Simply not true:
The underlying reason why the total energy of a closed system (that is, one not interacting significantly with outside objects) is conserved is that the laws of physics are symmetric in time: they will work the same way tomorrow that they did yesterday. According to Noether’s theorem, this means that there must be some quantity that remains constant as you move forward in time, and that quantity is the energy. (Noether’s theorem also explains momentum conservation: the laws of physics are symmetric in space: they work the same way in Brisbane, Australia as in Niskayuna, New York. According to Noether’s system, this means there must be some quantity that remains constant as you move from one place to another, and that quantity is the momentum.)
So, conservation of energy is much more than turning out the lights when you’re not home. It’s built into the deep structure of the universe, and one of the most fundamental properties of physics.
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/12/06/the-advent-calendar-of-physics-5/
That doesn't refute my point. Noether's theorem holds true even if the action of physical systems don't have any differentiable symmetry. The theorem says that such systems have conservation laws, not that our universe is such a system.
Err... why? The above doesn't relate at all to what I said
.
First of all we do not have 99.999% of anything. We can't possibly have that information on anything of the universe. It is in your opinion that "we" have enough to know what happened but I disagree with your opinion.
No. My opinion was that
IF we have 99.999% of the puzzle, then we basically know what's going on. It is a separate matter to know
THAT we have 99.999% of the puzzle.
Without sufficient evidence to begin with the murderer would not be tried. This is not remotely in the same status as the ToE anyway.
Which wasn't my point. My point is that not having 100% of the evidence doesn't preclude us from making decisions. If we have 90%, 95%, 99%, we can still come to conclusions: we can bring the murderer to trial, we can conclude the veracity of evolution, etc.
My point is that it is incorrect to insinuate that we must have absolutely every iota of possible evidence before we can come to conclusions, and that if we have a gnat's breath less than 100% then we cannot come to any conclusions.
Key phrase: "The fact that we don't have every fossil in existence means that we have only pieces of the puzzle. Which means we don't have the entire picture of life and its history", implying that not having every fossil in existence is somehow to our detriment. What matters is the fossils we
do have, not the fossils we
don't. We have millions of fossils overflowing museum drawers, and they all without exception point to the features predicted by evolution (correct distribution in strata, correct geographical distribution, correct radiometric dates, correct anatomical and skeletal changes, etc).
All body forms have remained the same for millions and millions of years. We should see something more than a bird evolving into another species of bird for instance.
Actually, the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago left open huge ecological niches, and we see a flurry of new forms and features develop to fill that gap. Flowering plants themselves are only 140 million years old - this means that something as mundane as fruit is relatively new, geologically speaking.
However, what makes you think we should see something more than a bird evolve into another species of bird? Evolution demands that birds
only evolve new bird species. If a bird species ever evolved into a mammal species, then evolution would be disproven at is most fundamental level.
I still don't know what you expect evolution to produce. I still need an answer to that most basic of questions: What do you mean by "transitions in the same vein as in the past"? What do you mean by "species to species evolution"? What do you mean by "we should see something more"? I ask for examples because I don't actually know what it is you're asking.
I understand the terminology.
Then you understand that 'transitional species' is not a proper piece of evolutionary jargon. The term would apply to
all individuals of
all species. I am a transition from my mother to my daughter, as is my mother before her, and her mother before her. Each woman holds hands with her daughter and her mother, going all the way back through the generations. Each individual looks basically the same as their immediate ancestor and immediate descendant, but if we go back tens of thousands of generations, we see a smooth change.
There is no 'transitional' form, as there is no transition.
