Sentences with phrase «change theory as»

While protein «spread» and «change» theories are both significant I want to focus most of our attention on protein change theory as this has the biggest implications in terms of practical application as well as telling us how our bodies react to protein and amino acids.

Governor Brown seemed to want to shut down all debate, in fact, by labeling anyone not convinced by reigning climate - change theories as «troglodytes,» a favorite slur of the governor's when wishing to silence those who disagree with him.

Not exact matches

In 2017, the California cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Cruz, and Imperial Beach, as well as Santa Cruz county, Marin County, and San Mateo County attempted to sue oil majors over climate change damages, citing a theory called «public nuisance.»

If it's all just alternate explanations that work with the evidence, I would much prefer people change their theory to meet the facts (as the Dalai Lama, for instance, recommends) than keep going with some simplistic idea of «faith».

As science has its credentials, it has also had its flaws with theories being changed, or even proven dead wrong.

This may come as a shock to you — BUT - evolution could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court — if it is a «Law» of science and not a theory explain to me why Scientist in the same field have differing opinions theory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettytheory explain to me why Scientist in the same field have differing opinions theory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettytheory has undergone massive changes since the 1850's when Darwin first came up with the THEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all prettyTHEORY — there are a lot of interesting similarities to true science which makes it sound so plausible, but it should sound good — After all the top scientist / humanists in the world promote it and they are all pretty smart

southerneyes44, you wrote «Germany doesn't teach about him» in regards to Hitler That's a ludicrous assertion as is «Theories in science change with the newspaper.»

That: the cross of Jesus is something that changes humanity's view of the Divine rather than (as the older substitutionary theories go) changing the Divine's view about humanity.

Or i could point out that the big bang is the biggest joke ever told... That even the top physicists can't figure out how their own theory could work, not to mention the fact that for it to work they would need for the Universe to break the fundamental laws we understand as true since the beginning i.e. (No matter in the Universe can be created nor destroyed, you can only change it's state (solid to liquid, liquid to gas etc.).

Here's the rest of it:»... Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

- how you can claim it's unfair to characterize evangelicals as anti-intellectual while following a man who believes conspiracy theories from the National Enquirer, thinks climate change is a hoax, says vaccines cause autism, and displays such breathtaking ignorance regarding the state of the world and foreign policy that no former presidents will endorse him and multiple generals, foreign policy experts, editorial boards, and heads of state have denounced him as dangerously uninformed,

However, to explain the origin of DNA as the mechanism of inheritance, evolutionary theory requires that hundreds of millions of small changes must be retained for thousands upon thousands of generations without producing any survival advantage until some point in the dim and distant future when, lo and behold, they suddenly start working together.

But evolution is more than change, and every theory accepts as evidence only what fits the theory.

During the debate over «biblical inerrancy» that raged among evangelicalism for several years in the late 1970s, I remember someone observing that Harold Lindsell's 1976 book, The Battle for the Bible, which pretty much got that debate going, was more a theory of institutional change than it was about theology as such.

So - called «subjective» theories see the cross as a revelation of God's love which brings about an inner change in the believer.

Focusing on schizophrenia as a particular exemplar of this change, Luhrmann examines the evolution of psychiatry from psychoanalysis (mental illnesses are caused by emotional conflict) to a purely biomedical scheme (mental illnesses are caused by genes) to present theories, which incorporate both the biological and the social causes (and treatments) of mental illness.

As we have seen, one implication of this theory is that the basic durational units of time do not change in their own constitutions.

As new facts are discovered then the theory can change or be discarded.

These theories can change and be adjusted as more EVIDENCE comes into the picture.

Referring to explanations for set of facts as theories allows for modifications as sceintific knowledge expands, it does not change the fact that apples fall to the ground, or that lifeforms descend with modification over time, or that the Earth has been dated to be approximately 4 billion years old.

Lentricchia, whose earlier work earned him the epithet «the Dirty Harry of literary theory, is the author of Criticism and Social Change (1983), which urges us to regard all literature as «the most devious of rhetorical discourses (writing with political designs upon us all), either in opposition to or in complicity with the power in place.»

One might say that just as nuclear war has made of the whole planet a potential battlefield, thus raising new questions about war itself, so, too, has modern advertising made of the whole planet an actual constant marketplace, thus provoking radical changes in the practice and theory of human intercourse.

Because of the cultural changes of modernity, however, the just war tradition has been carried, developed, and applied not as a single cultural consensus but as distinct streams in Catholic canon law and theology, Protestant religious thought, secular philosophy, international law, military theory and practice, and the experience of statecraft.

At the same time, he rejects those theories, «more or less tinged with behaviouristic psychology,» which assume» that human nature has no dynamism of its own and that psychological changes are to be understood in terms of the development of new «habits» as an adaptation to new cultural patterns.»

