Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Origins of Primates

Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 4:34:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The origins of primates is still unknown. All evolutionary evidence of primates and humans is based on a limited fossil record.

http://www.theprimata.com...

http://www.sciencedaily.com...
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 5:06:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 4:34:59 PM, Tiel wrote:
The origins of primates is still unknown. All evolutionary evidence of primates and humans is based on a limited fossil record.

http://www.theprimata.com...

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

...I fail to see the point of your post?

I dont think theres ever been a scientists that said "We know with absolute certainty, where and when primates originated."
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 5:42:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Scientists acknowledge that their work is full of uncertainty, especially with regards to the inferences based on the limited fossil record, but they nevertheless regard their practices and methodologies as reliable (based on pragmatism)...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 6:15:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well then you both can admit that the evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is not a solid case. There are many theories that can be derived from the same evidence. Evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is fallible and is riddled with assumption.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 7:31:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 6:15:15 PM, Tiel wrote:
Well then you both can admit that the evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is not a solid case. There are many theories that can be derived from the same evidence. Evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is fallible and is riddled with assumption.

None of thoselinks indicate that common descent did not occur. Neither make that claim.

You are the only one who finds it incredible that knowledge accumulates as our technological and repetition of experiments expands.

We didn't know genetics existed until over a hundred years after Darwin. People like you seemed to think genetics, because it did not perfectly align with Darwin's predictions, proved common descent did not occur because Darwin did not explain heritable traits using genetics.

Only you find it incredible that the phenomena of common descent can be theorized to function in multiple fashions.

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence, much less a falsifiable hypothesis, to back up that common descent did not occur.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2011 8:09:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 7:31:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:15:15 PM, Tiel wrote:
Well then you both can admit that the evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is not a solid case. There are many theories that can be derived from the same evidence. Evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is fallible and is riddled with assumption.

None of thoselinks indicate that common descent did not occur. Neither make that claim.

You are the only one who finds it incredible that knowledge accumulates as our technological and repetition of experiments expands.

We didn't know genetics existed until over a hundred years after Darwin. People like you seemed to think genetics, because it did not perfectly align with Darwin's predictions, proved common descent did not occur because Darwin did not explain heritable traits using genetics.

Only you find it incredible that the phenomena of common descent can be theorized to function in multiple fashions.

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence, much less a falsifiable hypothesis, to back up that common descent did not occur.

You have not one shred of evidence that proves it did occur. Either way, that's my position. I have explained to you my position multiple times. The point is that nobody fully understand the origins of primates and humans.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2011 1:43:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 8:09:54 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 7:31:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:15:15 PM, Tiel wrote:
Well then you both can admit that the evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is not a solid case. There are many theories that can be derived from the same evidence. Evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is fallible and is riddled with assumption.

None of thoselinks indicate that common descent did not occur. Neither make that claim.

You are the only one who finds it incredible that knowledge accumulates as our technological and repetition of experiments expands.

We didn't know genetics existed until over a hundred years after Darwin. People like you seemed to think genetics, because it did not perfectly align with Darwin's predictions, proved common descent did not occur because Darwin did not explain heritable traits using genetics.

Only you find it incredible that the phenomena of common descent can be theorized to function in multiple fashions.

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence, much less a falsifiable hypothesis, to back up that common descent did not occur.

You have not one shred of evidence that proves it did occur. Either way, that's my position. I have explained to you my position multiple times. The point is that nobody fully understand the origins of primates and humans.

Molecular Sequence Evidence (this is especially important): http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://godlessgeeks.com...
http://www.evolutionpages.com...

Human Vestigiality and Neoteny:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.davidbrin.com...

Twin Nested Hierarchy of Phylogeny and Genetics:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Fossil Collection Showing Transition steps:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

"Potential Falsification:

Thousands of new species are discovered yearly, and new DNA and protein sequences are determined daily from previously unexamined species (Wilson 1992, Ch. 8). At the current rate, which is increasing exponentially, nearly 30,000 new sequences are deposited at GenBank every day, amounting to over 38 million new bases sequenced every day. Each and every one is a test of the theory of common descent. When I first wrote these words in 1999, the rate was less than one tenth what it is today (in 2006), and we now have 20 times the amount of DNA sequenced.

Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard genetic code" or a close derivative thereof. For example, according to the theory, none of the thousands of new and previously unknown insects that are constantly being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest will have non-nucleic acid genomes. Nor will these yet undiscovered species of insects have genetic codes which are not close derivatives of the standard genetic code. In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 1070 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code (Yockey 1992). This possibility could be extremely useful for organisms, as it would preclude interspecific viral infections. However, this has not been observed, and the theory of common descent effectively prohibits such an observation.

As another example, nine new lemur and two marmoset species (all primates) were discovered in the forests of Madagascar and Brazil in 2000 (Groves 2000; Rasoloarison et al. 2000; Thalmann and Geissmann 2000). Ten new monkey species have been discovered in Brazil alone since 1990 (Van Roosmalen et al. 2000). Nothing in biology prevents these various species from having a hitherto unknown genetic material or a previously unused genetic code—nothing, that is, except for the theory of common descent. However, we now know definitively that the new lemurs use DNA with the standard genetic code (Yoder et al. 2000); the marmosets have yet to be tested."

Now, Tiel, I have put forward a testable and falsifiable hypothesis about the common descent of humans and chimps. I have also put forward over five means of independently falsifying human common descent and NONE pan out.

I've shown you mine. Let's see yours

A falsifiable hypothesis that is an alternative explanation to common descent between chimps and humans.

Note that endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes are already accounted for.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 8:56:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 4:34:59 PM, Tiel wrote:
The origins of primates is still unknown. All evolutionary evidence of primates and humans is based on a limited fossil record.

http://www.theprimata.com...

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

And....? Yes, science doesn't know everything. Big deal.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 10:00:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/17/2011 8:09:54 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 7:31:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:15:15 PM, Tiel wrote:
Well then you both can admit that the evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is not a solid case. There are many theories that can be derived from the same evidence. Evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is fallible and is riddled with assumption.

None of thoselinks indicate that common descent did not occur. Neither make that claim.

You are the only one who finds it incredible that knowledge accumulates as our technological and repetition of experiments expands.

We didn't know genetics existed until over a hundred years after Darwin. People like you seemed to think genetics, because it did not perfectly align with Darwin's predictions, proved common descent did not occur because Darwin did not explain heritable traits using genetics.

Only you find it incredible that the phenomena of common descent can be theorized to function in multiple fashions.

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence, much less a falsifiable hypothesis, to back up that common descent did not occur.

You have not one shred of evidence that proves it did occur. Either way, that's my position. I have explained to you my position multiple times. The point is that nobody fully understand the origins of primates and humans.

No evidence? Try reading sometime... and by reading, I mean reading something that was written in the last 300 years.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 10:52:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/18/2011 1:43:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 8:09:54 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 7:31:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:15:15 PM, Tiel wrote:
Well then you both can admit that the evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is not a solid case. There are many theories that can be derived from the same evidence. Evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is fallible and is riddled with assumption.

None of thoselinks indicate that common descent did not occur. Neither make that claim.

You are the only one who finds it incredible that knowledge accumulates as our technological and repetition of experiments expands.

We didn't know genetics existed until over a hundred years after Darwin. People like you seemed to think genetics, because it did not perfectly align with Darwin's predictions, proved common descent did not occur because Darwin did not explain heritable traits using genetics.

Only you find it incredible that the phenomena of common descent can be theorized to function in multiple fashions.

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence, much less a falsifiable hypothesis, to back up that common descent did not occur.

You have not one shred of evidence that proves it did occur. Either way, that's my position. I have explained to you my position multiple times. The point is that nobody fully understand the origins of primates and humans.

Molecular Sequence Evidence (this is especially important): http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://godlessgeeks.com...
http://www.evolutionpages.com...

Human Vestigiality and Neoteny:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.davidbrin.com...

Twin Nested Hierarchy of Phylogeny and Genetics:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Fossil Collection Showing Transition steps:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

"Potential Falsification:

Thousands of new species are discovered yearly, and new DNA and protein sequences are determined daily from previously unexamined species (Wilson 1992, Ch. 8). At the current rate, which is increasing exponentially, nearly 30,000 new sequences are deposited at GenBank every day, amounting to over 38 million new bases sequenced every day. Each and every one is a test of the theory of common descent. When I first wrote these words in 1999, the rate was less than one tenth what it is today (in 2006), and we now have 20 times the amount of DNA sequenced.

Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard genetic code" or a close derivative thereof. For example, according to the theory, none of the thousands of new and previously unknown insects that are constantly being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest will have non-nucleic acid genomes. Nor will these yet undiscovered species of insects have genetic codes which are not close derivatives of the standard genetic code. In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 1070 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code (Yockey 1992). This possibility could be extremely useful for organisms, as it would preclude interspecific viral infections. However, this has not been observed, and the theory of common descent effectively prohibits such an observation.

As another example, nine new lemur and two marmoset species (all primates) were discovered in the forests of Madagascar and Brazil in 2000 (Groves 2000; Rasoloarison et al. 2000; Thalmann and Geissmann 2000). Ten new monkey species have been discovered in Brazil alone since 1990 (Van Roosmalen et al. 2000). Nothing in biology prevents these various species from having a hitherto unknown genetic material or a previously unused genetic code—nothing, that is, except for the theory of common descent. However, we now know definitively that the new lemurs use DNA with the standard genetic code (Yoder et al. 2000); the marmosets have yet to be tested."


Now, Tiel, I have put forward a testable and falsifiable hypothesis about the common descent of humans and chimps. I have also put forward over five means of independently falsifying human common descent and NONE pan out.

I've shown you mine. Let's see yours

A falsifiable hypothesis that is an alternative explanation to common descent between chimps and humans.

Note that endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes are already accounted for.

Show you my what? I don't have a specific position that I am defending.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 11:44:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 10:52:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/18/2011 1:43:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 8:09:54 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 7:31:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:15:15 PM, Tiel wrote:
Well then you both can admit that the evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is not a solid case. There are many theories that can be derived from the same evidence. Evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is fallible and is riddled with assumption.

None of thoselinks indicate that common descent did not occur. Neither make that claim.

You are the only one who finds it incredible that knowledge accumulates as our technological and repetition of experiments expands.

We didn't know genetics existed until over a hundred years after Darwin. People like you seemed to think genetics, because it did not perfectly align with Darwin's predictions, proved common descent did not occur because Darwin did not explain heritable traits using genetics.

Only you find it incredible that the phenomena of common descent can be theorized to function in multiple fashions.

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence, much less a falsifiable hypothesis, to back up that common descent did not occur.

You have not one shred of evidence that proves it did occur. Either way, that's my position. I have explained to you my position multiple times. The point is that nobody fully understand the origins of primates and humans.

Molecular Sequence Evidence (this is especially important): http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://godlessgeeks.com...
http://www.evolutionpages.com...

Human Vestigiality and Neoteny:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.davidbrin.com...

Twin Nested Hierarchy of Phylogeny and Genetics:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Fossil Collection Showing Transition steps:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

"Potential Falsification:

Thousands of new species are discovered yearly, and new DNA and protein sequences are determined daily from previously unexamined species (Wilson 1992, Ch. 8). At the current rate, which is increasing exponentially, nearly 30,000 new sequences are deposited at GenBank every day, amounting to over 38 million new bases sequenced every day. Each and every one is a test of the theory of common descent. When I first wrote these words in 1999, the rate was less than one tenth what it is today (in 2006), and we now have 20 times the amount of DNA sequenced.

Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard genetic code" or a close derivative thereof. For example, according to the theory, none of the thousands of new and previously unknown insects that are constantly being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest will have non-nucleic acid genomes. Nor will these yet undiscovered species of insects have genetic codes which are not close derivatives of the standard genetic code. In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 1070 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code (Yockey 1992). This possibility could be extremely useful for organisms, as it would preclude interspecific viral infections. However, this has not been observed, and the theory of common descent effectively prohibits such an observation.

As another example, nine new lemur and two marmoset species (all primates) were discovered in the forests of Madagascar and Brazil in 2000 (Groves 2000; Rasoloarison et al. 2000; Thalmann and Geissmann 2000). Ten new monkey species have been discovered in Brazil alone since 1990 (Van Roosmalen et al. 2000). Nothing in biology prevents these various species from having a hitherto unknown genetic material or a previously unused genetic code—nothing, that is, except for the theory of common descent. However, we now know definitively that the new lemurs use DNA with the standard genetic code (Yoder et al. 2000); the marmosets have yet to be tested."


Now, Tiel, I have put forward a testable and falsifiable hypothesis about the common descent of humans and chimps. I have also put forward over five means of independently falsifying human common descent and NONE pan out.

