From: "Robert Comer" 

> I wasn't trying to define "science". Are you claiming that there is a
> scientific fact known with 100% accuracy and certainty?

Definitely.

>How about a
> scientific theory that attempts to describe how the universe operates?

Nope, and there's your difference, "fact" and "theory".
 A science fact is that we need oxygen to survive, and science theory is
that the big bang happened.

> I was addressing the issue of what it means to observe evolution. You
> can't actually do it in the way that some here have suggested would be
> required in order to verify that evolution is an accurate theory (you
> can't do it because it is logically impossible given the definition of
> what evolution is).
>
> If you travelled in a time machine from 1 billion years ago in the past,
> through to the present time, pausing to sample life every 100 years, you
> would observe NO EVOLUTION! However, you would notice that life has
> imperceptibly got a LOT more complex than it used to be, and a lot of
> things are walking around now that weren't walking around before.

I disagree, one can observe evolution, all you need is time and wide enough
field of perception.

Of course it could be compressed down a lot if you have organisms that live
days rather than years...

> For an example of how you CAN observe evolution, I am told that if you
> study a large variety of different species (particularly in the oceans),
> you can observe a vast array of different light-sensing organs. Taken
> together, you can observe how an eye can evolve.

Now that's a stretch.


--
Bob Comer


"John Beckett"  wrote
in message news:1seon1htbvviimuc948kqnm28jtjpqnldb{at}4ax.com...
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news::
>> > The wonder of science is that you never get a knock-out, 100%
>> > certifiable
>> > PROOF. It is all just probability.
>>
>> That's not really the definition of science.
>
> I wasn't trying to define "science". Are you claiming that there is a
> scientific fact known with 100% accuracy and certainty? How about a
> scientific theory that attempts to describe how the universe operates?
>
>> > It may be time to point out that people often have a very confused
>> > concept
>> > of what is involved in a species transition. You will never find a hen
>> > with any offspring other than chickens via eggs. You will never find a
>> > hen's egg that gives anything but a chicken.
>>
>> I know that, but you will have transitional forms.
>
> I was addressing the issue of what it means to observe evolution. You
> can't actually do it in the way that some here have suggested would be
> required in order to verify that evolution is an accurate theory (you
> can't do it because it is logically impossible given the definition of
> what evolution is).
>
> If you travelled in a time machine from 1 billion years ago in the past,
> through to the present time, pausing to sample life every 100 years, you
> would observe NO EVOLUTION! However, you would notice that life has
> imperceptibly got a LOT more complex than it used to be, and a lot of
> things are walking around now that weren't walking around before.
>
>> > One species does not become another species in any way that would be
>> > recognisable to an observer. It takes MANY generations, with
>> > imperceptible
>> > differences between each parent and their offspring.
>>
>> I disagree, some species have such a fast generational turnover that it's
>> possible.
>
> You can only observe that the "final" product is
significantly different
> from the initial product.
>
> For an example of how you CAN observe evolution, I am told that if you
> study a large variety of different species (particularly in the oceans),
> you can observe a vast array of different light-sensing organs. Taken
> together, you can observe how an eye can evolve.
>
> John
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5