Sentences with phrase «scientists saw no evidence»

I think scientist see evidence from Micro greatest example the Darwin's birds beaks and claim it as macro which would be that birds could eventually create a new species.

Not exact matches

The fact that you, as a scientist, have seen more evidence for biblical events than for evolution is laughable.

Jesuit «scientists» see all the same science, and yet imagine they «see» god in it despite the total lack of any evidence whatsoever for that conclusion.

Since no one has yet to SEE an atom, the idea of the structure of the atom can only be inferred by experimental evidence — yet I see no Republican trying to stop teaching the structure of the atom in school — oh that's right, its because major corporations and industries rely on this science (pharm, weapons manufacturers etc etc) whereas the theory of evolution is merely think piece of scientists on how life on Earth changes over tiSEE an atom, the idea of the structure of the atom can only be inferred by experimental evidence — yet I see no Republican trying to stop teaching the structure of the atom in school — oh that's right, its because major corporations and industries rely on this science (pharm, weapons manufacturers etc etc) whereas the theory of evolution is merely think piece of scientists on how life on Earth changes over tisee no Republican trying to stop teaching the structure of the atom in school — oh that's right, its because major corporations and industries rely on this science (pharm, weapons manufacturers etc etc) whereas the theory of evolution is merely think piece of scientists on how life on Earth changes over time.

There may be forms of existence that go beyond what we understand, but I have not seen any evidence of that despite hundreds of years of scientific tools and thousands of scientists available for the investigations of such claims and phenomena.

As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I've never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people.»

Scientists who believe in cyclical universes or spontaneous expansion see it as evidence of how the expansion happened.

They themselves are usually future - oriented — a tendency evidenced in the futurism fad among today's social scientists, and the ahistorical approach if not downright antihistoricism seen in many aspects of social science.

See for example: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief - Francis Collins (head of human genome project)

The multi-society letter called on the OMB to work with leaders of government agencies to back the use of the best scientific evidence in their decision - making and to see that federal agencies support scientists doing the work required to «produce the knowledge upon which the nation relies.»

Bob Pappalardo, a planetary scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, also wants to see more evidence.

In fact, scientists have found increasing evidence of water on numerous moons, planets, and asteroids in recent years — an encouraging trend for those who see the familiar substance as the backbone of a future space - based economy.

But scientists are starting to see evidence that warm weather in the Arctic led to conditions that made the hurricane so incredibly powerful.

Civil war has nearly broken out among neuropsychologists over this issue, so let me tread lightly here — I will simply say that I have seen no scientific evidence for how such recovered memories might work, no supposed cases of it documented to be legitimate in a way that should satisfy a rigorous scientist, and plenty of scientific explanations for why various claims have not been legitimate.

Planetary scientists have seen a lot of evidence for frozen water at the Martian poles, and water vapour in the planet's atmosphere.

In this case, seeing evidence about how senior scientists have behaved and knowing that they had extremely successful careers while still navigating these complex career and personal decisions can help one think more carefully about the tradeoffs involved.»

While some may see evidence of rapid glacier thinning in the past and again today as evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is nearing a collapse driven by human - caused climate change, Steig said at this point, scientists just don't know whether that is the case.

What's more, scientists have been seeing evidence of seasonal weather — in the form of dark zones that may be lakes filling with methane rain — ever since Cassini arrived in 2004.

Scientists had long suspected that some local animals might not be able to outrun climate change, but researchers haven't yet been able to prove the hypothesis, says Loarie, who was not involved in this study: «It's just wonderful to see empirical evidence that backs this up.»

«We see no evidence of Kyoto actually leading to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, much less of stimulating the fundamental technological change that will be required to achieve the 60 - 80 % reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that scientists tell us the world will need to achieve in order to prevent what the Framework Convention calls «dangerous interference with the atmosphere».»

This week in Science (p. 1868), scientists claim to have seen evidence for nuclear fusion in a beaker of organic solvent.

Psychological scientists Genyue Fu of Hangzhou Normal University in China, Kang Lee of the University of Toronto in Canada, and colleagues wanted to see if they could find causal evidence for a link between the two.

«This is the first biological evidence I've seen that cocaine abuse may have an aging effect on the brain,» says social scientist Caryl Beynon of Liverpool John Moores University in the United Kingdom.

But the arguments are changing as scientists see more evidence of the coming impact of climate change on the Atlantic fisheries.

