Comments on: is evolution a repeatable science?

By: Loeck

Loeck — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:28:17 +0000

You’ve addressed almost all of my questions/misunderstandings, except for one. How would a fish that has evolved to the point where it has “feetfins” and can go on land and is at the point that it’s basically amphibian,but it’s instincts tell it to stay under water and not go out of water, and so all of it’s land walking abilities are rendered useless because the animal doesn’t want to go on land, how is this an advantage, or on the flip side it has the instincts but cant breath air?

By: jypson

jypson — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:54:50 +0000

It must be very frustrating dealing with creationists and ID zombies tearing apart the scientific method to try and ‘prove’ their beliefs. In my profession, we have our own cycle, and its never diluted or substituted. Planning Collection Processing Analysis/Production Dissemination – and repeat.

By: gfish

gfish — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 03:44:05 +0000

Really,

I think youre confusing the requirements for a scientific theory with the stages of the scientific method. If your hypothesis is that theres an equation created by flying cows and youve designed an experiment to prove or disprove that assertion, its scientific, no matter how odd it sounds. Ok, so theyre invisible, but you can still prove the existence of an object invisible to us by its detecting its effects on the surrounding environment.

Now, if you say that theres a equation created by flying cows and you know it for certain because you were told so in a dream you once had or you read it in some book then thats not scientific.

By: really?

really? — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:31:30 +0000

if “repeatable” means an experiment or study has to be repeatable, that is not science.

Hypothesis: 2+2=4 is an equation that is created by flying invisible cows.

That is repeatable and testable.

Is that science?

By: Lone Wolf

Lone Wolf — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:47:23 +0000

People buy into such arguments cause when it comes to science education, the schools in this country are failures. People think that “re[eatable” means that you have to repeat “it”. They don’t know that “repeatable” means an experiment or study has to be repeatable, not the event, thing or action.

If the schools would just teach the scientific method.

By: gfish

gfish — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:12:14 +0000

DTV, I've written before about transitional fossils (as well as after this post). There's certainly evidence of transitional forms, it's just being fervently denied either for the sake of denial or because creationists ascribe to their own definitions of the theory of evolution which allow them to reject the evidence more easily. With the second experiment, you can turn birds back into dinosaurs within certain size constrains. It's already being done.

By: DTV

DTV — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:58:58 +0000

The problem isn’t just with microevolution, what your experiments deal with. The problems is that many creationists have problems with the concept of macroevolution, the changing of dinosaur to bird, for example, despite the evidence of transitional forms. How could we experiment with that?

-DTV

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:09:35 +0000

Nicely thought out post.

Good work.