NationStates Jolt Archive

This right here (http://images.ucomics.com/comics/td/2005/td050514.gif)

This is kind of like the 12 reasons list, using the other sides own arguments against them. The last panel ties it all together very nicely, I think.

as a side note, if it comes up blurry, just click on it and it should zoom in.

This is a good example of how I look at the movement to stop teaching scientific FACT

Are you claiming that evolution is a 'scientific FACT'?

Don't get.

Are you claiming that evolution is a 'scientific FACT'?

No, there's a missing link in there somewhere. But there is eveidence enough to prove that we weren't always like this, of coarse. The Adam and Eve creation story is already disbunked by carbon dating, and the existence of the dinosaurs, and other life forms, before humans even existed, WELL before.

And on a bigger note, I wasn't specifically talking about evolution, but that is the main focus. Creationism can't be PROVEN therefore it is not SCIENCE. It is religion. Religion should be seperate from science in that acspect. Alternate theories should be tought, but religious viewpoints on it are for religion, not schools. Go to church to learn that.

And, finally, I do belive in God. I belive Evolution was God's will. I don't belive in a bible written by humans full of holes disproven by science. It is my belief that life has evolved from much smaller sources, and continues to do so, and I belive this is what God intended from the get go. Science is so complex, fits so perfectly and awe-imspiringly together, it is my belief that some higher being had some hand in it. It cannot be proven, I don't feel I need to prove it to other people, it's my own belief. I would enter a classroom and tell my students that "GOD made evolution happen"

The problem with creationist teaching is that in order for it to happen, you are saying GOD did it. That is religion, not science. What about the other religions? Would you then, after that, say that dinosaurs are a myth, the carbon dating showing the age of the earth is only one viewpoint (its PROVEN FACT) just because the Bible says otherwise? This is my problem with it.

AND PLEASE, don't forget to check my orginal link. This was supposed to be humor, and I would like the focus to stay on the sorce, not this post.

Don't get.

It's satire. Like "The Onion" that sort of thing

I'd be for the US school system to stop teaching kids water freezes at 32 degrees. 0 is much more sensible and easier to remember...

Are you claiming that evolution is a 'scientific FACT'?
Everything has a fact and a theory

I'd be for the US school system to stop teaching kids water freezes at 32 degrees. 0 is much more sensible and easier to remember...

Isn't that how Celcius (sp?) works? America should have just went with Celcius/metric in the first place as a country, it's a much easier system once you learn it compared to our dumb ass system. 12 inches=a foot 3 feet=a yard
it's so random, it must be hell for people trying to learn it for the first time after only using metric.

It's satire. Like "The Onion" that sort of thing

I get satire. But I don't get what's it about....forgive me. I'm dumb.

I get satire. But I don't get what's it about....forgive me. I'm dumb.

The teachings of religion vs. science in schools, and how they should be viewed both as theories, not as fact.

is there supposed to be only page? Only one loads when I click on the link.

Isn't that how Celcius (sp?) works? America should have just went with Celcius/metric in the first place as a country, it's a much easier system once you learn it compared to our dumb ass system. 12 inches=a foot 3 feet=a yard
it's so random, it must be hell for people trying to learn it for the first time after only using metric.

Even the most simple of minds can learn it in a very short time as they have been doing for over 500 years. With the metric system even those with a lack of a mind can learn it easily. We use a dual system which poses no problem for anyone except for those that will not or cannot think beyond 10.

:confused: Water does not freeze at 32F, it freezes at 0 C. Until science can get its act together, creationists can continue to promote stupidity by dividing and ruling the scientific world. BAN THE IMPERIAL SYSTEM NOW. NO MORE FARHENHEIT OR MILES OR INCHES!!! :confused:

Isn't that how Celcius (sp?) works? America should have just went with Celcius/metric in the first place as a country, it's a much easier system once you learn it compared to our dumb ass system. 12 inches=a foot 3 feet=a yard
it's so random, it must be hell for people trying to learn it for the first time after only using metric.

Why name-call your own system? :confused:

The basic unit of temperature (symbol: T) in the International System of Units (SI) is the kelvin (K). If the US switches to something else, use kelvin.

