Here's a question I would like to pose:

Survival of a species depends on it's ability to adapt to its environment. Humans, however, adapted the entire planet to suit ourselves. Would this not be some sort of anomalic 'anti-evolution'? And if so, what would be the purpose for a species evolving as we have?

Or, could it be that we are just freaks of nature?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

I think as a species we have adapted all too well to the environment and learnt to use it in a way to suit our means, I look at is as being ultimately adapted for the environment.

There are two thoughts that spring immediately to mind:

First, since the goal of evolution is not to adapt to ones environment, but to survive, the fact that our methodology is different from other species doesn't mean that they evolve and we don't. On the contrary, that there are different approaches seems to me a strength of evolution.

Second, adapting our environments to ourselves isn't unique. Every animal that creates a nest, burrow or den is doing the same thing on a micro level. The primary difference is that we have the ability to look beyond our own lifespan and affect directed change across multiple generations.

Clea and informed answer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 5fingerdiscount

Here's a question I would like to pose:

Survival of a species depends on it's ability to adapt to its environment. Humans, however, adapted the entire planet to suit ourselves. Would this not be some sort of anomalic 'anti-evolution'? And if so, what would be the purpose for a species evolving as we have?

Or, could it be that we are just freaks of nature?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

---

I would first study the theory of evolution deeply and then remember its just a theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DUKE-OF-URL

I would first study the theory of evolution deeply and then remember its just a theory.

---

I will keep repeating this until you understand me, or engage with me:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

"Just a theory" is somewhat oxymoronic, and definitely misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

"Just a theory" is somewhat oxymoronic, and definitely misleading.

---

I agree, but unfortunately even some scientists use the term "theory" too liberally. Examples: string theory really falls into the realm of conjecture (in my view), as do the various "theories" regarding multiple alternate universes. These are notions that can not be observed or tested, and at least until observable predictions can be made from them, they are not full theories. Perhaps if scientists used the "theory" word more consistently it would be easier to make this argument stick.

In a similar vein, ideas such as Intelligent Design and Creationism don't rise to the level of being scientific theories either, but at best can be described as "conjectures." They don't even make the "just a theory" cut.

perhaps the term hypothesis RATHER than theory is what you refer to? ^^^^