Evolution is a fact, a real phenomenon; the 'theory of evolution' refers to models explaining it, just as 'gravitation' is a phenomenon explained by the theory of gravitation.
A theory *in science* is a 'speculation' supported by a large amount of evidence, and as such is different from the casual, nonscientific use of the word.
Good point. It's also worth noting, as one scientist did yesterday on NPR, that for years the evolutionary relationships between human, chimps and gorillas (humans were thought to be more closely related to gorillas) were inferred from morphometric traits such as skull shape; however, DNA/protein sequence data showed that humans and chimps are really more closely related than humans and gorillas. The point is that the branching pattern of the tree of human ancestry -- which is what's being argued about by Leakey et al. -- can't be inferred so precisely from one skull, in the view of many evolutionary biologists.
Sigh. Evolution is a scientific fact, supported by mountains of evidence. Here's another fact : antievolutionists are generally ignorant of this evidence. For an excellent overview of evolutionary concepts, complete with referenced answers to all the usual, endlessly recycled creationist 'refutations'/outright misrepresentations (including their nonsense about radiocarbon dating) , visit the Talk.origins website:
http://talkorigins.org
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution is a fact, a real phenomenon; the 'theory of evolution' refers to models explaining it, just as 'gravitation' is a phenomenon explained by the theory of gravitation. A theory *in science* is a 'speculation' supported by a large amount of evidence, and as such is different from the casual, nonscientific use of the word.
Good point. It's also worth noting, as one scientist did yesterday on NPR, that for years the evolutionary relationships between human, chimps and gorillas (humans were thought to be more closely related to gorillas) were inferred from morphometric traits such as skull shape; however, DNA/protein sequence data showed that humans and chimps are really more closely related than humans and gorillas. The point is that the branching pattern of the tree of human ancestry -- which is what's being argued about by Leakey et al. -- can't be inferred so precisely from one skull, in the view of many evolutionary biologists.
Sigh. Evolution is a scientific fact, supported by mountains of evidence. Here's another fact : antievolutionists are generally ignorant of this evidence. For an excellent overview of evolutionary concepts, complete with referenced answers to all the usual, endlessly recycled creationist 'refutations'/outright misrepresentations (including their nonsense about radiocarbon dating) , visit the Talk.origins website: http://talkorigins.org