Skip to comments.
Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals
EurekAlert (AAAS) ^
| 05 April 2006
| Staff
Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,340, 1,341-1,360, 1,361-1,380 ... 1,501-1,512 next last
To: Sun; PatrickHenry
I went to school in the 40's and 50's. By the 6th grade we had microscopes and observed cells. Everyone knew there were millions on millions by observation. The question was how many different types of cells.
1,341
posted on
04/09/2006 10:00:19 PM PDT
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: Coyoteman; Sun
Coyote, truly what are a species, but mans description of a thing?
Life/Life-forms were and are, before and beyond, and with /without our categories of them.
Coyote, How does one infer fact (as to reality) and simultaneously deny proof (to science) simultaneously?redundant for emphasis
As to the charts that are posted and the evidence that is behind the charts.
Each point in those charts are a snapshot of mans work/and his individual search for the unknown?)
Wolf
To: RunningWolf
"...truly what are a species, but mans description of a thing?"
Species describes a real biological population. It is not just a construct. If two organisms cannot breed, they cannot be the same species.
" Life/Life-forms were and are, before and beyond, and with /without our categories of them."
And yet a polar bear will not breed with a penguin. Nor will a penguin breed with an albatross. There is a genetic/and or behavioral wall between them.
" How does one infer fact (as to reality) and simultaneously deny proof (to science) simultaneously?redundant for emphasis"
Facts about the physical world are also not proved. Both facts and theories can be revised in light of new observations. What is important is evidence, and how much you have of it. Just because one can't know with 100% certainty that something in science is correct does not mean that you can't gather enough data to make a very accurate claim with a high degree of confidence.
This should not be confused with the claim that there IS no absolute, objective reality independent of an observer. There is. What is less than perfect is our ability to understand this reality. This isn't a problem in abstract fields like mathematics where the premises can be defined exactly and where proof can be had. When it comes to understanding the physical universe, there is simply no way to completely eliminate uncertainty.
This doesn't mean we can't (we do) draw conclusions about the world nonetheless; we have to in order to function. For a great many things we can have a tremendous degree of confidence in our decisions. If I am walking down a hallway, I make an subconscious determination of the dimensions of this hallway based on my visual observations. I know that it is possible, theoretically, that my sight is being deceived, or that my mind is playing tricks on me. I have learned through experience though that the probability of this is next to zero. So I walk confidently even with less than 100% proof that the hallway's dimensions are what they appear to be. I take it as a fact that the hallway is so long and so wide. These *facts* are conditional on my not discovering I have been deceived. Facts about the physical world are not proved.
This is what people have to do in science too. Life in general is about learning how to cope with less than 100% certainty.
To: Sun
Sometimes, though, people don't really like to hear the truth.
The anti-evo crowd doesn't like to hear the truth and tries to ignore it and dismiss it. They can't convince 99+% of scientists so they misrepresent the TOE and try to convince the ignorant and gullible to back them in the political arena.
ID is not a scientific theory. I repeat, even Behe, a leading Discovery Institute and ID spokesman conceded under oath in a court of law that ID is not a scientific theory under the current definition of science, a definition that has been in place for hundreds of years.
1,344
posted on
04/10/2006 5:03:38 AM PDT
by
ml1954
(NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads.)
To: Sun
Yes, as you said, you do digress. One of my many failings. Mrs. Gumlegs maintains an exhaustive list.
You asked for ONE scientist who has more scientific education that[sic] we do, which I provided.
No, thats not what I asked. Heres what I asked (more than once): Id like to see the name of just one who would accept your position, which I quoted before, " that if the pro-ID people got THEIR own dictionary, would that make it correct, or does this separate dictionary only apply for the evo THEORY?"
You do understand the distinction, do you not?
I asked a couple of tough, but valid questions, and rather than address them, you called them silly.
Youre not paying attention I called them silly and addressed them. Theres a difference. Ill post your questions and my answers again so you can see what Im talking about. This time, Ill omit the part with the characterization that seems to have blotted out the rest of the post:
Here's[sic] my criteria, using my own common sense as a free thinker: A) There is no proof that an ape can become a human.
B) Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information, at that time, like we only have one cell, when we really have trillions, and when there are new discoveries, evo scientists just change the theories.
The human body is made up trillions of cells.
Heres how I replied, (again, omitting the bits that threw you off):
Your criteria have nothing whatever to do with science. How would A, for instance, address gravitational theory? Please note that the criteria I posted (again, I didnt make them up), apply to every scientific theory. Theres no proof that an ape can become human is again merely an attempted attack on the Theory of Evolution, and is in no way support for any other theory. Incidentally, if it could be shown that an ape became a human, it would be considered disproof of the Theory of Evolution.
