Scientists 'see new species born'

BBC News Online science editor ^ | 2004 June | By Dr David Whitehouse

[phantomworker]

Of course, the concept of consciousness is debatable. William James, et al. But how can you say that viruses are not life forms because they might lack consciousness? There must be some current reasoning behind that.

[phantomworker]

Of course, the concept of consciousness is debatable. William James, et al. But how can you say that viruses are not life forms because they might lack consciousness? There must be some current reasoning behind that.

[phantomworker]

That's my life. I am a hn, ae.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"...since no one was around, it's all theories/speculation."

A scientific theory is not *speculation*. I am sure you have already been told this already. There is no hierarchy from theory to *law*. Theory is the last step.

"Credible science includes the scientific method---the ability for anybody to reproduce the "test" and have the same effect."

That assumes you are not talking about an historical science.
Evolution IS tested though, every time a fossil is exhumed and every time two genomes are compared. Natural selection is tested all the time in the lab, with repeatable results. Common descent is tested and affirmed with tests on ERV's in humans and other primates. You need to brush up on your science education.

[Lakeshark]

Proof. Demanding proof.

:-)

[Lakeshark]

rear spar

sounds more like a sneak attack from a s.s.snake........

[RightWhale]

From my own perspective, I think it possible that even electrons and protons can carry consciousness. Granted, the consciousness would be undeveloped, but the potential must exist. The complex electric field that our nervous system generates has a basis in the characteristics of the elementary particles. Continuity. But, even trees, lacking a nervous system, do have some ability to respond to stimulae, and can be trained to anticipate.

[nicmarlo]

No I doubt. I don't believe the crap I read in Science Journals, they won't print what scientists report who don't go along with their one way evolution ideas.

[Lakeshark]

And a late shopper.......

[Borax Queen]

HSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsssssssssss HOW'S THAT FOR EVOLVED

[Doctor Stochastic]

[Borax Queen]

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No I doubt. I don't believe the crap I read in Science Journals, they won't print what scientists report who don't go along with their one way evolution ideas."

Brilliant rebuttal, filled with deep analysis and penetrating insight. Now, I am sure you can tell us all what these scientists have uncovered that disrupts the science of evolutionary biology. We await with baited breath.

[nicmarlo]

Feel free to go argue with the scientists whose works aren't allowed to be printed in Science Journals.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Feel free to go argue with the scientists whose works aren't allowed to be printed in Science Journals. "

I guess I'll have to, since you have no arguments of your own.

[nicmarlo]

No, I don't participate in these threads because, as far as I'm concerned, you pro-evolution one-wayers are the rudest, most obnoxious, maroons in FR.

[Lakeshark]

Oooooh.....I've missed you........

:-)

[Lakeshark]

Proof.

My registration is safe.

[Lakeshark]

Mmmmmmmmmmmm....but can you prove that is fresh water?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"No, I don't participate in these threads because, as far as I'm concerned, you pro-evolution one-wayers are the rudest, most obnoxious, maroons in FR."

1) You DO participate on these threads, as you are here right now.


2) Projection is a b&^^h.

3) If you are going to post statements here, be a man and don't run away when someone responds to them. Unless of course you have no rational response.