Chiroptera, My occupation is not in this feild, mine is in electronics engineering and programming.
thanks for the link, I do apriciate it couse I have always been a true beleiver in keeping a open mind while searching for facts. unlike some people I know. I do my home work. I now need time to read these sites to gain more knowledge, enough to take that to the Univercity to find professional articles on it.
In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation
try again. this is incredibl convoluted. a logical explanation is more than just a speculation. A mathematical description is not conjecture. theories are not opinions.
you have confused the layman's term "theory" with the science term "theory".
what you call "speculation, conjecture" is more like a hypothesis.
A: hey, this is an odd fact. (observation) B: yeah. i wonder if a magnetic field is causing it? (hypothesis). A: could be. let's try and experiment around with that idea. (experimentation) B: sure, okay. experiment done. what does this data mean? A: hmm, well, if it was the magnetic field causing this, we should see X effect. we're seeing effect Y. B: let's run some more experiments A: okay B: odd. same result. effect Y appears over and over. A: conlcusion? magnetic field does not explain observation.
theory: magnetic field is not responsible for odd fact.
as you see, the theory is the last thing to come out of the science process. it has predictive power. this theory predicts that whenever we see the odd fact, a magnetic field does not explain it. when other people see the same result, the theory is confirmed.
ol' Al wrote out discovered a theory (largely using math), which predicted a certain thing. the 1919 team you mentioned confirmed the theory.
theory in science is not speculation, conjecture, opinion. It is an explanation of observations we make, and a theory becomes stronger the more and more it is confirmed. It is a logical explanation of what we observe, based off of what we know. It is not opinion because the theory is being worked with and confirmed by more than one person or group of people. It is not speculation or conjecture because it has been confirmed.
theory is not fact. theory is an explanation of facts.
enough to take that to the Univercity to find professional articles on it.
One of the virtues of recent trends in academic publishing is that to a large extent you no longer need to go to a university library to get access to even recently published research.
There are open access publishers such as PLOS and Biomedcentral not to mention the centralised databases of abstracted reference material such as Entrez which often have links to the full texts of older papers, many journals release their papers after a year or so to open access, Entrez also hosts Pubmed central which is a searchable database of free access full-text journal articles.
If there is any particular topic you want to find papers on I'm sure we could find some on these sources that everyone can get access to.
And when I searched more I found a tree of life, I observe something surprisingâ€”no species on one branch changes into a species on another branch. In each case the species is distinct. There are no links where one species changes into another. Yes, you can line up a dog and a cat and a person, but where is the transitional form that split into the two species?
It's up there, farther back in the tree, at the spot where the branch containing the dog and the branch containing the cat meet. That convergence is their most recent common ancestor from which they're both descended.
Now wait a minute, I don't need to be bashed becouse I said I have a delima to understand, after all I asked for leads then I took the inishative to look it up. and like I said my real feild is in Electronics and programming.
I am still going through the text and learning, I also found more then I expected. I just don't understand the members on this forum.
I also visit a programming forum and WE never treat the newbies to programming like this, infact, having a problem in understanding something becouse of a lack of info, is a healthy process to earning.
I am just beginning my journey into science so I agree I have a ways to go. at least I am doing my home work. and I thank those who gave me leads.
This is only a hobby for me that this time. I hope to have my head wraped around all the info I just gathered up.
I don't mean to come off as you all do to me but with that said I also understand that in this forum it can be hard to tell how something was said, and in what tone.
So I will still hope that most of all this is just a big miss understanding into how something was taken.
couse I was really wondering about that, really and so I did some fact finding to see for my self the overwhelming evidence in detail couse if I adope the theroy of evolution I must have all answers to be fact not assumptions. But I ran into a brick wall.
Part of your problem is that you insist on having all the answers to be fact: no science does this. Theory extends what we know to be facts to explain the rest of the evidence as best it can - the better the theory the more evidence is explained.
Evolution has been observed, speciation has occurred and been observed. This is a fact. Extending that same process to other cases where speciation is not been directly observed but inferred from the evidence is theory.
