Barbarian observes:
Yep. You know that all the oxygen atoms won't move to one corner of the room and suffocate you. But you can't prove it. You can only cite evidence that makes it so unlikely as to be dismissed as a reasonable possibility.
Your limited understanding of science is starting to show! What you are referring to is not only provable, but it is called the first gas law or Boyle's law, it has been proven since 1662...
"
Boyle's law or the pressure-volume law states that the volume of a given amount of gas held at constant temperature varies inversely with the applied pressure when the temperature and mass are constant.
No. In fact, Boyle's law has nothing to do with the distribution of particular atoms in a mix of gases. You've confused Boyle's Law with kinetic theory (part of which explains Boyle's Law) And it's statistical, depending on the random collisions of gas molecules with each other. So there is a small, but calculable probability of all the oxygen molecules ending up on one corner of the room.
Same gas in same space will be at a constant volume, in our case atmospheric pressure! If you altitude changes so dose the density and therefore the volume. Hence why its hard to breath at the top of Mt. Everest. We know why the oxygen won't move, and we can prove it, we can even calculate how much oxygen it there... it can all be proven hence why it is true and a LAW.
Actually, science, being inductive, never proves anything. Proof is not part of science. We only gain more and more confidence that our theories are correct.
Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Barbarian observes:
No. Those two dogs, for example, have the same jaw structure.
Phenotype not genotype... as argued already!
And of course, dogs are all genetically so closely alike, that they are demonstrably one species.
This means that dog breeds differ drastically in their appearance and other characteristics, while most of their genomes are still very much alike. Comparing different breeds, most of their genomes indeed show only little differentiation. In other words, Chihuahuas and Great Danes are overall very similar to one another. The vast physical differences are largely driven by relatively few loci (regions) in the genome. These loci have a large phenotypic effect, leading to strong differentiation among breeds.
Why dog breeds aren't considered separate species
Please give me any scientific paper within the last 10 years from an actual peer reviewed secular science journal that states that macro-evolution is the same as micro-evolution.
Microevolution is genetic change within a species. Macroevolution is change that results in speciation. But they are both the result of evolution, since they both involve a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Just as the orbit of a planet and the fall of an apple are different things, but they are caused by the same thing. Does that make it clearer?
Here is what an evolutionist has to say on the topic: "I often observe that in discussions of evolution, both evolution skeptics and those who embrace neo-Darwinian evolution are prone to make one of two significant mistakes. Both stem from a failure to distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution." -2015
This is true. Most creationists and some scientists think that there is something intrinsically different between microevolution and macroevolution. But here's why they are mistaken:
Leopard frogs exist in the US everywhere from the Gulf Coast to the Canadian border. As you go north, the alleles in those frogs governing maturation change to effect faster maturity (because of longer and colder winters in the north). Frogs from adjacent populations can interbreed, though. And this allows gene flow in the population. These changes are microevolution, and there is one species.
However, if the leopard frogs in the center of the United States were to go extinct, leopard frogs in the far north could not interbreed with those from the Gulf coast. And suddenly, what was microevolution becomes (retroactively) macroevolution. This is why that error to which you referred is so wrong.
The article goes on to state: The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline.
That's what Darwin said. It's a consequence of evolution. If each species was created separately, there would be nice, well-defined differences. But because evolution is normally a gradual process, we have quarter-species, half-species, full species, and everything in between. It's messy , but that's another reason we know evolution is a fact.
This is also why we so rarely observe a speciation. They proceed gradually in most cases. One gradual speciation that was documented was D. miranda from D. psuedoobscura. Most of the observed speciations are like the species O. gigas from O. lamarkana, by a polypoloidy event that resulted in a new species in a single generation.
So an evolutionist will readily admit that there is ZERO scientific observance (see red text above, unless "never" is a hard concept) of the theoretical phenomenon,
You've been misled about that. Most of the professional creationists now readily admit the fact of speciation. They just claim it isn't "real evolution." The Institute for Creation Research, for example, endorses the idea that new species, genera, and families evolve. They do so, because it's the only way to make the Ark feasible in their view.
but you state it is "fact"
Directly observed. Can't get much better than that.
Nope. As I showed you, science isn't a matter of proof.
