20 Jan 08
Originally posted by josephwnow that you have brought up science, is the theory of evolution scientific? it is not testable, since we can not observe it happening and we do not have fossils depicting a transitional phase between reptile to mammal
sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or ...[text shortened]... e operative word here is "facts".
All you "scientist" have here is theory and conjecture.
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by josephwActually number 2. suffices for evolution.
sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or ...[text shortened]... e operative word here is "facts".
All you "scientist" have here is theory and conjecture.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Yep, thats science alright. We look at evidence and gain knowledge.
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomYes the Fact of evolution is scientific. It can be tested using DNA analysis, to see who is related to who and what animals are related to each other. If you are in any doubt about animals evolving then just look at bacteria. There are many strains now resistant to antibiotics because occasionally one of them has a mutation that renders them immune to the antibiotics and that bacteria, survives so well that the anti-biotic resistance is spread in the bacteria population.
now that you have brought up science, is the theory of evolution scientific? it is not testable, since we can not observe it happening and we do not have fossils depicting a transitional phase between reptile to mammal
Even the fact that all animals share the basic molecules which make up DNA should give a hint that they all come from the same stuff.
Originally posted by Feastboy=====================================
Yes the Fact of evolution is scientific. It can be tested using DNA analysis, to see who is related to who and what animals are related to each other. If you are in any doubt about animals evolving then just look at bacteria. There are many strains now resistant to antibiotics because occasionally one of them has a mutation that renders them immune to th ...[text shortened]... the basic molecules which make up DNA should give a hint that they all come from the same stuff.
Yes the Fact of evolution is scientific. It can be tested using DNA analysis, to see who is related to who and what animals are related to each other. If you are in any doubt about animals evolving then just look at bacteria. There are many strains now resistant to antibiotics because occasionally one of them has a mutation that renders them immune to the antibiotics and that bacteria, survives so well that the anti-biotic resistance is spread in the bacteria population.
Even the fact that all animals share the basic molecules which make up DNA should give a hint that they all come from the same stuff.
=========================================
Is relationships of descent the only possible answer to that phenomenon?
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomscientific method
now that you have brought up science, is the theory of evolution scientific? it is not testable, since we can not observe it happening and we do not have fossils depicting a transitional phase between reptile to mammal
An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testing of the validity of the predictions thus made. Actually, scientific discoveries rarely occur in this idealized, wholly rational, and orderly fashion.
Do you think it can be tested?
em·pir·i·cal /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[em-pir-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
Do you think it has been tested?
20 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwDo you think josephw is capable of arguing his own position? Or is he simply a copy-paste fanatic?
scientific method
An orderly technique of investigation that is supposed to account for scientific progress. The method consists of the following steps: (1) Careful observations of nature. (2) Deduction of natural laws. (3) Formation of hypotheses — generalizations of those laws to previously unobserved phenomena. (4) Experimental or observational testin ...[text shortened]... provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
[b]Do you think it has been tested?[/b]
Got a copy-paste for these questions?
20 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillNow THAT is a good post. 🙂
Is relationships of descent the only possible answer to that phenomenon?
In fact, with respect to bacterial antibiotic resistance, no, descent is not the only way how the genetic information moves around. Plasmid transfer is faster I think.
Now, is "descent" a necessary part of "evolution"? That is, is plasmid transfer "evolution"?
20 Jan 08
Heres a nice link to the evolutionary stages of the horse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse#Eocene_and_Oligocene:_Early_equids
Scientists have found quite a few fossils of these so have been able to piece together their evolution.
As for hominids (or humans and there like), there have been a few discoverys. Bones in Java and the Neander Valley in Germany. The problem with finding transitional animals is that at the time when the split happened they looked exactly the same as the animals that they split from.
Evolution usually occurs due to a geographic split within an animals species. So if you imagine a group of animals of the same species get separated by a new river or such like and split into two groups. If those animals don't breed for long enough they will evolve into two different groups which can no longer interbreed. At this point they would be called new species.
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by josephwEverything ammanion said right there I learned at Universityin Scotland. The human family tree is well documented, and well supported, as is the deeper evolution of animals.
This is just as ridiculous as EV's post. No offence EV.
How on earth do you scientist types keep coming up with this claptrap.
[b]"Follow the family tree back a bit (20 million years perhaps) and you find that man and monkeys share a common ancestor."
Where's the missing links in the fossil record?
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is some ...[text shortened]... nk I don't know what it means either. I've been listening to this stuff for decades.
Now, the people who came up with this all have PhD's, as do I (and a MSc and a BSc), what are YOUR qualifications to say it isn't true? How much original research have you done on the topic? By the way, what you read on "answersingenesis" doesn't qualify as original research.
20 Jan 08
==================================
It can be tested using DNA analysis, to see who is related to who and what animals are related to each other.
===================================
My question is is the only explanation for this that the animals are ancestors of those with similar DNA analysis?
Is the only possible explanation for similarity of DNA analysis descending offspring ?
Why cannot similarity in design be considered? Is it because if so then you'd have to pass the plate around and sing a hymn?
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPlasmid transfer can happen (and also between different species I think), although I don't know if it's faster.
Now THAT is a good post. 🙂
In fact, with respect to bacterial antibiotic resistance, no, descent is not the only way how the genetic information moves around. Plasmid transfer is faster I think.
Now, is "descent" a necessary part of "evolution"? That is, is plasmid transfer "evolution"?
I think it's a type of evolution because it's to do with the exchange of genetic material. When the plasmids are copied theres aditional room for error to creep in increasing the likelyhood of DNA Mutation.
20 Jan 08
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomUm, we have observed evolution happening, and we do have an almost continuous record of the evolution of mammals. You seem to be falling for the hackneyed creationist lies. Funnily enough, I wonder what their God thinks of them lying.
now that you have brought up science, is the theory of evolution scientific? it is not testable, since we can not observe it happening and we do not have fossils depicting a transitional phase between reptile to mammal
20 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillIt was considered in Pennsylvania. The creationists argued their case in a court of law and their case was thrown out as being unconstitutional. The school board members who supported the creationists were quickly voted out.
[b]==================================
It can be tested using DNA analysis, to see who is related to who and what animals are related to each other.
===================================
My question is is the only explanation for this that the animals are ancestors of those with similar DNA analysis?
Is the only possible explanation ...[text shortened]... gn be considered? Is it because if so then you'd have to pass the plate around and sing a hymn?[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District