Here's the rules: I want ONE reason, the best, for why/why not evolution is true, do not argue back and forth, just show me your best evidance. Thanks!

Evidence supporting macro-evolution: fossils.

when we come out the womb we dont come out full grown we come out as babies and must grow and learn just as everything else (almost). This is evident in all of nature why not on a much grander scale. we started as cavemen and now we're damn near spacemen. Growing, learnig, EVOLVING! :eek:
-gw-

I'd have to go with the changes wrought in domesticated animals by breeding programs. This is evolution on a fast scale.

The ability of a virus or bacteria to evolve over very small time-scales. For example, the AIDS virus or the emergence of anti-biotic resistant strains of staff infections in hospitals.

Here's some pretty good evidence of evolution:
- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
(Observations of speciation [formation of a new biological species]).

Because there is no credible alternate explanation for life on Earth.

when we come out the womb we dont come out full grown we come out as babies and must grow and learn just as everything else (almost). This is evident in all of nature why not on a much grander scale. we started as cavemen and now we're damn near spacemen. Growing, learnig, EVOLVING! :eek:
-gw-That's a whole different kind of evolution. Or rather, the evolution of something other than species.

Pure and simple... evolution is fact. EVERY piece of evidence points at it.

The actual process is still up for debate,

Can we debate this elseware please.

Lol, you brought it up.

No, I specifically asked you to provide one piece of evidence and NOT debate with each other.

best piece of evidence?
well the discovery of Lucy, the australopethicus, is pretty convincing, it is a solid proof that we have ancient ancestors, and we evolved something else long ago, Lucy is the oldest KNOWN human ancestor. with the help of forensic science and other scientific fields, we are able to determine that species, esp. primates like Austrolopethicus, shared a lot of common features with modern H. sapiens, for instance, Austrolopethicus is believed to be the first species to walk upright on two legs

Darwin's theory of natural selection was pretty much strongly supported after his trip around the world on H.M.S. Beagle, he found adaptation in different kinds of species

Darwin got even more support when Crick and Watson discovered DNA, and proved that genes can be mutated and pass down to generations, and these mutations can be induced by the environment. and this difference in the genes helped evolution and natural selection (survival of the fittest)

You are not the same as your mother and father. They are not the same as their parents. Conclusion: organisms change from generation to generation. This change over time is called evolution.

Darwin got even more support when Crick and Watson discovered DNA, and proved that genes can be mutated and pass down to generations, and these mutations can be induced by the environment. and this difference in the genes helped evolution and natural selection (survival of the fittest)
They didn't discover DNA, they wrote the paper describing its structure.

You are not the same as your mother and father. They are not the same as their parents. Conclusion: organisms change from generation to generation. This change over time is called evolution.
Yep, I agree that this is the most overwhelming evidence. Its blatant and irrefutable. Sexual reproduction + time = evolution.
Also yes domestic animals are good too.
Even if that was all you knew, you'd think "hmmm that means a long time ago animals would have been different" and then what do you know we have fossils. It all works out perfectly and makes perfect sense. It couldn't be wrong at this stage.
Look at it like a jigsaw puzzle of a mermaid. You have the fishy tail, the womans body, the ocean, there are just tiny little pieces missing in what you can tell is obviously going to be sand. There is no way the jigsaw puzzle will end up being anything else, you can see that its a mermaid. But, technically, the puzzle isn't finished. Apparently this means it isn't a mermaid? No, its definately a mermaid. Evolution definately occurs in living organisms and is definately the explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
The theory of evolution isn't technically a fact because that puzzle isn't finished, but the picture is well and truely visible and it is a fact that the picture we can already see is evolution, not creation or anything else. Evolution.

How about those british moths whose color darkened after a few generations? Industrial pollution had covered the tree trunks with soot, so having a darker color represented an advantage over the light colored moths, who were easily spotted by predators.

Here's the rules: I want ONE reason, the best, for why/why not evolution is true, do not argue back and forth, just show me your best evidance. Thanks!

