Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's an agenda, (and a lie of the devil) so they would.It's definitely a scientific theory, or else they wouldn't be teaching it in biology at the colleges. I'll try to answer the ones I know.
Missing link??All it's saying is that there's no existing data which contradicts the theory. If you think you can provide some data to contradict evolution, go right ahead.
You do not appear to know the basics of scientific hypothesis and theories.After how many tries and collaborations?
Frank, didn't you say this:You do not appear to know the basics of scientific hypothesis and theories.
I want to know how many tries and how much collaboration goes into consilience.Collegial? Yes, for example the consilience of evidence from multiple unrelated fields for evolution.
What’s a “Missing Link”?Missing link??
Frank, didn't you say this:
I want to know how many tries and how much collaboration goes into consilience.
Speaking of rabbits, finding a rabbit in the precambrian won't falsify evolution, will it?If you get your evolution info from creationists' site it will lead you:
Why is this so hard for you to understand? or are you being obtuse on purpose?Collaboration means working together ...
Why is this so hard for you to understand? or are you being obtuse on purpose?
Okay ... I'll use your term:
How much working together went into this agreement?
...consilience is agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities.
Interviews are a bear for some, aren't they?You cut off the important part.
Not quite falsify but it would put a huge chill on our present understanding of the ToE.Speaking of rabbits, finding a rabbit in the precambrian won't falsify evolution, will it?
You are not making sense. What interviews? Who are the interviews and interviewess? What are the hiding?Interviews are a bear for some, aren't they?
Especially when they've got something to hide.
Speaking of rabbits, finding a rabbit in the precambrian won't falsify evolution, will it?
So evolution is a not-yet-falsified falsifiable theory ... right?A single observation won't overturn an established scientific theory.
No. Evolution, like gravity, is an observed fact of nature. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a falsifiable theory to explain how it works.So evolution is a not-yet-falsified falsifiable theory ... right?
A single observation cannot disprove aA single observation won't overturn an established scientific theory.
Repeated observations and testing that run contrary to the predictions of an established theory, combined with a model that provides superior explanatory power, will result in the formation of a new theory that supersedes the old one. This could be something totally new, or something that is a substantially modified version of the existing theory.
The current best Theory of Evolution is known as the modern synthesis. It is formed from the combination of Darwin/Wallace's Evolution by means of Natural Selection, with Mendel's concepts of inheritance. This has since been modified by a number of other discoveries, including work around the various role of genes and molecular biology.
There has been argument in the last decade or so that the modern synthesis needs to be expanded further (the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis), to incorporate other modes of inheritance (epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, phenotypic effects, ect, ect) to create a theory more encapsulating of modern understanding.
Mendelian inheritance didn't overturn the ToE. Instead, the existing framework was expanded to incorporate the new evidence and parts of the model (Darwin's concept of pangensis and passing on of acquired characteristics, for instance) was ejected because it didn't provide as good an explanation of observations as the new model did.
OK that's what you meant.Observations need to validated and preferably repeated multiple times, else they may simply represent error, or misinterpretation, or fraud, or. . . .
The C. Bunny could have been put there viaA single observation won't overturn an established scientific theory.
Repeated observations and testing that run contrary to the predictions of an established theory, combined with a model that provides superior explanatory power, will result in the formation of a new theory that supersedes the old one. This could be something totally new, or something that is a substantially modified version of the existing theory.
The current best Theory of Evolution is known as the modern synthesis. It is formed from the combination of Darwin/Wallace's Evolution by means of Natural Selection, with Mendel's concepts of inheritance. This has since been modified by a number of other discoveries, including work around the various role of genes and molecular biology.
There has been argument in the last decade or so that the modern synthesis needs to be expanded further (the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis), to incorporate other modes of inheritance (epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, phenotypic effects, ect, ect) to create a theory more encapsulating of modern understanding.
Mendelian inheritance didn't overturn the ToE. Instead, the existing framework was expanded to incorporate the new evidence and parts of the model (Darwin's concept of pangensis and passing on of acquired characteristics, for instance) was ejected because it didn't provide as good an explanation of observations as the new model did.
Is there a name for this god?The C. Bunny could have been put there via time machine.
Or a god that falsifies history.
OK that's what you meant.
I was thinking observation of one
particular phenomenon.
The C. Bunny could have been put there via
time machine.
Or a god that falsifies history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?