{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/18/2015 3:33:17 AM
1
I understand what you're saying, but do you get what I mean when I say there is nothing above a scientific theory?
English
-
A law?.... Scientific theories get disproven all the time in history... A theory is the best we can come up with from our given data.. It would be foolish to close the scientific communities mind to new possibilities.. The entire foundation of science is seeking truth, why would you ever assume you have it completely figured out.. If we did then we may as well stop searching for answers
-
Whoa slow down, a law is not above a theory it is part of one. It would be incredibly foolish to close the scientific communities minds. I never assumed anything was completely figured out. Evolution at its core is a fact. It has been observed etc, we know it happens. But their are various holes in the theory that need to be filled, and possibly previous holes were filled wrong so it needs to change in order to be correct. But at its core it is still true.
-
Right, so how can you say micro and macro are in fact the same? When fossil records show species appear and disappear with no record of leading to the species(in darwins book origins of life) and there was a book published by a university in London in 1990s that stated there is still zero fossil evidence of minute changes from species to species...
-
Darwin's book is not a bible of evolution. Its not the end all be all. Its literally the first publication on the subject so it's going to be flawed. We have expanded the level of knowledge on the matter far past that.
-
That's why I added the part about the university in London reviewing and finding the same findings 150 years later
-
The minute changes were usually in the soft tissue, which decomposed. Also, fossils aren't exactly common or easily-formed..
-
I'd like to know how something as complex as an eye could evolve? First off, how would the being even know light existed.. Second, the eye isn't functional unless it has all the part involved immediately... If the eye slowly was formed trough generations then all generations leading up to it would just have useless tissue/muscle sitting there with no purpose? This is just 1 example...
-
Because the first "eye" was very basic and didn't have enough to meet the demands to survive in the changing world.
-
What it started as was a collection of photoreceptors. Those gradually evolved into sensing color, then movement. The it started to sharpen images.
-
Edited by SPRTN89: 3/18/2015 4:24:17 AMHow did the being ever know light was their? Then color? Or is it all based on luck and time
-
Light has always existed in the known universe. Presumably, these proto-organisms were drawn to it to gather energy, and as such, the ones who could track it fared better. Problem with things is that people forget that terms are arbitrary. Colors are completely a creation of human minds. And it's not..."Luck". It's a combination of favorable genetic changes. Early lifeforms can do things like that with remarkable speed, but the higher you go in the complexity, the slower the changes manifest.
