(December 2, 2011 at 8:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So you are admitting that both Creation and Evolution are empirically unscientific because they are not based on direct observation or repeatability? This could be a major step for you in your progression.
Head firmly shoved up your own ass again, eh Waldork?
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/01/05...e-science/
Quote:We can catalogue animals in a given population and their genetic makeup. Then over generations, we know how many survived, how many died and how many got the chance to pass on their genes. A few dozen generations later, we can take a DNA sample from the resultant population and compare it to the original samples taken at the start of the experiment. What we’ll notice is a genetic drift towards the genomes of the survivors in the original population. We can see this in fruit flies, humans, birds and just about any animal we’ve studied extensively. Once again, it’s repeatable, testable science.
Let's see you repeat something besides your own stupidity for a change.