In my last post to you, I stated,
If, on the other hand, you start complaining about what you believe other theories do or dont do, or pretend not to understand what falsifiable means in a scientific sense, then all youve done is demonstrate that you dont know what youre talking about.
All youve done is complain about the Theory of Evolution. Youve just supplied an example of not knowing what youre talking about.
Regarding B:
Darwin convinced scientists to believe his theory based on antiquated information. Im not sure what you mean by this, but Darwins theory was new when he proposed it. What antiquated information was he using? I dont know where the one cell notion youve stated comes from but Id like to see a citation one from Darwin, and not Jack Chick. In any case, the Theory of Evolution doesnt stand or fall on the number of cells in the human body or any other body, for that matter.
Your objection to the Theory of Evolution being modified to account for new discoveries is more support for my contention that you dont know anything about science. In fact, this objection is an objection not to the Theory of Evolution, but to science itself!
Get back to me when you can answer them.
Done. Before you posted your request for answers. But here they are again, anyway.
Thanks.
Youre welcome. Care to take a whack at answering the questions Ive asked you?
To: Sun
"Back around 1965, I can remember my High School Biology teacher intoning, "The human body contains hundreds of cells, class! Perhaps over a thousand!" But Darwin did not know that.
Why should Darwin be expected to know what your high school biology teacher would say circa 1965, or whether or not you remember it?
To: Gumlegs
I'm astonished this line of argument is still going on. I would have thought the one cell wonder would have crawled under a roch to hide from shame.
Or at least some of his buds would have talked to him in private.
1,347
posted on
04/10/2006 6:14:03 AM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: Sun
So, who got the Nobel for that stunning discovery?
1,348
posted on
04/10/2006 6:24:37 AM PDT
by
VadeRetro
(I have the updated "Your brain on creationism" on my homepage.)
To: js1138
I have no doubt that one of the better quote chefs will soon whip up a delightful sauce reduced from 350 pages to,"There ... is ... only ... one ... cell," fully atttested to by Lady Hope, Jack Chick, and Peter Poppoff.
To: Gumlegs
I believe in the one cell theory.
1,350
posted on
04/10/2006 9:23:42 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
To: PatrickHenry
I believe in the one cell theory. Even Penology mas moved on.
To: CarolinaGuitarman
This is what people have to do in science too. Life in general is about learning how to cope with less than 100% certaintyGood summation.
1,352
posted on
04/10/2006 9:41:13 AM PDT
by
jec41
(Screaming Eagle)
To: Gumlegs
Even Penology mas moved on. No mas penology.
To: andysandmikesmom
I have it on the most unimpeachable of authorities (my Mum and Dad) that I was found under a gooseberry bush. Storkists and little-black-baggists are heretics. And that sex stuff sounds too yucky and squelchy. Teach the controversy!
1,354
posted on
04/10/2006 12:31:35 PM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(I'm Pat Henry, I'm the real Pat Henry, All the other Pat Henry's are just imitators...)
To: Sun
"Back around 1965, I can remember my High School Biology teacher intoning, "The human body contains hundreds of cells, class! Perhaps over a thousand!" Are we to blame for the appalling ignorance of your High School Biology teacher? You do understand that even in 1865 such a statement would have been considered laughable by anyone with a passing acquaintance with biology, don't you. On reading the thread I suspect that you don't.
1,355
posted on
04/10/2006 12:37:07 PM PDT
by
Thatcherite
(I'm Pat Henry, I'm the real Pat Henry, All the other Pat Henry's are just imitators...)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
This isn't a problem in abstract fields like mathematics where the premises can be defined exactly and where proof can be had. When it comes to understanding the physical universe, there is simply no way to completely eliminate uncertainty. Actually this is a problem for math. There are statements which we cannot say are true or not true.
1,356
posted on
04/10/2006 12:39:13 PM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: js1138
"Actually this is a problem for math. There are statements which we cannot say are true or not true."
I should have qualified it to be some fields in math. There are of course unprovable theorems in math. My bad. :)
1,357
posted on
04/10/2006 12:40:43 PM PDT
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
To: jec41
Evo dictates going across the species line (not creating subspecies).
So where's the proof that this can happen?
And please, no more games. It's a simple question, and it is the CORE of evolution.
Games only make ME look good, and you don't REALLY want to do that, do you? :)
1,358
posted on
04/10/2006 5:15:27 PM PDT
by
Sun
(Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
To: Sun
Perhaps you can tell us what prevents continued change.
1,359
posted on
04/10/2006 5:17:31 PM PDT
by
js1138
(~()):~)>)
To: ml1954
There was a time when only one man believed in evo - Darwin.
ID IS a scientific theory, and many scientists have said so (even IF it's true that Behe did not).
1,360
posted on
04/10/2006 5:19:19 PM PDT
by
Sun
(Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,340, 1,341-1,360, 1,361-1,380 ... 1,501-1,512 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson