1. Because of signals like the ocean getting more, scientists know the earth's temperature has been rising.
2. An event happens (snow, hurricane, etc.)
3. Scientists decide said event might have happened because the earth is getting warmer.
This is suspicious, but even if these events are being incorrectly classified as side-effects of global warming, that does not disprove global warming.
I work in healthcare, and know a man paralyzed from the neck down who uses dragonspeak to do everything on his computer.
He has a laptop, and needs someone to turn his computer off and on. But, seems to do pretty well from there, at least for searching the internet. He also buys and trades stocks with it
He had to hire an expert to customize his laptop. So, while it's currently possible to do, it's probably not something that you can do easily.
Is it cross platform? Know idea. He uses windows xp.
The new interfaces I listed are useless but pretty! I already know people who use voice recognition to chat on IM's instead of typing because it is quicker. More intuitive and efficient interfaces are about as far from useless as you can get. Can you surf the internet mearly by thinking about it.... No. Will we get there? Yes.
Admittedly, not everything that is being developed is going to be revolutionary right out of the box. Progress rarely works in leaps.
Carl Petersen at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, Switzerland, is also interested in studying cellular activity in active mice. "It is a good advance," he told New Scientist, but the approach can't look at all kinds of brain activity.
The main problem, says Petersen, is that the brain scatters light extensively and so Schnitzer's technique can only capture images of cells near to the microscope. He also points out that the microscope lacks optical sectioning capability, a technique used to examine the internal 3D structure of tissue.
Makes it sounds like they can only look at what's going on at the very surface of the brains. Still, the ability to continously view any portion of the brain is a big deal.
It's a good thing that they are protecting Weis. We all have an agenda. If we get rid of anonymity, wiki writers will have to start worrying about lunatics tracking them down because of a "biased article".
Smart people know that you can't use wikipedia as a solid source of information.
Whether or not a view is expressed in a Wiki article depends on two things:
1. How many computer literate people hold the view
2. How determined the people with the view are.
Wikipedia is a good starting place for learning about something. But, after you have that start it's extremely important to verify everything.
The article talks about Brownian Rachets being used in a non-equilibrium environment. This means they are using a definition of "Brownian Rachet" that does not contradict the laws of thermodynamics.
They would have to be talking about Brownian Rachets that produce energy in an equilibrium environment for the title to be correct.
"Researchers Re-Examine Second Law of Thermodynamics"
Some knowledge based algorithms seem unpredictable when given random data. This is not intelligence either, it is more a result of unintended consequence. You can go back and figure out why it acted a certain way.
The same rules apply to people. We have a set of programming we are born with, and then we are given random data. This data and our pre-programming explains why we act a certain way. The ability to go back and figure out why we act a certain doesn't mean we aren't intelligent.
It is a mistake to assume our intelligence is something more than a program. Our programming is just less transparent to us.
This statement is, uh, mistaken. What it's getting at is the notion that long periods of exposure to water is generally considered to be probably very very important if not essential to early life. ("organic matter" would be anything with a carbon atom in it, e.g. coal, plastic, methane, oil..
Coal, plastic, methane, and oil are all byproducts of life. Coal is from plants, plastic is from humans, the vast majority of methane is from biogenic sources, and oil is from plants, animals, and bacteria.
The only carbon product you mentioned that might be formed without life is methane. The formation of methane usually involves water as either a reactant or product. In fact, simply burning methane produces water.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the statement you are disagreeing with" standing pools, which are conducive to the formation of basic organic matter." It's possible water isn't a necessity for life and substantial quantities of carbon compounds. But, that statement simply asserts that water is conductive to the formation of carbon compounds, this is definitely the case.
Observation. I'm not sure why that is such a difficult
I'm willing to accept ID as a science if you can come up with an experiment that could actually be conducted. That is all you can come up with? You didn't even try. I guess I shouldn't be suprised. It means you are smart enough to know the answer to my challenge.
There is a lot of flame bait in there that I would love to refute. But, I'm beginning to realize this can go on forever. Unless you can show that ID is testable, it doesn't deserve a place as a scientific theory.
So he painted his room blue" is a valid scientific principle now? Paint as the verb or noun?
You were the one that set this up as an analogy for evolution.
What I created was a stain but it is the same as paint. So, no, it doesn't still depend on the means.
Is that what you did? Read what you wrote:
It is quite simple, you take egg whites or animal fats and mix them with pigments to obtain a desired color and proceed to cover walls. Oops. You just created one of the most primitive forms of paint used by the cavemen.
Removing the minor evolutionary change principle doesn't remove the possibility of drastic mutations caused by whatever source that could still effect interspecies evolution.
This is the evolution that is being used to make predictions, is being taught in schools, and you would be hard pressed to find a reputable scientist involved with biology that does not support it. The fourth law is gradualism, or "minor evolutionary changes principle" as you put it. Disproving Gradualism would disprove the definition of Evolution that is being used. If you wanted to you could come up with a different theory of evolution, and disproving gradualism might not disprove the alternate theory. In fact, you could do that with anything. But, we are talking about the current theory of evolution and whether or not it can be disproved. It can be.
That is arbitrary semantics. Calling something other then what it is, doesn't mean it is something else.
How is this in any way calling something other than it is? You aren't saying this bird is not a finch. You are saying this bird is X species of finch. The birds have distinct physical and genetic differences. You can call something a ring, or you can call it a diamond ring.
Anyway, this wasn't your original argument. Let's disagree with modern day biology and broaden the definition of species. Your original argument was that Darwin was confused about what he was studying and realized his error after returning home. As I showed, his original writings suggest otherwise. Do you have any proof to the contrary?
But the fact of the matter is that in all the years of change before Darwin visited the islands, none of the birds became something other then finches.
If they had, the current theory of evolution would be incorrect. They would have been a drastically different species within a short time period.
God could have, there is no evidence suggesting he didn't. However, it is more likely that the expression of the genes or not come from a principle of conservation of energy through natural forces.
The conservation of energy means that energy is neither created or destroyed. What does this have to with explaining why useless DNA exists without the existence of evolution? Wait. Through natural forces? Do you believe in evolution after all:)?
No we haven't. We have recreated nucleic acids like RNA amd precursors for life but we have have not recreated or created life. Abiogenesis is still something that has escaped science. We have been able to manipulate life but not replicate the abiogenesis process in any form in it's entirety. If someone has told you otherwise, they are most likely misleading you or misinformed themselves. I keep up on these things and I have never heard of that breakthrough.
There are lots of examples where self replicating entities of a biological nature have been created from scratch. Julius Rebek is a good person for you to look into for one example. You could argue that the ability to consume and replicate yourself doesn't quali
It is quite simple, you take egg whites or animal fats and mix them with pigments to obtain a desired color and proceed to cover walls. Oops. You just created one of the most primitive forms of paint used by the cavemen.
And then you are painting with paint! Your argument is now that you can have a result without the means, because you can create the means. You still depend on the means.
Well, god it a human created concept. At least in our understanding and rendition of him. So yea, the GOD as we know it wouldn't exist.
I will give you that since you added "god as we know it".
It isn't indicative of any relationship other then the basic building blocks necessary for life as we know it.
It does indicate a relationship because the probability of it being a coincidence is too low. But even more important, remember that what we are arguing is whether evolution can be disproved. If the building blocks weren't the same that would disprove evolution.
And in fact, Darwin was confused because he thought the animals he studies were separate species. He didn't realized until he got home that they were all the same species- finch
He knew they were all finches, as is evident in his first edition of the voyage of the beagle. "The remaining land-birds form a most singular group of finches, related to each other in the structure of their beaks, short tails, form of body and plumage: there are thirteen species, which Mr. Gould has divided into four subgroups." Also, in modern day biology we label the finches he identified as being different species. We even have four genus groups directly based on the four subgroups. I'm curious about where you get your information? It's a pretty humorous assertion that Darwin returned home and realized "Oh no! I was studying finches the entire time!"