In the years since, scientists have seen no evidence that the experiment worked.

That graph is the primary basis for the argument for capping scientists at a three research grant maximum (or less, see below)[1,3] based on the conclusion that the graph shows «strong evidence of diminishing returns» [2].

The paper has already been attacked by scientists who say the evidence that arsenic is actually incorporated into the bacterial DNA is weak (see «Poison eaters: alternative life forms»).

He explained how scientists develop a theory — or paradigm — based on available evidence — to explain what they're seeing.

In the absence of any hard evidence thus far, scientists can only make educated guesses about what we'll actually see when New Horizons makes its long - awaited flyby of Pluto and its moons on July 14.

Scientists have seen a lot of evidence suggesting Mars has quakes.

Scientists have found evidence of snow and ice features on Pluto that, until now, had only been seen on Earth.

Scientists are often accused of being boring or negative when they don't want to accept so - called «facts» without seeing the evidence — but cases like the «cane toads in East Timor» and the «toad eating frogs» remind us that popular stories about toads are often inaccurate, and it's worth finding out what's really going on before accepting such stories at face value.

Fedor: I have been struck by evidence that simply seeing a woman perform as a competent scientist, mathematician or engineer can have profound effects on a child's perception of her own potential.

Heat trapping greenhouse - gas emissions are the obvious culprit, since they've increased dramatically over that same 50 years, but scientists prefer hard evidence to presumption, so a team from the British Antarctic Survey has been drilling into ancient ice to see how the current warming stacks up against what happened in the ancient past.

But I don't like seeing scientists ignore the evidence that some times, in some contexts, high dietary cholesterol does NOT have a negative impact on cholesterol, and that, on occasion, strict vegans can have high cholesterol.

As some of you have seen me mention before, more and more evidence is mounting every day from scientists and researchers revealing that the artificial trans fats that are loaded into your food supply in huge quantities are one of the WORST things that you can put into your body.

The research is contradictory — some scientists claim violent video games, like Grand Theft Auto, have an adverse effect on young people who play them while others see no such evidence.

Again, I can't summarize the research that lead to this conclusion (read the book and see what you think) but basically Haidt lays out a case that says if you believe that you are some sort of scientist guided solely by sweet reason and evidence, you are the victim of self - delusion.

Little evidence of contagious yawning has been seen in animals other than primates, said the scientists.

We have been treated to many opportunistic hindsight «validations» of climate modeling (Pakistan, Russia, etc.) using the «consistent with» meme that most scientists would see as very weak evidence.

Do you uphold the right for scientists to raise other evidence and espouse other policies that they see as more cost effective?

Therefore I have to rely on my gut, my intuition, my own value system and my experience with nature to see everything I am experiencing, seeing, feeling happening to this planet is actually supported by the evidence Hartmann, you, Andy, Gore, Ted Turner, James Lovelock, Bill McKibben, E.O. Wilson and many, many other scientists, lay people, etc. provide over and over.

As the result of briefings from top scientists, Vice President Gore believes that we are beginning to see evidence of that now.

Glad to see at least one scientist is getting more comfortable with saying we know things * must be * happening even when we can't yet provide the evidence, let alone proof.

But Dr. Dlugokencky, like quite a few other scientists assessing Arctic warming, sees no evidence for a «tipping point» beyond which this cascades uncontrollably.

The time has come for scientists and those who understand their work to act forcefully in the public sphere to see that the evidence of near future climate convulsions is quite clear.

Time and time again (I think more by journalists than scientists), we see evidence of warming at a specific location as further proof of «global warming» with rarely any «health warning» that this may only be a local trend.

Here's why I see no social or political tipping point: Behind the ups and downs tracked by Gallup, Pew, The Times and others, there's been little evidence of a shift in what political and socials scientists call «issue salience» for global warming — making it the kind of problem citizens bring to the voting booth.

But how much longer can her credibility hold together, if even her own friends see her as someone who can't seem to get historical facts correct about her personal situation, combined with her claims of being attacked by US Senator James Inhofe being undercut by her own words, and her apparent failure to fact - check elemental details surrounding a core set of evidence she relies on to indict «corrupt skeptic climate scientists»?

It's a major problem that the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie» accusation has no evidence to support it, but now it appears the person widely credited with «discovering / exposing» that corruption is seen with significantly conflicting dates of when he actually started examining skeptic scientists.