Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
I would appreciate a reference to what causes gravity.
What does astronomy have to do with any of this...?
General consensus seems to be that the Neanderthals died out as a result of competition, from sociocultural advantages possessed by homo sapiens. There is no such thing as lesser evolved animals. Evolution isn't a progressive process, to speak of more or less evolved animals doesn't make sense. Animals either did, or did not, adapt to their respective environments. Also animals like monkeys have not stopped evolving. You are also confused about scientific laws and theories.
What’s the difference between a scientific law and theory? (in TED-Ed GIFs)
Chat with a friend about an established scientific theory, and she might reply, “Well, that’s just a theory.” But a conversation about an established scientific law rarely ends with “Well, that’s j…blog.ed.ted.com
So while the majority of the scientific community consider the theory of evolution to be scientific fact it still isn't a proven fact hense the designation of evolution being a theory instead of law...
Nothing to do with the thread, sure, sorry 🤣That's a rather startling "headline"; has nothing to do with the article though.
I suppose there could be such a thing as the extent of evolution, in the sense of a certain proportion of animals possessing traits to pass them on, with the minority not possessing said traits. Eventually though, the evolution should be expected to be greater as there reaches a point where some animals without kids decrease.
.
Maybe your article somehow fits in with the thread, that's really beside the point.
Ah whoops, typo 🤣.
Actually what I was talking about was YOUR "headline" of "... a guy lives underwater for 100 years." when the article says "100 DAYS".
Thought I was reading the National Enquirer for a minute there.
How am I confused about laws and theories...?
So...scientific theories propose things...a proposition is not proven fact...laws predict things...when a prediction from a law scrolls actually happens that proves the scientific law to be true...theories try to explain because we can't see them actually happening therefore cannot be proven to be true even though they might be true...so scientific theories are based on belief while scientific laws are based on our ability to observe them actually happening...we can observe theories actually happening unlike scientific laws...
Thanks for restating exactly what I said earlier. You're still wrong, btw.
How wrong...?
Well if links to dictionaries and TedTalks aren't enough proof for you then nothing will be enough for you...
Haha...ok...well if it's so undeniable then why are there people that deny it? There haha now I'm ending the debate...
It’s been observed in laboratories in real time, using selective breeding. Take the horse for example.
www.britannica.com
There are people that still believe the Earth is flat...
Well we can see it's not flat but we can't see evolutions taking place the way the theory of evolution describes that's the difference...
Ok but that still doesn't explain why the human evolution theory has us changing species from monkeys to Neanderthals to homo sapiens etc...plus just because horses are observed to adapt to their environments doesn't prove that it can happen to humans too...specifically it hasn't been observed yet that those horses have changed into horses that can talk and think like homo sapiens...It’s been observed in laboratories in real time, using selective breeding. Take the horse for example.
Horse - Evolution, Domestication, Anatomy
Horse - Evolution, Domestication, Anatomy: The history of the horse family, Equidae, began during the Eocene Epoch. Eohippus (Hyracotherium) was the first ancestral horse to appear. The line leading from Eohippus to Equus, the modern horse, includes Orohippus, Epihippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus...
It isn't so much about the prevalence of the traits in question, but rather the notion that evolution itself isn't a progressive process. It isn't about the species themselves improving and becoming more evolved, as evolution isn't an optimization process. It is about those that are able to adapt to their respective niches better than the other alternatives. So within a single species we can see through the evolutionary process those that were better able to adapt to a particular niche, we can also observe this between species that were competing within the same niche. However it doesn't make much sense to speak of one animal as being more evolved than another. The example they gave of monkeys, implies that when humans and monkeys branched out from our common ancestor only humans kept evolving which is patently false.
You are underselling theories while also overselling laws. Your implication seems to be that theories are uniquely a result of social processes and the current general consensus, whereas laws are not. While I agree when you discuss the difference in their scope and what they seek to explain, laws can also be seen as the current consensus on their respective issue and have been historically show to change.
Yes but bottom line is that theories are not proven unlike laws...that is at least the simplest ways to put it...I don't think it's underselling to explain that therioes are not observable facts unlike laws...
Concerning the Neanderthal, anthropologist studies state that we interbred with them.