Even animals with no eyes that have similar genes do so because the potential for eyes are there but suppressed by other genes.
Yes! There are many examples where animals have the genes but they are not expressed. What does this indicate? Did god give them useless DNA because he was bored?
Yes, the creation of life in a natural setting and watching the evolutionary split between life forms and how it gains complexed structures and functions in a natural environment. It isn't something that will be done over night, in fact, it is probably out of our scientific abilities for the next 100 or so years. But when it happens, it would disprove intelligent design unless the scientists interfered with the experiments in order to create a desired outcome.
We have done what you just described with microbes. It's impossible to observe this coming about naturally in large organisms, because unlike microbes a thousand generations don't live and die in a day. What we can do is verify the existance of what would result from the evolutionary process.
Actually, those were outrageous statements in order to prove how outrageous your claims where. Did you pay attention to the "in the same context as you have presented above" Anyways, I gave you a test and a process to falsify ID above.
I gave you three TESTABLE examples. You haven't given one example of something that can be tested. If you can't conduct a test to verify it, it isn't science.
Also, in my previous statement, I showed an example which is also the same as above, IF science could "prove" a natural route to complex life beyond the ability to need an intelligent designer, it would be proof that one didn't exist or wasn't needed for life as we know it.
We've proven that RNA can be spontaneously created by mixing very simple compounds. RNA can self replicate. Self replication inherently leads to evolution. The population changes because some RNA is more able to perpetuate it's existence.
It looks like you are shooting around the points instead of at them. That's what I was trying to say. Although, in retrospect, that might just be because your points seem illogical to me. But, I guess the other guy often seems this way in an argument:)
It is because your not dealing with the specific complaint but the area in general which is a precondition for the area of specifics. In essence, your attempting to say if we had no paint, it could falsify the claim that he painted his room blue.
When you figure out how to paint without paint tell me. This is especially hard to do when we are talking about the "area in general"
Your examples are so broad that someone could say that if no humans existed, no one would believe in GOD.
That excludes the possibility of other life. But you could say that if no humans existed, no humans would believe in god.
At first, I was pretty confused about why you think disproving the premises of evolution in order to disprove macroevolution is categorically false. I think the quote below is where the misunderstanding is.
There is no proof of reliance on small changes for interspecies evolution.
That statement shows that you don't understand evolution. All proof points towards small, continuous changes over large periods of time. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is a fairly silly one. It's like saying 1+1 =2 in a a 200 year timespan. But, 1+1+1+1 doesn't equal four in a 400 year time span. Fossils, genes, the method of meiosis and mitosis, and all other evidence points towards small changes rather than leaps. In fact, Darwin's theory was originally based on the idea of small changes. You would be correct if you said there is no proof of complex species becoming a dramatically different species overnight.
So by definition, different species would have different building blocks in certain areas specifically for evolution to work
By building blocks I mean genes. There are nearly infinite possibilities for materials, but we are all made out of the same stuff. That is, ribonucleic acids that build a very small number of proteins.
Now I add that because we have similar systems like eyes, lungs, circulatory and so on that are the same concept of design, that the remaining similarities between unrelated species are a result of function not connections in ancestral life.
There are lots of animals with completely different systems that have that have the same genes. You mentioned the eyes, circulatory system, and lungs. There are animals with no eyes, animals with many eyes, and animals that see in different spectrums. There are also animals with no lungs and animals that breathe different gases. Some animals have a circulatory system, some don't, and there is a wide variance in how these systems work. The similarity is in the genes not the functions.
You can't prove that it isn't but insist that it is a sign of interspecies evolution and want to claim that if those similarities weren't there, evolution wouldn't exist therefor it is falsifiable.
The similarities in genes do need to be there, their absence would falsify the theory. I attempted to explain this with the silicon example earlier.
Your saying change is a bad thing and it could disprove evolution.
For some strange reason I don't recall saying that.
Can you give an example of a test that to be conducted which could disprove ID?
