Comment: just because a result is not repeatable

(See in situ)


just because a result is not repeatable

Just because a result is not repeatable does not make it scientifically improvable over a big enough sample.

take a coin toss with true randomness. with a big enough sample size the numbers will ALWAYS tend toward 50/50. But because it's random somebody could go for month or years throwing all tails, but it does not change the scientifically proven fact that the toss is 50/50.

Same goes for evolution just because the results are not repeatable does not change that FACT that things change from one generation to another(aka the proof). over a large enough sample size the change will ALWAYS tend to change especially if the environment drastically changes.

You wouldn't say entropy is not scientifically provable because you cant EXACTLY repeat a sand pile from a sand castle, would you?

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.