:bugeye:

The whole premise of your request is faulty. There is no single “best” evidence for evolution, or any other scientific theory. Theories are formulated on the basis of large bodies of experimental and observational evidence, from repeated re-testing and re-sampling, from <I>de novo</I> predictions using the theory and evaluation of those predications. The ToE derives from studies of anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, genetics, microbiology, botany, zoology, and also from non-biological sciences like geology and paleontology. And many more on top of these fields. Trying to offer a single piece of evidence for any theory is silly as any single piece of evidence can potentially be explained numerous ways. Scientific theories are not formulated this way.

I figured, that in everybody's opinion, one piece of evidece must stand out as proof more than something else. then I thought that if a bunch of people give one piece of evidence, you can combine it all into a group of statements that best support the theory.

Pure and simple... evolution is fact. EVERY piece of evidence points at it.

The actual process is still up for debate,

I disagree. I think the opposite, that some parts of the fossil record may be debated by evolutionary biologists as to what evolution happened but that all evolution can be explained by the process of natural selection.

Maybe u meant something different by that sentence?

I think ERVs are good evidence. There was a good thread on this at christianforums.com, you should check it out:

Ancient Remnants of Viral Infection Demonstrate Evolution Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (http://www.christianforums.com/t65114&goto=nextnewest)

Another good thread from the same poster:

Some of the evidence for chimp-human common ancestry. (http://www.christianforums.com/t40560&page=1)

Both posts are long reads, but it's worth it.

Genetic relation of all species as well as linage and mapping of ancestry genetically.

The only way this would be possible without evolution is if "god(s)" liked to trick people by making it look like one species is the genetic ancestor of another. Unfortunately anti-evolutions might find that a good argument with their delusional logic.

Hmm...
The fact that everyone is posting evidence for it, not against it. :P

I disagree. I think the opposite, that some parts of the fossil record may be debated by evolutionary biologists as to what evolution happened but that all evolution can be explained by the process of natural selection.I meant that we don't really know the process of evolution. We just see the results and infer natural selection as a limiting factor... but that's not addressing the actual evolution.

What do u mean by 'actual evolution'?
There is no other means of explaining evolution as far as I can tell other than natural selection, and there's not too much wrong with that theory. We do know the process of evolution on a short-timescale but we cannot prove that it has occured over large time-scales.

but we cannot prove that it has occured over large time-scales.

fossil record.

That cannot prove the NS theory but it strongly suggests it and I think anyone is a fool not to believe NS is the process.

Hmm...
The fact that everyone is posting evidence for it, not against it. :P

Just because the majority of people believe something does not make it true. the majority of the world still does not believe in evolution for example.

What do u mean by 'actual evolution'?
There is no other means of explaining evolution as far as I can tell other than natural selection, and there's not too much wrong with that theory. We do know the process of evolution on a short-timescale but we cannot prove that it has occured over large time-scales.Just because there is no other theory besides NS doesn't mean it is right... and there ARE holes in it.

For all intestive purposes we can prove that it has occured over large timespans. We just can't prove why beyond any doubt. We know for a fact that creatures have changed.

Just because the majority of people believe something does not make it true. the majority of the world still does not believe in evolution for example.
First of all, you ought to have noticed the ":P" at the end that indicated my post was one of humor. I'm perfectly aware that beliefs don't alter reality no matter how many people believe it. Second, the majority of the world doesn't believe in evolution because the majority is unaware of it. Amongst educated people, the majority believe it. And they should. Evolution is both fact and theory. The theory of evolution concerns the mechanism of evolution, but the fact of it's existence cannot logically be denied.

Sure I know you were joking. :D

but I would have to disagree on the reasoning about why people don't believe in evolution, lets take the USofA, though redneckish and retarded mentally in many ways it’s still a first world country and yet the majority does not believe in evolution.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

That cannot prove the NS theory but it strongly suggests it and I think anyone is a fool not to believe NS is the process.

Just because there is no other theory besides NS doesn't mean it is right... and there ARE holes in it.

For all intestive purposes we can prove that it has occured over large timespans. We just can't prove why beyond any doubt. We know for a fact that creatures have changed.


here is a quote on proof

Evidence not proof We often hear news stories in which the narrator refers to having ?enough proof.? This is an example of confusing the terms, ?proof? and ?evidence.? The term, ?proof,? is used in geometry and in courts of law but does not belong in science. Scientists gather evidence to support or falsify hypotheses. Hypotheses and theories may be well supported by evidence, but never proven.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml

conclusion:
Yes, the fossil record is clearly an example of evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

I would rather gladly hear about the big holes in natural selection because I have never heard about them before.

