hexagonal shape of mobile cells is the most efficient shape.
dividing mobile stations by these cells enabled people to communicate easily.
scientists got the idea after alot of researches of other shapes capabilities.
they decided hexagons are the most suitable geometry to didvide coverage areas into cells.
the decision came from their ability to know what is good for them.
only brains can do this I think.
how these researches can be applied in the case of bee cells?
how does evolution explain the decision to keep their hexagon cells as they are the most efficient structure?
have bees had circular or any other shape before to make their honey?
The bees with circular honey cells all died out long ago, because their honey storage was so much less efficient than the hexagonal bees' honey storage that they could not compete with the hexagonal bees.
That's why all we have today are bees which make hexagonal honeycombs.
This process is called "natural selection", and it is the process by which better (more efficient) creatures outlive and outbreed worse (less efficient) creatures.
Scientists use their minds to shortcut the natural selection process by calculating what outcome natural selection would reach after a million years, and jumping straight to that, where we have the capability.
Of course, this has its own problems because during those millions of years all the other creatures would have had time to adapt, but when humans shortcut the process we change the environment so rapidly that many species simply cannot keep pace and they become extinct.
But there is no mind required for natural selection to work - it's natural. It just happens. Animals in the wild with white spots on them tend to get eaten. Giraffes with longer necks survive droughts while shorter giraffes starve. It just happens - no thought required.
I like your simple well organized explanations.
my questions are:
1-is Evolution a theory or a science?
2-how can you explain that something with no capabilities can be infinite?
3-if nature is not infinite, does it need someone to start it?
All science is composed of theory and observation. One makes observations, creates a theory, then tests the theory by making further observations in a specially designed manner which is basically trying to DISprove the theory.
This is called the scientific method.
All scientific theories can be tested, so a theory which is impossible to test (something like the Flying Spaghetti Monster removes all evidence of His existence with his noodly appendages so that we can never prove His existence) is a theory, but not a SCIENTIFIC theory.
The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory. Many attempts have been made to disprove it, and it has come through all those attempts so far without failing.
The science of biology is the branch of science which conducts these experiments. So in that sense the Theory of Evolution is part of he body of knowledge we call the science of biology.
Your question sets up "theory" and "science" as though they are different, and something can be one or the other. As i have shown, theory is part of science, and the Theory of Evolution is part of the science of biology.
So I guess the answer to your question is ... yes.
Anything which is infinite must be definition include all the finite things. Some finite things have capabilities, therefore any infinite thing will include those capabilities by definition.
A grain of sand is not infinite, but nobody "started" it.
Precisely. It also describes the Criterion of Demarcation between Science and non-Science. Science is "that which has been proposed, tested and not yet falsified".
I think that many other theories which are wrong can be stated without disproves.
prooves must exist and particulary in a big manner.
untill then evolution is only a theory.
most biological reinforcements to evolution are only predictions.
where are fossils?
You might want to rewrite that into understandable English
And I have some fossils in my car right now
incapability to disprove a theory dosn't make it a trustable science in many cases.
biology science doesn't give any proves for evolution , it just makes predictions.
and I am not talking about your dog fossil.
But this just doesn't make sense if you have already decided that the natural world was created with a purpose by a supreme being - without any supporting evidence.
I just don't understand.
Therefore it is wrong.
ergo there is a god.
Trying to understand the evolutionary process seeing their final results, is like trying to understand "The Tenant" of Roman Polanski seeing the last frame of the film.
As explained by D'Arcy Thomas in the classic "On Growth and Form", circular cells made of soft wax (it's soft at the time of manufacture) simply squash together into hexagons. Try it - take a whole lot of short pieces of rubber tube. Stand them all on their ends. Then use a cable-tie to squeeze them all together, and be amazed as they form themselves into hexagons, with no external intelligence applied
Eng M - you REALLY need to learn what the scientific method is. NOTHING is EVER proven true by science. EVER.
Even the theory of gravity may yet be proven false. The sun may not come up tomorrow. We predict these things, but at any time we may be proven wrong,
THAT is science.
Certainty belongs only in the realm of fantasy.
0% 30% 60% 90%
but not 100% I agree
scientific basics need proves by getting results from experiements.
why evolution is a science? what makes it a one?
predictions and science are ovelapped but they are not always together.
and predictions are not enough to make a science.
Evolution is a scientific theory that has yet to be disproven
You cannot see that there are things other than beliefs
gravity is a scientific theory.
if you drop your PC it wil fall down.(testable)
I believe so.
belief, science, theories and knowledge are flexible expressions.
they can't be always interpreted in one line.
so, how is your spageti monster? has he landed on your place?
I don't need to prove it.
You need to dis-prove it
When you have, I will accept it as a failed theory.....
Wow. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or did you just not understand anything Jenny said?
There is evidence and proof all around that evolution is an ongoing process that has been going on for millions of years and you choose to dismiss it.
Yet you are an engineer lol
I am glad I am no where near any of your engineering - it must all be held together by faith
If you take a fast-breeding species like flatworms or fruitflies, you can observe evolution in the lab. This has been done.
Create an environmental challenge for half your species, like introducing a sub-lethal dose of a toxin, and the proportion of the population who are more susceptible will die. The ones with greater resistance survive and breed. Over 10 generations you can increase the concentration of the toxin gradually, and you end up developing a population that can survive in levels of the toxin which kill 100% of the other half, which has been breeding in safety without being exposed to the toxin.
You can personally carry out this experiment - there is no need to take anyone's word for it.
by thetruthhurts20097 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You...
by EmVeeT4 years ago
I came to the HubPages Forum several months ago posting a "challenge" that must have seemed presumptuous (though I didn't intend it) or (perhaps) arrogant of me... By the end of it though, I considered my...
by Phocas Vincent23 months ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys,...
by jacobkuttyta4 years ago
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution...
by SaiKit6 years ago
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of...
by Eng.M7 years ago
with no assumptions madecould anyone write links to some experiments and results those agreed to be prooving natural selection mechanismsI believe we went through this before but with no satsifactory experimental proofs...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.