Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Trees Falling in the Forest
Message-ID: <582@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 20:44:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.582
Posted: Mon Apr 29 20:44:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 19-May-85 07:09:49 EDT
References: <983@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 22

[..............]
>This is utterly unsound.  You're glossing over the distinction between
>what more careful writers call "the fact of evolution" vs. "the theory
>of evolution".
>
>The theory DOES (or ought to) make some statements about mechanism.  If
>not, then what you end up with is (must I say it again?) description,
>not mechanism.  And if one doesn't know the mechanism, how does one
>know the description is the correct one?
>                                                                    |
>Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
>                                                                    |
Evolutionary theories DO make statements about the mechanism of evolution.
There are scads of evolutionary theories.  Am I to assume then that
we are discussing a THEORY of evolution and not the FACT of evolution?
If so, which theory?  Note that many scientists differ on many issues relating
to how evolution occured (punctuated equilibrium for one).  Just what
ARE we discussing here?

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd