What did evolutionary theory predict about the genetic distances among different species for cytochrome c?
:munchin

That's actually silly...we have about the same DNA match up with pigs as with apes...
That 4% is a huge difference....there is no missing link in that example.
We have a serious match up of DNA with almost everything in our food chain...for an obvious reason.

Science gets refined when orthodox views are challenged and questioned.
When disagreement is disallowed, you have only the faithful and heretics.

Broadsword...we are going in circles...
Those famous fruit flies evolved into what...fruit flies...a sub species of the same specie.
Evolution is predicated upon those fruit flies developing into birds, or whatever...not a fly to a fly.
I'm lactose intolerant so obviously not a good example of whatever milk equation you are providing.
Everyone accepts micro evolution...the development within a species...this does nothing to prove macro evolution.
The development a lizard to a bird etc......as is put in museum displays etc.

Really? How's that Global Warming thing going for ya?

A couple of times? So the two instances that I mentioned are the only times scientists have been wrong?

Besides, I was only referring to the blind followers of each field, not the practitioners, necessarily. In both fields, financial gains are an incentive.

At the time of the "seashell" question, there probably were stories of massive floods (Black Sea deluge) that prompted parents to explain that the shells in the mountains were a result of that flood. And, Polaris acted like a Cepheid variable until it didn't. And black holes were plausible until the guy who came up with them said that they are not.

Blind faith is a religion even it if calls itself a science. BTW, Newton was wrong on some of his calculations, but they still got us to the Moon and back...apparently on blind faith.

Pat

No, it would not.

A moth which has a slight color difference giving it better camouflage survives, passing on that slight variation.
Natural selection (microevolution) selects creatures which are more fit immediately.

A leg which is starting to turn into a wing would make a crummy leg/useless wing and the creature would not survive nor would the variation be passed.
Macroevolution is actively prevented by natural selection.

Newtonian mechanics were close enough to serve that purpose.
That doesn't imply that they were "correct".

Ptolemy had a model for the solar system which worked well enough to serve its purposes.
After 1500 years, some believed it to be absolute truth.

Two-dimensional trigonometry is close enough for short range Terran navigation.
Spherical trigonometry is necessary for long range Terran navigation.

Yeah, like organized religion hasn't been consistently out there flappin' themselves.

Actually, they were wrong, but close enough for Government work. ;)

Pat

This got me thinking.
(About more than the limitations on us "Terrans" WRT interstellar travel and other nerd humor).

Newtonian mechanics makes use of Euclidean geometry.
Long range navigation makes use of elliptical geometry.
Relativity makes use of hyperbolic geometry.

All of them are "correct" within their own systems.
The difference is found in a single assumption (the parallel postulate, specifically).


What are the specific assumptions in evolution?
That question has never been addressed.

No argument, there, but religion is faith-based where science sells itself as certainty-based, hence the "consensus of scientists" and "settled science" slap-down in the argument against human-caused global warming.

Both systems want to control your behavior, but which is being used by government to actually do it?

Pat