Why not a law..Evolution
I wonder if it is time to stop calling it the Theory of Evolution and = start calling it the Law of Evolution, and to stop referring to = evolutionary theory and surplant that with evolutionary law.=20 =20 Lets face it, there has to be more evidence for evolution than there was = for Gravity, etc. when they were moved to law status. =20 Do we know of any case where organisms were not adapted by or succumb to = some outside force? =20 =20 Sounds like a law to me. =20 =20 VISIT HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY www.herpconbio.org = http://www.herpconbio.org=20 A New Journal Published in Partnership with Partners in Amphibian and = Reptile Conservation and the World Congress of Herpetology. =20 Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas AM University Texarkana 2600 Robison Rd. Texarkana, TX 75501 O: 1-903-223-3134 H: 1-903-791-3843 Homepage: https://www.eagle.tamut.edu/faculty/mmccallum/index.html =20 From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Ashwani Vasishth Sent: Tue 8/15/2006 10:13 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Commentaries on science and on evolution There are two commentaries in the current issue of Bioscience that I = thought worth considering, in the particular context of the current = debate about the teaching of evolution science in our schools The first, by Ross H. Nehm, Faith-based Evolution Education? (638 = BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org) argues = that scientists, generally defined, have limited themselves to = generating belief statements on evolution, rather than scientifically = and systematically addressing the misconceptions inherent in lay beliefs = and in creationist rhetoric. In addition, we need to get much better at = showing people why a knowledge of evolution science matters, to everyday = folks, on an everyday basis. The second, by Margaret Wertheim, Who Is Science Writing For? (640 = BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org), argues = that science writers, generally defined, are not positioning themselves = where the readers are, in America, but rather are catering to a very = narrow (and quite small) self-selecting cluster of individuals who = actively seek out science-related material. We need to get better at = doing what she calls missionary work. Cheers, - Ashwani Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 Department of Urban Studies and Planning, ST 206 California State University, Northridge http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
Re: Why not a law..Evolution
But Malcolm, It is not the Theory of Evolution that is the theory, but rather the Theory of Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION that is the theory. While most of us would agree that there is ample proof, it should also be understood why it must be considered a theory and not a law. A law is universally true, while a theory is provisionally true. We all can imagine cases in which some characteristic of an organism was due to genetic drift or some other form of accident that favored a given trait. We can also remember th= e Spandrels of San Marcos (Stephen J. Gould) and so recognize that we cannot call everything we see a product of evolution by natural selection, If we do so, without proof, then we are making assertions of faith. So, until we prove that all features of living things are adaptations that were formed by natural selectionthe theory of evolution by natural selection remains just that. But what a wonderful and explanative theory! And we all KNOW that evolution happened, evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, and not a law. Cheers, Jim On 8/16/06, Malcolm McCallum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if it is time to stop calling it the Theory of Evolution and start calling it the Law of Evolution, and to stop referring to evolutionary theory and surplant that with evolutionary law. Lets face it, there has to be more evidence for evolution than there was for Gravity, etc. when they were moved to law status. Do we know of any case where organisms were not adapted by or succumb to some outside force? Sounds like a law to me. VISIT HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY www.herpconbio.org http://www.herpconbio.org A New Journal Published in Partnership with Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation and the World Congress of Herpetology. Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas AM University Texarkana 2600 Robison Rd. Texarkana, TX 75501 O: 1-903-223-3134 H: 1-903-791-3843 Homepage: https://www.eagle.tamut.edu/faculty/mmccallum/index.html From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Ashwani Vasishth Sent: Tue 8/15/2006 10:13 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Commentaries on science and on evolution There are two commentaries in the current issue of Bioscience that I thought worth considering, in the particular context of the current deba= te about the teaching of evolution science in our schools The first, by Ross H. Nehm, Faith-based Evolution Education? (638 BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org) argues that scientists, generally defined, have limited themselves to generating belief statements on evolution, rather than scientifically and systematically addressing the misconceptions inherent in lay beliefs and = in creationist rhetoric. In addition, we need to get much better at showing people