Does Science Always Self-Correct?

@elaine said
@Philokalia
Science does not self correct. There have been theories that violate scientific findings, and the theory has not been corrected. Evolution is a good example of this. DNA has been studied extensively. It cannot be created. It cannot suddenly contain new parts. This fact alone requires a genius creator. There are many other examples of how evolution theory violates science.

Not a single thing you said there is true.

@humy said
Not a single thing you said there is true.

You giving an opinion or stating what is a factual statement?

@kellyjay said
You giving an opinion or stating what is a factual statement?

Factual.

Just some of the vast mountain of evidence for evolution;
http://www.0095.info
/en/index_thesesen_95onesentencethesesagainste_missinglinks.html

https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

http://www.windows2universe.org/cool_stuff/tour_evolution_3.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

etc.

His other false quotes;

Science does not self correct.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/27/these-scientific-theories-were-accepted-once-but-were-later-proven-wrong/#233b1d6b4da2
"These Scientific Theories Were Accepted Once, But Were Later Proven Wrong..."

https://www.famousscientists.org/7-scientists-whose-ideas-were-rejected-during-their-lifetimes/
"...7 Scientists whose ideas were rejected during their lifetimes..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
"...Spontaneous generation –
...Vitalism
...Phlogiston theory –
..Ptolemaic system ."
etc. The list is endless.

It (DNA) cannot be created.

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-scientists-dna-life-blueprint.html
"...Scientists build DNA from scratch..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gene_synthesis

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2019/02/21/scientists-doubled-the-genetic-alphabet/#.XQUjRo_TU2w
"...Scientists Have Created Four New Letters of Artificial DNA..."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/15/cambridge-scientists-create-worlds-first-living-organism-with-fully-redesigned-dna
"...World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created ..."

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120419-xna-synthetic-dna-evolution-genetics-life-science/
"...Synthetic DNA Created, Evolves on Its Own..."

Not only did they create it but they created more complicated variants of it.

It (DNA) cannot suddenly contain new parts.

https://www.livescience.com/64829-hachimoji-dna.html
"...Scientists Have Created Synthetic DNA with 4 Extra Letters..."

https://www.wired.com/2014/05/synthetic-dna-cells/
"...Biologists Create Cells With 6 DNA Letters, Instead of Just 4..."

Well, these scientists didn't have a problem with giving DNA "new parts".

@deepthought said
Out of curiosity, did you ever do one and what did you score?

Yes, when I was 16 years old I scored very superior. If I was better at algebra at the time I would have done better.

@metal-brain said
Yes, when I was 16 years old I scored very superior. If I was better at algebra at the time I would have done better.

What does "very superior" mean? They normally come with a number.

@deepthought said
What does "very superior" mean?

70?

@humy said
70?

Depending on how the test worked they might just give a range. If so they're going to give a name to each standard deviation range. 85 - 115 would be normal or average range, 115 to 130 above average, 130 to 145 superior, 145 to 160 very superior and 160+ genius. I find it unlikely that someone struggling with algebra would score over 145 if skills associated with algebraic manipulations were required for the test. So I'm left wondering what the basis for the statement "very superior" is. When I was around that age we had to do an IQ test and were not given the results. If it's the same in the test Metal Brain did, giving the results to the participants is not standard practice, and he asked his class teacher and the teacher gave that response then the meaning of "very superior" is quite wide.

I was joking. I said 70 to jokingly imply that may have been his score when he called his score "very superior" as I knew 70 would generally be regarded as pretty rubbish low score and, at least by our standards, certainly not "very superior".
I should have said 30.

@DeepThought
I had an IQ test at 14, and they would not give a number. When I asked how I did, she drew a bell curve and put me well down the right hand side so I did ok but it was not way down the fringe so I am just guessing 120 or so. Other tests showed 140 but that is not near the genius level, maybe not even enough for Mensa depending on the kind of test it is. Some tests say 150 while the same results of another is 130.
At least I know my strengths, imagination and musical creativity. Don't need more than that.

@humy said
Factual.

Just some of the vast mountain of evidence for evolution;
http://www.0095.info
/en/index_thesesen_95onesentencethesesagainste_missinglinks.html

https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

http://www.windows2universe.org/cool_stuff/tour_evolution_3.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.ht ...[text shortened]... , Instead of Just 4..."

Well, these scientists didn't have a problem with giving DNA "new parts".

Did you just pull these off the web without looking at them?

@kellyjay said
Did you just pull these off the web without looking at them?

No. I read them all. Did you look an any of them?
Do you dispute any of those scientific findings?
I have studied science for most of my life and now read about one science weblinks per day and am always learning something new in science. Have you got a problem with that?
I am currently doing research in AI, just in case you are interested.