Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
125 Million-Year old Dinosaur feathers remarkably similar to modern bird feathers
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gene2memE" data-source="post: 77471831" data-attributes="member: 341130"><p>Your seeming and my seeming are VERY different</p><p></p><p></p><p>Scientific theories require A LOT more than just repeatability.</p><p></p><p>They also need to parsimoniously explain all of the available evidence/results, be testable/falsifiable, and have useful predictable power. Other criteria generally include scope for modifiability and improvement, a framework that has general applicabilty/utility and high degree of efficiency.</p><p></p><p>If you want a new theory to replace an existing theory, it must be better at explaining the available evidence/results and have better (more precise or useful) predictive power than the existing theory.</p><p></p><p>ID fails to make the grade as a theory and falls even further short of being a candidate to replace evolutionary biology. It's not even viable as a alternative to abiogenesis, which is mostly still stuck in the hypothesis stages.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gene2memE, post: 77471831, member: 341130"] Your seeming and my seeming are VERY different Scientific theories require A LOT more than just repeatability. They also need to parsimoniously explain all of the available evidence/results, be testable/falsifiable, and have useful predictable power. Other criteria generally include scope for modifiability and improvement, a framework that has general applicabilty/utility and high degree of efficiency. If you want a new theory to replace an existing theory, it must be better at explaining the available evidence/results and have better (more precise or useful) predictive power than the existing theory. ID fails to make the grade as a theory and falls even further short of being a candidate to replace evolutionary biology. It's not even viable as a alternative to abiogenesis, which is mostly still stuck in the hypothesis stages. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
125 Million-Year old Dinosaur feathers remarkably similar to modern bird feathers
Top
Bottom