I've shown you mine. Let's see yours

A falsifiable hypothesis that is an alternative explanation to common descent between chimps and humans.

Note that endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes are already accounted for.

Show you my what? I don't have a specific position that I am defending.

Sad... I have seen you defend the negative side of evolution several times in this thread. You should change your name to spineless wonder.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 12:36:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 10:52:31 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/18/2011 1:43:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 8:09:54 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/17/2011 7:31:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/17/2011 6:15:15 PM, Tiel wrote:
Well then you both can admit that the evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is not a solid case. There are many theories that can be derived from the same evidence. Evolutionary theory as it concerns primates (therefor humans) is fallible and is riddled with assumption.

None of thoselinks indicate that common descent did not occur. Neither make that claim.

You are the only one who finds it incredible that knowledge accumulates as our technological and repetition of experiments expands.

We didn't know genetics existed until over a hundred years after Darwin. People like you seemed to think genetics, because it did not perfectly align with Darwin's predictions, proved common descent did not occur because Darwin did not explain heritable traits using genetics.

Only you find it incredible that the phenomena of common descent can be theorized to function in multiple fashions.

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence, much less a falsifiable hypothesis, to back up that common descent did not occur.

You have not one shred of evidence that proves it did occur. Either way, that's my position. I have explained to you my position multiple times. The point is that nobody fully understand the origins of primates and humans.

Molecular Sequence Evidence (this is especially important): http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://godlessgeeks.com...
http://www.evolutionpages.com...

Human Vestigiality and Neoteny:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.davidbrin.com...

Twin Nested Hierarchy of Phylogeny and Genetics:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Fossil Collection Showing Transition steps:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

"Potential Falsification:

Thousands of new species are discovered yearly, and new DNA and protein sequences are determined daily from previously unexamined species (Wilson 1992, Ch. 8). At the current rate, which is increasing exponentially, nearly 30,000 new sequences are deposited at GenBank every day, amounting to over 38 million new bases sequenced every day. Each and every one is a test of the theory of common descent. When I first wrote these words in 1999, the rate was less than one tenth what it is today (in 2006), and we now have 20 times the amount of DNA sequenced.

Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the "standard genetic code" or a close derivative thereof. For example, according to the theory, none of the thousands of new and previously unknown insects that are constantly being discovered in the Brazilian rainforest will have non-nucleic acid genomes. Nor will these yet undiscovered species of insects have genetic codes which are not close derivatives of the standard genetic code. In the absence of the theory of common descent, it is quite possible that every species could have a very different genetic code, specific to it only, since there are 1.4 x 1070 informationally equivalent genetic codes, all of which use the same codons and amino acids as the standard genetic code (Yockey 1992). This possibility could be extremely useful for organisms, as it would preclude interspecific viral infections. However, this has not been observed, and the theory of common descent effectively prohibits such an observation.

As another example, nine new lemur and two marmoset species (all primates) were discovered in the forests of Madagascar and Brazil in 2000 (Groves 2000; Rasoloarison et al. 2000; Thalmann and Geissmann 2000). Ten new monkey species have been discovered in Brazil alone since 1990 (Van Roosmalen et al. 2000). Nothing in biology prevents these various species from having a hitherto unknown genetic material or a previously unused genetic code—nothing, that is, except for the theory of common descent. However, we now know definitively that the new lemurs use DNA with the standard genetic code (Yoder et al. 2000); the marmosets have yet to be tested."


Now, Tiel, I have put forward a testable and falsifiable hypothesis about the common descent of humans and chimps. I have also put forward over five means of independently falsifying human common descent and NONE pan out.

I've shown you mine. Let's see yours

A falsifiable hypothesis that is an alternative explanation to common descent between chimps and humans.

Note that endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes are already accounted for.

Show you my what? I don't have a specific position that I am defending.

So far, you have claimed that evolutionary theory is on the same level of tentativeness as the interference of aliens.

I have just provided evidence for common descent of humans. You have claimed that the tentativeness of human common descent is on par with concepts such as aliens interfering with our DNA.

Choose any alternative to human common descent you wish. If you say you are "open-minded" then you should have evidence backing BOTH sides.

It would be very strange if you maintain neutrality while having mountains of evidence on one hand and no evidence on the other.

