Quote Originally Posted by SkeletalFrog View Post
That's not how science works. You can't prove a negative - "there are no white ravens" - except under extremely specific and limited circumstances.

Yes, you have raised potential issues, but that's all they are, potential. Acting as if they're definitive is highly premature. Yes, X or Y or Z could have happened, but without actual data supporting those claims, they're just hypotheses, and science is built on the corpses of dead hypotheses.





Similarly, stating that they are, or could be, also proves nothing.

Just because there are two possibilities does not mean those two possibilities are equally likely. Given that your hypothesis would require the acquisition of ornata from a single location (which may or may not even exist anymore, thanks to deforestation), breeding it, concealing the offspring's nature, *and* offspring that look nothing like one of the parents, while the alternative simply requires that the breeder happened upon a rare genetic mutation (which happens all the time), it's much more likely that "samurai" pacs are simply a mutation.

Consider Bigfoot. What's more likely, that an unknown anthropoid evolved in or migrated to the US leaving no fossil record or evidence for several hundred thousand years in spite of massively growing human populations, or that every so often someone in a gorilla suit plays a hoax?

Given Occam's razor, Bayseian priors, and general logic, the simpler explanations should be preferred until clear evidence of alternatives is found.



While the existence of a 2n ornata population seems odd, there are other possibilities, such as that the 2n specimens were mis-identified cranwelli (especially likely if they were tadpoles) or that something went wrong with the karyotyping. Plus, there's the issue of which the type specimen is - if the type specimen is 8n, then the 8n individuals retain the ornata name, and the 2n population gets a new name.

Remember "species" are only real in a vague and temporary sense - it's an artificial box we construct for human convenience. It's more real than any other taxonomic level, yes, but life is considerabl more complex than the ICZN code can cope with, or ever will.



Not actually. A hypothesis is an educated guess, an idea based on current knowledge. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested, passed, and now has data supporting it.

That's the key, data.
Sorry, poor wording on my part. I should have said that a Theory starts as a hypothesis, but theory isn't always correct even though evidence is produced. Sometimes I think the scientific community goes fishing for proof so much that they will use any means necissary to prove their theory to be right. Kind of like the theory of evolution(which Darwin on his death bed claimed was false). If this were true than why are there no known missing links in fossile evidence? I believe because there isn't a missing link. It just didn't take place as they claim it did. We did not evolve from apes even though we are closely related you do not still see full grown men coming out of the jungle that just evolved. I know they have several fossilized skuls of Neanderthals, but I don't actually think they were men or a missing link, but just another type of ape that had existed. And became extinct.

Big Bang Theory. Cannot truely be tested because amn cannot construct a large enough piece of matter and then blow it up in a are devoid of air/gravity etc and create a universe or galaxy. Just a guess to me.

To completely change your DNA and or complete body structure is pretty far fetched. Especially with Dinsaurs being supposedly closely related to birds or them stating that birds evolved from them. A cold blooded reptile no matter how many years pass will not become a warm blooded bird. It would not happen. (Sorry just venting a little). To me despite the definition of the word "Theory" defined as having proven data from testing to back it up in my opinion is still a guess. Some theories cannot actually be tested like the 2 I've mentioned. You can not simulate the events oramount of time that was supposed to have taken place due to size of what pieces of matter that were involved and creatures that no longer exist.



Sorry if its a little off topic. Just explaining why I said Theory is just a guess. I find this all facinating, but hard to swallow if you know what I mean.not all theories have all substantial evidence to back them, but most do.