Nowhere does it unambiguously teach any of the false theories which, as far as I can tell, would be needed to justify such a change.

It can only if the abstract can make decisions or resolve its own indefiniteness — which Hartshorne would deny.2 It will not change the situation to assert that Hartshorne's theory, though it has no place for the internal development of an actuality, does provide for temporal development by stipulating that each succeeding actuality comes into being as a whole.

Crisis theory, as developed by Erich Lindemann and Gerald Caplan, holds that when a person is in a state of crisis, he is especially vulnerable to change.

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.»

There is a determined attempt to impose gender theories in many countries — with attempts to change language or to castigate parents for bringing up children as male or female, as if the structures of language and grammar bore no necessary relation to human biology and were just a social construct of a patriarchal or «straight» society — and forgetting that «non-binary» language is itself a construct and an attempt to ideologically cleanse language to suit a particular theory.

Factors in the struggle of a people to exist as a corporate body are set forth in the four - function paradigm of Talcott Parsons.10 Although the adequacy of his analysis is challenged by other theories, especially those focused upon social change, 11 Parsons's model provides a useful delineation of the actions implicated in a group's toil to perpetuate itself.

Modernization theory views such processes of institutional change within American religion as the alleged differentiation of private piety from public policy, the growing differentiation of secular education from its religious roots, and the emergence of professional therapy as a distinct alternative to pastoral counseling as bellwether trends in advanced industrial societies generally and suggests that they may be in some way influenced by broader international patterns.

Evolutionary cosmologies may begin simply as rival evolutionist theories — alternative causal explanations for these observed phenomena of development, change, and transformation.3 An evolutionist theory becomes an evolutionary cosmology whenever the favored evolutionist theory is extrapolated from its original context as an account of geological or biological change, and made to serve as an overarching cosmological category, such that «evolution» in some idiosyncratic sense becomes the basis for a systematic and unified interpretation of a wide array of diverse phenomena beyond the domains of biology and geology.

This change is of tremendous significance as one attempts to understand the development of Whitehead's theory of space and time structure (see the important «Notes» to PNK).

But with the rejection of that theory of the physical, with on the contrary a conception of the physical as «active,» we face a quite different situation respecting the problem of change.

Robert N. Bellah's theory of religious change was published as a brief article in the American Sociological Review in 1964.

It is based on what man knows to be at the time, but as I said, even theories based on «facts» has been proven to change.

Rather than depicting religious change as a simple decline in the importance of religion, these theories emphasize qualitative changes in the character of religion.

In the theory of the physical as «matter,» the relations of physical entities can be conceived and understood only mechanistically, i.e., only in terms of their locomotive changes.

Furthermore, there was no school of thought in China that would have presented a substantialist alternative to the view of being as change; the closest candidate would be the common - sense view of things attacked by the Buddhists as illusion, and even here it was the Indian, not Chinese, sources of Buddhism that became most exercised about criticizing the theory of permanent substances.

The process theory of sequential societies of actualities, each of which is created and then persists thereafter as an objectified datum of prehension in later actualities, seems calculated to take the complexities into account more definitely and naturally than any talk about a rigorous continuity of action defining a single, identical, yet changing individual.

I leave it as an open question whether this perspective is suggestive of new hypotheses that might be tested and whether such a view implies any change in the way in which biologists do biology and formulate theories.

In general, this school can be characterized by its acceptance of a logic of science; that is, its members maintain that there is a logic with respect to such scientific activities as the testing of theories, theoretical explanation, and conceptual change.

And because intelligent response to a changing environment is the essential prerequisite for business success, management theory is now turning to the model of the firm as a learning organization.

Political theory needs to deal as much or more with the question of the type of social change that is itself healthy as with the question of the goal that is being sought through such changes or the principles to which one supposes changes should conform.

There are a lot of theories as to why the campaigns aren't as popular as they used to be (the novelty has worn off; actual facial hair trends of changed; it's not as ironic as it once was).

The relationship between being and becoming in Rogers is almost identical to the paradoxical theory of change later articulated in gestalt therapy: «The curious paradox is that when I accept myself as I am, then I change.

According to Giberson and Stephens, you might be an anti-intellectual fundamentalist if you are an evangelical who: dismisses evolution as «an unproven theory»; deny that «climate change is real and caused by humans»; think that «the founders were evangelicals who intended America to be a Christian nation»; defend spanking children; believe in traditional roles for the sexes; think that reparative therapy can «cure» homosexuality; and / or oppose gay marriage.

Most scientific data changes every few decades as theories are proposed and debunked.

It is interesting to me to think about evolution, where things change over long periods of time and where there may only be theories about the catalysts, in contrast to those that we have put on the fast - track ourselves, such as those you have exemplified.

I can only believe what science can demonstrably show to be true and my beliefs must change as new evidence modifies or falsifies previously accepted theories.