Scientists say they have found a primate fossil that shows our connection with other mammals and our earliest human ancestor. Full details from the University of Oslo and the Senckenberg Research Institute:
* * *
Scientists announced on Tuesday in New York the discovery of a 47 million year old human ancestor. For the past two years, an international team of scientists, led by world-renowned Norwegian fossil scientist Dr Jørn Hurum, University of Oslo Natural History Museum, has secretly conducted a detailed forensic analysis of the extraordinary fossil, studying the data to decode humankind's ancient origins. At 95% complete, Ida is set to revolutionize our understanding of human evolution.
this is neat shit. i've already seen people on Fox News etc going nuts saying this doesn't mean anything
it must be important, its on google home page!From the comments:
cool stuff too bad the bible disproves it
Wow dargonx, what did you have to eat to shit out that post? That post is shit, it game out of your asshole. You shit that post onto our forums
this is neat shit. i've already seen people on Fox News etc going nuts saying this doesn't mean anything
Astonishing find... too bad creationists are going to use the same tactic they have for the past forever. Put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes, and sit in a dark corner rambling about some science conspiracy or some bullshit like that.
I want to see this.
I once heard "evolution is ridiculous because if I kept jumping of a building I'd never grow wings would I!!!!"
whenever someone's being really richard dawkins I spring that on them to watch their face implode
Wow Mark, what did you have to eat to shit out that post? That post is shit, it game out of your asshole. You shit that post onto our forums
To my knowledge, the origin of our evolution goes back to... 1-5 million years ago. This is... 47 million years ago... that's just, wow!The origin of our evolution as HUMANS dates back 1-5 million years ago, and that also includes Australopethicines which were the first primates to turn bipedal(from what we have on our fossil record at least), so I guess that pretty much makes them sort of "human". This article refers to primates in general and their divergence from other mammals, say, rodent's for example. Early primates look a lot like a really big rat with longer extremities.
everyone stop talking to dragon x.Yeah, pretty much this.
also man MISSING LINK is such a terrible term. you can keep splitting a hair but there's no real MISSING LINK unless you honestly expect a fuckin rainbow of skeletons showing each evolutionary change.
Surprise: science isn't as simple as you thought it was.
This whole "missing link" stuff is nonsense that scientists shouldn't even be paying attention to, but I think they went ahead with this because it's good PR. Which isn't a bad thing, considering the fact too many people still believe that science can rationally be disproven by a religious alternative. It casts further doubts on the idea that only microevolution, and not macroevolution, can be proven at all. (Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this the main line of thinking for religious evolution doubters these days?)
what? as far as i'm aware missing link stuff is the only thing that keeps evolution a scientific theory, otherwise it's completely post-hoc and unfalsifiable. or do you think rationally we should accept evolution as truth without question?Saying something is a missing link to something else is like saying that the middle segment of a pizza is the missing link between cheese and pepperoni.
i'm... what?
successive changes give the strongest support for evolution, it's about small successive changes. it takes more than a couple mutations to get from a dinosaur to a mammal and this is a link that was missing in that succession!
what? as far as i'm aware missing link stuff is the only thing that keeps evolution a scientific theory, otherwise it's completely post-hoc and unfalsifiable.No, the thing is we'll always keep finding stuff we didn't know existed. It's not like you can get these Eocene fossils at Wal-Mart, you know.
in your sock example instead make it a bunch of fucking fossils we've been finding since the 1800s and that no one really doubts anymore at all and finding them is always nice
Serious Question: As a Christian Climbtree what is your opinion on this stuff? Like do you think your messiah made evolution or do you think it is just a theory or what? Like what do you think about no Dinosaurs in the bible and the earth only being made 2000 years ago etc? I don't really know any Christians so your probably the only one I can ask...