why a knowledge of evolution science matters, to everyday folks, o= n an everyday basis. The second, by Margaret Wertheim, Who Is Science Writing For? (640 BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org), argues that science writers, generally defined, are not positioning themselves where the readers are, in America, but rather are catering to a very narr= ow (and quite small) self-selecting cluster of individuals who actively seek out science-related material. We need to get better at doing what she ca= lls missionary work. Cheers, - Ashwani Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 Department of Urban Studies and Planning, ST 206 California State University, Northridge http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ --=20 - James J. Roper UFPR, Zoologia Caixa Postal 19034 81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono: 55 41 33611764 celular:55 41 99870543 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/ - http://jjroper.sites.uol.com.br
Re: Why not a law..Evolution
A law is not universally true. Newtons laws of motion are universally false (though usually close enough to be useful). And Newtons laws are not even close to being true near the speed of light. Laws describe phenomena; they don't require explanation. Theories explain phenomena, even if they don't necessarily predict it well. Cheers, Shane Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent those of his employer. -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James J. Roper Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 3:01 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Why not a law..Evolution But Malcolm, It is not the Theory of Evolution that is the theory, but rather the Theory of Evolution BY NATURAL SELECTION that is the theory. While most of us would agree that there is ample proof, it should also be understood why it must be considered a theory and not a law. A law is universally true, while a theory is provisionally true. We all can imagine cases in which some characteristic of an organism was due to genetic drift or some other form of accident that favored a given trait. We can also remember th= e Spandrels of San Marcos (Stephen J. Gould) and so recognize that we cannot call everything we see a product of evolution by natural selection, If we do so, without proof, then we are making assertions of faith. So, until we prove that all features of living things are adaptations that were formed by natural selectionthe theory of evolution by natural selection remains just that. But what a wonderful and explanative theory! And we all KNOW that evolution happened, evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, and not a law. Cheers, Jim On 8/16/06, Malcolm McCallum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if it is time to stop calling it the Theory of Evolution and start calling it the Law of Evolution, and to stop referring to evolutionary theory and surplant that with evolutionary law. Lets face it, there has to be more evidence for evolution than there was for Gravity, etc. when they were moved to law status. Do we know of any case where organisms were not adapted by or succumb to some outside force? Sounds like a law to me. VISIT HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY www.herpconbio.org http://www.herpconbio.org A New Journal Published in Partnership with Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation and the World Congress of Herpetology. Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas AM University Texarkana 2600 Robison Rd. Texarkana, TX 75501 O: 1-903-223-3134 H: 1-903-791-3843 Homepage: https://www.eagle.tamut.edu/faculty/mmccallum/index.html From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Ashwani Vasishth Sent: Tue 8/15/2006 10:13 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Commentaries on science and on evolution There are two commentaries in the current issue of Bioscience that I thought worth considering, in the particular context of the current deba= te about the teaching of evolution science in our schools The first, by Ross H. Nehm, Faith-based Evolution Education? (638 BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org) argues that scientists, generally defined, have limited themselves to generating belief statements on evolution, rather than scientifically and systematically addressing the misconceptions inherent in lay beliefs and = in creationist rhetoric. In addition, we need to get much better at showing people why a knowledge of evolution science matters, to everyday folks, o= n an everyday basis. The second, by Margaret Wertheim, Who Is Science Writing For? (640 BioScience * August 2006 / Vol. 56 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org), argues that science writers, generally defined, are not positioning themselves where the readers are, in America, but rather are catering to a very narr= ow (and quite small) self-selecting cluster of individuals who actively seek out science-related material. We need to get better at doing what she ca= lls missionary work. Cheers, - Ashwani Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 Department of Urban Studies and Planning, ST 206 California State University, Northridge http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ --=20 - James J. Roper UFPR, Zoologia Caixa Postal 19034 81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone/Fone/Tel=E9fono: 55 41 33611764 celular:55 41 99870543
