Ed MOTHEREFFING G
Chances make champions
What I am saying is that I could come up with my own system of classification and it would be equally valid. May not be as widely accepted, but equally valid. We choose to accept this classification system for now, because it allows groups of scientists to communicate and understand each other. If every researcher came up with his own system of classification...communication wouldn't be possible. It would be like me and you coming up with our own definitions for each word that we use.
I don't need to tell you a man and an ape are two different beings.... you already know this. But we are taught to accept symbols as reality...And through the manipulation of symbols, our reality is controlled. No symbol... not matter how well constructed... can contain reality itself.
breh the classification system has been refined by fossil records and comparing DNA
How would your's be just as valid with no fossil record or DNA evidence?
The fact that it can be refined alone... should tell you that it is not fact. It is not law. It is the best that we have for now. How do we know we aren't missing the biggest piece. How do know we started the refining process in the right place. How is it scientific to take leaps of faith. The universe is governed by laws. Physics deals with physical LAWS....But biology is exempt?
...My system would be as valid, because both systems would be equally as false...not based in law.
it's science breh. we use the best current theory as we gather more data
No one's saying it won't get refined more or that it's perfect.
NOTHING in science is perfect breh, that's the point, the pursuit of knowledge.
Even what gravity actually is has been refined from what Einstein thought recently.
There are demonstrable similarities in both DNA and fossil record that have lead scientists to believe they have a basic understand of the branching lineages of certain species (primates and monkeys included)
It's not perfect though and they will tell you that as well. But they have the best evidence available as of now. So if you have a better theory than them gather evidence and write a peer reviewed paper and continue to do so until it is accepted amongst the scientific community.
Until then I'm going to follow the current categories
Stick to what you know breh...That's all I'm saying. What you KNOW. Facts. Laws. Truths. Knowledge is always imperfect and dependent on time. Laws are not. If I do this... this WILL happen... Right now or 10,000 years from now. This is law...this is true science.
The thing is this type of understanding...threatens the system. I don't need a Harvard professor to tell me his theories... Just keen observation skills....The ability to see what is right in front me. The ability to see what is....An apple falls off of a tree and hits the ground...no need to theorize...that is.
No, you couldn't . . and no it wouldn't. I'm going to go before you begin to make the same argument in regards to words
I
Just in general breh...don't take anything at face value. No matter who it is coming from. If someone tries to explain to something to you that they don't fully understand...you are going to understand it less than them. When someone truly understands something... that person is able to make complex subjects simple....not easy, but simple. The truth is simple...not easy...simple. Law is simple....
science and consensus can not coexist. Scientific THEORY is unproven by definition. Scientific law is repeatable, proven, FACT.
It is very important to not loosly say "this is science" as if theory it holds weight as scientific law.
The scientific community has done a major disservice to itself by letting that get b*stardized in the last 20 years.