I'll try to answer everyone's posts at once, please restate any questions I may have missed. Also, I am by no means an expert in all scientific
fields, so I may not be able to answer a few specific ones, but instead offer a reputable source that may better answer your questions.
Hm. I didn't see anything in the scientific method about making stuff up so that certain equations or theories will work. Such as dark matter with
gravity. Or the more honest "missing link" in evolution. But that's beside the point...
Would you be able to provide a more specific example when referring to your Dark Matter response?
As for the "missing link", it has already been addressed by another individual in this topic, I'll elaborate on that posters comments.
Essentially, the Theory of Evolution does not require there to be a step by step model - as in every single individual who existed - for us to be able
to draw the similarities together and describe what species derived from another. We do indeed require an - at least - decent quantity of quality
examples (fossils) that show a progression through both skeletal and organ remains in order to make a reasonable assessment and taxonomic position.
Of course, as you clearly understand, these judgements aren't necessarily finite. That's why taxonomy is changed so often. Whenever another specimen
of a new species is found or a better quality specimen of the same species is discovered, we can alter our definition of that species, or its
placement within a given gene pool.
However, there are exact skeletal and DNA formations (as well as other specifics) which are described within a specific family, group, genus, etc,
that are not shown in any other. This is the bases of how we can make certain classifications. Due to these similarities, we can relate a given number
of species together. We can even look further into a specific formation and see which specimen had come before all the others, and determine, to some
extent, that this would have likely been the later species' ancestor, perhaps even common ancestor.
Which means a missing link is not a detriment to the theory itself, but rather how detailed our taxonomic records are.
Modern science is not simply about postulating and testing hypotheses. It has become an institution unto itself, complete with social, political, and
economic influences (and hierarchies) that both direct and negate modes of inquiry and the interpretations derived therefrom. As such, the
"scientific community" is no more trustworthy a source of accurate information than is the Catholic Church.
You are absolutely correct, to some degrees. Many scientific theories, or hypothesis, or simply theses, are not taken as seriously as others due to a
social and political sense. This is usually due to the fact that a specific researcher is not as well known, has made many incorrect hypotheses in the
past, or the hypothesis (or whatever is in question) is just so "out-there" and conflicting to what we already mostly accept in an extreme way.
This, however, is not necessarily a bad thing. It could potentially weed out any unnecessary use of funding which could be put towards a more solid
theory. This does not mean that that specific hypothesis is rejected entirely, though. It simply means that it may take longer to gather funds. It may
also mean that the hypothesis will receive a lot more attention in the form of attempting to disprove it; which is also a good thing. The more
research there is in an attempt to falsify a claim, the better! If the hypothesis is subjected to such scrutiny, and was continuously shown to
actually be correct, the more solidity the hypothesis gets to being able to accurately describe whatever subject its attempting to describe.
Science by its very definition must be
Evolution by its very nature can not and has not complied
Evolution is a faith, you want to believe and so do without evidence.
As a Christian I accept creation is a faith, hence why I cant prove it
: We can do this simply by breeding anything within the same species. The offspring are both a combination of the parents, and also
in possession of new information that it's parents did not have. In fact, if this were not true, then you would be an exact copy of your mother or
father. Even in identical twins, their DNA is not 100% the same. If my mind serves me correctly, they are only %99.8 similar in reference to DNA.
This is due to the fact that when an offspring is gestating, and receiving all that DNA Combination, it may receive a "double dose" of a gene (one
from the mother and one from the father) and it could cancel the function of that genetic coding, or enhance it in a way that it did not function the
way that only one of those genes would. Thus, new information. All we need to repeat this process is by breeding.
: We could say that the above example is also an observation, But lets move to something else. Environmental effect. When we see that a
species, or family, or genus (or what have you), is specifically adapted to a certain environment, that is technically an observation of evolution.
These species (and so forth) have adapted to their environments. Let us assume that you are referring to Evolution occurring "before our eyes". The
best examples for that (other than the one under the "repeatable" explanation) would be in bacteria and viruses. If we have a strain of the Flu
Virus becoming immune to the vaccinations, that would be an example of an observed form of Evolution.
: There are many ways to falsify Evolution. Technically I've already stated one way in the Repeatable example, but lets elaborate.
If we were to have something that is otherwise not related so directly (a duck and a crocodile), and all of a sudden a combination of a duck and a
crocodile were to appear, this would falsify evolution. It simply would not make sense. The same would go for mythological creatures like Mermaids and
Centaurs. Life just doesn't work that way, according to the Theory of Evolution.
The one falsifiability that creationists love the most, is the observation of life being created in it's modern form. We simply do not see that occur
according to our fossil record. It also would not make sense why we would have the biological functions we see clearly (reproduction with variation)
in every day life. Thus, an example of a fully formed animal being created in such a way, would falsify Evolution.