Really, in the same context as you have presented above, how about, "If life wasn't as complex as it is, we wouldn't need an intelligent designer and it would be proof that an intelligent designer didn't exist when all life was simple forms". OR how about "IF science could "prove" a natural route to complex life beyon
You are straying pretty far from the point I was making. (no offense) Remember that the point I am making is that evolution could be disproved, unlike ID.
1. I'm saying if X(small evolutionary changes) didn't exist then Y(interspecies evolution) would not be possible. The theory of evolution is based on the premise of small changes continuously occurring over large periods of time. If you disprove that small changes occur, you disprove the theory.
2. If we all had different building blocks that wouldn't falsify evolution? You should at least try to back that statement up. The prime basis for the Theory of Evolution is genetic inheritance, which requires that we have the same building blocks. For example, if humans had silicon based genes instead of ACGT amino acids, we would have to conclude that we did not evolve from the same ancestors as the rest of the organisms on earth. This is because no matter how many times an organism reproduces, its amino acids do not turn into silicon. That would be absurd. There are nearly infinite possibilities for which material carries genetic information. Yet everything uses DNA, or its nearly identical brother RNA.
3. "Just like 1, that invalidates evolution as a whole and just like with one, without evolution of a whole the subset couldn't exist either. Your not showing falsifiable tests for interspecies evolution but evolution as a whole. This is wrong because you aren't falsifying macro evolution, your are attempting to falsify evolution in general. " Correct, kind of. I'm giving an example of something that would disprove evolution as a whole instead of targeting "interspecies evolution". But falsifying evolution as a whole would also falsify interspecies evolution, so the point stands.
"As long as we are at it, ID and Creation can be disproved as far as it's claims go"
Really? I challenge you to name one test to be conducted that could potentially have results that disprove ID. I've come up with three for evolution.
"Tests cannot be done to prove interspecies evolution false either."
Not true. I've listed three observations that would prove interspecies evolution false: (I'm sure there are more)
1. If small evolutionary changes did not occur over short periods time. The theory of evolution depends on continuous, small changes. But, the genes of populations do slowly change. Genetic drift has been documented repeatedly both in and outside of the lab.
2. If animals didn't share similar genes, that would indicate we are not related to each other. But, all complex animals use the same building blocks. And we share many of the same genes. For example, human genes correspond with 99% of the genes in chimps and 60% of the genes in chickens.
3. If the mechanism for reproduction did not lead to mutations, that would prove the evolutionary theory false. Meiosis and Mitosis lead to many mutations. In fact, sometimes they even lead to extra chromosomes.
Unlike ID, evolution can be proven false. It is a falsifiable theory with a vast amount of supporting evidence. That is why it is okay for it to be taught as a scientific theory.
If you are a scientist, why are you opposed to people learning truthful facts? ID is a hypothesis, one that is equally pushed forward and discredited.
In the scientific method, for something to be a scientific hypothesis you must be able to prove it false by observation. Tests cannot be conducted that affirm or disprove the theory that an intelligent creator exists. That is why intelligent design is not a scientific theory.
It should not be taught in science classes. It belongs in philosophy and religious classes.
Actually the flu is very good at surviving in the open air in comparison to most viruses and bacteria. Some strains can survive on a surface for up to 48 hours.
Use a little bit of Ethanol.
I used to work in a lab where we had to handle Staphylococcus Aureus. We continously sprayed Ethanol on the counters and lab equipment. It kills the vast majority of bacteria, evaporates quickly, and leaves no residue.
The more serious disinfecting required heating the equipment in an autoclave. But, we were dealing with large quantities of live, mutant strains. A little bit of Ethnol should be more than adequate.
I wouldn't rent a song for a dime. But I might be willing to permanently own every song an artist has ever written for free. With limewire and torrents, who pays for digital information?
There is a very simple solution to this: Make pron available to any soldier that wants it.
It would be very cheap and easy for the government to make copies of porn dvds for the soldiers. It's better for them to be getting porn that is secure, than bootlegged porn that is full of viruses.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what is happening:
1. Because of signals like the ocean getting more, scientists know the earth's temperature has been rising.
2. An event happens (snow, hurricane, etc.) 3. Scientists decide said event might have happened because the earth is getting warmer.
