I think so. (Some adult orangs are butt-ugly!)
Posted on 02/17/2005 5:30:03 PM PST by Happy2BMe
| News Alert: On January 13, a federal judge in Georgia ruled that stickers placed in textbooks of an Atlanta area school district saying “Evolution is a theory, not a fact” are unconstitutional! ( View sticker.) According to this judge, such criticisms of evolution are an endorsement of religion. The judge’s action is the latest example of the nationwide effort to ban any critical analysis of the theory of evolution and insist that evolution be taught as the only option! The Action:
|
No not at all, in fact quite the opposite, but it does make me think that evolution is not random mutations.
The fact that you can stand there and know your existence, while others keep reinventing or changing theirs - it's quite refreshing!
I think you are confusing me with someone that agrues against the idea of evolution, I do not, I question the theory as it is presented today.
Prentice Hall's "Exploring Earth Science"- could be any recent edition. Their life and physical science books used the same definition for Law.
Sure they are, someone dreams up a neat idea (conjecture) tests it as best they can and bingo a new theory. Now if they are respected and popular the theory might get some play. If not it will be buried in some university library
This I am not buying, I also do not buy that evolution is gradual or on going processes. I think something very big happens and throws life into a crisis and then raped evolution occurs until things settle down again.
The proof demands evidence - and a verdict.
There is NO EVIDENCE man was once another species.
>>>
HEAR, HEAR!! Good freaking grief...
You're a smart guy. Look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions. Adios.
Thanks for the ping!
Dido, good night.
I think so. (Some adult orangs are butt-ugly!)
If you're gonna push this stuff, at least get it straight!
CA....
The main mechanism is natural selectionThe "punctuation of the equilibrium" that creates a new species happens quickly as viewed by a paleontologist. But in real time it's still dozens or hundreds of generations long.This I am not buying, I also do not buy that evolution is gradual or on going processes. I think something very big happens and throws life into a crisis and then raped evolution occurs until things settle down again.
I can't think of any single speciation in the fossil record where mainstream scientists think that the transition to the new species involved a great leap.
Whooops! Nope!!!
Here ya go!
Here is a nice page of what a theory is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
"In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.
Theories start out with empirical observations such as “sometimes water turns into ice.” At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations."
For Laws:
"A well-known example is that of Newton's law of gravity: while it describes the world accurately for most pertinent observations, such as of the movements of astronomical objects in the solar system, it was found to be inaccurate when applied to extremely large masses or velocities. Einstein's theory of general relativity, however, accurately handles gravitational interactions at those extreme conditions, in addition to the range covered by Newton's law. Newton's formula for gravity is still used in most circumstances, as an easier-to-calculate approximation of gravitational law. A similar relationship exists between Maxwell's equations and the theory of quantum electrodynamics; there are several such cases. This suggests the (unanswered) question of whether there are any ultimately true physical laws, or whether they are all just cases where our sensory and rational apparatus have generated mathematically simple approximations, valid within the range of normal human experience, to unobtainable true formulas."
Let me post my example of gravity:
A little history here: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”
F=Gm1m2/r2
Where:
F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)
(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)
Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.
A few of the problems are:
It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.
Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity
In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.
A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.
And finally:
From an NSF abstract:
“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
Yuppers!
LOL! Agreed!
IMHO, evolution is a more complete theory than gravity. At least we have a better handle on it.
However, laws are often wrong outside of the narrow "event" they describe. Theories are more rigorous. See my post #234
Theories about the way events unfolded in the past and are claimed to take extremely long periods of time in order to be observed today (like macroevolution) will be extremely hard to confirm and gain the acceptence that is needed for them to become a Law, even absent religious protestations. Even without them, General Evolution simply is not as establised as the things we call laws. I do not say that from rancour, it is just fact.
Not true. Again see #234
What second big bang?
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.