it seems like your contention is mostly over calling it "the missing link"
asdflkjhasdflkjh MAYBE GOD DIDN'T LEAVE FOSSILS TO TEST YOUR FAITH. if you think the need to find these isn't necessary you don't understand science. this is like saying i have a theory about a 50 drawer desk, every drawer full of socks, because i opened 10 drawers and they're all full of socks so theory AOK.That would be true if the theory of evolution held that "fossils of every epoch exist somewhere". It doesn't. It's a theory that seeks to provide a rational explanation for an observation; namely, that genetic information of an organism can change per generation. Even if we'd never find even a single fossil from here on, we'd already have seen enough evidence of that fact by now to know both micro- and macroevolution are true. The theory is so solid that it does not stand or fall based on finding a random new creature that we didn't know existed.
lol climbtree, to really put your example into context it would be more like we opened 50 drawers and found socks, then one drawer was missing, but then it continues for 100 more of socks, what on earth would posess you to think it was a draw full of t-shirts?
yep although I think you're still being captious about evolution in general.
That would be true if the theory of evolution held that "fossils of every epoch exist somewhere". It doesn't. It's a theory that seeks to provide a rational explanation for an observation; namely, that genetic information of an organism can change per generation. Even if we'd never find even a single fossil from here on, we'd already have seen enough evidence of that fact by now to know both micro- and macroevolution are true. The theory is so solid that it does not stand or fall based on finding a random new creature that we didn't know existed.
Serious Question: As a Christian Climbtree what is your opinion on this stuff? Like do you think your messiah made evolution or do you think it is just a theory or what? Like what do you think about no Dinosaurs in the bible and the earth only being made 2000 years ago etc? I don't really know any Christians so your probably the only one I can ask...
as far as i'm aware evolution hasn't been proven empiricallyThis is a mindblowing statement to make.
evolution is dumb as heck for logical reasons though and it's disgusting when put into practice. black people are closer to monkeys because they're darker, women didn't need critical reasoning to nurture children and gather berries, jews are tainting our superior aryan blood etc.post this in 10 of ur youtube favorites and richard dawkins' head will explode
evolution is dumb as heck for logical reasons though and it's disgusting when put into practice. black people are closer to monkeys because they're darker, women didn't need critical reasoning to nurture children and gather berries, jews are tainting our superior aryan blood etc.
... Evolution is dumb as heck for logical reasons though
Why do priests fuck a little boy? Is this genetic or learned behaviour?
This is a mindblowing statement to make.
This is also why you rejected the part of my post that you quoted: you have a flawed idea of how this branch of science works. This isn't like mathematics, you know. Empirical claims cannot ever be absolutely proven. Not evolution, not gravity, not even the idea that we exist at all has ever been proven, even though they are all important scientific facts.
It's difficult to figure out how to make you understand this since you literally have me wondering how to best explain the fundamental philosophy behind the natural sciences.
The Bible is dumb as heck for logical reasons though.
you apparently don't know how to distinguish eugenics/social darwinism and evolution????
also lollin because a lot of christian shit is equally, if not more disgusting than this when put into practice
aahhahaha climbtree you don't understand evolution at all
asians are good at math, this is likely because their ancestors who could add and divide quickly could swindle goods at a higher price.
I HAVE SEMENS STUCK BETWEEN MY TEETHYou are such a disgusting idiot.
you stupid dork this was exactly my point, here's some reading comprehension it came right after this:You haven't been paying attention in biology class. I'm not sure if you realize this, but if you follow Ryan's link you'll find that it's both an observation and a theory that explains that observation.
no, we don't already have enough evidence to know that is is true, this is completely unscientific and what you're talking about is faith.
what is the good of the theory of evolution? natural selection is a genetic tautology. evolution isn't used as a predictor it's used as an explanatory model, i thought this was pretty clear. asians are good at math, this is likely because their ancestors who could add and divide quickly could swindle goods at a higher price. being more wealthy, their chances of reproduction were higher. this is contrary to the findings in africa, where the high degree of sharing led to those who were better at athletic activities such as running and hunting to breed better.I'll repeat: you are a disgusting idiot. Disgusting because you're trying to make it seem like this is somehow what everybody who recognizes evolution believes. I cannot for the life of me figure out why you're trying to associate evolution with this crap.
