to be to maintain a lack of awareness of things we already know.--Percy

I was very specific about what I was replying to - I quoted you asking if the geologic column even exists, so there's your "for instance," right in the very message you replied to. Instead of investigating what is known about the geologic column, you questioned its existence. You seem to be letting ignorance be your guide. As others keep noting, your messages are remarkably free of meaningful content.Instead of replying on this meta-topic, why not just respond meaningfully to what Dwise1 was saying about the geologic column in Message 170 and before. Yes, we know you think you have a theory, we haven't forgotten, you don't need to keep reminding us. But theories are based upon evidence, something we keep trying to engage you in but also something you seem remarkably reluctant to talk about, almost as if you only know what you believe scientifically but not why you believe it.--Percy

Uh, okay, that's an interesting perspective. The actual discussion involving the geologic column was between Chuck and Dwise1.--Percy