At my age, I'd require a guarantee that there would be no other consequences.
Well, @Sal1950 might guarantee that if you do enough, strong enough, often enough, you'd never know about any consequences... It's a
At my age, I'd require a guarantee that there would be no other consequences.
@MrPeabody in science a theory has insurmontable evidence to support it even though it falls shot of a law. Newtons laws of motion can take specific inputs and give a certain output which will happen every time. With evolution we know it is happening but we don't know exactly what will happen next or when it will happen. The fuss with evolution is it conflicts with certain Christian religious beliefs such as the world is less than 10,000 years old. People with such beliefs should nevertheless be treated with respect even if their ideas appear to be wrong.
In other weird news we find reports of potential cellular growth in aging brains from microdosing LSD:Well, @Sal1950 might guarantee that if you do enough, strong enough, often enough, you'd never know about any consequences... It's atheory hypothesisguess.
@MrPeabody in science a theory has insurmontable evidence to support it even though it falls shot of a law. Newtons laws of motion can take specific inputs and give a certain output which will happen every time. With evolution we know it is happening but we don't know exactly what will happen next or when it will happen. The fuss with evolution is it conflicts with certain Christian religious beliefs such as the world is less than 10,000 years old. People with such beliefs should nevertheless be treated with respect even if their ideas appear to be wrong.
Conversely, evolution is not merely "theory" rather than a law because "we don't know what will happen next or when it will happen." The essential quality of natural selection is that it proceeds by random mutation - and so this lack of positivistic knowledge you cite is not a bug, but rather a feature. The notion that if we compiled more evidence in support of evolution, we'd eventually "know what will happen and when" is literally nonsense, because of the randomness that lies at the heart of the mechanism. So it would be closer to correct to say that evolution by natural selection - aka random mutation resulting in some mutations reproducing more than others based on adaptation - is in fact a natural law.
Many people think that if scientists find evidence that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory and if the theory if found to be correct, it is upgraded to a law. That is not how it works at all, though. In fact, facts, theories and laws — as well as hypotheses — are separate parts of the scientific method. Though they may evolve, they aren't upgraded to something else.
Christian religious beliefs such as the world is less than 10,000 years old. People with such beliefs should nevertheless be treated with respect even if their ideas appear to be wrong.
Well, @Sal1950 might guarantee that if you do enough, strong enough, often enough, you'd never know about any consequences... It's atheory hypothesisguess.
@MrPeabody I will in the future not presume to explain anything to you.
As someone who lived in Berkeley for many years, and as someone truly "enjoyed" living in Berkeley, I fear Don may be right. Problem is, as Don wrote, I don't know
Indeed, the cochlea evolved from the air bladder in fish. There are many tracks of evolution of organs that make it clear that there were a variety of small steps. Unlike what the anti-evolution frauds would tell you, no, the ear, eye, cochlea, etc did not evolve suddenly. Neither did the brain, or anything else. Each was a bunch of small steps. And, yes, each step in the evolution offered some advantage to the organism. In the case of the eye, the pigment in a euglena (single celled eukaryote) that allows it to flee away from light very nearly mimics one of our visual chemicals. The distinction between red and green is shown to be due to a mutation in mammals. Insects see a much wider spectrum in many more spectral channels. There are a few women (female-linked mutation) who can see 4 instead of 3 colors.
And so on. Every step of the way, for the eye, ear, heart, lungs, gills, ...
And in two short sentences you beautifully summed up why nothing has been done to stop CO2 emissions in thirty years. I don’t know if you were trying to make my point so eloquently, but thank you nonetheless.
Man seeing another color that no-one else can see would be so frustrating. How would you describe it to others?
No one really disputes that evolution takes place in a smaller time scale within a single species ("microevolution"). The interesting question is whether a species can evolve into a completely different species given enough time.
I’ve seen this debate play out many times. At the end of the day, most people go with their worldview. If you believe the natural world is everything than evolution is likely your best explanation for how we came into being. If you believe there is an intelligent creator than you have more options.
No one really disputes that evolution takes place in a smaller time scale within a single species ("microevolution"). The interesting question is whether a species can evolve into a completely different species given enough time.