This is suspicious, but even if these events are being incorrectly classified as side-effects of global warming, that does not disprove global warming.
I work in healthcare, and know a man paralyzed from the neck down who uses dragonspeak to do everything on his computer.
He has a laptop, and needs someone to turn his computer off and on. But, seems to do pretty well from there, at least for searching the internet. He also buys and trades stocks with it
He had to hire an expert to customize his laptop. So, while it's currently possible to do, it's probably not something that you can do easily.
Is it cross platform? Know idea. He uses windows xp.
this useless but pretty junk
The new interfaces I listed are useless but pretty! I already know people who use voice recognition to chat on IM's instead of typing because it is quicker. More intuitive and efficient interfaces are about as far from useless as you can get. Can you surf the internet mearly by thinking about it.... No. Will we get there? Yes.
Admittedly, not everything that is being developed is going to be revolutionary right out of the box. Progress rarely works in leaps.
Between touch screens, voice recognition, and breakthroughs that are already happening concerning controlling computers through thought...
Kids born in 2050 probably will not know what qwerty is.
I think the article below does a better job of explaining both what cloud computing is, and what the future applications for cloud computing are.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2007/tc20071116_379585.htm
Carl Petersen at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, Switzerland, is also interested in studying cellular activity in active mice. "It is a good advance," he told New Scientist, but the approach can't look at all kinds of brain activity.
The main problem, says Petersen, is that the brain scatters light extensively and so Schnitzer's technique can only capture images of cells near to the microscope. He also points out that the microscope lacks optical sectioning capability, a technique used to examine the internal 3D structure of tissue.
Makes it sounds like they can only look at what's going on at the very surface of the brains. Still, the ability to continously view any portion of the brain is a big deal.
It's a good thing that they are protecting Weis. We all have an agenda. If we get rid of anonymity, wiki writers will have to start worrying about lunatics tracking them down because of a "biased article".
Smart people know that you can't use wikipedia as a solid source of information.
Whether or not a view is expressed in a Wiki article depends on two things:
1. How many computer literate people hold the view
2. How determined the people with the view are.
Wikipedia is a good starting place for learning about something. But, after you have that start it's extremely important to verify everything.
They would have to be talking about Brownian Rachets that produce energy in an equilibrium environment for the title to be correct.
"Researchers Re-Examine Second Law of Thermodynamics"
No they don't, at least not in that article!
Musk and his employees have 50 years of other peoples failure to draw on
Because we all know how willing the government is to share technological information.
They also don't have near the financing or manpower.
this certainly raises some questions about the likelihood of successful privatization of the Space industry.
The government failed quite a few times before they got anything up. Let's not write off private space travel because of three failures.
Some knowledge based algorithms seem unpredictable when given random data. This is not intelligence either, it is more a result of unintended consequence. You can go back and figure out why it acted a certain way.
The same rules apply to people. We have a set of programming we are born with, and then we are given random data. This data and our pre-programming explains why we act a certain way. The ability to go back and figure out why we act a certain doesn't mean we aren't intelligent.
It is a mistake to assume our intelligence is something more than a program. Our programming is just less transparent to us.
This statement is, uh, mistaken. What it's getting at is the notion that long periods of exposure to water is generally considered to be probably very very important if not essential to early life. ("organic matter" would be anything with a carbon atom in it, e.g. coal, plastic, methane, oil..
Coal, plastic, methane, and oil are all byproducts of life. Coal is from plants, plastic is from humans, the vast majority of methane is from biogenic sources, and oil is from plants, animals, and bacteria.
The only carbon product you mentioned that might be formed without life is methane. The formation of methane usually involves water as either a reactant or product. In fact, simply burning methane produces water.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the statement you are disagreeing with" standing pools, which are conducive to the formation of basic organic matter." It's possible water isn't a necessity for life and substantial quantities of carbon compounds. But, that statement simply asserts that water is conductive to the formation of carbon compounds, this is definitely the case.