Ihatevacations']Everything has a fact and a theory

And evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Creationism can't be PROVEN therefore it is not SCIENCE.

To paraphase you: Evolution can't be PROVEN therefore it is not SCIENCE.

Actually some aspects of evolution can be proven, and are everyday. Experiments with intensive breeding of flies have shown changes after only 20 or so generations. Survival of the fittest is what we do every day, and we watch it on tv in the form of boxing, UFC...etc.

In contrast, no religion on earth can prove anything scientifically.

The teachings of religion vs. science in schools, and how they should be viewed both as theories, not as fact.

Oh yeah...never teach anything as fact because education strives to overthrow previous assumptions. All should be taught as theories...!

I thought satire was supposed to be funny :rolleyes:

Evolution is impossible without a creator, and for several reasons.
For one thing, DNA is an extremely simple yet elagant system that holds information. Information is not matter or energy, it is merely transmitted by it, and neither matter nor energy can create information, so it must have been created by a higher being. (God anybody?)
Three cities, what you have described is mutation, which IS a fact. Every so often, a minor change occurs in the DNA, changing the next generations. However, this does not allow a creature to transform into a new one. If you want proof, look at any low level entity, like influenza virii. They mutate all the time, yet they are always influenze virii, you don't see any of them becoming cold virii or any form of bacteria do you?
Now, for you who say God has his hand in evolution, that is beyond my means of disproving, but He still would have had to create a creature first.
PS: Genesis is NOT the earliest time mentioned in the bible, there is the creation of the angels, Lucifer becoming Satan, and the battle between Satan and God which destroyed earth. Genesis was the time when earth was remade.

That comic is funny and well appreciated :D

I loved it.
Since we have the theory of gravity, perhaps we should do that one next.

Does that mean that if I disapproved of and didn't believe in the theory of gravity, I couldn't fall down any longer?

If that is so, I also object of the theory of subtraction and will never go broke again!!!

Does that mean that if I disapproved of and didn't believe in the theory of gravity, I couldn't fall down any longer?

If that is so, I also object of the theory of subtraction and will never go broke again!!!
LOL
If that works, I'll become a religious fundamentalist.
"No, I'm sorry, subtraction is against my religion. But you can keep adding to my bank account. My holy book approves of addition."

My thoughts exactly!!!

Actually some aspects of evolution can be proven, and are everyday. Experiments with intensive breeding of flies have shown changes after only 20 or so generations. Survival of the fittest is what we do every day, and we watch it on tv in the form of boxing, UFC...etc.

Science doesn't prove things: at best it can be said to falsify erroneus hypothesis or theories. You can carry out a hundred thousand identical experiments and attain the same results with all of them, but this does not mean that the hundred-thousandth-and-first experiment won't display results contrary to the expected.

You might want to check up on basic scientific method and falsification theory.

Why name-call your own system? :confused:

The basic unit of temperature (symbol: T) in the International System of Units (SI) is the kelvin (K). If the US switches to something else, use kelvin.
Kelvin is Celsius with a different zero. One degree celsius is 100th of the difference between the freezing and boiling points of water at normal pressure. 0 is freezing and 100 is boiling. Kelvin puts the zero at about -370-something, since this is absolute zero. Celsius is easier than Kelvin for the average person since they don't operate at such extreme degrees. Kelvin gets used in physics and chemistry though.

Are you claiming that evolution is a 'scientific FACT'?

Well, the multiplicity of evidence for it that exists is fact.

Kelvin is Celsius with a different zero. One degree celsius is 100th of the difference between the freezing and boiling points of water at normal pressure. 0 is freezing and 100 is boiling. Kelvin puts the zero at about -370-something, since this is absolute zero. Celsius is easier than Kelvin for the average person since they don't operate at such extreme degrees. Kelvin gets used in physics and chemistry though.

Absolute zero is -273.15°C :)

Or 0 Kelvin...

I prefer Kelvin over Celsius because Kelvin has no negative numbers....I agree with doing away with Fahrenheit, and switching to metric....

We keep making excuses like "but everyone knows the system we have...they'll be confused by a new one." this is a stupid arguement, if we teach the younger generation in metric, they'll grow up with it, and the people who don't know it will eventually die off...BOOm, problem solved.