1) the rate of evolution
2) origin of first living cell
3) evolution of things that are not wholly genetically dependant (language)

1) the rate of evolution
The rate of evolution is simply the rate of reproduction. Each generation is a step in evolution so it depends on the species.

2) origin of first living cell
This is kind of difficult, but he did ask for holes in natural selection, which differs from the theory of evolution as a whole.
Besides, the building blocks of life have been reproduced in laboratory conditions using heat and water with a simulated precipitation cycle. These 'building blocks' have shown they can join together, its really not a big step. This isn't a big hole as much as its one piece of the 10 000 000 000 piece puzzle that isn't in place, we can still see the big picture quite clearly.

3) evolution of things that are not wholly genetically dependant (language)
Why would that be a problem? :confused: We know exactly how it happens if you're over 10 you've watched it evolve in your own life time. Its called cultural evolution and works exactly like biological evolution. Not with genetics because it has nothing to do with genetics, the actual animal doesn't change in cultural evolution.
Even in biological evolution the genetics aren't the important part that need to be understood. You just need to know in a litter of 7 kittens, 4 avoid dogs, 4 survive and pass on their dog avoiding qualities. Over time the population of felines becomes more suited to avoiding dogs, in body and mind. Its very basic. If you get caught up in the text book stuff you lose sight of the whole essence of the concept.

Its called cultural evolution and works exactly like biological evolution. Not with genetics because it has nothing to do with genetics, the actual animal doesn't change in cultural evolution.

Phonemes, isn't it? Cultural "genes"... It's like the "Wassuuuuup!" That was a phoneme that spread over a large area. Did it make it to Europe? Australia? How far did it go?

The proper term is "meme"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=memes
for example a handshake or the act of shaking hands is a meme, a transmittable learnable behavior. Language, Religion, Philosophies all of these are also memes. Culture and technology evolve, but they evolve less like Darwinian or natural evolution and more like Lamarckian evolution because we can mutate and improve on a behavior or technology by intelligent will, unlike in Darwinian evolution where mutations seem to happen by random chance.

The rate of evolution is simply the rate of reproduction. Each generation is a step in evolution so it depends on the species.I disagree here. The rate of evolution seems to change wildly.
Agreed.
[quote]Not with genetics because it has nothing to do with genetics, the actual animal doesn't change in cultural evolution.I'm not sure about this. Memes are only possible it we are bilogically capable of understand/using them. the ability to understand/use them is only usefull with the memes.

Other animals have memes: for example even songbird have songs specific to the region with bird in another region of the same species having different songs! Its simply a matter of being able to learn from example.

I disagree here. The rate of evolution seems to change wildly.

What is exactly the problem with that?

Just because there is no other theory besides NS doesn't mean it is right... and there ARE holes in it.

What do u mean by right? Very few theorys may be considered right (even relativity) but they work. However, of all theories u pick to argue this, Natural selection is one which actually does happen both theoretically and practically.

For all intestive purposes we can prove that it has occured over large timespans. We just can't prove why beyond any doubt. We know for a fact that creatures have changed.

Again I disagree completely with your viewpoint. We cannot prove that Natural selection has given rise to all of evolution but we know exactly why and how it occurs and also from that, we can prove that it must take account for a large part of it (if not all of it).

What do u mean by right?complete Very few theorys may be considered right (even relativity) but they work. However, of all theories u pick to argue this, Natural selection is one which actually does happen both theoretically and practically.I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm saying that it doesn't appear to account for everything that falls under the category of evolution.We cannot prove that Natural selection has given rise to all of evolutionThat would be a neat trick. Please expand on that.

So problem causes the variable rate of evolution for the concept of naural selection persol?

You have to point it out because it is not obvious to me.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I'm saying that it doesn't appear to account for everything that falls under the category of evolution.

But thats not a problem with NS. We've already established THAT happens. Its more of a problem with current evolutionary theory if u believe it.

That would be a neat trick. Please expand on that.

I menat the same thing u did when u said there were holes in NS. U tell ME what those holes in evolution are since u probably know them better than i, and also I don't really beieve there is a problem with NS.

