Evolution

[Chrono212]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

There's no difference between a scientific law and a theory.

The very definition of the words is different.
Just because it's used in a scientific context does not mean they have the same reason.

 

[kingpocky]

The Heliocentric theory stating that the earth revolves around the sun is still "only a theory." There's no "heliocentric law" despite the fact that it is absolutely true. Laws generally express things that have to do with the fundamental nature of the universe. No matter how much overwhelming evidence for evolution there is, (and there is a lot,) it will never be a law

 

[kromify]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

speaking as a final year zoology student; and when i say zoology i mean... evolution and physiology (zoology!)

public terms frequently differ from those in specialisations. if someone says "rpg" i think role-playing game. my sister would think rocket-propelled grenade. (she's in the army btw).

now if someone says "theory" i think proven. the lay public thinks... what you said.

i don't quite know how else to explain... words are insufficient when it's a problem of semantics.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain that concept to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

NEVER QUOTE WIKI AS FACT!!!! *pulls out hair*

 

[PatrickXD]

A lot of anti evolutionist comments make me laugh. No, of course I can't 100% prove that evoltuion is real. However, I can get a darn sight closer to that than you can in disproving it.
Seriously, A Level Biology is all you need to get an evidence mind-fuck.

Plus, whoever said that Newtons Laws of Motion are proven (can't find your post but saw it quoted), would you kindly punch yourself in the jeans. All of science is theory, and none of it can ever be proven only DIS-proven. To quote a famous person whose name escapes me "If you've disproved everything, fuck yourself with a lamp-post and accept that whatever left over must be correct"

Okay so maybe I was paraphrasing.

 

[kane.malakos]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

Evolution will never be a law. A law is not "more correct" than a theory. They're actually completely different things. A law was never a theory and a theory will never become a law. A theory is, to quote the National Academy of Science, "a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time." A law is actually just a more specific application of a theory. Check the link for a more complete explanation. http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

 

[ShadowsofHope]

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain that concept to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

NEVER QUOTE WIKI AS FACT!!!! *pulls out hair*

It's called a definition. Definitions don't change for words on the fly, regardless if they are on wikipedia or not (they originate from external information, no less). The fact of the matter is, that is what a scientific theory is, and the individual I was criticizing was speaking from ignorance, and I corrected him.

So, just another "NOT WIKI!" rant, or was there actually a point to that response?

 

[Nimcha]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

There's no difference between a scientific law and a theory.

The very definition of the words is different.
Just because it's used in a scientific context does not mean they have the same reason.

It does, actually. In an every day life context a theory is something that is speculative. In scientific context it's what was already established earlier, something completely different. The word just has two meanings, like a lot of words. And in scientific context a law and a theory are not that different, but law is usually used for a defining formula of the theory. For example E=MC^2. That's a scientific law, and part of the Theory of relativity.

 

[moretimethansense]

The very definition of the words is different.
Just because it's used in a scientific context does not mean they have the same reason.

I refer you to Shadowsofhope's post:

If you are going to talk about theories and laws in Science, mate, at least don't speak out of your ass about it without knowing what they are.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain how that concept functions to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

I'd like to add a smart comment here, but it would just be me repeating the above.

 

[Chrono212]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

If you are going to talk about theories and laws in Science, mate, at least don't speak out of your ass about it without knowing what they are.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain how that concept functions to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

Please don't quote Wikipedia at me when I've personally studied, and continue to study, physics, biology and chemistry at college.
I don't deny evolution, I believe in it whole heartily, but the laws in that quote refer to established laws which were, yes, contracted from theories themselves.
A law generalises a group of observations. When the observation is made, no exceptions have been forms to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

For example, Newton's Law of Gravity can be used to predict the behaviour of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As such, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.
However, if your definition of proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.

 

[omega 616]

So why aren't horses dead? They have short necks, compared.

Why is the daddy longs legs still alive? It has a very weak, almost water like (I guess) wenom.

Mainly because having long necks is not the only way to be successful. It helped giraffes mainly because of the environment they grew up in. A lot of parts of Africa don't have much grass, but do have trees that giraffes can eat. Horses evolved in a region that had a lot more grass, so there was no particular advantage to longer necks for them. What you have to remember is that evolution doesn't make an organism "better," just more adapted to its environment. Daddy long legs don't have great defense mechanisms, but they reproduce extremely quickly and have lots of babies. A lot of them will get eaten, but enough survive to continue the species.