You need to use other sources of information than creationist ones wehen studying science. The statements on that website are not true. Science uses both the tree of life and cladograms, they are just different ways of looking at the same information and showing the same overall relationships. Cladograms are just branches on the tree of life, looked at in greater detail.
Cladograms are also sometimes based on genetic information alone, and when this is the case the results are so close to the old tree of life arrangement that it reinforces the whole picture. This is secondary evidence of the same overall structure, it would be predicted by evolution, not by any other process, not by creationism, so it acts as a test of the theory, a test that was passed.
And when I searched more I found a tree of life, I observe something surprisingâ€”no species on one branch changes into a species on another branch. In each case the species is distinct. There are no links where one species changes into another.
Again you need to go to original information. That no species on one branch changes into one on another is predicted by evolution - descent from common ancestors means the branching is like a family tree. A species changing into one on another branch would NOT be evolution but something else, more like divine intervention or ID.
All individuals are transitions, and many species are grouped into classifications based on some arbitrary distinctions, especially along time-lines and where speciation events are not defining barriers between species. Within each of these species there is variation with time in the characteristics. Often the amount of change between the last sample of a previous species and the first sample of the next species is significantly less that the variation within the whole group of either species.
Classification is an arbitrary distinction made by humans to assist their understanding, and it is not hard and fast (there are oftem disputes about how many species are involved and which fossils fall into what groups) -- except where speciation events can be identified.
Your right about the fact that I should not use creationist infomation, But I also can't use evolutionists infomation. For instance, I can read evolutionists infomation for leads and understand that side of the coin, and then I can read the creationist infomation on that side also.
Then taking the two views and start my search using info from sources like (AAAS) and (NAS) this way I can confirm arguments of both sides, to see who's argument is in true regards with (AAAS) and (NAS) who by the way should be on no sides.
But so far (AAAS) and (NAS) both have published the said finds on Ediacaran and the mammaliforms but there is no real conclusive evadence about any form of evolution among these. so I was now checking out the finds from Neanderthal, to Cro-Magnon, to Homo sapien. with a open mind that this could be evolution or a species that died out.
But I am finding the evadence to be blured in deed, and now I am treading in waters that clearly shows me why the sciences are broke into two types of science's evolution, creation.
It's funny how I go into this learning stuff I had not known, but still not finding my answer for eather side. In away, both sides have holes here and there, only becouse of the time we are in I am sure.
So this is a delema in deed. Sort of like being in a pickle. hey, but it's a fun journey, and I am sure My journey will never result in my answer, but will give me a more inlightened outlook.
Anyway I now understand why some people are evolustionists while others are creationists, and it all comes from what your predisposition is before you started your learning all this.
For example, IF am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), then no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist.
And then the otherway around IF you already believe in god then every thing you learn in advancement in science is evadence of what god created meaning from DNA to what DNA is build of.
But so far my journey is early, but already I have concluded only one fact and that is that both sides have already proven that the universe had a starting point. sorry if thats not an accurate description, I am trying not to use the word created.
Anyway I am in no way done, so I am sure I will have more things I run into and I might post it to see if others could inject more on it in hopes that, that may lead me to more understanding, or possiblilites. I just hope it wont be taken wrong. and if my predisposition seems to appear as a creationist then it might be becouse I am from a religious background.
All I can do is respect all members even if I get bashed. after all someone should take the ethical stance.
The thing is, though, that Creation "science" isn't actually science at all. They do not use the methods of science. Creation "science's" promotors only call what they do "science" because they are attempting to gain the credability and prestige and legitimacy that real science has. Creation "science" is merely scientific-sounding misinformation, lies, and falsehoods designed to fool the religious gullible and ignorant.
I am in the middle of the issue, and as I see it, there are christian scientists who use the same scientific research and tests. for instance Alan Shepherd - astronaut or Albert Einstein - physicist both are christians and are scientists in their own fields. and there are many more.
It is not fair to cast them off as not good at science based on their religion. I could make the judment that Atheists will always dis-believe god even if they measured his presents and calculated it. But that would be a radical statement and not true, or fair to these people just becouse of their beliefs. I try to sway away from being dishonest and radical in my assertions of people.