I just looked up the satellite thing, and as can be expected the matter is more complicated then just stating how much heat is being transmitted and stating the boiling points

Just because the thermosphere has a certain temperature range does not mean that the satellite is going to retain that heat, in fact it loses heat alot faster

Not so fast bubs

Like usual its a reduction of the reality to try and convince people of a position

Earthquakes are different then the rotation of the earth because its about the relative speed difference

And the heat an object retains in space is different depending on size and speed

and other factors

Yes

Either way, its a matter more complicated then just simple observation

That is why physics has changed so much as more has been tested

But that is the issue Seeker

your making an appeal to intuition

It seems intuitive that the Earth is flat, but intuition is not proof.

Yeah I just wanted to make some points so I could convince myself that I know what I am thinking about

You can google most of this stuff and get simple explanations by people who have studied the physics.

Sometimes I think people say these things to make the position look stupid

Scientists do lie and decieve on many topics. Evolutions existence is not one of them

In fact, they are lying and manipulating the facts to make it look like divergent evolution did not occur in humans.

When you push people that do not believe in evolution, they usally try to make a distinction between macro and micro.

Thats because they know they can not win in saying micro does not exist so they make up a difference between it happening a little and a lot

Like saying even though I can walk to the shop, you never saw me walk up Everest and therefore it cant happen.

Or you never 'observed' the murder take place

so we can not convict anyone.

Why

I dont think it is

Well it would be a conversation for another day

Except you can see where the light is touching everywhere in the room.

The idea that speciation is the inability to breed does not apply to most species

Many species are asexual

How do we classify them?

Selective breeding isnt evolution, because you guiding the process

But it is interesting

It probably was

but thats not evolution, evolution is change in a gene pool from generation to generation by random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift

selective breeding is usually not done with random mutations and it is not natural

So its not evolution

In a sense I suppose

But I prefer things like boxcar2D

Showing it via a program of random mutations and selection pressures

I would need to inspect how wild these animals were

if you were working with them, could they be really called wild? I would need to know more to say so myself.

It reminds me of the 'wild' horses they found that actually ended up being horses domesticated by the original trainers thousands of years ago]

I would need to see for myself

Proving evolution is something I tried to do when I was much younger, its old news for me

I am rusty on the subject

But usually it seems that its appeals to intution that are used by those that argue against evolution. They never actually start on the basis of understanding it before they try to smear it

thats why they say things like ''why are there still monkeys''

Ah, it changes its genetic expression

Epigenetics

Any ripperologists here?