From: utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu (David M.V. Utidjian)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: macroevolution
Date: 3 Sep 1992 00:20:06 GMT
Organization: Processed People for a Processed America
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep2.173643.11566@cs.joensuu.fi> asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen) writes:
>pockling@fraser.sfu.ca (richard pocklington) writes:
>>	We leave scientific "facts" and "laws" open to question
>>because that is the nature of science.  Please feel free to question
>>but no one appreciates it if you throw tomatoes.
>
>	Sounds OK. It can happen here, but in the real world such theories are
>	not seen that way. Evolution is seen as a proven fact, which it isn't. 

Antti, I do not intend to throw tomatoes... BUT.

There is the fact of evolution.  This is the evidence that we have,
the sum total that supports evolutionary theory, a large group of
facts/data put together that the *theory* of evolution explains.
All of this data found so far supports the theory.
Facts existed looong before any theories.  Facts continue to exist
and new facts come to light every second.

There is a theory of evolution. This is the set of theories we use to
describe *how* the data fit together.  The sum of these theories is the
the *Theory of Evolution*(tm) which is not a fact but a theory.
All of the theories developed so far explain the data quite well.
Theories only exist in peoples minds.  They come and go as they
please.  In the realm of theories "right" or "correct" does NOT
mean "TRUE", it means that the theory fits the available data.

There is some data that we are still looking for to strengthen the
basis of some of the theories.  *The Theory of Evolution* is very well
supported as the central unifying theme to all of these other  theories.

The *Theory of Evolution* will NEVER be "proven", it can only be 
disproven.  

As an analogy....

There is a theory of gravity (TOG).  The theory is not proven.
There is fact of gravity (FOG).  The thing that holds us in
our seats and numerous other easily verified sources of data.
(I am not enough of a philosopher to determine whether the
FOG is *proven*, in the context of this discussion.)

>	I'm well aware of the contents of the average books handling evolution
>	theory. I know most claims. I don't think it's relevant to discuss about
>	small details, when it makes you forget the complete picture ? Besides, 
>	those questions have arosen here many times and they have lead to no
>	conclusions. When you seem to be a professional of some kind then we
>	could have an interesting discussion, without throwing tomatoes. 
>	Perhaps you can answer my questions. I try to ask easily. 

You would get a much better response from people if you could make a
distinction between facts and theories and what, specifically, comes
under the domain of each.
You mention above that it is irrelevant to discuss small details.
See below:

>	I have been wondering, how could Huia-bird have developed, when both 
>	sexes use their bills together to get nourishment from flowers. 
>
>	Then, in the wedge migratory birds (cranes, swans, scoters, geese etc.)
>	there is an interesting solution: Birds help each other to move to a
>	wintering site, and in this order the most powerful individuals must
>	take the heaviest and most dangerous tasks as leaders of the wedge. In
>	this way usually happens that those birds die more than normal members
>	in the wedge. That sounds silly, if you think of the natural selection.
>	                     
>	Some species have taken properties from the individuals of totally 
>	different groups. Parasitic Jaeger uses the hunting strategy of 
>	European Sparrowhawk, Sandpipers and wagtails act similarly etc. .
>
[some stuff deleted]
>		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint

If you continue to get your facts confused with your theories then
t.o. regulars will continue to make ketchup out of your tomatoes.

David Utidjian

	"Don't sweat the technique!"
				Anon.