Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 266:
Line 266: + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (view source)
Revision as of 08:23, March 11, 2007
, 08:23, March 11, 2007no edit summary
:::: As a matter of fact, Darwin's attitudes on race were far more enlightened than most of his religious critics. Darwin was a dedicated and outspoken abolitionist, and advocate of rights for African Americans, and he argues in his works that African Americans and Europeans are actually far MORE ALIKE than most people thought at the time. Don't forget that the religious beliefs of his day were that either black people had been specially created separately from white people, or that they were a severely decayed form of white people. Darwin argued instead that all races were of very recent common origin. It's no co-incidence that millenia of racism collapsed almost overnight after the biological revolution that Darwin sparked showed that race is a relatively minor and confused factor.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)
:::: As a matter of fact, Darwin's attitudes on race were far more enlightened than most of his religious critics. Darwin was a dedicated and outspoken abolitionist, and advocate of rights for African Americans, and he argues in his works that African Americans and Europeans are actually far MORE ALIKE than most people thought at the time. Don't forget that the religious beliefs of his day were that either black people had been specially created separately from white people, or that they were a severely decayed form of white people. Darwin argued instead that all races were of very recent common origin. It's no co-incidence that millenia of racism collapsed almost overnight after the biological revolution that Darwin sparked showed that race is a relatively minor and confused factor.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)
==The Scientific Method==
As I am being taught in biology at Middle Tennessee State University, the '''Scientific Method''' is that which is applied by scientists in the following order:
*'''Observation'''. The scientist observes the phenomena.
*'''Hypothesis'''. The scientist makes an educated guess as to the reason(s) for the phenomena.
*'''Experimentation'''. The scientist does a series of experiments to test whether the hypothesis is correct.
*'''Conclusion'''. The scientist's results from the experiment. If the hypothesis is proven to be wrong as a result, it is rejected. If proven right, the hypothesis is upgraded to a '''theory'''.
Now, with regard to evolution, there is a massive failure of the scientific method as used to support evolution. The scientist cannot use observation when he assumes animal A evolved into animal B; the scientist needs to see that happen, otherwise everything else collapses.
I think the Scientific Method can be successfully exploited in the [[evolution]] article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 04:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)