But thats not a problem with NS. We've already established THAT happens. Its more of a problem with current evolutionary theory if u believe it.That's my point. People always use NS as what 'put us here', but evolution is more than natural selection.I menat the same thing u did when u said there were holes in NS. U tell ME what those holes in evolution are since u probably know them better than i, and also I don't really beieve there is a problem with NS.Lol, nope. My claim (which may be false) is based on:
a reading of 'dumbed down' versions of articles on evolution
the fact that people still research areas of it

I see that you are ignoring your own claims.

Hence I shall assume you can't find any problem with natural selection.

My claim (which may be false) is based on: a reading of 'dumbed down' versions of articles on evolution the fact that people still research areas of itThe science of evolution contains both facts and theories. Mutation, Natural Selection, and Heredity are facts; they have been observed and tested. Historical evolution (how exactly it all happened) is far more complex and is largely theoretical.

~Raithere

Which is all I was trying to say....

The science of evolution contains both facts and theories. Mutation, Natural Selection, and Heredity are facts; they have been observed and tested. Historical evolution (how exactly it all happened) is far more complex and is largely theoretical.

~Raithere

Historical evolution has also been recorded quite nicely with the fossil record. Is there really a need to test it when it is displayed quite obviously? Also relationships between genomes indicate historical evolution. These models have been observed and tested also. Moreover if natural selection is observed and tested than automatically historical evolution is observed and tested. Natural selection is after all a historical process and affect evolution. It is a bit strange to disentangle both concepts.

Is there really a need to test it when it is displayed quite obviously? How it happened, and that it happened are two different things... as I was first trying to say.

I've never really studied fossils, so I don't know much about those. But personally I don't see how anyone could look at the specific biochemical steps involved in ATP production and not think that it was a process that evolved gradually over time. You can clearly see how organisms used to use some ATP variant, then tweaked it a little, then a little more, and so on. There are all sorts of useless steps that make unnecessary modifications to the molecules involved that used to be part of a previous energy production scheme, but are no longer necessary with the current process. Even though the process changed, some of residual steps are still present – even though they don't really do anything. Sort of the biochemical equivalent of a vestigial organ.

Natural selection is after all a historical process and affect evolution. It is a bit strange to disentangle both concepts.I did say theoretical, not hypothetical. There is indeed a large body of supporting evidence (fossils, genetic comparison) as you mentioned. But there is a definite difference between paleontology and biology, between inference and observation. The reason why I go through the trouble of explaining the difference is that most attacks upon evolution make use of the unknowns within paleontology to attack Evolution as a whole. Explaining that Evolution is an observed fact, as well as a body of theories that address how it is likely to have occurred, demonstrates that you cannot invalidate Evolution quite so simply.

Is there really a need to test it when it is displayed quite obviously?I thought you were a scientist.

~Raithere

Genetics tests it every day, guess what with every genome, cDNA, mtDNA, ect sequence, we find more and more proof that its true.

What do u mean by 'actual evolution'?
There is no other means of explaining evolution as far as I can tell other than natural selection, and there's not too much wrong with that theory. We do know the process of evolution on a short-timescale but we cannot prove that it has occured over large time-scales.
Hi John,

I need to intervene here. Sorry.

Evolution is the change in genetic frequency in a population per generation,

since this change can occur without natural selection (i.e. neutral changes), then evolution can occur without natural selection.

sorry for butting in

I've never really studied fossils, so I don't know much about those. But personally I don't see how anyone could look at the specific biochemical steps involved in ATP production and not think that it was a process that evolved gradually over time. You can clearly see how organisms used to use some ATP variant, then tweaked it a little, then a little more, and so on. There are all sorts of useless steps that make unnecessary modifications to the molecules involved that used to be part of a previous energy production scheme, but are no longer necessary with the current process. Even though the process changed, some of residual steps are still present – even though they don't really do anything. Sort of the biochemical equivalent of a vestigial organ.
That is extremely interesting.

Do you have any scientific references (from scientific journals) that examine this phenomenon in more detail?

TIA

ya, most biochem textbooks, he simply stating his opinion based of biochemical pathways and their variations.

since this change can occur without natural selection (i.e. neutral changes), then evolution can occur without natural selection.Is it still considered evolution though if there is no driving force.

