Posted on 08/14/2008 1:45:15 PM PDT by Soliton
Researchers at Duke University Medical Center and at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) have shown how broken sections of chromosomes can recombine to change genomes and spawn new species.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
INTREP
‘How DNA Repairs Can Reshape Genome, Spawn New Species’
God knew this... that is why he required only one pair of each species in the Ark.
HIG?
Isn’t this what used to be known as “mutation”?
7 if they were unclean.
Travelocity gas that Roaming Genome as a spokesperson.
Yes! and smoking teapot blue Wisconsin!
I'm not going to argue with an evolution scholar like you!
Does DNA need to be broken before you repair it?
Yes, why do you ask, Two Dogs?
I was going to get my sister-in-law to help them. That stoopid woman can mess up a steel ball. Breaking DNA would be a walk in the park for her,
Now if it would just happen at the same time, and the same place, in the same manner, to two members of the same species, but opposite in sex, then maybe they could produce offspring. But it doesn't seem very likely, does it?
ML/NJ
My 47 year old brother-in-law gave up drinking, became born again, divorced his wife and mother of his child, married an Asian girl 12 years younger than himself, quit his job as a CIO and is now practicing for the senior golf tour. I hate him. I hate him. I hate himm. IIIIhaatte Hhhiimm...................
How DNA Repairs Can Reshape Genome, Spawn New Species
Now I can understand the evolution of the typical liberal moron, it isn’t their fault. They just had some DNA damage.
It likely had dawned on him that we are still monkeys!
I hate him too and I’ve never met him.
Mutatingly yours, bajabaja.
Just a scientific theory?
Tell me, then, since you are so erudite in matters of science, what is better, or at a higher level of verification, than a "theory?"
Nor is it necessary. One does just fine.
Anything is possible when one is writing fairy tales.
ML/NJ
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.(like global warming).............. An opinion, a speculation not a fact. For example I could have a theory that all conservatives believe in the bible. But with out proof from point a to point b, I am just speculating. Just as the libs try to say alternative cars can be reality in 10 years is a theory not a fact.They have no proof. If you have no proof that you evolved from a monkey then it is just theory.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality.(like global warming).............. An opinion, a speculation not a fact. For example I could have a theory that all conservatives believe in the bible. But with out proof from point a to point b, I am just speculating. Just as the libs try to say alternative cars can be reality in 10 years is a theory not a fact.They have no proof. If you have no proof that you evolved from a monkey then it is just theory.
You would be correct if laymen were doing science and writing the textbooks. They are not.
Science defines the terms it uses very carefully, and the imprecise usage of laymen is of no consequence to scientists.
In science, a theory is as high a level of documentation as you can get. It is not a guess, or an opinion, or a speculation, or an hypothesis. Those terms are all defined differently (see my FR home page for definitions of all of these terms).
From my home page:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws."In brief, a theory is the current best explanation for a set of facts. It has been tested and passed those tests, and it has successfully made predictions. It is far from a layman's guess.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
That the layman's definition of theory might include guesses and opinions has no bearing on how scientists define the term, and how scientists construct theories.
Oh, and its proof you want? Here's what my home page has to say about that:
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.Note that that last definition is not something I just made up. Its from a CalTech website.Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source.
· When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about “acceptance” of (not “belief” in) the theory; or we can say that we have “confidence” (not “faith”) in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
My thoughts……..
I guess we are still sharing thoughts about The Theory of Human Evolution. If not please let me know. Where is the “verifiable evidence”. Using your own words from above a theory is not a fact. Since you have your on homepage you must be involved in science, I am not.
Just because a group of scientist get together and accept a theory that all species came from one organism, that does not make it fact. There are also a group of scientist that do not believe the theory is correct. Which theory is fact?
Just as one group of scientist believe in global warming and another does not. As I said in my early post Darwin in his writings wrote of his disbelief in his own theory. Believe what you will but I do not believe in the theory of human evolution. When you get the proof let me know.
Your words……….
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say “We proved Newton's law” Rather say, “Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of...”
My thoughts…….
Human Evolution can not be proven or demonstrated!
I don't have time to point them all out to you. I have done this over and over with new posters. Most simply ignore the evidence.
And you are right, I am familiar with science. I studied evolution, fossil man and a lot of related subjects in graduate school for six years. That was a while ago, but the evidence has only grown stronger since then.
The fossil record made an almost airtight case for human evolution, but genetics sealed the deal. You should check out some of the evidence; you might be surprised by what you find.
You have mirrored some of the same arguments I have seen used here for several years by religious believers, so I assumed you were coming from the same general orientation as they were.
(Note tagline.)
So you are assuming that the only reason someone such as myself could disagree with someone with such education as you and others like you is because of religious beliefs.
To this I reply, not all scientific evidence/theory produces proven/demonstrated fact. They are only theories that may or may not be proven one day.
Again we will have to agree to disagree.
Please go back and read the post I made to you discussing the role of theory in science. I took some time and effort to explain how theories work, and in spite of that you are still making the same low-level mistake of expecting a theory to be proved.
Unless you have some familiarity with how science works, you have no business imposing your expectations on it, particularly when they are incorrect.
Please go back and read the post I made.......
Unless you have some familiarity with how science works, you have no business imposing your expectations on it, particularly when they are incorrect........
____________________________________________________
Read it again, it is still just a theory.
And by the way I am not imposing my expectations on anything or anyone. It sounds as if you wish to impose your expectations/beliefs on everyone that does not agree with you. So do not waste anymore of your time on me because I do not/will not agree with you on human evolution.
Have a great day!
Not even if I present overwhelming evidence?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.