Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: + + + +
→To answer a question in the edit summary: need a better answer, please
I am still working through the scientific method, we had talked about it before. Where the method starts to break break down as compared to what the article states is when the science is proven through logic and mathematics but has yet to be proven experimentaly (due to technological limitations, quantum mechanics often encounters this)--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:50, 17 December 2008 (EST)
I am still working through the scientific method, we had talked about it before. Where the method starts to break break down as compared to what the article states is when the science is proven through logic and mathematics but has yet to be proven experimentaly (due to technological limitations, quantum mechanics often encounters this)--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:50, 17 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks, but even before I asked the question I knew that beneficial mutations lead to "an increased rate of reproduction compared to the population". This hold true for people engaged in [[animal breeding]], as well as for different breeds of a species evolving naturally. It even works for people: the skin of arctic residents is pale, and the skin of equatorial Africans is dark brown. People with more melanin pigment in their skin do better in climates with a lot of sunlight, because it protects them from UV radiation, right?
:I understand how mutation and natural selection work. What I don't understand is why they are considered creative or directive forces. Moreover, how can natural causes result in radical new designs, like one-celled life giving rise to plants or animals? And by what means could scientists possibly test this idea? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:03, 17 December 2008 (EST)