THIS IS ALL EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE DOES.
i know gw has a tendency to unfairly dismiss shit but man climbtree you are definitely climbing from "ignorant but possibly salvageable" to "babby found a sandbox some adult come in and tell him how to play" so instead interesting anecdote.maybe you should sit in the corner and wait for a scientist to tell you what to believe because this:
in your sock example instead make it a bunch of fucking fossils we've been finding since the 1800s and that no one really doubts anymore at allis closer to child in a sandbox. "everyone believes it, it's always been like this" - as if that gives it anymore truth.
asians in asia are actually good at math because
Quote from: climbtreeI HAVE SEMENS STUCK BETWEEN MY TEETHYou are such a disgusting idiot.
You are such a disgusting idiot.
You haven't been paying attention in biology class. I'm not sure if you realize this, but if you follow Ryan's link you'll find that it's both an observation and a theory that explains that observation.
what? as far as i'm aware missing link stuff is the only thing that keeps evolution a scientific theory, otherwise it's completely post-hoc and unfalsifiable. or do you think rationally we should accept evolution as truth without question?so your answer is yes? could have saved us all a bunch of time, because you haven't addressed the other two until now with the citrate thing
You wanna know why I didn't answer whether evolution was "proven" or not? Because there's no such thing as a definitive proof for any empirical claim. This is one of the fundamental aspects of the natural sciences. Evolution has been validated, however, time and again, both by actual observations in nature as well as fossil records. We've even got tens of thousands of frozen bacteria cultures that at some point spontaneously developed the ability to metabolize citrate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment). The existence of genomic mutation is not "just some theory". There's no sane biologist alive today that doesn't acknowledge at least the reality of microevolution.looks like you don't understand the difference between genetics and evolution, evolution is about additive successive changes not gene mutation in general, it relies on it. do you even understand what i'm criticising and why MORE PEOPLE and MORE WIKIPEDIA PAGES about it don't strengthen it? you don't seem to understand anything, evolution posits that all biology is based on adaptation, so yeah if you 'believe' in evolution you justify, support, and use that sort of reasoning
I'll repeat: you are a disgusting idiot. Disgusting because you're trying to make it seem like this is somehow what everybody who recognizes evolution believes. I cannot for the life of me figure out why you're trying to associate evolution with this crap.
Seriously, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS. Do us all a favor and PLEASE go read some articles on Wikipedia before you post any more of this nonsense.
the example was to show how evolutiony theory is used to support stereotypes and racism, it purposefully wasn't factualYOU are the only one purporting this. Your entire argument for why evolution is evil is because of some CRAP YOU MADE UP about it being a reason to engender racial supremacy.
this is actually to really take it out of context completely. i think you're addressing the first analogy i used which wasn't about evolution (which i said) but the logic behind a sound scientific theory. if the theory of evolution has no way of being disproved, it's as logically sound as the flying spaghetti monster.
if i said a tiny hippo whose presence cannot be measured was responsible for large changes in DNA there's no way to prove me wrong and offering more and more examples of large changes in DNA doesn't prove me right. this is the same logic as evolution.This isn't the same logic as evolution. For one you have the motive to counter evolution by presenting this silly argument but aside from that you have no justification for your claim whatsoever.
i'm not splitting hairs, this is the philosophy that underlies science! this is pretty major especially when the criticism most evolutionists lay against religion is that there's no proof or logical existence of god, when the logical of evolution uses a the same arguments for proof.Evolutionist is kind of a disgusting word to label to those who believe evolution is the most valid explanation available (so far it really is, just consider the evidence here) It's not like you're a gravitationist. And on another not, evolution and existence of a god (im Atheist whether or not this is pertinent) are not mutually exclusive...i'm pretty sure the roman catholic church accepts evolution as valid, as an example. A god, in no way has actually been observed and therefore is not science like evolution is...there's no basis to claim he's real and relying on faith is fine for those who choose to believe but in no way is faith a good means of discerning truth from fiction.