Observation. I'm not sure why that is such a difficult
I'm willing to accept ID as a science if you can come up with an experiment that could actually be conducted. That is all you can come up with? You didn't even try. I guess I shouldn't be suprised. It means you are smart enough to know the answer to my challenge.
There is a lot of flame bait in there that I would love to refute. But, I'm beginning to realize this can go on forever. Unless you can show that ID is testable, it doesn't deserve a place as a scientific theory.
So he painted his room blue" is a valid scientific principle now? Paint as the verb or noun?
You were the one that set this up as an analogy for evolution.
What I created was a stain but it is the same as paint. So, no, it doesn't still depend on the means.
Is that what you did? Read what you wrote:
It is quite simple, you take egg whites or animal fats and mix them with pigments to obtain a desired color and proceed to cover walls. Oops. You just created one of the most primitive forms of paint used by the cavemen.
Removing the minor evolutionary change principle doesn't remove the possibility of drastic mutations caused by whatever source that could still effect interspecies evolution.
Here are the five laws of the current theory of evolution: http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/evolution.html
This is the evolution that is being used to make predictions, is being taught in schools, and you would be hard pressed to find a reputable scientist involved with biology that does not support it. The fourth law is gradualism, or "minor evolutionary changes principle" as you put it. Disproving Gradualism would disprove the definition of Evolution that is being used. If you wanted to you could come up with a different theory of evolution, and disproving gradualism might not disprove the alternate theory. In fact, you could do that with anything. But, we are talking about the current theory of evolution and whether or not it can be disproved. It can be.
That is arbitrary semantics. Calling something other then what it is, doesn't mean it is something else.
How is this in any way calling something other than it is? You aren't saying this bird is not a finch. You are saying this bird is X species of finch. The birds have distinct physical and genetic differences. You can call something a ring, or you can call it a diamond ring.
Anyway, this wasn't your original argument. Let's disagree with modern day biology and broaden the definition of species. Your original argument was that Darwin was confused about what he was studying and realized his error after returning home. As I showed, his original writings suggest otherwise. Do you have any proof to the contrary?
But the fact of the matter is that in all the years of change before Darwin visited the islands, none of the birds became something other then finches.
If they had, the current theory of evolution would be incorrect. They would have been a drastically different species within a short time period.
God could have, there is no evidence suggesting he didn't. However, it is more likely that the expression of the genes or not come from a principle of conservation of energy through natural forces.
The conservation of energy means that energy is neither created or destroyed. What does this have to with explaining why useless DNA exists without the existence of evolution? Wait. Through natural forces? Do you believe in evolution after all :)?
No we haven't. We have recreated nucleic acids like RNA amd precursors for life but we have have not recreated or created life. Abiogenesis is still something that has escaped science. We have been able to manipulate life but not replicate the abiogenesis process in any form in it's entirety. If someone has told you otherwise, they are most likely misleading you or misinformed themselves. I keep up on these things and I have never heard of that breakthrough.
There are lots of examples where self replicating entities of a biological nature have been created from scratch. Julius Rebek is a good person for you to look into for one example. You could argue that the ability to consume and replicate yourself doesn't quali
It is quite simple, you take egg whites or animal fats and mix them with pigments to obtain a desired color and proceed to cover walls. Oops. You just created one of the most primitive forms of paint used by the cavemen.
And then you are painting with paint! Your argument is now that you can have a result without the means, because you can create the means. You still depend on the means.
Well, god it a human created concept. At least in our understanding and rendition of him. So yea, the GOD as we know it wouldn't exist.
I will give you that since you added "god as we know it".
It isn't indicative of any relationship other then the basic building blocks necessary for life as we know it.
It does indicate a relationship because the probability of it being a coincidence is too low. But even more important, remember that what we are arguing is whether evolution can be disproved. If the building blocks weren't the same that would disprove evolution.
