Schroeder said:
evidence that may be interpreted differently by others. evidence does not mean it is true or makes it true. neither you nor your dad can truelly "win" the arguement. because neither can be proven fact.
It's pretty simple actually. You have an idea, you look at the evidence, the evidence either supports it or falsifies it. If it supports it then you make further hypotheses about what you'll find next. If you find further evidence, you have supported your theory.
i did in another thread and admited this. still evidence is based on interpretation. so even then its hard to saywehter it is good or not debinding on jhow you interpret it.
i have not seen any new evidence to help it in a long time. and as for contradicts it is again based on interpretation or opinion.
Again, we expect things if our hypothesis is true. If these things are true, then are hypothesis is supported. If not, we throw it out and start again.
You can say "interpretations" all you want, however if CCTGGA changes to CCTGGG then we can state there is a change going on. That's not one's interpretation, but a solid fact.
why is it. if there isnt time enough then that hurts the theory. and should have science "consider" a different alternative. but i think it is just pushed aside.
Again, you still have the wrong idea. I was referring to the aspect of building a time machine. A time machine is completely irrelevant to the discussion, seeing as how there are mathematical proofs for the Earth being old.
i know what it means. it means to change over time. but i believe there is evidernce to show mutations is not the only possible way to change. adaptation is change is it not. does there have to be a mutation for adaptation to work, or is it already programed to be able to change(adaptation).
Mutations do and can cause adaptations. Adaptations can also be mental as well as physical.
the problem is that we have studied the living organism today and this change in alleles does not show every thing from a commom ancestor. so why the fuss when others try a different theory.
I have no fuss with a different theory. I have yet to see, however, another theory that is supported by the evidence that we have.
isnt that science. if it doesnt "prove" it fact then try another theory. you can still keep trying evolution theory from a common ancestor as well. i was saying evolution(change) does not show the theory, or meant it that way.
Theories don't have to prove anything. And what we mean in biology by "evidence" or "law" or "theory" is not held under the same scrutiny that a Physics classroom would hold up to. We don't find mathematical proofs that organisms change, rather we find this in nature and deconstruct DNA to see how so.
why could it NOT be a category in its self. so why MUST it be a transitional. the reason is because it seemingly helps your theory. when it just as well may not.
If evolution is correct, then we would expect to find some organisms taking on characteristics of other categories without falling into any clear category. This is what we find, and I was using this as an example. If Creation is true and species are independently created by "god" then there should be clear categories.
you do the same if you think they are transitionals. very easy to say. and easier to say we arent around long enough to prove either way. So we should say they dont unless we now for sure. the assumption is on the one who assumes what is not seen. i see a solid state, no assumption there. can you give a example of the organism we see today that shows this transitional.
I already have. By transitional I am referring to organisms that take on aspects of one or more categories of other organisms. Like reptile, fish, mammal, some organisms take on many characteristics of those and evolution tells us why. There doesn't seem to be a clear cut category of anything.
slight misunderstandings are common so dont make it the point to disrgard what i say as a deliberate lie or such. you all are good at that, we are as well im sure.
Congratulations, I was being sarcastic.
the whole info idea is to me a interpretation. i would say it is not added info from what i have read. i may be technically wrong. i havent looked into it a whole lot. i might though, it would be interesting.
And there we go. "I haven't read much into it, but I don't think it has." Sorry, but personal incredulity is hardly an argument.
it changes them. but not a whole lot. they are usually small. if im wrong give a few examples. and show how it is a cause of mutations and not the ability already programed in them.
Humans are small, really? Nobody said there were overnight large changes.
well i have heard this arguement before, but as i said its been a while, from what i recall those who had this had another defeciontsy has well and this one with this mutated CD4 gene made it immune. but the other one is not exactly a good mutation in itself.
Actually, no. There are no negative side effects to the CD4 gene. You must have heard that from Hovind and he later admitted he was just conjecturing. When he stated that on his radio program, I asked him if he had any evidence from the New England Journal of Medicine and he was like "no, but I would just bet it has some downsides!"
That's conjecture at it's best.