as far as i'm aware evolution hasn't been proven empirically (pretty sure if it was it would've been bigger news than this)I'm not really sure if there is empirical evidence however I do believe microevolution( the distinction between micro and macro is nil it's all evolution anyhow)
everything is post hoc. a fossil is found, looks kinda like a cat with horns. probably the predecessor of the cat but the horns stopped it from going through cat doors, so it died. this is straight up stupid and you can use it for anything.This IS stupid but it's not the natural selection aspect, it's the fact that the example uses cat doors. Nice try, though.
my personal belief is that everything in the bible is true, we might just not know how or why yet. we're like 5 year olds reading a physics text book, some of it might make sense and other stuff might go against what we knowSo you assert that, despite the scientific and technological advancements we've made, that we're lacking knowledge that people did thousands of years ago? I'm no biblical scholar but I suppose that a lot of what's in the bible (primarily old testament) is supposed to be read metaphorically not literally (get over it, the world wasn't created 6000 years ago nor did an old man gather every species onto a boat.)
evolution is dumb as heck for logical reasons though and it's disgusting when put into practice. black people are closer to monkeys because they're darker, women didn't need critical reasoning to nurture children and gather berries, jews are tainting our superior aryan blood etc.What's so logical about denouncing a valid scientific theory as silly just because you can make twist it to sound that way? Proponents of evolution don't believe it just because they just want to. There's a good reason that one claim is chosen over another...and science isn't really biased like you may think. Any proposition that explains our natural reality is scrutinized by the scientific method, and the process of evolution and natural selection is not exempted from this case (neither is the assertion that a god created all life in it's current form.) This is why one claim is denounced as silly pseudo science or otherwise and another merits a place in the explanation of our natural world. Science works, folks, it doesn't favor evolution over divine guidance for some random reason.
maybe you should sit in the corner and wait for a scientist to tell you what to believe because this:
i'd rather put my faith in the scientific method than a 3,000 year old jewish fairytale.
basically in this thread we've had climbtree show his blatant lack of knowledge on evolution and equate it with just about every stereotypical smear and misunderstanding of evolution in the past 150 years. congratulations climbtree, you're dumb as hell.
my personal belief is that everything in the bible is true, we might just not know how or why yet.
keep reading, you'll get it eventuallyo king of the academy
No ryan I think you need to keep reading because you keep falling deeper and deeper into the climbtroll's trap
I think this did it for me. Or maybe the part where he repeatedly states that the theory of evolution is racist and flawed but doesn't explain why.
and we see yet again reizhan demonstrate his complete understanding of the world (nothing at all). i'm criticising evolution from the standpoint of the scientific method that you'd rather put your faith in, but nice work using 'jewish' to discredit the religion.Since when did using 'Jewish' make something less credible than 'christian' or any other mythology for that matter?
omcifer i don't know what you're doing, and flowerpower this is reason. this is what reason is! this is reasoning! you're reasoned into reason, you're not born with it. look at reizhan!
Have any religious folk released any statements yet, possibly trying to explain how this is fake and isnt true?Yes, read all preceding posts by climbtree for an accurate depiction of the evolution deniers' diatribe.
Since when did using 'Jewish' make something less credible than 'christian' or any other mythology for that matter?exactly. if i called you a jewish piece of shit, why didn't i just call you a piece of shit? in this context i'm using jewish as a derogatory
Yes, read all preceding posts by climbtree for an accurate depiction of the evolution deniers' diatribe.
At the end of the day, he still thinks he's right about evolution being either unverified or unverifiable (or even that it's unfalsifiable), despite not even knowing the most basic of facts about the natural sciences.
exactly. if i called you a jewish piece of shit, why didn't i just call you a piece of shit? in this context i'm using jewish as a derogatoryHuh? That's not what I was referring to. You were the one who was bothered by someone calling it 'Jewish'.