I guess my question is, what's the difference between a mutation and evolution? I thought evolution required a 'better' (at least temporary) outcome to be evolution.

ya, most biochem textbooks, he simply stating his opinion based of biochemical pathways and their variations.
you misunderstand me.

i am looking for review papers on the evolutionary significance of residual/vestigal steps in biochemical pathways.

i'm hoping that Nasor can provide some refs.

I find that very doubtful, by the way do you have evidence against his hypothesis? Perhaps you could post your evidence then.

I find that very doubtful, by the way do you have evidence against his hypothesis? Perhaps you could post your evidence then.
what do you find doubtful, that Nasor can find the refs., or that i am looking for refs., or that such refs. exist?

of which hypothesis do you speak?

i am asking for references for my own edification.

WCF, thank you for your reply, but you need not spend any more time on this.

all 3

Nasor's

sure you are.

why not?

Just couple months ago, scientist actually observed creation of a new specie for the very first time - the creature of a new specie of fruit fly. I am too lazy to look up links right now. That supposingly is the final piece of the puzzle.

I haven't seen any articles about it in academic journals, what I said was just based on what I read in my biochemistry textbook and the accompanying lecture.

Here's a really poor explanation of what I'm talking about. I realize that it's pretty confusing, but I can't think of a simpler way to explain it. Basically it looks like this:

An organism uses molecule X, which is made from A, B, and C. So A+B+C=X. Then later an organism improves on X, so now it uses Y, which is made by adding D. So A+B+C=X, then X+D=Y. Then the organism improves on it again, making Z, the ultimate in energy storage. The thing is, Z is only made from A, B, D, and a new ingredient E, but no C is used. But instead of making it A+B+D+E=Z, the organism has to make it via A+B+C=X, then X+D=Y, then Y+E-C=Z. The element C is no longer part of the final product Z, but there's no way for the organism to eliminate the step in which C is added because there's no way 'back up' the sequence. The organism is able to add new steps to the biochemical pathway, but if it eliminated a step it wouldn't be able to produce its energy storage molecules and it would die. If the organism had been 'intelligently designed' then one would expect it to simply follow a mechanism of A+B+D+E=Z, without having to add and then later remove parts of the molecule.

I don't remember the specific molecular steps, but I can probably dig out my biochem notes if everyone's really curious.

Nasor,

Look up purine degradation and how it varies in different classes of animals, I think you will be rather surprised.

all 3
you may be right about 1 and 3 but i assure you i am interested in finding the refs.

Nasor's
that was not an hypothesis, it was an observation

sure you are.
that's very insulting, and uncalled for, i might add

why not?
because you're not being particularly helpful in regards to my asking for refs, and i wouldn't want to waste any more of your time

I don't remember the specific molecular steps, but I can probably dig out my biochem notes if everyone's really curious.
Thanks for the reply. No need to go back into your notes.

This is a very interesting phenomenon with large potential evolutionary significance.

I'll be following up on it if anyone is interested.

Is it a observation? To observe it means there must be data on it being like that. No actuall data has been show yet, a hypothesis is just a idea on how something maybe, it requires no data.

Nasor,

Look up purine degradation and how it varies in different classes of animals, I think you will be rather surprised.
here's an article on purine degradation that one might find interesting

Metabolism. 2004 Jun;53(6):772-6. Related Articles, Links

Effect of sauna bathing and beer ingestion on plasma concentrations of purine bases.

Yamamoto T, Moriwaki Y, Ka T, Takahashi S, Tsutsumi Z, Cheng J, Inokuchi T, Yamamoto A, Hada T.

Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.

