The Scientific Method is the most logical way in order to prove whether your hypothesis is wrong or not. Many processes are counted before a result of a test can be considered as a law or a theory. In this case a hypothesis can in a way or another also be considered as the theory.
As an environmental science teacher, I would explain that in this generation, what was nearest thing to the truth is the one that is gaining the advantage to belong to the set of things that can be considered as true. If the basis of the statement is scientific then I can say that he should say otherwise. It is a convention that before a certain fact is considered as true it must satisfy the scientific method of doing things. Biological evolution is a theory because in the duration of its study they had reached the point wherein they come up with the scientific model that could be viewed as the approximation to the truth.
Only approximation could be attained due to the fact that the things that we know in this world are constantly changing and is based on the current knowledge or scientific observations that we had.(Moran, 2003)
The theory therefore of biological evolution is the nearest thing to the truth in this generation. We cannot absolutely say that it is the truth because no one in this world knows all the facts and necessary data to back up the biological evolution and at the same time prove that we came from creation of GOD in heaven. another thing is that we do not know the things that might happen maybe in the near future another fact is to be known to the rest of us that can totally alter the ‘truths’ that we consider today.
Since science does not deal with absolute truths but with hypothesis theories and models that had undergone intelligent trials and comparisons from the past and in the present it is nearest to the truth and at the same time could be explained scientifically unlike the unexplainable nature of the creation.
Creation is only explainable in terms of religion but there is no tangible evidence that it had occurred unlike the biological evolution which had presented every detail of the assumption and had been tested in time. In other words I could explain that the statement had been said due to the technical misconception of the word theory and also due to the never ending battle between the creationists and biologists on who is telling the absolute truth.
Evolution through natural selection as the earth’s history told us would take years and even millions of it to take place or before a certain ‘evolved species’ would materialize. In this case the effectivity of the proposed solution to the increasing pollution in the air is not possible for another ten or million year. When this happened then the environment would greatly suffer.
As of today, the efforts of minimizing the use of chemicals and other industrial inputs are high but with minimal results. The environment is continually depleting from the robust and sound area to live by. The effect of air pollution in the environment is increasing thus making the earth an area less safe for its inhabitants.
The climate change (global warming) is one of the results of the pollutions in the air that is very alarming. It causes changes in the environment that we can no longer tolerate in the near future. If the scenario continue to take its toll there would come a time that we can no longer live in this earth. The neglect that most of us had done is now a big ghost that would hunt us in our dreams. The depletion of our natural resources and the degradation of the environment is beginning to prove their importance in our life by giving us little or very minimal harvest and lots of pest and diseases to compete with our crops resulting to less and less foods available in the market.
The above statements are very important in order for me to explain my response in the second statement/question. As an environmental science teacher, I must be able to explain first the implications of the pollution in the environment and the whole world to be general. What I was trying to explain is that there is a possibility that evolution of species with developed lungs to detoxify the pollutants would materialize in the future. That we cannot deny the fact that human beings evolve thru time in accordance to the environment that they live in. With all this facts in hand, we can say that it is true but come to think of it.
Do we have to wait for that thing to happen and let the environment work for itself for its survival? Don’t we think that we owe nature or the earth for our existence and we should as a sign of gratitude do something to save the earth from total depletion and destruction? Through time that would elapse in the long wait of the evolution process, are we sure that there are still the place called the earth by then?
In short we cannot deny the evolution process to happen and at the same time we cannot just let the earth to be destroyed as we wait for the moment in our existence that we had developed the lungs that can detoxify the pollutants in the air. If the evolution happens then good. We had acquired another form of survival mechanism but in order to live and have a place to live we must be concern about the welfare of the environment.
Moran ,Lawrence. Evolution is a Fact and A Theory. 2002.
Questions based on Deep Learning Model and a two layer network. More statistical based
(Urgent, by 11:50pm EST) One question requires the computation of forming a prediction along with calculating total square loss value, this can be done my hand calculations. The other question requires a code to be run using the platform: https://colab.research.google.com/?utm_source=scs-… Submission of the code can be shared to me via google drive where I will provide further details.
Only number 2 and 3 in the attached file that is provided.