Thank you very much, I look forward to researching that.
Well, the proper Darwinian explanation would be that members of this sea plant population with the traits adaptive to their niche (whatever these may be in this case) survived more often (or, at the very least, long enough to reproduce) and, eventually, all the members of the population came to possess this trait (or set of traits). Even if only one member of the population initially possessed this trait(s), that member would be more likely to survive long enough to reproduce than members with other traits and, with each progressive generation, the number of members of the population that possessed the adaptive trait(s) would exponentially increase.
Yeah, that's not the answer he gave. But how would you apply your answer to the question of transitioning from the sea to land?
Heritable mutations with a survival benefit in the population's niche would become more common with each new generation. Heritable mutations with less survival benefit than the "normal" variance of genetic traits would die out.
What's difference between that and "survival of the fittest?"
It sounds like whoever you were speaking with didn't know what he was talking about.
Unfortunately, it seems that he is a fair representative of the Evolutionist-True-Believer". That is, just like the Creationist-True-Believer he can't abide any sort of criticism to his cherished beliefs, even if those criticisms are valid, and have already been rejected by the people he claims to follow.
From my experience, it is these True-Believers that make the most noise, on both sides, so that most of what gets thrown about in the public arena is crap. All it serves to do is to separate the groups of True Believers, and it convinces everybody else that the "other side" is completely made up of irrational zealots.
People who don't understand Evolution are trying to convert people who have been emotionally programed to resist. And it turns into a shoving match, instead of a rational exchange of ideas. People who don't understand Christianity are trying to "prove God" so that people are forced to accept his rule (and who better to explain his "rules" that the church of the prosthelitizer?)
And, of course, the worst part of this is that once somebody is identified with a particular "side", everybody assumes that they are going to put forth the same old argument that's been thrown out before, so they quit listening to what's actually being said. A legitimate question from me is seen as a challenge, it's answered with an argument I think I've heard before, I stop listening, and try to remember that really slick defense I heard used once against the argument I think he's making, etc.
And people don't understand why I don't hold out a lot of hope for our race.
:toilclaw:
A hypothesis is a testable explanation. A theory is a conceptual paradigm that seeks to explain a number of observed hypotheses.
One of the common mistakes made is that a theory is some sort of "super-hypothesis".
Indeed a mistake I had made. Thanks for clearing that up.
Well, all I can attest to is my own experiences. In that regard, I was exposed to evolutionary theory in my senior year of high school (but not before then) but it was not until college that I actually came to understand the finer points of Darwinism and what it actually entails.
Actually, I'd say American public school science coursework is woefully anemic and does not at all prepare students for college. The whole creationism angle just makes this situation even worse.
I was home-schooled for most of my elementary and middle school years, where I learned the "Straw Man's" Evolution. Unfortunately, when I transitioned to public school, the evolutionists themselves continued to present the same Straw man's theories, or what I referred to above as "Evolution Lite." While many of my classmates accepted the "adaptation" crap, simply because the teacher said so, I was trained to think critically about it, and to question it. Until yesterday, I had never heard anybody other than creationists be critical of adaptation, let alone "survival of the fittest," and I've been in a fair number of these discussions.
Then to hear it twice in one day gives me hope that I made the right decision to take Evolutionists off the "other guy" list in my life.
My point is nobody in history (except for perhaps mystics like Meister Eckhart) made the argument that the "days" in Genesis were anything other than literal 24 hour intervals until it became known that the world was, in fact, far older than six thousand years. Once this knowledge became known, believers began to come up with ways to "reinvent" their understanding of the prose.
This is similar to how some types constantly "reinterpret" the prophecies in Revelation in light of new world events. This is eisegesis.
There was also a guy named Mamonides and his followers, but I understand your point.
But then again, there was no need to re-interpret Genesis, until something came up to challenge it. There's a lot about the Bible that I interpreted wrong throughout my life, many of the parables, and teachings, as well as the "science", because I was coming at it from the wrong perspective. If I change my perspective, the plain reading of the text changes dramatically.
This particular perspective actually answers a lot of other questions about Genesis that I had put aside for the moment, like, who were the Nephilim? Who did Cain marry? Why does the verse talk about "Replenishing the earth?"
I keep shifting my perspective until I find one that answers more questions, but never want to stop and decide "I've found it! this is the answer!"
But that's my personal method of trying to live life, so within that, re-interpreting the days doesn't really bother me. But I could understand why it would bother others.