: Testability in Evolution is quite simple. An example would be to have any given number of groups of populations of a same species,
have them in separate environments, and also have a control group in their natural environment. We would eventually see changes in biological and even
physiological manners, separately, depending on the new environment. This has been recorded multiple times. Mostly in bacteria and viruses as they
reproduce quickly and have short life spans (generally). I can provide examples if you'd like?
Question ...What is the reason you made this thread ?
To help educate some individuals who may be curious and/or have otherwise false information about specific topics within Science, or Science in
the2ofusr1It is very close to what may be considered a rant by a number of members .Now we could take a vote and come up with a
consensus based on the definitions of a rant .We might have to go look at all of the voters posts to determine if they may be guilty of some kind of
You are free to do as you wish, but i assure you, this is not a rant. It also complies with the forum rules, so I doubt it would be taken down. If it
does for any reason, then so be it. I'm not trying to insult anyone, though.
If the theory of evolution were true in my opinion then the fossil record would have the part man part monkey part whale or what ever part or parts
they need to convince people .
Ironically, this would actually disprove evolution. I suggest that you continue reading the posts throughout this topic so as to let you know a more
accurate assessment on the Theory of Evolution and the functions behind the phenomenon of Evolution.
But like you I have enough evidence to believe there is a God ...We just are looking with our own eyes .
and we are both biased in that respect .....peace
On the contrary. I disbelieve in a God for the same reasons I do not accept all theories within Science. I analyze the given information and make an
opinion on my observations. What you've displayed, on the other hand, is more of a misinformation-based knowledge of the subject, perhaps science in
general. This most likely isn't your fault, but where you are getting your information on. That's why I suggest listening to what a person who knows
and accepts the subject at hand is explaining, rather than a second-hand explanation (such as through a pastors opinion on the matter, whom likely
isn't educated in that matter).
Evolutionists say that breeding a dog a certain way to make changes in it's specie is an example of evolution.
So what happens when we breed the dog back to it's original state from whence we began? Did we just devolve it?
Who is to say...that we didn't evolve a certain distance and then devolve right back to the original state?
There isn't such a thing as "devolving". There are many instances where a gene pool (species) had something (such as eye sight) and then "lost"
it, due to a changing environment. This usually takes several thousands, to millions of years for such an adaptation, however, its an adaptation
It may appear as though they are loosing something, when they are actually being better suited for their changing environment. There is no need for
them to have eyesight in the darkness. It will likely have to develop another sense that would let them find food, shelter, or escape from predators.
This also takes several thousands (and more) years.
If a species cannot adapt quickly enough, then they will likely die off from starvation, predation, or other environmental factors (eg: lack of
It's not so much about getting something new, or taking something away that equals Evolution. It matters only that organisms adapt over time through
variation from reproduction.
well....the fossils tell us that didn't happen in either direction.
Could you elaborate? I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Science is still a form of religion as it requires faith.
Faith that scientific method has been applied appropriately and correctly, and faith in the teachings and findings of others.
You are mixing the definition of faith. You're trying to justify a religious faith in science, versus a faith that describes "my faith my families
abilities". They are two separate things.
We use the latter definition of faith everyday. I have faith that when I turn my door handle, the door will open. In this sense, nearly everything
requires an implication of faith.
However, Science is not religiously faithful, because it's not an ideology. It requires that evidence be observed and tested in order for a
hypothesis to be accepted. Whenever new evidence arises that contradicts the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is formed in order to accommodate the new
evidence and provide us with a more accurate evaluation of whatever phenomenon. Science relies entirely on "seeing is believing" in order for it to
work. It is the exact opposite of a religious-based faith, for that reason alone.
CovertAgendaI do not FULLY believe ANYTHING unless i can verify personally.
That's the greatest thing about Science! You CAN
test everything yourself! It's how a hypothesis becomes a theory. Multiple confirmation
through separate studies and researches that provide prove of the accuracy of a claim. So long as you have the right equipment (which is often not
expensive at all, Perhaps even free!), you can conduct those same experiments and provide proof or falsification to any given scientific claim.
to fully believe that the planets revolve around the sun, i would have to take my telescope out every night, plot and map the planets (or whatever
those main moving points of light are) (aka Copernicus ~1510-1515) develop some interesting hypotheses, and confirm heliocentricity.
That would be unnecessary if you can understand the concepts behind those observations
Science is never meant to be absolutely finite. Anyone who claims that has a misrepresentation of what science is. Science isn't the answer for
everything, nor is it even the answer for anything. Science's only goal is to attempt to explain naturally occurring phenomena, nothing more. Our
explanations may change, because we can't know everything, but the natural phenomena doesn't.
You can't go in thinking that "I want answers" when referring to science. It simply doesn't work like that. We have our best explanation from our
current observations, and that is it. It is why science is so exciting! There is always something new to learn and always a way to further our