Say you had two single cells, one called Frank, Frank wants to eat plants, how does that start? There are no out side influences to start Frank into eating plants. Does he get a decent size and just start sucking on leaves, then finds something that looks like him and mate with it and teach his children to suck on leaves, then during a million years of sucking leaves mutations happen that allow Frank to chew leaves?

Surely Frank never came out with a full set of gnashers, perfectly formed to chew on leaves.

All the people who have commented on this thread seem to be going from the half way mark of "we have animals and this happend to form what we have now".

Actually, there is an outside influence that starts frank eating plants: Availability of plants. Animals need food. If plants are readily available, and other food is not, the single celled life forms will eat the plants. Then, as millions of years go by, they will become better adapted to it.

So why isn't every animal an omnivore? Yeah plants grow everywhere but so do animals, why not double your chances of living by eating both? While there evolving they can evolve the ability to eat the other thing.

If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.

If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the environment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop itself being food?

You seem to have the idea evolution happens over night, animals ring up a friend and then they grow extra limbs till the morning? Not how that works...

It takes millions of years for evolution to truly show changes, in the mean time animals/humans adapt their abilities/behavior to suit their living environment.

Say you had two single cells, one called Frank, Frank wants to eat plants, how does that start? There are no out side influences to start Frank into eating plants. Does he get a decent size and just start sucking on leaves, then finds something that looks like him and mate with it and teach his children to suck on leaves, then during a million years of sucking leaves mutations happen that allow Frank to chew leaves?

Surely Frank never came out with a full set of gnashers, perfectly formed to chew on leaves.

All the people who have commented on this thread seem to be going from the half way mark of "we have animals and this happend to form what we have now".

uhm... im going to explain this as simple as I can.

lets say the first bacteria thing is created.

Then a lot of bacteria thing get together and form a big animal.

Big animal finds that sun is good energy source and turns into prehistoric plant.

Other animal finds that eating plant gives good energy.

other animal finds that planteating animal is good energy.

Plant animal is getting slaughterd from meat animal and develops defense and grows in size to survive. Then meat eater does the same and it just goes on like that... VERY simplified..

Sry for VERY bad english

Except if your a dear, then you don't develop anything to protect yourself and get eaten by just about eveything.

Thats another thing I don't get, if it's survival of the fittest or most adapted, by aren't things like dears extinct?

 

[kromify]

A theory is, to quote the National Academy of Science, "a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time." A law is actually just a more specific application of a theory. Check the link for a more complete explanation. http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html

now THAT is worth quoting. NEVER WIKI!

*cries in corner*

 

[Chrono212]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

There's no difference between a scientific law and a theory.

The very definition of the words is different.
Just because it's used in a scientific context does not mean they have the same reason.

It does, actually. In an every day life context a theory is something that is speculative. In scientific context it's what was already established earlier, something completely different. The word just has two meanings, like a lot of words. And in scientific context a law and a theory are not that different, but law is usually used for a defining formula of the theory. For example E=MC^2. That's a scientific law, and part of the Theory of relativity.

A law, after proof, can be used within a theory. I have no argument with that.

 

[funguy2121]

I was just thinking about this topic and was wondering how does it work?

Why when all creatures great and small, crawling out of the primordial ooze, did some animals evolve to be herbivores/carnivores/omnivores?

How did some evolve to have venom that can do all kinds of fucked up shit and others didn't?

How can a bird eating tarantula have the ability to throw it's hairs off it's body to defend itself but a deers only form of defence is it has eyes on the side of it's head and can run pretty quick?

If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.

If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the environment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop itself being food?

OP, my general tendency is to post a response before reading other posts, which prevents my comments from being influenced by others'. So forgive me if I'm ninja'd here.

I think a cursory look at Darwin's work would answer those questions. I'm not thoroughly versed in the nuts and bolts of evolution, but I know that the creatures that had attributes that their neighbors did not were better suited to survive and flourish, and so they did. As far as "eating mutant babies," as you put it, is concerned, I don't think there's much science there at all, if any. I've heard that taking certain drugs, particularly LSD and ecstasy, can lead to genetic mutation, but I've never heard of food causing it.