And in fact, Darwin was confused because he thought the animals he studies were separate species. He didn't realized until he got home that they were all the same species- finch
He knew they were all finches, as is evident in his first edition of the voyage of the beagle. "The remaining land-birds form a most singular group of finches, related to each other in the structure of their beaks, short tails, form of body and plumage: there are thirteen species, which Mr. Gould has divided into four subgroups." Also, in modern day biology we label the finches he identified as being different species. We even have four genus groups directly based on the four subgroups. I'm curious about where you get your information? It's a pretty humorous assertion that Darwin returned home and realized "Oh no! I was studying finches the entire time!"
Even animals with no eyes that have similar genes do so because the potential for eyes are there but suppressed by other genes.
Yes! There are many examples where animals have the genes but they are not expressed. What does this indicate? Did god give them useless DNA because he was bored?
Yes, the creation of life in a natural setting and watching the evolutionary split between life forms and how it gains complexed structures and functions in a natural environment. It isn't something that will be done over night, in fact, it is probably out of our scientific abilities for the next 100 or so years. But when it happens, it would disprove intelligent design unless the scientists interfered with the experiments in order to create a desired outcome.
We have done what you just described with microbes. It's impossible to observe this coming about naturally in large organisms, because unlike microbes a thousand generations don't live and die in a day. What we can do is verify the existance of what would result from the evolutionary process.
Actually, those were outrageous statements in order to prove how outrageous your claims where. Did you pay attention to the "in the same context as you have presented above" Anyways, I gave you a test and a process to falsify ID above.
I gave you three TESTABLE examples. You haven't given one example of something that can be tested. If you can't conduct a test to verify it, it isn't science.
Also, in my previous statement, I showed an example which is also the same as above, IF science could "prove" a natural route to complex life beyond the ability to need an intelligent designer, it would be proof that one didn't exist or wasn't needed for life as we know it.
We've proven that RNA can be spontaneously created by mixing very simple compounds. RNA can self replicate. Self replication inherently leads to evolution. The population changes because some RNA is more able to perpetuate it's existence.
It is because your not dealing with the specific complaint but the area in general which is a precondition for the area of specifics. In essence, your attempting to say if we had no paint, it could falsify the claim that he painted his room blue.
When you figure out how to paint without paint tell me. This is especially hard to do when we are talking about the "area in general"
Your examples are so broad that someone could say that if no humans existed, no one would believe in GOD.
That excludes the possibility of other life. But you could say that if no humans existed, no humans would believe in god.
At first, I was pretty confused about why you think disproving the premises of evolution in order to disprove macroevolution is categorically false. I think the quote below is where the misunderstanding is.
There is no proof of reliance on small changes for interspecies evolution.
That statement shows that you don't understand evolution. All proof points towards small, continuous changes over large periods of time. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is a fairly silly one. It's like saying 1+1 =2 in a a 200 year timespan. But, 1+1+1+1 doesn't equal four in a 400 year time span. Fossils, genes, the method of meiosis and mitosis, and all other evidence points towards small changes rather than leaps. In fact, Darwin's theory was originally based on the idea of small changes. You would be correct if you said there is no proof of complex species becoming a dramatically different species overnight.
So by definition, different species would have different building blocks in certain areas specifically for evolution to work
By building blocks I mean genes. There are nearly infinite possibilities for materials, but we are all made out of the same stuff. That is, ribonucleic acids that build a very small number of proteins.
Now I add that because we have similar systems like eyes, lungs, circulatory and so on that are the same concept of design, that the remaining similarities between unrelated species are a result of function not connections in ancestral life.
There are lots of animals with completely different systems that have that have the same genes. You mentioned the eyes, circulatory system, and lungs. There are animals with no eyes, animals with many eyes, and animals that see in different spectrums. There are also animals with no lungs and animals that breathe different gases. Some animals have a circulatory system, some don't, and there is a wide variance in how these systems work. The similarity is in the genes not the functions.
You can't prove that it isn't but insist that it is a sign of interspecies evolution and want to claim that if those similarities weren't there, evolution wouldn't exist therefor it is falsifiable.
The similarities in genes do need to be there, their absence would falsify the theory. I attempted to explain this with the silicon example earlier.
Your saying change is a bad thing and it could disprove evolution.
For some strange reason I don't recall saying that.
