Is science being unduly influenced?

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I'll say it again: Evolution Theory!

Refer to my previous post regarding the term "Theory", which is just a scientific fact that can not be or has not been disproved through testing.

Gravity, while we understand how and why it works, remains a theory and not a law simply because it can not be disproved - yet... Still waiting on my hover car.

It would make my day if schools just taught reading, writing, math, chemistry, physics and if they even had to teach biology do it without the ~isms.

I'll agree with most of this, but biology is an important subject. Without biology we wouldn't have a large number of the life saving procedures that are used every day, nor would we understand what makes the very essence of the world tick - life.

[Darren King]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Saying scientists haven't proven anything about evolution is about as far from the truth as can be. You're again, focusing on the origin of species, which is up in the air for debate the same way the concept of an omniscient deity is up in the air for debate.

Science can determine common traits and make educated guesses based on that, and in some cases replicate it as well. Fun fact: horses and rhinoceri shared a common ancestor. This is based on the fact they both at one point (or still presently) had/have 3 toes. The horses evolved to require only a single toe in a hoof, whereas the rhino still has 3 toes to this day. Find me an example of anything presently that was at one point a single organism that has presently evolved into both a plant and animal. There are aspects of our world that work in specific ways to prevent genetic freaks from occurring, such as a cat and a dog reproducing. They're too different, and thus nature won't allow a pairing of the different species. Lions and tigers, as another example, share so much similarities in their genetic code that they can successfully reproduce (A liger, or a tion, depending on which was the male and which was the female. Both create their own separate sub-species just based on who had the sausage at the party).

If you can find the link that says creature x and creature y are now a plant and an animal, but organism w was a common ancestor to both, you may have just solved your own origin of species issue. It's just a matter of what traits some of the primitive eukaryotic cells developed, eg. photosynthesis.

To say this animal came from that animal but just ignore the fact that there is no foundation under your argument is rather "scientist" like. Just blip over the stuff that doesn't prove the conclusion. lol

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

To say this animal came from that animal but just ignore the fact that there is no foundation under your argument is rather "scientist" like. Just blip over the stuff that doesn't prove the conclusion. lol

There is a proven common ancestor, this was only a single example as well. I'm awaiting a legitimate response to my post still.

[Chameleon]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Fun fact: horses and rhinoceri shared a common ancestor. This is based on the fact they both at one point (or still presently) had/have 3 toes. The horses evolved....

I was following along until that point. No sarcasm, I sincerly want to know, what data was used to conclude the horse evolved? I understand concluding they had common traits but need more data for the other conclusion.

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I was following along until that point. No sarcasm, I sincerly want to know, what data was used to conclude the horse evolved? I understand concluding they had common traits but need more data for the other conclusion.

My apologies, I misspoke a bit, they're from the same order of the animal kingdom, but they did share a common ancestor at one point. There's a very large amount of horse relatives that have been discovered from various ages and stages of evolution.

The Rhinoceros Family

Third paragraph "Despite their horns and armored appearance, one may expect rhinos to share close ancestry with elephants. But rhinoceroses are actually related to horses and tapirs, in the Mammalian Order for odd-toed ungulates, Perissodactyla. Like the other perissodactyls, rhinos have mesaxonic feet, which means the center toe bears much of the weight. Rhinos have three toes, which are large and splayed out to support their bulky body. Also like horses, rhinos are hindgut fermenters, bearing the ability to eat less nutritious vegetation than ruminants because digestion is faster."

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The potential close relative of both animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrachyus

Or, if you're one of the people who discredits open source moderated information, another link.

Living Relatives of the Horse

[Darren King]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

There is a proven common ancestor, this was only a single example as well. I'm awaiting a legitimate response to my post still.

What I was trying to say is, ignoring where things started, "origin of the species", but concluding that current animals evolved, is rather short sighted. On the part of the scientists

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

What I was trying to say is, ignoring where things started, "origin of the species", but concluding that current animals evolved, is rather short sighted. On the part of the scientists

My apologies for misunderstanding. I believe that the origin of the species is another matter altogether, we don't have the data to prove or disprove either conclusion as of yet, but to deny that animals have evolved is rather incorrect I believe, hence my personal division of the two as separate matters. For all I know, the origin of the species is someone from the future went back in time and rubbed one out into the great cosmos and BOOM, life. Until there's proof of any sort, I'll remain open minded.

[Darren King]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

My apologies for misunderstanding. I believe that the origin of the species is another matter altogether, we don't have the data to prove or disprove either conclusion as of yet, but to deny that animals have evolved is rather incorrect I believe, hence my personal division of the two as separate matters. For all I know, the origin of the species is someone from the future went back in time and rubbed one out into the great cosmos and BOOM, life. Until there's proof of any sort, I'll remain open minded.

I'm not trying to insult or to beat a dead horse/rhinocerous, but how can the origin of life have nothing to do with the continuation of life?

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I'm not trying to insult or to beat a dead horse/rhinocerous, but how can the origin of life have nothing to do with the continuation of life?

I'm not saying it doesn't have anything to do with it, but merely that how it happened has no bearing on whether or not evolution occurs in life. Nature adapts to changes, gets better, evolves.

[Darren King]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

I'm not saying it doesn't have anything to do with it, but merely that how it happened has no bearing on whether or not evolution occurs in life. Nature adapts to changes, gets better, evolves.

When did it start evolving? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but there has to either be evolution or not. It can't be, " life spontaneously appeared and then started evolving". There is no way to create life out of nothing.

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

When did it start evolving? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but there has to either be evolution or not. It can't be, " life spontaneously appeared and then started evolving". There is no way to create life out of nothing.

Again, I'm not debating how the universe and life itself started, the fact is irrelevant, we are here now, I'd rather spend my time learning about what presently exists while I can and let someone else with a vested interest in the former subject arrive at their own conclusions. However life started is irrelevant to me, personally. All I know is that life is evolving around me presently, and will continue to do so into the future and long after my own time is done. Perhaps someone else will figure out some answers to these questions we raise after our lifetime, or that of our kids even.

[Darren King]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

Again, I'm not debating how the universe and life itself started, the fact is irrelevant, we are here now, I'd rather spend my time learning about what presently exists while I can and let someone else with a vested interest in the former subject arrive at their own conclusions. However life started is irrelevant to me, personally. All I know is that life is evolving around me presently, and will continue to do so into the future and long after my own time is done. Perhaps someone else will figure out some answers to these questions we raise after our lifetime, or that of our kids even.

It is still a theory no matter what we discuss here. Meaning it is unproven. And likely unprovable. But I do enjoy the arguing...er... I mean the discussing. lol

[Akitu]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

It is still a theory no matter what we discuss here. Meaning it is unproven. And likely unprovable. But I do enjoy the arguing...er... I mean the discussing. lol

See my earlier definition of what theory actually is, it means that it can't be disproved, not proved.

[Darren King]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

See my earlier definition of what theory actually is, it means that it can't be disproved, not proved.

Theory:
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

Are we going to "discuss" the meaning of the word "theory"?
It's all semantics. Can't be disproved is a scientists way of saying it can't be proven either.

[SargeNZ]

Re: Is science being unduly influenced?

The accepted reason that there are no transitional fossils found is that once a mutation is found to be beneficial to the species, it very quickly (within comparatively few generations) becomes the new normal for that species. - Thus any inbetween fossils of this type are -very- rare compared to your average fossil which is very rare to start with. Hence we don't find them.