That's not a response, PapaG, that's a random assertion with no substance. I did address the (old and long-settled) point at hand: transitory systems.
How did proto-lungs and proto-gills develop? Have lungs and gills been developed in a controlled laboratory setting from proto-lungs and proto-gills?
So in prison; we could have mutations of men that develop both reproductive systems? There are lifers in there that will never have a woman again. You would think there would be some modern macro-evolution or even "micro-evolution" taking place. It's the perfect "petri dish" to observe a change. Men or woman that serve life sentences are in an environment that they cannot reproduce with the same sex.
It's not a "long-settled" point at hand, at least in terms of a scientific law. It's a nice theory, though.
The problem is that the "gay gene" is anti-evolution, at least in terms of natural selection and advancement of a species via procreation. That's the dirty secret that nobody wants to bring up. Mankind has overcome that problem with science, though, meaning that a genetic anomaly can flourish. I suppose it could be argued that this science is a part of the evolutionary process, though, and could even be extended to the animal world, where man could artificially impregnate gay animals to keep a genetic variance alive.
nobody thinks a fish was suddenly born with lungs. there are true fish that walk on land for extended periods today to find food, and it's no stretch at all to think that such a species in the past could gradually have had small modifications that make use of oxygen through the digestive tract selected for. this is false. it takes very special conditions for bones to fossilize.
That's pretty much my opinion. We don't know, and to me, it's OK not to know. Making up numbers (99% of all species are extinct), without that number being validated by the fossil record, isn't 'scientific' at all. I guess I just don't see why it is so hard for people to admit that there are large holes in evolutionary theory. "Read this article" isn't an answer.
I agree. And I think that's why there is so much hesitation on the OP. If there is such a thing as a "gay gene"; then it would go against evolution.
The question of transitory systems is long-settled. And while you keep harping on the word "theory," the word "theory" in science is much more robust than it is in casual conversation. Something doesn't rise to the level of theory in science until its fulfilled many requirements. In some ways, it's a stronger result than a law, because a law regards a single dynamic while theories bind together many dynamics, supported by evidence and predictive power.
yes we do. it's easily (approximately) inferred from evolution itself and the nature of the fossil record, which we know must represent only a tiny percentage of species that have existed.
Theory is stronger than law in terms of science. Um, OK. Thanks for the lesson, Dr. Gore. Don't address any of the questions being raised. Just say 'the science is settled', and mock those asking questions about the obvious holes.
But theory must always have a strict regeim of being proved wrong. That's what makes it a scientific theory. So questions on the theory and trying to prove it wrong is actually very positive for science. So we are doing evolution a favor. The more you try proving it wrong; the better chances it holds its ground. If the theory isn't sound; eventually it will be dismissed. It's only just a matter of time.
Anyone that thinks science has settled anything other than "scientific law" are people that really doesn't know science.
In some ways, yes. The requirements for a scientific theory are extremely rigorous and theories require many more components than laws do.
I agree that questioning and challenging theories is positive. But asking the same questions (ones that have already been answered) over and over doesn't do anything for science.
Scientific theory must have a rigorgous regime of trying to prove it wrong. Only then is when you find out if the theory holds up. So why are you so against Christians or other scientists that want to prove it wrong? They are holding their end of the bargin to solidify evolution. If evolution isn't sound; then it will eventually be exposed. That is the puriest science.
Adding theory to theory isn't settling anything. The questions can still be asked because they haven't had enough evidence to stop that questioning. If that was the case; then things would already be settled. And even to this day; there are tests and tests to try and disprove many things we take for granted like energy sources, treatment of bacterial infections, hell even coloring hair.
It is settled in the scientific community. Those who ask these same questions (note, I'm not referring to new challenges) are people who haven't studied biology and evolution or a very tiny minority of scientists. And while there are some that will argue that that very tiny minority of scientists are the ones fighting a massive scientific conspiracy, the truth is that there are a minority who will challenge anything, even things you think are obvious. I have no problems with challenges to any theory or law (laws are also not proven...nothing in science can ever be proven, because we don't know all the rules of the universe), but they should be ones that haven't already been understood and well explained.