Well.. the problem here is that cars and horses aren't really the same thing.this is dumb but i'm going to address it so you come back and mostly to make myself feel like a Big Guy. if you think cars and horses aren't really the same thing then wait until you get a load of this: neither are people and dinosaurs. you can use evolutionary theory to link the both of them though. i already said just because it sounds reasonable doesn't mean it's using sound reason, and neither does sounding way less.... accurate change anything at all. this is close mindedness that is but isn't supposed to be characteristic of the scientific method. maybe ulcers are caused by bacteria? POPPYCOCK
I get your point that everything's just theories, but you got to agree that the current evolution theory is way more.. accurate-sounding than the bible one. Now if there suddenly popped up a undeniable "truth" about some whacky bible stuff, it would be a different story, but now.. you're just babbling about.
Huh? That's not what I was referring to. You were the one who was bothered by someone calling it 'Jewish'.
Why would that bother you, especially since it IS Jewish? 'Jewish' doesn't discredit religion. The guy wasn't using it in a derogatory way. I was annoyed that you were bothered by it, not that the other guy said it.
that you've demonstrated nowhere, so all you have is your lack lustre credentials. ugh do you see why i roll my eyes when you call me dumb?because you're so smart that you've transcended above all of us racists who believe in evolution because it is far superior in terms of scientific data than any hypothesis put forth by mythologies such as the one you believe in?
you realize evolution is the foundation for all of modern biology, right?
because you're so smart that you've transcended above all of us racists who believe in evolution because it is far superior in terms of scientific data than any hypothesis put forth by mythologies such as the one you believe in?
you realise a flat earth was the foundation of all classical sciences, right?
foundation... i think the earth was in fact... the bedrock of classical sciences. belief in the flat earth was what all classical science... stood on
regardless it was attacking your underlying assumption that the more people use it or believe in it the more valid it is
what are the classical sciences?
i don't see how this related to anything, this whole discussion came from Dada saying evolution doesn't need support anymore, it's already proven, stop looking.I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that evolution does not stand or fall based on these discoveries.
the only thing that came near to addressing any point i made was dada's citrate example. honestly read through that, it's like a youtube commentary. none of those address the logic or usefulness of evolution. i guess usefulness is implied in relation to the foundation of modern day biology, but how or why isn't given and i have a feeling you wouldn't be able to without drawing on the same arguments i criticised for unverifiability and disgusting conclusions.First of all: as it stands right now, evolution is undoubtedly valid. Following Darwin's theory, and even quite some time before then, we've been finding evidence that supports evolution on numerous occasions and in locations all around the world. We've found countless fossils that fit in perfectly with previously obtained evidence based on physique and estimated time frame. We've been able to reliably explain what we see in nature based on the theory, and we've even seen evolution occur in real time on several occasions, the example of E. Coli spontaneously developing the ability to metabolize citrate and keeping it in later generations being just one of them.
I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that evolution does not stand or fall based on these discoveries.
SPLAT.
I even said "surprise: evolution is more complex than you thought it was" in my very first post in agreement with the notion that it is incredibly naive to believe that it all depends on some elusive "missing link" that will make or break the work of hundreds of millions of independent scientists.
This whole "missing link" stuff is nonsense that that scientists shouldn't even be paying attention to
But more importantly, if you think the need to find these things is in any way requisite for the evolution theory to stand, you must not understand it very well.
Even if we'd never find even a single fossil from here on, we'd already have seen enough evidence of that fact by now to know both micro- and macroevolution are true.
First of all: as it stands right now, evolution is undoubtedly valid. Following Darwin's theory, and even quite some time before then, we've been finding evidence that supports evolution on numerous occasions and in locations all around the world. We've found countless fossils that fit in perfectly with previously obtained evidence based on physique and estimated time frame. We've been able to reliably explain what we see in nature based on the theory, and we've even seen evolution occur in real time on several occasions, the example of E. Coli spontaneously developing the ability to metabolize citrate and keeping it in later generations being just one of them.
There's a mountain of evidence, gathered by independent researchers around the world and throughout the ages, that supports evolution; probably as big as the one pertaining to gravity.