Can you give an example of a test that to be conducted which could disprove ID?
Really, in the same context as you have presented above, how about, "If life wasn't as complex as it is, we wouldn't need an intelligent designer and it would be proof that an intelligent designer didn't exist when all life was simple forms". OR how about "IF science could "prove" a natural route to complex life beyon
You are straying pretty far from the point I was making. (no offense) Remember that the point I am making is that evolution could be disproved, unlike ID.
1. I'm saying if X(small evolutionary changes) didn't exist then Y(interspecies evolution) would not be possible. The theory of evolution is based on the premise of small changes continuously occurring over large periods of time. If you disprove that small changes occur, you disprove the theory.
2. If we all had different building blocks that wouldn't falsify evolution? You should at least try to back that statement up. The prime basis for the Theory of Evolution is genetic inheritance, which requires that we have the same building blocks. For example, if humans had silicon based genes instead of ACGT amino acids, we would have to conclude that we did not evolve from the same ancestors as the rest of the organisms on earth. This is because no matter how many times an organism reproduces, its amino acids do not turn into silicon. That would be absurd. There are nearly infinite possibilities for which material carries genetic information. Yet everything uses DNA, or its nearly identical brother RNA.
3. "Just like 1, that invalidates evolution as a whole and just like with one, without evolution of a whole the subset couldn't exist either. Your not showing falsifiable tests for interspecies evolution but evolution as a whole. This is wrong because you aren't falsifying macro evolution, your are attempting to falsify evolution in general. " Correct, kind of. I'm giving an example of something that would disprove evolution as a whole instead of targeting "interspecies evolution". But falsifying evolution as a whole would also falsify interspecies evolution, so the point stands.
"As long as we are at it, ID and Creation can be disproved as far as it's claims go"
Really? I challenge you to name one test to be conducted that could potentially have results that disprove ID. I've come up with three for evolution.
"Tests cannot be done to prove interspecies evolution false either." Not true. I've listed three observations that would prove interspecies evolution false: (I'm sure there are more) 1. If small evolutionary changes did not occur over short periods time. The theory of evolution depends on continuous, small changes. But, the genes of populations do slowly change. Genetic drift has been documented repeatedly both in and outside of the lab. 2. If animals didn't share similar genes, that would indicate we are not related to each other. But, all complex animals use the same building blocks. And we share many of the same genes. For example, human genes correspond with 99% of the genes in chimps and 60% of the genes in chickens. 3. If the mechanism for reproduction did not lead to mutations, that would prove the evolutionary theory false. Meiosis and Mitosis lead to many mutations. In fact, sometimes they even lead to extra chromosomes. Unlike ID, evolution can be proven false. It is a falsifiable theory with a vast amount of supporting evidence. That is why it is okay for it to be taught as a scientific theory.
If you are a scientist, why are you opposed to people learning truthful facts? ID is a hypothesis, one that is equally pushed forward and discredited.
In the scientific method, for something to be a scientific hypothesis you must be able to prove it false by observation. Tests cannot be conducted that affirm or disprove the theory that an intelligent creator exists. That is why intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It should not be taught in science classes. It belongs in philosophy and religious classes.
Actually the flu is very good at surviving in the open air in comparison to most viruses and bacteria. Some strains can survive on a surface for up to 48 hours.
Use a little bit of Ethanol. I used to work in a lab where we had to handle Staphylococcus Aureus. We continously sprayed Ethanol on the counters and lab equipment. It kills the vast majority of bacteria, evaporates quickly, and leaves no residue. The more serious disinfecting required heating the equipment in an autoclave. But, we were dealing with large quantities of live, mutant strains. A little bit of Ethnol should be more than adequate.
I wouldn't rent a song for a dime. But I might be willing to permanently own every song an artist has ever written for free. With limewire and torrents, who pays for digital information?
There is a very simple solution to this: Make pron available to any soldier that wants it. It would be very cheap and easy for the government to make copies of porn dvds for the soldiers. It's better for them to be getting porn that is secure, than bootlegged porn that is full of viruses.