It makes me sad every time...

porchrat said:
If you think that then you need to do a lot more reading.
Click to expand...

I said that through mutation, amongst other things, the eel has become human. Obviously there would be multiply links between eel and human.
 
be.plato said:
I said that through mutation, amongst other things, the eel has become human. Obviously there would be multiply links between eel and human.
Click to expand...
Stop trolling and go read about evolution.

I'm telling you that you are wrong. Not might be wrong, are wrong. Go find out why.
 
Last edited:
porchrat said:
Look up what it means when something is a scientific theory.

It doesn't mean the same thing as when used in everyday conversation.
Click to expand...

This is responsible for a lot of waste of bandwidth in this sub forum and in PD

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

Theory vs Hypothesis

What "theory" means in ordinary speech:
The term "theory" means a very different thing when used in everyday conversation and in science. In our day to day speech, we often use "theory" to mean a guess or unsubstantiated idea about how something works (as in "I have a theory that gremlins are hiding my car keys").

In science, we would call such a guess a hypothesis, not a theory. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observation. In this case, I am proposing that the explanation for why I can't find my car keys is that gremlins are hiding them.*

The distinction between the words "Theory" and "Hypothesis" is very important because in science "Theory" does not mean "guess". I repeat, "Theory" does not mean "guess".

So, what does the word "theory" mean in science?
According to the National Academies of Sciences, "some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".

People who don't understand this distinction sometimes dismiss ideas saying "it's just a theory" (this is very commonly used to suggest that evolution is just speculation, for example). But, when scientists speak of the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, they don't mean that these are random untested ideas that someone came up with after too many beers.
Click to expand...

Evolution is a theory. Religion is a hypothesis
 
Another one from same link:

Proof vs. Evidence

Another word that is commonly misused (sadly, sometimes even by scientists, who should know better) is "proof".

What "proof" means in everyday speech:
In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea.

Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics.

What should scientists say instead of "proof"?
Scientists should use the term "evidence" instead of the word "proof". When we test our hypotheses, we obtain evidence that supports or rejects the hypotheses. We do not "prove" our hypotheses.

While this may seem like a subtle difference, the words we use can subconsciously color our thinking. "Proof" suggests that a matter is completely settled, that we have had the last word on something.

In science, we are constantly adding to and refining our knowledge. When we have a sufficiently large body of evidence supporting an idea, we accept that idea. In the words of Stephen Jay Gould, "In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

For example, we accept that DNA is copied into mRNA which directs the synthesis of protein, because many studies have provided evidence that this is the case, and no studies have shown this idea to be wrong. So, we have a very high degree of confidence that this idea is correct. However, we remain open to the possibility that we may (and probably will) find, at some point, that there is more to the story than we understand at this moment.

Scientists are generally careful not to claim more than their evidence supports. That point was clearly made in Feynman's quote (on the first post I made in the discussion board) where he emphasizes the need to teach science in a way that makes clear what we know, how we know it, how well we know it, and what we don't understand. This in no way suggests that science is unsure or unreliable, but it reminds us that our current understanding is not the last word on the subject. Practicing scientists know this very well, but the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works. This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....." which suggests that there is nothing more to be said about the subject.
Click to expand...
 
be.plato said:
Link

Ok then, eel like creature, but then again that article has not been peer-reviewed. ;)
Click to expand...

The eel-like creature also doesn't become human, ever. It was a Pikaia gracilens until it went extinct. The creature's offspring's offspring's offspring's offspring's offspring's offspring's offspring's (proceed for 505 million years...) eventually branched out into other chordates, of which there are about 60 000 living species, including us.

I'm not sure if you appreciate the time scale involved.
 
Last edited:
OrbitalDawn said:
The eel-like creature also doesn't become human, ever. It was a Pikaia gracilens until it went extinct. The creature's offspring's offspring's offspring's offspring's offspring's offspring's offspring's (proceed for 505 million years...) eventually branched out into other chordates, of which there are about 60 000 living species.

I'm not sure if you appreciate the time scale involved.
Click to expand...

You're not sure period. But anyway, what would you say is one of humanities earliest known ancestors?
 
be.plato said:
Link

Ok then, eel like creature, but then again that article has not been peer-reviewed. ;)
Click to expand...
That article can't be peer reviewed it is a journalistic piece not a scientific one and hence is going to attempt to reduce the complexity of the scientific publication to something the layman can comprehend. The article the piece is reporting on would have been peer reviewed.

Oh I see you took "eel-like" to mean "eel" and then grabbed a picture of an eel. Then you stuck it together with a picture of a modern human, created a strawman argument and said "haha look how ridiculous this is... I don't understand any of the science or principles behind the theory but haha this is teh lolz!!".

You have just rejected the theory, again, from a position of ignorance. Something you did last time in that eye evolution thread and promised not to repeat. You promised to do research and educate yourself sufficiently on the topic so that you wouldn't be rejecting things from a position of ignorance. Instead you appear to have done no research and continue to produce child-like impotent arguments from your ignorance. I'm guessing you do this in an attempt to troll.

Go and read.
 
Last edited:
be.plato said:
You're not sure period. But anyway, what would you say is one of humanities earliest known ancestors?
Click to expand...
Well, if the theory is correct then it would be the Last Universal Common Ancestor. A pool of simple cells perhaps?

Personally, I find the fact that you and I (as human beings) started out as a single cell... far more fascinating!
 
porchrat said:
That article can't be peer reviewed it is a journalistic piece not a scientific one and hence is going to attempt to reduce the complexity of the scientific publication to something the layman can comprehend. The article the piece is reporting on would have been peer reviewed.

Oh I see you took "eel-like" to mean "eel" and then grabbed a picture of an eel. Then you stuck it together with a picture of a modern human, created a strawman argument and said "haha look how ridiculous this is... I don't understand any of the science or principles behind the theory but haha this is teh lolz!!".

You have just rejected the theory, again, from a position of ignorance. Something you did last time in that eye evolution thread and promised not to repeat. You promised to do research and educate yourself sufficiently on the topic so that you wouldn't be rejecting things from a position of ignorance. Instead you appear to have done no research and continue to produce child-like impotent arguments from your ignorance. I'm guessing you do this in an attempt to troll.

Go and read.
Click to expand...

Again, I' not rejecting the theory, I actually find it very interesting. And anyway a picture is worth a thousand words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X