You are eager to dismiss my E. Coli example as being "like a YouTube commentary", but strangely enough it seems like you're more interested in figuring out the "usefulness" of evolution. Guess what: the crap you attribute to "the evolutionists" about the theory supporting or endorsing racial supremacy is not only horribly offensive to us but also completely apocryphal. It's the kind of theory that someone who does not understand evolution would come up with to try and hurt those he disagrees with by associating them with something reprehensible. In reality, the only evidence that has been found in concordance with this subject is that two randomly selected people from the same race are, on average, more genetically diverse than two people from different races. In other words, there is absolutely no genetic and thus no evolution-related proof of what you're saying. What you are identifying as the "racial supremacist theory" that is "perfectly supported by evolution" is, in fact, just some random nonsense you made up to explain a number of correlations that, as Steel mentioned, are best explained by environmental differences.
No sane person in the world of science holds that people who belong to a minority are more stupid than those who belong to the majority because they have a lower IQ on average; it's because minorities tend to live under worse circumstances, have less money, have less access to healthcare, have less access to media, and have less diverse social connections. (Allegedly. These things are incredibly hard to validate, which is another reason why no scientist in his right mind would try and bring evolution into the debate.)
my main gripe from the beggining has been that evolution is post-hoc and unfalsifiable, and findings like this 'missing link' are the only things that keep it scientific. finding more and more examples of 'evolution' doesn't make it more and more 'valid' until you test every single case. like in a post office, if you said "all this mail was sent last thursday" finding more and more letters that had been sent on thursday don't make the case stronger and stronger LOGICALLY. i think if you picked a whole bunch of random letters from around the room and they were all sent last thursday i'd probably believe you, though logically it doesn't follow. i probably wouldn't believe you if you picked up a few letters, said they were sent last thursday, and proceeded to find more letters that had been sent last thursday to give to me as evidenceEvolution says nothing about "all fossils". All it explains is how genetic material can change with successive generations.
man why are you even trying.I enjoy it!
when you're explaining the idea that scientific theories have to be falsifiable to some kid yelling about fucking POST HOC REASONING (ahahahahaha) you really should just lean back and smoke some weed/design hit new gw7 with flash menus instead.
aahhahaha climbtree you don't understand evolution at all
Evolution says nothing about "all fossils". All it explains is how genetic material can change with successive generations.
Here's a better analogy. Fact: Woody Guthrie makes folk music. Theory: Woody Guthrie is a folk musician.
How does one disprove this theory? All you need to do is find one jazz song by Woody Guthrie, as then he will become a "jazz and folk musician". However, every single "lost recording" or bootleg that has been found was in fact folk music. Does this mean we need to find every recording he ever made, or even obtain information about every song he's ever played even if it was not recorded, before we can validate the idea that he was a folk musician? All we need to do for it to be scientific is build a model with which we can reliably test and explain the observed facts.
Evolution is similar. Fact: species can change from one generation to the next. Theory: the ideas that describe the modern evolutionary synthesis form an account with which this fact can be accurately and reliably explained.
All the fossils we have found so far help further the case for evolution, but are not necessary for the theory to stand.
I don't have a lot of time right now so I'll elaborate and address your other points later.
It's funny.
No matter how many next to perfect explanations you guys throw at him, he just comes back with some silly new argument in an attempt to convince himself he is right.
seriously though he doesn't understand that science has to be falsifiable though. I zoned this topic out until I just accidentally clicked it but the dude doesn't know falsifiabilty. the core tenet of every scientific theory.
this is just a not very clever restating of the "IT'S JUST A THEORY" argument and I'd argue that by engaging it on any level you add legitimacy to it. sort of like how if I find some guy who believes we should all shove fruit in our ass in order to get our toxins out and then an actual scientist and pit them against each other, anyone watching thinks both have some degree of validity. adding verisimiltude to otherwise specious bullshit is not something you should enjoy doing!
luckily almost no one is reading this topic anymore and the few that are know climbtree loves to troll so!
man why are you even trying.this coming from the guy who has routinely spent eight pages arguing with shep about nothing
when you're explaining the idea that scientific theories have to be falsifiable to some kid yelling about fucking POST HOC REASONING (ahahahahaha) you really should just lean back and smoke some weed/design hit new gw7 with flash menus instead.
