It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Even the scientists don't yet agree. How are "corrections" going to be posted in the media until that happens?
Peer reviews aren't supposed to provide a unified opinion or consensus. They are to make sure the researcher hasn't overlooked some obvious problems with their research. Sometimes the peer reviewed paper contains new evidence that contradicts the previous consensus. As long as the contradictory evidence is sound, this is not only acceptable, this type of new evidence advances science.
Originally posted by kennyb72
So what ever happened to consensus or peer reviews that are supposed to provide a unified opinion on scientific discoveries, although I do understand what you are saying.
That evolution occurred is considered fact, but the exact mechanisms by which it occurred aren't completely understood and there are various theories. And theories in the scientific sense aren't just "guesses".
The problem I see, is with subject like Darwins "THEORY" of natural selection. Reading text books and the general consensus of the public, this is not a theory anymore and it is presented as a fact. The whole theory is full of holes and yet this is what is taught to our children. - Agenda anybody! Just more weening people away from spiritual beliefs.
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."...
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence....
scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
Originally posted by kennyb72
The problem I see, is with subject like Darwins "THEORY" of natural selection. Reading text books and the general consensus of the public, this is not a theory anymore and it is presented as a fact. The whole theory is full of holes and yet this is what is taught to our children.
Well of course they look like fools, within my lifetime I can't count the times that dietary recommendation have been changed because they got it wrong on previous announcements
Originally posted by Cherry0
I truly do not see why both science and creation can not co-exist.
I think you need a refresher on what the word 'theory' means in a scientific setting. Gravity is a theory. Planetary orbits are a theory. They're very good theories but they're still theories. Theory doesn't mean 'completely and utterly unconfirmed and useless' ... far from it actually.
Arbitrageur.... It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."...
Originally posted by kennyb72
These children do not understand the scientific definition of the word theory, at least not at the age they are taught about Darwin theory. Later in their schooling they may have that explained to them but indoctrination has already occurred. I can't see why people don't understand how manipulative that all is.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by kennyb72
Why wouldn't the OP present the fact that this little nugget of information strengthens the case for creationism.
It does? All I see is that it strengthens the claim that there is no junk DNA. Plus, do creationists really want to lay the blame for the cancer gene on a competent creator? How about the faulty genes that cause mental retardation, deformities, and all the other genetic diseases. No, you guys don't want to go there.
edit on 9/9/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)
There really aren't "cancer genes". At least, not in our stock DNA. Cancer is typically caused by cellular damage (fungus are known cancer causing agents) as well as viruses.
And consider this for a moment: viruses, simply put, are nothing more than genetic "upgrades". No, they may not upgrade you...but they can alter you on a genetic level.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by de_Genova
No one likes a suck up. If "God" does, I'm glad I'm not Christian. Seriously, my friend, you sound pitiful.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj
That only means that there's 100,000,000+ people who believe in it. After all, there's probably a few thousand hits for "flat earth", but that doesn't mean it has any credence.
Just pointing it out.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj
That only means that there's 100,000,000+ people who believe in it. After all, there's probably a few thousand hits for "flat earth", but that doesn't mean it has any credence.
Just pointing it out.
You just HAD to tweak my interest!
Flat earth receives 13,400,000 hits.
The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation. The newly identified elements also show a statistical correspondence to sequence variants linked to human disease, and can thereby guide interpretation of this variation. Overall, the project provides new insights into the organization and regulation of our genes and genome, and is an expansive resource of functional annotations for biomedical research.