 

[kromify]

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain that concept to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

NEVER QUOTE WIKI AS FACT!!!! *pulls out hair*

It's called a definition. Definitions don't change for words on the fly, regardless if they are on wikipedia or not (they originate from external information, no less). The fact of the matter is, that is what a scientific theory is, and the individual I was criticizing was speaking from ignorance, and I corrected him.

So, just another "NOT WIKI!" rant, or was there actually a point to that response?

just an ingrained response. (of a student, zoology or no). we like to reference from scientific journals, ie peer reviewed empirical data. in fact if i think back to first year i can vaguely recall a never quote wiki lecture from one of the professors.

 

[Ben Hussong]

The thing is Evolution is only a theory(wouldn't be called a theory otherwise) and not fully complete and of badly put across in modern society. Although the general idea of it does exist we can't really say we can from apes. I am sure we have a similar ancestor going back millions of years but then again if you go back far enough we all came from space dust.

I hate when people who obviously don't understand science try to disprove science. "'?noun, plural -ries.
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity." Theory does not mean unproven, unless your stupid enough to think that we can fly because " gravity is just a theory, herp derp"

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Well, I hate to be devils advocate (bad pun), but it is still the Theory of Evolution.
It has yet to be proved scientifically, and by that I mean there is circumstantial evidence pointing to evolution to be the very likely cause of the natural world today but, like I said, it hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the scientific world.

EURGH! i hate sematics.

Science actually cannot prove anything; hence the term theory. we can only disprove hypotheses till our eyeballs pop and all other alternatives have been disproven.

the evidence is really NOT circumstantial. its very substantial in fact. and the fact that we call it a theory means that it is accepted by the scientific community.

I'm sorry but the fact that it's called the theory of evolution and not the Laws of evolution, like the Laws of Motion, means that it is still a theory.
A very well thought out and compelling and likely theory, but a theory nonetheless.

If you are going to talk about theories and laws in Science, mate, at least don't speak out of your ass about it without knowing what they are.

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain how that concept functions to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

Please don't quote Wikipedia at me when I've personally studied, and continue to study, physics, biology and chemistry at college.
I don't deny evolution, I believe in it whole heartily, but the laws in that quote refer to established laws which were, yes, contracted from theories themselves.
A law generalises a group of observations. When the observation is made, no exceptions have been forms to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

For example, Newton's Law of Gravity can be used to predict the behaviour of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As such, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations.
However, if your definition of proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.

Fair enough, your wording in your previous post gave a very different impression of your view of Evolution ("It's just a theory" is usually coined by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents to "discredit" Evolution and say that there is no evidence for it), so you can understand my reaction upon such an impression.

However, I would disagree and remark that "proof" and "facts" are mainly the same thing, although it can be very much argued that facts are the result of accumulated proof, and not the same thing.

 

[moretimethansense]

So why aren't horses dead? They have short necks, compared.

Why is the daddy longs legs still alive? It has a very weak, almost water like (I guess) wenom.

Mainly because having long necks is not the only way to be successful. It helped giraffes mainly because of the environment they grew up in. A lot of parts of Africa don't have much grass, but do have trees that giraffes can eat. Horses evolved in a region that had a lot more grass, so there was no particular advantage to longer necks for them. What you have to remember is that evolution doesn't make an organism "better," just more adapted to its environment. Daddy long legs don't have great defense mechanisms, but they reproduce extremely quickly and have lots of babies. A lot of them will get eaten, but enough survive to continue the species.

Say you had two single cells, one called Frank, Frank wants to eat plants, how does that start? There are no out side influences to start Frank into eating plants. Does he get a decent size and just start sucking on leaves, then finds something that looks like him and mate with it and teach his children to suck on leaves, then during a million years of sucking leaves mutations happen that allow Frank to chew leaves?

Surely Frank never came out with a full set of gnashers, perfectly formed to chew on leaves.

All the people who have commented on this thread seem to be going from the half way mark of "we have animals and this happend to form what we have now".

Actually, there is an outside influence that starts frank eating plants: Availability of plants. Animals need food. If plants are readily available, and other food is not, the single celled life forms will eat the plants. Then, as millions of years go by, they will become better adapted to it.

So why isn't every animal an omnivore? Yeah plants grow everywhere but so do animals, why not double your chances of living by eating both? While there evolving they can evolve the ability to eat the other thing.

