Theory of Evolution?

Mark Siddall mes at zoo.toronto.edu
Mon Dec 27 14:55:37 EST 1993


  scsd2401 at altair.selu.edu  wrote:
 >If evolution is just a theory then why do so many people refer
>to evolution as if it were an absolute truth. Many theories have
>been disproved in the past and many have been found to be true.  
 >Some scientist in Florida discovered human foot prints along
>side dinasour foot prints. If these foot prints are verified
>to be what they seem then the evolution idea will be disproved.
>As the theory claims that man and dinasour did not exist at
>the same period in time.
 
  The idea of evolution has been called a "theory" more for historical
reasons than for some lack of confidence in its veracity.  In its original
conception(s) [c.f. Darwin, Wallace, Lamarck etc etc] the mechanisms
proposed and notions regarding its course through time were considered
"theoretical" in so far as they were new ideas.

   Properly, Evolution is a paradigm.  It is neither directly provable
nor disprovable.  Denying that evolution has occured is like denying that]
time passes.  Such discussion is possible, but belongs in the realm of 
metaphysics, not biological science (see talk.origins, not bionet.molbio.
evolution).  Properly, theories are testable in their components.  In this
light there are many *theories* of evolution.  The rejection of any one
theory does not alter the paradigm; it only alters our understanding of
it.

Mark Siddall.



More information about the Mol-evol mailing list