To determine whether sauna bathing alone or in combination with beer ingestion increases the plasma concentration of uric acid, 5 healthy subjects were tested. Urine and plasma measurements were performed before and after each took a sauna bath, ingested beer, and ingested beer just after taking a sauna bath, with a 2-week interval between each activity. Sauna bathing alone increased the plasma concentrations of uric acid and oxypurines (hypoxanthine and xanthine), and decreased the urinary and fractional excretion of uric acid, while beer ingestion alone increased the plasma concentrations and urinary excretion of uric acid and oxypurines. A combination of both increased the plasma concentration of uric acid and oxypurines, and decreased the urinary and fractional excretion of uric acid, with an increase in the urinary excretion of oxypurines. The increase in plasma concentration of uric acid with the combination protocol was not synergistic as compared to the sum of the increases by each alone. Body weight, urine volume, and the urinary excretion of sodium and chloride via dehydration were decreased following sauna bathing alone. These results suggest that sauna bathing had a relationship with enhanced purine degradation and a decrease in the urinary excretion of uric acid, leading to an increase in the plasma concentration of uric acid. Further, we concluded that extracellular volume loss may affect the common renal transport pathway of uric acid and xanthine. Therefore, it is recommended that patients with gout refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages, including beer, after taking a sauna bath, since the increase in plasma concentration of uric acid following the combination of sauna bathing and beer ingestion was additive.

Is it a observation? To observe it means there must be data on it being like that. No actuall data has been show yet, a hypothesis is just a idea on how something maybe, it requires no data.
an hypothesis is based on observations of natural phenomena. i.e. it isn't formulated de novo

Here's the rules: I want ONE reason, the best, for why/why not evolution is true, do not argue back and forth, just show me your best evidance. Thanks! Our skin & coat is just like sea/water creatures, our physical structure is like most of earth's animals, we walk like birds, I can't understand what we aquired from whom on evolution? :D

Just couple months ago, scientist actually observed creation of a new specie for the very first time - the creature of a new specie of fruit fly. I am too lazy to look up links right now. That supposingly is the final piece of the puzzle.

Isn't in in the very definition of macroevolution that it takes hundreds of years for such a thing to happen?

No, it depends on how fast the species produces new generations. Bacteria and fruit flies do so very quickly, and both of them have been observed to produce new species.

Isn't in in the very definition of macroevolution that it takes hundreds of years for such a thing to happen?

And even if it did, all you got to do is be in the right place at the right time and bam. New species. Just because it may take hundreds of thousands of years or whatnot, if you're at the end of the cycle there it is.

paulsamuel,

watch this: I propose that some particles may travel faster then light. that is a hypothesis, whats my observation?

I hardly see how the article is helpful in this discusion, try a article that shows what purines are degragated into, In humens its uric acid, in other mammals its .... in frogs its... :D then look at the pathways, you might find that it goes against Nasor hypothesis.

paulsamuel,

watch this: I propose that some particles may travel faster then light. that is a hypothesis, whats my observation?

that's not science, which is what we're discussing.

perhaps you could use a review of the scientific method;

from;

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

I hardly see how the article is helpful in this discusion, try a article that shows what purines are degragated into, In humens its uric acid, in other mammals its .... in frogs its... :D then look at the pathways, you might find that it goes against Nasor hypothesis.

well, I posted it cause it was kind of funny, all I could think of were the test subjects drinking beer in a sauna. guess you didn't 'get it.'

well, I posted it cause it was kind of funny, all I could think of were the test subjects drinking beer in a sauna. guess you didn't 'get it.'

also, the poor experimenters having to collect the pee of a bunch of beer drunk guys (and maybe gals) in a sauna :)

that scene could be in a movie

that not science jee I have heard that hypothesis allot in physics. The hypothesis tachyon particle may not exist and has no evidence or observations yet of its existence but it sure is science. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html
I know what the scientific method is, but you don't need a observation to formulate a hypothesis.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis
very first diffinition: 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument

I know what the scientific method is, but you don't need a observation to formulate a hypothesis. [/B]
you don't know what a the scientific method is, because if you did, you would know that scientific hypotheses are based on observations.

i'm not a physicist, but i don't believe you are either, so if tachyon particle hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis, then it's based on observation

in fact the website you linked contains all kinds of mathematical observation upon which the hypothesis is based. didn't you read your own link?

I know they are usually, but its not a requirement. A tachyon is based on the observation that there is a speed limit, what would happen if something could go over that speed limit, and the mathematics accompanying that. If you call that an observation then Nasor hypothesis that similarity of biochemical pathways provides evidence to evolution is well founded in the "observations" he has provided us.