And please, please, please stop saying hypotheses and theories can be proven. It's embarassing.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 12:50:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 12:47:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Okay, that doesn't actually display the ancestors but it shows how the links between ancestors are set up.

I've heard that shrews came before primates, though there is no actual linear line. It's an array. I'm no evolutionary biologist though and neither are you.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 12:52:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 12:50:50 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/20/2011 12:47:56 AM, FREEDO wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Okay, that doesn't actually display the ancestors but it shows how the links between ancestors are set up.

I've heard that shrews came before primates, though there is no actual linear line. It's an array. I'm no evolutionary biologist though and neither are you.

Yes, according to the graph both humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor with rats.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 3:10:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All of your evidence for a certain bias is not proof of an unquestionable truth. They believe this... They think that...

Not very convincing to someone such as myself. That's my point. I have researched it from different angles for years. Nothing has convinced me thusfar. This is because none of the hypothesis or theories are fact.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 6:49:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 3:10:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
All of your evidence for a certain bias is not proof of an unquestionable truth. They believe this... They think that...

Not very convincing to someone such as myself. That's my point. I have researched it from different angles for years. Nothing has convinced me thusfar. This is because none of the hypothesis or theories are fact.

A theory is a hypothesis that is substantiated through fact. The information which was presented are rooted theories. Sure, that doesn't make it true. It doesn't make the theory of gravity true either. But it's the scientific consensus gathered from people that know a lot more about the subject than you do.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 6:53:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 3:10:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
All of your evidence for a certain bias is not proof of an unquestionable truth. They believe this... They think that...

Not very convincing to someone such as myself. That's my point. I have researched it from different angles for years. Nothing has convinced me thusfar. This is because none of the hypothesis or theories are fact.

Holy hell, Tiel, have you been listening AT ALL?

HYPOTHESES AND THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVEN.

Say this with me.

HYPOTHESES AND THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVEN.

Next

A HYPOTHESIS/THEORY IS NOT A FACT, IT EXPLAINS FACTS.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 7:48:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 6:49:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 9/20/2011 3:10:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
All of your evidence for a certain bias is not proof of an unquestionable truth. They believe this... They think that...

Not very convincing to someone such as myself. That's my point. I have researched it from different angles for years. Nothing has convinced me thusfar. This is because none of the hypothesis or theories are fact.

A theory is a hypothesis that is substantiated through fact. The information which was presented are rooted theories. Sure, that doesn't make it true. It doesn't make the theory of gravity true either. But it's the scientific consensus gathered from people that know a lot more about the subject than you do.

No, your judgement on my knowledge is relative and holds no objective weight of truth. Facts can be interpreted differently in supporting many differing theories. Sorry that you can't understand the simplicity of what I speak.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 7:50:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 6:53:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/20/2011 3:10:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
All of your evidence for a certain bias is not proof of an unquestionable truth. They believe this... They think that...

Not very convincing to someone such as myself. That's my point. I have researched it from different angles for years. Nothing has convinced me thusfar. This is because none of the hypothesis or theories are fact.

Holy hell, Tiel, have you been listening AT ALL?

HYPOTHESES AND THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVEN.

Say this with me.

HYPOTHESES AND THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVEN.

Next

A HYPOTHESIS/THEORY IS NOT A FACT, IT EXPLAINS FACTS.

Yes, though many differing theories and hypothesis can be derived from the same facts. This is the reality of it until the theory becomes law or a fact in itself.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 7:54:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 7:39:14 PM, seraine wrote:
Who's heard of that hypothesis folks like to call "heliocentric theory"?

That's exactly my point. The heliocentric theory was proposed as early as the 3rd century b.c. and it wasn't taken all that seriously until the 16th century. Your example proves my point perfectly. I can derive a theory based on today's facts that may not be accepted or taken seriously for another thousand years or more.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 8:05:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 7:59:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOlolol

You are a funny guy. Oh wait... No your not.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 9:39:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 7:50:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/20/2011 6:53:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/20/2011 3:10:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
All of your evidence for a certain bias is not proof of an unquestionable truth. They believe this... They think that...

Not very convincing to someone such as myself. That's my point. I have researched it from different angles for years. Nothing has convinced me thusfar. This is because none of the hypothesis or theories are fact.

Holy hell, Tiel, have you been listening AT ALL?

HYPOTHESES AND THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVEN.

