Thanks CTD.
If I read the dates correctly this second "theory" is posted when the first is only 2 days old.
They are also the same theory. Just another way of presenting it.
Note that if conclusion 1 is true: [color:"blue"]"hereditary traits that result in differences that enable some organisms to survive and breed better, ..."[/color], that then evolution by definition is inevitable. Several experiments have established that conclusion 1 is true (Linda's example of the weed above is one such). Selection of course operates on each phenotype individual as a whole so the changes of conclusion 1, 2 and 3 are all selected by individual success and failure.
Likewise, if conclusion 4 is true: [color:"blue"]"hereditary traits, environmental traits, and acquired traits, that don't affect survival or breeding can still spread within breeding populations ..." [/color], then change in even static populations in inevitable. Again, there are experiments that show some changes in traits are selectively neutral.
Further note that conclusion 5 means that diversity will also be inevitable, once you have two different populations they will change differently.
Claiming observations can be explained, isn't that simply restating the goal of science?
Science explains evidence and observations by the means of theories, which are then tested against all the evidence and observations plus new ones that are made based on the theories.
Newton could have said that his theory of the force of gravity, F=GMm/r^2, is sufficient to explain the evidence of attraction we see on earth, in the orbits of planets, and in the behavior of galaxies. We can then test that theory against those observation, and find that it is not sufficient when it comes to galaxies, or the behavior of light passing by stars.
The testing is what makes it science, that and the process of discarding those concepts that are no longer useful or outright false (like geocentricism pr a young age for the earth).
If you think this is an example of how science works, I don't know exactly what to suggest... It doesn't help that time is so short; if the pattern holds, the next "theory" is due within 36 hours, and that doesn't give us much time to work. Your might wiki "science", "empirical science", "inductive reasoning". Google some more sources if wiki doesn't cut it, I guess.
If you would like to pursue how science is done using this simple theory, we can discuss some examples.
We can start by looking at the issue of diversity, and try to set some limits on how much diversity can occur within one species.
Canus lupus, and the subspecies
C. l. familiaris (dog), seems to be a favorite of creationists:
. . . . <img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/kmiuzewhli.jpg">
We can use this as a baseline for the amount of diversity that can exist within any species, especially as this seems to have occurred in the same amount of time as the 'domestication' of man. Then we can judge if the difference between two samples is more or less than the differences we see within
C. l. familiaris from the common ancestor wolf.
Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