but even above such a base level theories BASED on evolution are largely unfalsifiableHere is an explanation of how evolution can be falsified:
man evolved to walk upright <because> it was advantageous to breeding, as men that couldn't walk upright didn't breed and therefore don't exist
this is why natural selection is a tautology, it's similar to saying woodie guthrie is a folk musician because he makes folk music. things that have survived survived because they could survive. this isn't useful as it's non-directionary. there's no way of saying what's more likely to survive until after it's happened, so it's post-hoc (haha?) and again not that useful.
the only way i see it put to use is to explain why differences and similarities are advantageous, which leads to disgusting things like why men rape and why we're afraid of black people. the idea of it has done cool things for computer science and mathematics though imo.
thanks for your two cents but i've been repeating myself since the beginning, and in case you didn't see the summary
circa yesterday.
to be valid logically you would have to!You've said this numerous times. I'm not sure if you realized it yet, but what you think has nothing really to do with how the world of science operates. Nobody cares about what your twisted mind thinks is "logical".
the argument for woody guthrie being a folk musician looks like this:Although this is an extreme simplification, yes, that's somewhat how a valid theory would look like. Granted, of course, that all the terms used in the theory ("folk musician") are accepted and it is subsequently proven that his songs indeed belong to the folk music. One should prove not that the proposition is right, but that it cannot be wrong under our current understanding. Also, it should mention how the theory can be invalidated: when his first non-folk song is discovered, he is no longer a folk singer. When we assume that all who exclusively make or have made folk songs while they were alive are or were folk musicians, and we prove that Woody Guthrie has only made folk songs, we can hold that he was a folk musician.
folk musicians only play folk music
woodie guthrie is a folk musician <because> we found a folk song by him
and we found a folk song by him
and we found a folk song by him
etc
therefore he only plays folk music
therefore he is a folk musician
this is the same as the mail room example,Stop right here.
all the mail here was sent last thursday <because> we found a letter sent last thursday
this coming from the guy who has routinely spent eight pages arguing with shep about nothing
You've said this numerous times. I'm not sure if you realized it yet, but what you think has nothing really to do with how the world of science operates. Nobody cares about what your twisted mind thinks is "logical".
And in case you didn't notice, some of this science stuff is really, really quite difficult! For a theory to be acceptable, it doesn't necessarily need to be understood or thought of as "logical" by everyone. I don't understand special relativity. Does that mean I should think of it as untrue until I do fully comprehend it? To quote the philosopher Skinner, that sort of paranoia can get you in the loony bin! (Feel free to hammer me about "faith" in response to this.)
Although this is an extreme simplification, yes, that's somewhat how a valid theory would look like. Granted, of course, that all the terms used in the theory ("folk musician") are accepted and it is subsequently proven that his songs indeed belong to the folk music. One should prove not that the proposition is right, but that it cannot be wrong under our current understanding. Also, it should mention how the theory can be invalidated: when his first non-folk song is discovered, he is no longer a folk singer. When we assume that all who exclusively make or have made folk songs while they were alive are or were folk musicians, and we prove that Woody Guthrie has only made folk songs, we can hold that he was a folk musician.
Of course the problem is that the analogy doesn't really work as scientific theory because you can't experimentally verify the data, which, in retrospect, makes it a kind of insane and incomplete example, but let's ignore that for now.
Technically, it's possible for the theory to work even if only one [folk] song is known.
Caveat: I haven't ever actually written a complete and valid scientific theory, so anything I say is bound to be an extremely simplified or lacking explanation of this topic, but I think I'm right about the fundamental philosophy here, even if Woody Guthrie is a terrible example.
Stop right here.
The problem is you're making a claim that's entirely different from the Woody Guthrie one we made just now. One that's incredibly hard to believe. For it to be equal with the previous example, it would have to be: this letter here was sent last thursday because that's what the date in the header states (what other way is there to check?)
Of course, when comparing it to evolution, it would be even better to claim "ALL letters in existence are sent last thursday because I have a letter here and it was sent last thursday". That would also be perfectly valid if you could prove it. However, your theory would also have to state "this theory becomes invalid when the first letter is found that was not sent last thursday" and then it sort of explodes.