Say this with me.

HYPOTHESES AND THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVEN.

Next

A HYPOTHESIS/THEORY IS NOT A FACT, IT EXPLAINS FACTS.

Yes, though many differing theories and hypothesis can be derived from the same facts. This is the reality of it until the theory becomes law or a fact in itself.

Astonishing. Just freaking astonishing.

Do you hate reading what I write? Do you have something against comprehension?

THEORIES

CAN'T

BECOME

FACTS.

A law is a DESCRIPTIVE account of observations. The "laws of thermodynamics" describe interactions, it does not give a causal account. A theory cannot become a law.

Wow, I mean wow. How are you not getting this?

THEORIES CAN'T BECOME FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 9:41:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 8:05:39 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/20/2011 7:59:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOlolol

You are a funny guy. Oh wait... No your not.

This 'insult' is a fail.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2011 10:02:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 9:39:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/20/2011 7:50:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/20/2011 6:53:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/20/2011 3:10:12 PM, Tiel wrote:
All of your evidence for a certain bias is not proof of an unquestionable truth. They believe this... They think that...

Not very convincing to someone such as myself. That's my point. I have researched it from different angles for years. Nothing has convinced me thusfar. This is because none of the hypothesis or theories are fact.

Holy hell, Tiel, have you been listening AT ALL?

HYPOTHESES AND THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVEN.

Say this with me.

HYPOTHESES AND THEORIES CANNOT BE PROVEN.

Next

A HYPOTHESIS/THEORY IS NOT A FACT, IT EXPLAINS FACTS.

Yes, though many differing theories and hypothesis can be derived from the same facts. This is the reality of it until the theory becomes law or a fact in itself.

Astonishing. Just freaking astonishing.

Do you hate reading what I write? Do you have something against comprehension?

THEORIES

CAN'T

BECOME

FACTS.

A law is a DESCRIPTIVE account of observations. The "laws of thermodynamics" describe interactions, it does not give a causal account. A theory cannot become a law.

Wow, I mean wow. How are you not getting this?

THEORIES CAN'T BECOME FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All natural laws are unchangeable. Before a law is understood theories are put forth in an effort to describe it's details. It doesn't matter how much you try to yell on a keyboard... It doesn't change anything. You aren't as smart as you think you are. You aren't comprehending the simple meaning behind my words. That's because your blinded by a bias judgement of me as a human and anything that may come from my intellect.

I know what a damn theory is you idiot.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2011 1:24:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/20/2011 10:02:54 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/20/2011 9:39:39 PM, Wnope wrote:: : : :
A HYPOTHESIS/THEORY IS NOT A FACT, IT EXPLAINS FACTS.

Yes, though many differing theories and hypothesis can be derived from the same facts. This is the reality of it until the theory becomes law or a fact in itself.

Astonishing. Just freaking astonishing.

Do you hate reading what I write? Do you have something against comprehension?

THEORIES

CAN'T

BECOME

FACTS.

A law is a DESCRIPTIVE account of observations. The "laws of thermodynamics" describe interactions, it does not give a causal account. A theory cannot become a law.

Wow, I mean wow. How are you not getting this?

THEORIES CAN'T BECOME FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All natural laws are unchangeable. Before a law is understood theories are put forth in an effort to describe it's details. It doesn't matter how much you try to yell on a keyboard... It doesn't change anything. You aren't as smart as you think you are. You aren't comprehending the simple meaning behind my words. That's because your blinded by a bias judgement of me as a human and anything that may come from my intellect.

I know what a damn theory is you idiot.

FAIL

"A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably"
http://chemistry.about.com...

"Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public."
http://wilstar.com...

"To scientists, a theory is a coherent explanation for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world.

A theory is:

Internally consistent and compatible with the evidence
Firmly grounded in and based upon evidence
Tested against a wide range of phenomena
Demonstrably effective in problem-solving
In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws. The procedures and processes for testing a theory are well-defined within each scientific discipline.

A scientific law is:

A scientific law is a description of a natural phenomenon or principle that invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain circumstances."
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz...

This is basic high school biology, Tiel.

You fail, you absolutely fail.

Laws are sets of observations that hold true consistently. Theories and hypotheses explain observations.

No theory or hypotheses can be "proven." Prove is for mathematics and alcohol.

The fact that we are arguing about this astonishes me. It is basic science.