Aristotle believed in instantiated properties only, for Plato there was actually a transcendent level of existence where pure properties existed in their own right.
I think Aristotle was saying that the dead are aware of events and circumstances that affect their loved ones, but not to the degree that it changes their own emotional states. (I’m guessing that ‘nor’ was supposed to be an ‘or’, or perhaps that ‘either’ was a ‘neither’.)
But yes, such archaic language is difficult to understand. (Which I think may be part of the evolution problem – creationists like to cite the oldest works on evolution, which are not only less sophisticated in their understanding but are inherently somewhat harder to understand because of the way they’re written.)
Am I incorrect in stating that the “missing link” has never been found? Isn’t that a fairly large part of backing up this theory?
Or would that be the reason it is still spouted as a theory and not a fact . . .
I believe in “Evolution”, twas a fantastic Journey album.
Ooh, and that reminds me:
Evolutionary theory explains why cicadas not only have such long gestation periods (cicadas spend years underground as grubs, then come up as adults for about a week to breed), why their breeding cycles occur at prime-number intervals:
Cicadas probably have parasites or predators that can also hibernate for relatively long periods of time. To avoid having a breeding period while the parasites/predators are active, the cicadas not only extended the period of time they remain underground, but do so for periods of primes so that they will coincide with their enemies as little as possible.
Neat, huh?
No, you’re not incorrect. No, the “missing link” that shows how humans evolved from more simian ancestors really isn’t necessary to demonstrate the validity of evolution – although it would be useful to disprove the idea that humans were specially created.
** No, it’s a matter of terminology. In science, a theory is an explanation for observed phenomena that has been tested and confirmed sufficiently to be regarded as correct.
Facts are observations, basic statements about what we see.
The problem with providing a “missing link” is that people who are strongly opposed to the concept of evolution will always claim that a link is missing, no matter how many “found links” are presented.
“Specimen B is clearly a link between specimens A and C.”
“Yes, but I don’t believe that B evolved from A. There is a missing link between A and B.”
“Well then, here is specimen X, which is clearly a link between A and B.”
“Yes, but I don’t believe that X evolved from A (or B evolved from X). There is still a missing link.”
Well, it’s not too difficult to tell which side of the fence you’re on. Using emotionally charged words like “spouted” makes that much clear.
In general, theories are better than facts. Facts just tell you what is observable. Anyone can observe stuff. It’s the theories that explain the "why"s and the "how"s of science.
Evolution is defined as “the change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” By that definition, evolution is an observable fact. The theory of evolution attempts to explain how the observable fact of evolution actually works.
Of course, those opposed to the very concept of evolution will jump in about now with micro- vs. macro-evolution. However, there is no such distinction made in either the fact or theory of evolution. The whole micro/macro thing is a false dichotomy that appears to exist for the sole purpose of allowing creationists’ views to not fly completely in the face of science, while still allowing them to believe that Man did not evolve from earlier primates.
The idea of a “missing link” stems from the idea that evolution is a linear process, and that there is a step-wise progression from “monkey” to “Man”. That idea is now known to be wrong; evolution produces bushy lineages, and we are but one branch even among the hominds.
Every population is in transition, be it slow and virtually indistinguishable, produced by random fluctuations in gene frequencies, or by the rapid selection of mutations in a population because of intense selective pressures. As populations become isolated, their genotypes and associated phenotypes diverge. As such, it would be impossible to find the sequence of all populations from our early primate ancestors to us. But neither is such necessary in order to demonstrate that we even have primate ancestors. Clearly, there are fossil specimens which, while they resemble ourselves, also possess significant differences. And there are remarkable similarities in morphology between us and the extant great apes. Put all of this (and more) together, and the evidence points to us being descended from a common ancestor with the extant apes. Even if we don’t find evidence of all those intermediate populations, the existing evidence still pretty much only leads to one viable conclusion.
From www.m-w.com, cow:
- Rick
Bricker:
That link doesn’t work, but I don’t care if it’s from the Supreme Court. As everybody in PA dairy country knows, a cow is a female domestic bovine. A bull is a male. A steer was a male.
The only time cow has an indeteminate gender is in the plural. A herd of cows can have steers and bulls in it. More correctly, they are referred to by the breed in the plural, and a group of mixes cows and steers is called “Jersey’s” or “Herefords” or whatever.
Since this typically only occurs when they are not yet mature, but seperated from their mothers they are more commonly referred to as “yearlings.”
The other time this occurs is when they are being sold for meat and you may have a heard of dried up milk cows, or a herd of steers, or some bulls, or all of them mixed together. These are typically referred to as “beeves.”
You’ll never hear a male called a cow by anybody that counts as far as the dairy or the beef business goes around here. At least to my knowledge and I was corrected on this by an honest to Dairyman, not some broken link.
And, even calling a mixed group “cows,” while permissable, doesn’t sit right, and may cause a glance.
Play it safe, if you don’t know. Then it’s a “herd” until you learn differently.
So what’s the world for the species? Do you use ‘bovine’?
Yeah, let’s not get hung up on the whole “cow” debate. People that distinguish cows from bulls from steers are usually farmers or people that know a little bit about cattle. Most people don’t know a lot about cattle and they would tell you that we eat cows as hamburgers, but in fact what we are eating are steers, and steers are neither cows nor bulls but they are cattle. But really, who cares, let’s all refer to those docile mooing creatures, that spot our rural landscapes, collectively as cows. It really does no harm.
cow.
In one of The Onion’s “What do You Think?” segments, one of the interviewed people put it beautifully:
“My ancestors weren’t no monkey-fuckers!”
Where is Ben on this one?
Evolution is a theory.
Belief in a theory is a contradiction in terms.
I have a cow with that you said New Iskander.
“Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.”
- Stephen Jay Gould
(emphasis added)
[Inigo Montoya] You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. [/Inigo Montoya]
Please scroll back up the page and re-read the definitions provided by TVAA and Joe Random. Then come back and explain what it is exactly that you mean by “a contradiction in terms.”
Evolution is a “theory” the way gravity is a “theory.”
If you want to test the relationship of belief to scientific theories, there are plenty of tall buildings for you to work with.
Evolution does not need to be believed, it is a process, not a mythological event. Similarly, evaporation is a process. Whether you understand it or not, it takes place. In fact you might prefer to think that when you hang your laundry up to dry, invisible water fairies arrive and magically remove the water from your clothes, but this doesn’t change the reality of how water evaporates.
I believe the man himself answered the OP -
“Great is the power of steady misrepresentation” - Darwin
The operative words being “dairy” and “around here.”
My (non-dairy) in-laws, who raise scrubs for beef, generally use cow as the singular of cattle, even when they are talking steers.
Every gen-u-wine cowboy in my experience has used “cows” as the generic.
(It could be that dairymen are more particular because of their reliance on the sex of the cattle to make a living or it may be a New York thing, but I hve never encountered that particular variety of linguistic purism.)