I don't mean quoting what you teacher told you. I want to know if is proven scientficaly possible.
122409
There is a tailbone in humans which is redundant, just like an appendix. Appendix has use for animals in digesting raw food. People stopped eating raw food, making it redundant. \nIf you check the ancient drawings, ancient humans had a lot of body hair, but as humans evovled, the hair became less.\n\nTo the person above - Neanderthal, Cro-magnan, Homo-erectus fossils are what you can call a "Transitional" fossil to prove evolution.\n\nTo the person who asked the question - Mutation, adaptation and evolution are inter-linked. Monkeys did not evolve into humans overnight. Or it wasnt a case that monkeys gave birth to humans suddenly. Adaptations and mutation over generations results into evolution. In fact you can say that Mutation and adaptations are preliminary steps of evolution.\n\nTo hutsong - Evolution is how life evolved from primitive life form into the current species. It, in no way speaks how life was created in the first way.\nAlso you talk about experiments in labs have proved that one life-form can not evolve into a different life-form. Heres a  question for you - How many years are these laboratories set up for? If the answer is less than 500 years, then its not enough time frame for any evolution to be seen.\nAlso you are giving links to a website which can is run by christains who are staunch opponnents of evolution not scientifically but religiously. So that has no weight at all. Maybe links to magazines like Science or Nature would have been more convincing.\n\nThumbs up to emilyrose!!
585590
There is no smoking gun saying no it is not possible. However, every credible piece of evidence since Galileo says it is not going to happen.
546170
I had a professor who was always very adamant that you could not prove the hypothesis. Something about you don't actually test the hypothesis, you test the question....or somehting. He was very odd. I think there's a difference between a hypothesis and fact.
166645
Well, there are believed to be a class of unverified particles that surpass the speed of light called Tachyons.  If they move toward the object that created it then perhaps it could be true.  That's about the only way I could think to prove it since actually getting any object of study to surpass the speed of light would likely cause the big collapse and pull the entire universe on to one spot right were the object reached that speed and gain infinite mass as Einstein also theorized.\n\nOn the other hand, claiming anything as entirely impossible is foolish.  Science lives in absolutes and when thy get proven wrong, there always tons of frumpy old men in lab coats ready to restate that it was a theory though they called it a fact the day before.
129435
Try the library.  It's a building thats full of books.  I'm sure they will have books on scients there.
649787
Write it up and send it to a physics journal. You'd get credit for your discovery if it is valid. If it isn't, they'll let you know.
454271
You can teach that - just don't pass it off as science (its like pushing your pamphlets under the door), put it in a religious instruction class.
484499
i'm not sure how you consider it mathematically unlikely - where's your working for that?\n\nThe theory is that yes, the matter in the universe can from the dense plasma that expanded from the singularity that began the big bang.  Howver, if dark matter theory is to be believed, there is a lot of matter unaccounted for - but it is still likely to have originated from the Big Bang
661090
There are certainly some scientists who believe that, but they are a very small minority. You aren't actually wrong for believing that to be the case, but you should be aware that it is considered unlikely by most scientsists.
465548
Science answers, but theories are no science until proven. Bunch of theories, that curb devil worshippers. \n\nI mean, if you did somehting with science, like dab some chemicals together to produce a smell, if you were a devil worshipper, you'd say hey look, the devil's comming for you or something, but with science, you could say - Look, these chemicals produce this smell, the chemical reactions of these chemicals have produced this smell.\n\nSO you'd be revamping the devil's smell into a chemical formula for making a really bad smell. And the theory, once proven becomes a science fact.\n\nCall it a bunch of theories, but how else would you go about answering these questions? Science has come a long way from the Universe was created from the Cow or the Universe rides on the back of a turtle and so on. It's now the Universe was born in a singularity known as the Big Bang. \n\nIt's a theory alright, however much you like it, but it's also a good guess. No amount of speculation does get you to the answers, it has to be hard won with hard work.\n\nBe it cultivation or experiment, it will still have to be proven, else it be not fact, mere valves, but for once a light shines forth from the depths that reach out.
588110
Of course not.\nThe reports are highly consistent when compared with each other.\nUFO research is currently a serious topic of research. There are thousands of cases which are still classified as 'unknown' after an in-depth analyses. In short, genuine data is in no short supply.\n\nThere are many good books out there if anybody is interested in knowing the major and the most important cases. For how UFO's can really operate without breaking any laws of science, Unconventional Flying Objects by Paul Hill is highly recommended and reader also has the psychological comfort of knowing that it  is written by an Ex-NASA scientist of unquestionable credentials.
402884
I'd say yes...but then I don't know how to explain it.\n\nThe ability to explain, and therefore duplicate, is based on what we know and the tools we have for exploration.  What I think you're getting at is,  "...is it possible for something to be inexplicable even though we know everything there is to know and have all the tools we need to explore it?"  In other words, might there be phenomena in our frame of being that are simply beyond mankind's grasp to comprehend even with all the knowledge and tools mankind can muster?\n\nWho knows?  It certainly seems that way now; but a thousand years from now, if mankind survives that long, who knows where scientific inquiry will have taken us?  It wasn't that long ago when sending pictures through the air was strictly science fiction; now we have the SciFi channel on TV.\n\nI once read somewhere that someone has said, "If mankind can think of it, it will do it."  There are a lot of things mankind has thought of, but cannot do...up to this point.  Teleportation, for example...but wait, teleportation, using a phenomenon called quantum entanglement, has been done...just recently.  OK, dark matter, no one has seen dark matter...ooops, some Stanford brains just did...only a few weeks ago. [See sources.]\n\nYou get the point...perhaps that someone is right after all...if mankind can think of it, it will (ultimately) do it.
634954
I agree with you that the schools don't teach scientific method, but "fine in theory, not in practice" is just a figure of speech.  Would you also object to "fine on paper but not in practice" if the plan was not actually written on a piece of paper?  :)\n\nWhy do schools fail to teach scientific method?  Because the kids don't want to learn it; their parents don't want to make them; and the teachers, who are themselves products of this same public school system, don't understand it all that well themselves.  It's easier just to give the kids unconnected facts and (mis)information.  Who knows what would happen if we actually raised a generation with the ability to reason?  :/
586128
Well no, it isn't true. It's a webpage from a random nutcase. The internet is full of them. this one isn't even very entertaining.\n\nIf you are going to waste your time reading the webpages of psuedoscientific loonies (as I often do) you should at least look for the entertaining ones.\n\nI recommend the site below.
71587
Umm....  there is no way to disprove it....thats why its called a law, not a theorem.  Also, you need to be more specific.  What ways?  Whats experiments?  \n\nAsk again with  more details and I will help you
566318
I would like to see what proof and science you have to verify this.  I always thought it was faith that confirmed its existence.
461664
I quite agree that it is possible.  I'm not saying it did not happen here.  I just haven't seen the evidence yet to convince me at this point.