Talk:Theory
Actually, this article does seem a little too long winded. Nickelodeon 06:23, 23 March 2007 (EST)
- did invert nexus write it then? Spuriousmonkey 06:52, 23 March 2007 (EST)
- Athelwulf added it Nickelodeon 07:28, 23 March 2007 (EST)
- Oh. If I had known that I wouldn't have commented. Apparently he is vindictive. [1]Spuriousmonkey 07:34, 23 March 2007 (EST)
- Hehe. I find that old stuff on his page really funny, 'cos its all his own words. "I bang on tables, I'm moody." Nickelodeon 07:56, 23 March 2007 (EST)
- Oh. If I had known that I wouldn't have commented. Apparently he is vindictive. [1]Spuriousmonkey 07:34, 23 March 2007 (EST)
- Athelwulf added it Nickelodeon 07:28, 23 March 2007 (EST)
A distinction should be made between theory and fact: It has been observed that life on Earth evolves — that is, the allele frequencies of genes in a given genetic population do change from generation to generation, and these changes do accrue to eventually result in new species. This is not in question by any scientist. This genetic phenomenon is recognized as the law of evolution, which is the subject of this article. The theory of evolution is a well-tested explanation of what drives the evolutionary process; the theory with the most evidence supporting it by far is that of natural selection, and the article on natural selection is where the theory of evolution would
This is quite...bad. law of evolution? Rest is also quite shaky. Spuriousmonkey 07:10, 23 March 2007 (EST)
- Is that a fact? Nickelodeon 14:09, 24 March 2007 (EST)
- Well, I like it. We already have Mendelian laws, and by the same token (Mendel's work with peas) we know that coefficients (quantitative or binary) for phenotypic-genotypic correlation exist. These are mathematical facts, so far as correlation can be a "fact". If we want to draw a boundary at the standard error on the estimate, then fine: but it's of routine observation and fits underlying assumptions about the systems of control If we take the position by contrast that such examples refute the condition of "Law", then all core assumptions about the model - of variability, of segregation - also fail. I'm not now sure if we need a separate law, but at the same time the precise conditions of gravity change dependent on environmental/planetary/galactic localities, so why is our system any different? All it is, is a change in localized coefficients. So...it's a law, really. GeoffP
- interestingly Mendel gave up working on peas because they did not prove the existence of god, and switched to another plant that did. And he was happy once again. Spuriousmonkey 05:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
