Thread: Richard Dawkins: Could Someone Explain..

Ah, right, right, of course. Natural selection is the theory of evolution.
I wonder how much the name actually attributes to the misunderstanding. Why not just use "natural selection" instead of "evolution" all together. *shrug*

Originally Posted by Merlock

Ah, right, right, of course. Natural selection is the theory of evolution.
I wonder how much the name actually attributes to the misunderstanding. Why not just use "natural selection" instead of "evolution" all together. *shrug*

Good point, I think the word can me misleading. However, it only takes a little bit of reading to cure that naivity. Evolution explains in the process in greater detail and further than simply humans.

Anyway, they are often expressed synonymously a lot.
~

Creationists had phrased a question that would take pondering over. In all probability, had he came right out with any answer, they would have rebutted that in some way as well. ~ As I see it
The point being, whether it be a politician slinging mud, a civil rights activist, or any one out to make 'their' point, they will ask the same question in a like manner as many different ways as it takes. Then do so until they can extract anything that will discredit their adversary in any way shape or form, to what ever degree.
It is in itself an aspect of survival, how ironic.

The good point that you bring up, Natural selection does not revolve just around us. As we humans usually do, we see everything to do with me, I, myself, you, etc.
In context to all the other species, maybe evolution could be seen in a more clean perspective. Not putting our ego in place of the missing link.
Damn it Lucy.

Originally Posted by Merlock

Ah, right, right, of course. Natural selection is the theory of evolution.
I wonder how much the name actually attributes to the misunderstanding. Why not just use "natural selection" instead of "evolution" all together. *shrug*

Natural selection is Darwin's and the currently accepted theory of the mechanism of evolution, which is change over time. There are, or should I saw were, pther theories. As it is obvious that plants and animals in many cases form a continuum or can be arranged in related groups, there were different ways of explaining this.

One example is the Lamarckian theory; a man named Lamarck (forgot his first name) theorized that animals passed on acquired characteristiscs; the usual example is that giraffes stretched their necks to reach the tops of trees, and passed on longer necks to their offspring.

Actually, the Soviet Union went with the Lamarckian theory, and tried to and failed to breed superior kinds of wheat using it, resulting in famines.

Remember when Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection, genetics was not understood, so the Lamarckian theory is not as ridiculous as it seems to us now. I don't think Darwin knew about the work of Mendel (the pea-plant monk), so he didn't have a mechanism other than it was obvious that offspring resembled their parents, and so were passing down traits.

I guess they expect Richard Dawkins to be instantly responsive to every inane question without taking a moment to think. Stumped, my ass.