I know they are usually, but its not a requirement. A tachyon is based on the observation that there is a speed limit, what would happen if something could go over that speed limit, and the mathematics accompanying that. If you call that an observation then Nasor hypothesis that similarity of biochemical pathways provides evidence to evolution is well founded in the "observations" he has provided us.

no, you misunderstand me again. i have always been talking about the observation that Nasor stated, i.e.

There are all sorts of useless steps that make unnecessary modifications to the molecules involved that used to be part of a previous energy production scheme, but are no longer necessary with the current process. Even though the process changed, some of residual steps are still present – even though they don't really do anything. Sort of the biochemical equivalent of a vestigial organ.

NOT the hypothesis that this provides evidence of evolution.

therefore the mathematical observations leading to the hypothesis of tachyons are analogous to the biochemical observations stated by Nasor that can lead one to the hypothesis that the 'vestigal' steps in biochemical pathways are evidence of evolution

I know what the scientific method is, but you don't need a observation to formulate a hypothesis.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis
very first diffinition: 1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument

further down on the webpage you linked

"synonyms HYPOTHESIS, THEORY, LAW mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. [/b]"

if you're going to use weblinks to support your arguments, you really ought to read those links

what observation, I don't see it? Has he shown us any biochemical pathways? He as provided no evidence as of yet that such a things exist. he has provided no observation as observation is based on a sighted fact. If I said I saw a big purple dinosaur walking down the street is that a observation?

A word has many definitions, if you can't handle alternate definitions for hypothesis that’s your problem.

what observation, I don't see it? Has he shown us any biochemical pathways? He as provided no evidence as of yet that such a things exist. he has provided no observation as observation is based on a sighted fact. If I said I saw a big purple dinosaur walking down the street is that a observation?

A word has many definitions, if you can't handle alternate definitions for hypothesis that’s your problem.
i'm trying to teach you the scientific method, which you appear not to understand.

nasor was merely relating what he read in his biochem text of the observations that biochemists have made regarding these 'vestigal' steps. there is no reason for either of us to believe that he was lying about them, and since you indicated that you had heard of them, then they are observations upon which an hypothesis can be formulated. this is quite different from your purple dinosaur example, and how embarassing for you that you think they are analogous

I been though the scientific method since high school, paulsamuel you should have learn by now that there is nothing you will ever teach me. We will just spend our time here spinning are wheels, your never going to accept anything I say and I never going to listen to anything you say about me and its a waste of time arguing about things we will never do.

A observation is to say "I saw X", a hypothesis is "I saw X and maybe X is that way because of Y", a theory is "X is that way because of Y, and I shown it true in my testing" Nasor did the second and there is nothing you can do to make me think otherwise.

arguement over and further arguing by you is just [deleted]

I been though the scientific method since high school,
you must be a slow learner

paulsamuel you should have learn by now that there is nothing you will ever teach me. then you will remain ignorant, which is ok, except that you pass that ignorance on to others in a decptive guise of knowledge, which is why i will spend a lot of time exposing your deceptions


arguement over and further arguing by you is just you trying to blow cum up my ass.that's just lovely. and you want to be a moderator

paulsamuel,

You don't even have sense to continue on the argument, instead you just attack me, perhaps I have won as you did not reply against my argument after I clearly defined why it was a hypothesis, perhaps it is I who is showing you who is ignorant.

paulsamuel,

You don't even have sense to continue on the argument, instead you just attack me, perhaps I have won as you did not reply against my argument after I clearly defined why it was a hypothesis, perhaps it is I who is showing you who is ignorant.
calling an observation an hypothesis is not an argument, it is a revelation of your denial to understand. you merely take a contrary position for the sake of being contrary. you refuse to think. i believe you can't learn becuase you already (in your own mind) know everything. you don't realize that when you know everything, it's the surest way to prevent you from ever learning anything

you are on ignore

and you still do not counter my point! I said:
A observation is to say "I saw X", a hypothesis is "I saw X and maybe X is that way because of Y", a theory is "X is that way because of Y, and I shown it true in my testing"
I proved you wrong and it is you that won't admit it, it is you taking the contrary position simple to spite me. I a pray to what ever deity that hopefully is up there that if I'm elected moderator you will still be able to block me out under "ignore" so that I don't have to deal with you always trying to critic me because you immaturely believe you smarter then me and that I should be your bitch.