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
Creation & Evolution
Metaphysics and evolution for Oholiab
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="Oholiab" data-source="post: 902580" data-attributes="member: 9889"><p>Scientific evidence</p><p></p><p>Bacon developed the philosophy of natural science but it was Newton who actually established it. He did a lot of experiments with prisms. He wanted to prove that light was actually made up of seven colors. at that time it was belived that the colors from a prism were from the prism. Newton proved that anyone who did this experiment exactly like he did would get the exact same result and natural science was born. If thousands of years for now natural science has a Genesis account of its creation, Newton would be the first Adam.</p><p></p><p>If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment - the experimentum crucis - were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory. (White, the Last Sorcerer)</p><p></p><p></p><p>It should be noted that the laws of science including natural selection had allready been well established well before Darwin. What he was proposing is a radical rejection of Aristotlean immunability of species to the point where now it is belived that everyone has a common ancestor. Gregor Mendel crosssed and cataloged some 24,034 plants through several generations.</p><p></p><p>"During the middle of Mendel's life, Mendel did groundbreaking work into the theories of heredity. Using simple pea pod plants, Mendel studied seven basic characteristics of the pea pod plants. By tracing these characteristics, Mendel discovered three basic laws which governed the passage of a trait from one member of a species to another member of the same species. The first law states that the sex cells of a plant may contain two different traits, but not both of those traits. The second law stated that characteristics are inherited independently from another (the basis for recessive and dominant gene composition). The third theory states that each inherited characteristic is determined by two hereditary factors (known more recently as genes), one from each parents, which decides whether a gene is dominant or recessive. In other words, if a seed gene is recessive, it will not show up within the plant, however, the dominant trait will. Mendel's work and theories, later became the basis for the study of modern genetics, and are still recognized and used today.</p><p></p><p>His work led to the discovery of particulate inheritance, dominant and recessive traits, genotype and phenotype, and the concept of heterozygousity and homozygousity. Unfortunately, Gregor Mendel was not recognized for his work by his scientific peers. He found actual proof of the existence of genes, and is considered to be the father of genetics, though his work was relatively unappreciated until the early 1900's. "</p><p><a href="http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/information/biography/klmno/mendel_gregor.html" target="_blank">http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/information/biography/klmno/mendel_gregor.html</a></p><p></p><p>Isnt it ironic that a monk is the father of modern genetics and was not recognised by the scientific community of his time. Yet Darwin's name is inextricable linked to natural selection and all he ever did was argue common ancestry and yet no identifiable phylogeny (descent fromshared ancestors) has ever been established clearly. Even if it were, so what? My real feeling about this is evolution is some convoluted pseudo-science used to make religious conviction concerning God's 'special creation' look impossible. There is an attached social and political agenda, the science of biology was doing fine without naturalistic presumptions of these arguments of science falsely so called. </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html" target="_blank">http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oholiab, post: 902580, member: 9889"] Scientific evidence Bacon developed the philosophy of natural science but it was Newton who actually established it. He did a lot of experiments with prisms. He wanted to prove that light was actually made up of seven colors. at that time it was belived that the colors from a prism were from the prism. Newton proved that anyone who did this experiment exactly like he did would get the exact same result and natural science was born. If thousands of years for now natural science has a Genesis account of its creation, Newton would be the first Adam. If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment - the experimentum crucis - were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory. (White, the Last Sorcerer) It should be noted that the laws of science including natural selection had allready been well established well before Darwin. What he was proposing is a radical rejection of Aristotlean immunability of species to the point where now it is belived that everyone has a common ancestor. Gregor Mendel crosssed and cataloged some 24,034 plants through several generations. "During the middle of Mendel's life, Mendel did groundbreaking work into the theories of heredity. Using simple pea pod plants, Mendel studied seven basic characteristics of the pea pod plants. By tracing these characteristics, Mendel discovered three basic laws which governed the passage of a trait from one member of a species to another member of the same species. The first law states that the sex cells of a plant may contain two different traits, but not both of those traits. The second law stated that characteristics are inherited independently from another (the basis for recessive and dominant gene composition). The third theory states that each inherited characteristic is determined by two hereditary factors (known more recently as genes), one from each parents, which decides whether a gene is dominant or recessive. In other words, if a seed gene is recessive, it will not show up within the plant, however, the dominant trait will. Mendel's work and theories, later became the basis for the study of modern genetics, and are still recognized and used today. His work led to the discovery of particulate inheritance, dominant and recessive traits, genotype and phenotype, and the concept of heterozygousity and homozygousity. Unfortunately, Gregor Mendel was not recognized for his work by his scientific peers. He found actual proof of the existence of genes, and is considered to be the father of genetics, though his work was relatively unappreciated until the early 1900's. " [url]http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/information/biography/klmno/mendel_gregor.html[/url] Isnt it ironic that a monk is the father of modern genetics and was not recognised by the scientific community of his time. Yet Darwin's name is inextricable linked to natural selection and all he ever did was argue common ancestry and yet no identifiable phylogeny (descent fromshared ancestors) has ever been established clearly. Even if it were, so what? My real feeling about this is evolution is some convoluted pseudo-science used to make religious conviction concerning God's 'special creation' look impossible. There is an attached social and political agenda, the science of biology was doing fine without naturalistic presumptions of these arguments of science falsely so called. [url]http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Metaphysics and evolution for Oholiab
Top
Bottom