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.
shinbits said:1) It hasn't been proven true.
shinbits said:2) The Geocentric theory was also widely accepted.
1) Gravity.Nightson said:1) Can you name one thing that is proven in science?
2) Did science come up with geocentrism?
shinbits said:I think it's also fair to point out that just because something is widely accepted, that also doesn't make it true or false.
As it is, this has never happened. Gravity is currently a fact. If you doubt this, please find a twelve story building and jump out of it.Nooj said:Gravity is an observation. It can be falsified tomorrow if Earth goes flying out of the Solar System and we start floating.
shinbits said:1) Gravity
shinbits said:As it is, this has never happened. Gravity is currently a fact. If you doubt this, please find a twelve story building and jump out of it.
There's no need to prove an observation. If rain is observed falling from the sky, there's no need to prove that rain is falling from the sky.notto said:The effects of gravity are an observation. The mechanism of gravity is still a mystery. You don't 'prove' observations.
What fact? Unlike with gravity, there are no observations that prove evolution ever happened.notto said:If that is proven, then evolution is proven as well. It is a fact that life in the past is much different than life today and that those changes took place over millions of years through diversification of exising populations.
Sure there are. You just deny they exist.shinbits said:Unlike with gravity, there are no observations that prove evolution ever happened.
shinbits said:There's no need to prove an observation. If rain is observed falling from the sky, there's no need to prove that rain is falling from the sky.
What genetic markers?notto said:Sure there are. You just deny they exist.
Genetic markers show common descent
Is speciation, the changing of one species into another one? If so, what population has been observed turning into a different species?notto said:Speciation has been observed.
I've never denied that life was different in the past.notto said:How can you deny the observation that life in the past was much different than life today and these changes happened over time?
I never did. Traits do change, but they still remain the same species.notto said:How can you deny that traits in a population change over time and that speciation is observed?
Thank you for saying that. What you've said is true and makes perfect sense.Kripost said:Actually, you need to acknowledge there is an observation. For instance, a person can still deny that rain is falling from the sky, and use an ad hoc expalnation instead.
shinbits said:In the case of evolution, there are no observations that have ever been made, to even acknowledge that an observation is even being made.
Nope, because the observers that acknowledge the observation might be incorrect. Observations are not 'proved'. There is no proof in real life, only evidence. Proof is for math and alcohol.shinbits said:Thank you for saying that. What you've said is true and makes perfect sense.
If rain is acknowledged as an observation, then rain is proved.
In the case of evolution, the observations include observations of speciation (the splitting of a population of a species into two new populations of two species), the observation of competition for resources (ie, natural selection), the observation of mutations.In the case of evolution, there are no observations that have ever been made, to even acknowledge that an observation is even being made.
Chapter 5 of the link. Just pick one example out of that chapter, we can discuss that. There's no point in copying half the link to the board.shinbits said:
Copy and paste where in this very wordy link it says that observations have been made.
I just saw a bunch of acknowledgements and so forth.
Copy and paste it.
Then we'll discuss what's been pasted.
I am not a geneticist but short tandem repeats, pseudogenes non functional versions of genes in the genome (like the pseudogene vitamin C), homologies in proteins like cytochrome c, chromosome banding should suffice for your criterion. Perhaps, the genetic evidence is the strongest aspect of the theory of evolution since this was a prediction even before Watson and Crick's discovery of deoxyribonucleic acid.shinbits said:What genetic markers?
Okay. Thank you for that information.Arik Soong said:I am not a geneticist but short tandem repeats, pseudogenes non functional versions of genes in the genome (like the pseudogene vitamin C), homologies in proteins like cytochrome c, chromosome banding should suffice for your criterion. Perhaps, the genetic evidence is the strongest aspect of the theory of evolution since this was a prediction even before Watson and Crick's discovery of deoxyribonucleic acid.
By comparing the comparison of genetic markers in different species with the predictions that are made by common ancestry.shinbits said:Okay. Thank you for that information.
How, using the genetic markers, is an observation made that humans have evolved?
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?