This is what evolution is. All "letters" are claimed to have been "sent last thursday", which might seem "illogical" to you, but we've yet to discover the first letter that wasn't sent last thursday.
However, your theory would also have to state "this theory becomes invalid when the first letter is found that was not sent last thursday" and then it sort of explodes.
you're not using valid properly, none of those lines of reasoning are logically valid.You know, you kind of remind me of Sarah Palin during the last election cycle. No matter what people would say to her, she'd eventually keep running back to the same old dumb talking points like "but I can see Russia from my house!" You too seem to have an answer to every counterargument you stumble upon: "it isn't logically valid".
here's something that i thought was fairly cool when i first came across it, scientifically an experiment only needs to be conducted once to establish a relationship. repeating the experiment isn't to give further support to the findings, it's to test the control of the experiment. logically finding more and more examples doesn't give it more and more support. hundreds and thousands of examples don't make it logically any more valid than one.Okay, so what exactly are you implying? That you accept the fact fossils may make the evolution more credible but not more "logical"? I can get behind that. The theory does not get rewritten every single time a new fossil is found.
this isn't a necessary statement. if i said all chicken eggs are brown this is disproven automatically by anything that is a chicken egg and isn't brown.No, this is actually one of the most important aspects of a theory. You MUST explicitly make it known that the theory "all raven are black" is no longer valid upon discovering "the first raven to bear a plumage that is not completely black". It's not something implicit.
to change the woodie guthrie example to be closer to evolution, rap music comes from woodie guthrie's folk music. for evidence, here's some rap music, here's some folk music, here's some that's inbetween. i don't know how you would disprove this except with a counter example with more support, to which evolutionary explanations usually have none."Usually"? Do you mean to say that scientists sometimes do have perfectly valid explanations for fossil records? Because, you know, they do!
You know, you kind of remind me of Sarah Palin during the last election cycle. No matter what people would say to her, she'd eventually keep running back to the same old dumb talking points like "but I can see Russia from my house!" You too seem to have an answer to every counterargument you stumble upon: "it isn't logically valid".you are saying things are valid when they're not, i don't know how else to counter that. you're like a kid complaining that the teacher always writes 'failed' on his test card
"Usually"? Do you mean to say that scientists sometimes do have perfectly valid explanations for fossil records? Because, you know, they do!this isn't what i meant at all, scientists always have explanations for fossil records ( you're using 'valid' again). i was refering to examples like why asians are better at maths, when a counter example would be cultural influence. i was saying, most explanations based on evolution don't have a counter example
seriously though he doesn't understand that science has to be falsifiable though. I zoned this topic out until I just accidentally clicked it but the dude doesn't know falsifiabilty. the core tenet of every scientific theory.
science doesnt have to be "falsifiable".What part of "core tenet of every scientific theory" did you not get.
some things cant be falsifiable because there are not the technological means to do so.Wrong. If the means to create and confirm the theory existed in the first place, so do the means to disprove it. You don't need to use a time machine to disprove the big bang, you know.
What part of "core tenet of every scientific theory" did you not get.
Wrong. If the means to create and confirm the theory existed in the first place, so do the means to disprove it. You don't need to use a time machine to disprove the big bang, you know.
why do you need absolute proof for evolution yet you accept christianity based on no proof at all, just the word of some book
why do you need absolute proof of christianity yet you accept evolution based on no proof at all, just the word of some book?
i was criticising the science behind evolution, not the belief in it. 'proof' for evolution shares the logical form as 'proof' for creationism, and very few people would even try and argue faith in god as scientific.
in terms of outcomes though, hold your breath for pascals wager but what are the implications of believing in god vs the implications of believing in evolution. something like the theory of gravity is really useful for physics, but i don't see why there's even a need for evolutionary theory in the best of cases and in the worst of cases it's used to explain and reinforce the status quo.
i think if anything the modernist movement got trolled by fundamentalists into adopting this with such fervor.
:werdz:Sounds like... you have seen too much...
It looks like Yoshi.