Absolute zero is -273.15°C :)
I got the 3 and the 7 right... :p

And evolution is a theory, not a fact.

It's both.

The fact of evolution is that evolution happens, as all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor. This has been observed, and is an observation, which is synonymous with fact in scientific jargon.

The theory of evolution explains how evolution happens. (Summarized briefly and badly, random mutation filtered by natural and sexual selection.)

Evolution is impossible without a creator, and for several reasons.
For one thing, DNA is an extremely simple yet elagant system that holds information. Information is not matter or energy, it is merely transmitted by it, and neither matter nor energy can create information, so it must have been created by a higher being. (God anybody?)
Three cities, what you have described is mutation, which IS a fact. Every so often, a minor change occurs in the DNA, changing the next generations. However, this does not allow a creature to transform into a new one. If you want proof, look at any low level entity, like influenza virii. They mutate all the time, yet they are always influenze virii, you don't see any of them becoming cold virii or any form of bacteria do you?
Now, for you who say God has his hand in evolution, that is beyond my means of disproving, but He still would have had to create a creature first.
PS: Genesis is NOT the earliest time mentioned in the bible, there is the creation of the angels, Lucifer becoming Satan, and the battle between Satan and God which destroyed earth. Genesis was the time when earth was remade.

I'm not qualified to argue all of the points you raised but I feel that arguing for creationism because DNA can't just exist without an external force is fundamentally flawed. I don't claim to know how DNA came into existance but the idea of creation by a deity only postpones the problem: we are left with a being that came form nowhere and just is. This contradicts science just as much as the spontaneous appearence of DNA.

You also dismiss changes over generations as just mutations. Surely the whole theory of evolution is based on the idea of mutation? If a mutation improves the creatures chance of survival then it is more likely to pass the mutated gene on to the next generation, in this way a mutant giraffe with a longer neck is more likely to survive a food shortage so more giraffes in the next generation would have longer necks.

For these reasons I feel that neither of us can offer an explanation for the beginning of DNA without resorting to the idea of things simply coming into existance without a cause (DNA for me, God for you) but I think that evolution offers a good explanation for human existance. Evolution can be seen in action through the fossils of horses and their ancestors, we have a near complete fossil rescord of their evolution.

Regarding evolution, two words: fossil record. :)

No, I'm sorry, subtraction is against my religion. But you can keep adding to my bank account. My holy book approves of addition."

Oh, where may I get a copy of your holy book....O glorious prophet?
See...the conversion has already begun...
I like not believing in subtraction...I also like the idea of not believing in monday mornings

The teachings of religion vs. science in schools, and how they should be viewed both as theories, not as fact.

Of course, the difference between a scientific theory and a layman's theory (which is the type religion uses) are very different.

The first is very near to fact, while the second is merely "I think it happened that way."

And evolution is a theory, not a fact.



To paraphase you: Evolution can't be PROVEN therefore it is not SCIENCE.

Yes, that is true. However, as I stated, certain aspects, other than evolution, ARE proven. Those things should not be seen as "theory". However, evolution at least has much evidence behind it, while creationalism has one exsplanation: God. God is not science, it's religion.

By the by, if we did teach creationism instead of evolution it would be a much more simple class: "Ok children, open your books to page three. As you can see, God did it. We were humans, and that was that. Tonights assignment, go home and read up on the bible stories of Adam and Eve, and no whining from the Shinto classmates this time, ok? Class dismissed!"

If we teach creationism as a theory, you would have to also teach the theories of EVERY OTHER RELIGION as well, to be fair. Thus turining into another Religion class.

It's both.

It may very well be a 'historical fact', but it has not been shown to be a (and I quote) 'scientific FACT'.

If we teach creationism as a theory, you would have to also teach the theories of EVERY OTHER RELIGION as well, to be fair. Thus turining into another Religion class.

Somewhat spurious claim here, this only follows in any way if you teach multiple different theories of evolution (for example Lysenkoism and Lamarckian theories along with the more mainstream theory).

