RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 12:01 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 12:02 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(August 7, 2019 at 11:50 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(August 7, 2019 at 11:41 am)Grandizer Wrote: No, we're not on the same page. You had to be corrected on your usage of the word "theory" in a scientific context.
And good to know you Google at the last minute, at least, lol.
So, are you saying theories are hypothesis that graduated to theories because of positive results? If we run the pixie experiment and the results support the hypothesis, it should be promoted to theory? Because if you're not saying that, then I don't see where I was corrected.
It’s weird; you’d think a cog sci student with a special interest in biology, who is here to discuss the nuances of the evolution of the human eye, would have this foundational terminology already under his belt. 🤨
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