If animals eat the weakest or an abnormal baby did these evolutions occur? Surely the mother would have seen the mutation and eaten it.

If I made a new animal, which had no defence or offense, then plonked it down in the animals version of hells kitchen (Aus) how would it evolve and adapt to the environment? If it gets eaten then it can't send a message to it's kids saying "evolve a way to stop being eaten. It sucks!", so how does it over many generations evolve the ability or a way to stop itself being food?

You seem to have the idea evolution happens over night, animals ring up a friend and then they grow extra limbs till the morning? Not how that works...

It takes millions of years for evolution to truly show changes, in the mean time animals/humans adapt their abilities/behavior to suit their living environment.

Say you had two single cells, one called Frank, Frank wants to eat plants, how does that start? There are no out side influences to start Frank into eating plants. Does he get a decent size and just start sucking on leaves, then finds something that looks like him and mate with it and teach his children to suck on leaves, then during a million years of sucking leaves mutations happen that allow Frank to chew leaves?

Surely Frank never came out with a full set of gnashers, perfectly formed to chew on leaves.

All the people who have commented on this thread seem to be going from the half way mark of "we have animals and this happend to form what we have now".

uhm... im going to explain this as simple as I can.

lets say the first bacteria thing is created.

Then a lot of bacteria thing get together and form a big animal.

Big animal finds that sun is good energy source and turns into prehistoric plant.

Other animal finds that eating plant gives good energy.

other animal finds that planteating animal is good energy.

Plant animal is getting slaughterd from meat animal and develops defense and grows in size to survive. Then meat eater does the same and it just goes on like that... VERY simplified..

Sry for VERY bad english

Except if your a dear, then you don't develop anything to protect yourself and get eaten by just about eveything.

Thats another thing I don't get, if it's survival of the fittest or most adapted, by aren't things like dears extinct?

1. And I'm not sure how many more ways this can be said, EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
A mutation that is beneficial becomes stronger in a species over time, a species DOES NOT think to it self "Eating both plants and meat would help my chances of survival", this has been explained often enough already, are you trying to vex the people here or are you genuinly incapable of understanding a simple concept and then applying the logic of it too you own questions?

2. Deer DO have defences, firstly they have developed the instinct to move in groups thus improving the odds that they will not be the one marked by a predetor and secondly they can fucking run.

 

[kane.malakos]

So why isn't every animal an omnivore? Yeah plants grow everywhere but so do animals, why not double your chances of living by eating both? While there evolving they can evolve the ability to eat the other thing.

Except if your a dear, then you don't develop anything to protect yourself and get eaten by just about eveything.

Thats another thing I don't get, if it's survival of the fittest or most adapted, by aren't things like dears extinct?

Being omnivorous is not very helpful to a lot of creatures. Let's look at deer, since you use them in your example. They're weak creatures, and they rarely have an opportunity to eat meat. It's not helpful for them to be able to do so. Another thing that you have to realize is that being weak, like deer, is not "bad" from an evolutionary viewpoint. In fact, they have many defense mechanisms. The ancestors of deer survived because they were quick and good at spotting predators, not because they were badass.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Theories are the concept, Laws explain that concept to the best of their abilities supported by empirical evidence as it is gathered and scrutinized. So in other words, "it's just a theory, not a Law" is a very ignorant statement when speaking of the Scientific Method and process. Don't make it again.

NEVER QUOTE WIKI AS FACT!!!! *pulls out hair*

It's called a definition. Definitions don't change for words on the fly, regardless if they are on wikipedia or not (they originate from external information, no less). The fact of the matter is, that is what a scientific theory is, and the individual I was criticizing was speaking from ignorance, and I corrected him.

So, just another "NOT WIKI!" rant, or was there actually a point to that response?

just an ingrained response. (of a student, zoology or no). we like to reference from scientific journals, ie peer reviewed empirical data. in fact if i think back to first year i can vaguely recall a never quote wiki lecture from one of the professors.

I would have quoted a more professional source, but I was distracted at the time and needed a quick source for my response to the person in question.

Sorry if I came across as excessively annoyed. I was a little, but not at you.

 

[Feralcentaur]

I do smell a hint of troll here.

Never mind me..

If he were trolling, he would probably be more rude and say things more like, "Scientists are all morons" or "My grandpa ain't a Monkey!" this person seems to be genuinely confused/ curious.