Evolution is impossible without a creator, and for several reasons.
For one thing, DNA is an extremely simple yet elagant system that holds information. Information is not matter or energy, it is merely transmitted by it, and neither matter nor energy can create information, so it must have been created by a higher being. (God anybody?)
Three cities, what you have described is mutation, which IS a fact. Every so often, a minor change occurs in the DNA, changing the next generations. However, this does not allow a creature to transform into a new one. If you want proof, look at any low level entity, like influenza virii. They mutate all the time, yet they are always influenze virii, you don't see any of them becoming cold virii or any form of bacteria do you?
Now, for you who say God has his hand in evolution, that is beyond my means of disproving, but He still would have had to create a creature first.
PS: Genesis is NOT the earliest time mentioned in the bible, there is the creation of the angels, Lucifer becoming Satan, and the battle between Satan and God which destroyed earth. Genesis was the time when earth was remade.


I agree with parts of that. The god I belive exists is not the Bible's God. Just A God of some sort, probably nothing we could comprehend, or put into such simple human falibility terms as he is represented in the Bible. So that's where we differ. My main point is this: Has the universe ALWAYS existed, was there no true beginning? This is something the human mind has a hard time thinking about. Where did all the matter in the universe first come from? The Big Bang? Where did the small piece of matter that caused the big bang (or whatever) come from? Nothingness? In this case, a God is the best thing I think our human minds can come up with. But who knows? There is no way to know. The universe is exspanding from a central point, we roughly know that. What about the first cell in a concieved egg that starts beating, with no stimulus, of its own accord? A force, a God, a universal Gaia or pulse? It has to be something. If it truly is GOD, I belive He brought about the start of the universe, and had not only his hand in the life on earth, but other planets formations as well. Why? Who knows. But I do not belive in the Bible stories, sorry. Something on earths surface combined many different forms of matter to from the first living thing, where everything else eventually sprung from. The "God", or maybe even an unthinking "pulse", is what I see as what caused this.

So yes, I belive in creationism, as in the creation of the universes' beginning, and evolution followed. However, I do fully accept the fact that I could be very, very wrong about where the universe got its start. Who am I to know of such things?

The fact of evolution is that evolution happens, as all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor. This has been observed, and is an observation, which is synonymous with fact in scientific jargon

:eek: Wow. You were there to observe the first example of life and watch it evolve into all the creatures of today. You’re something special.

Absolute zero is -273.15°C

Were you aware that they once got Hydrogen almost to that level? I read an article about it, somewhere forgot where, might have been National Geographic. Anyway, the Hydrogen turned into a silver-colored liquid that defied gravity by floating in its vacuum of a test tube. Pretty awesome. I’d suggest an online search if you are interested in that kind of stuff.

Science doesn't prove things: at best it can be said to falsify erroneus hypothesis or theories. You can carry out a hundred thousand identical experiments and attain the same results with all of them, but this does not mean that the hundred-thousandth-and-first experiment won't display results contrary to the expected.

You might want to check up on basic scientific method and falsification theory.

Due to density issues, my pencil is stabbing through this styrofoam cup every time. But one of these times, ONE OF THESE TIMES, it will be deflected, shooting across the room in a ball of fire, lodging itself in the wall. I'm also looking forward to the one time fire DOSN'T combust skin. Then I could be a super hero.

this is a stupid arguement, if we teach the younger generation in metric, they'll grow up with it, and the people who don't know it will eventually die off...BOOm, problem solved.

ITS NATURAL SELECTION!!!
Actually, it aint. but still.

Dudes, its funny. Its a comic. If you knew that you're a part of the anti-science movement, then you probably should have not clicked on the link.

Due to density issues, my pencil is stabbing through this styrofoam cup every time. But one of these times, ONE OF THESE TIMES, it will be deflected, shooting across the room in a ball of fire, lodging itself in the wall. I'm also looking forward to the one time fire DOSN'T combust skin. Then I could be a super hero.

Your point being?

Due to density issues, my pencil is stabbing through this styrofoam cup every time. But one of these times, ONE OF THESE TIMES, it will be deflected, shooting across the room in a ball of fire, lodging itself in the wall. I'm also looking forward to the one time fire DOSN'T combust skin. Then I could be a super hero.
Dude, that just happened to me. I put down my glass of water, and it bounced up 30 feet, and stuck onto the ceiling. It waited for about an hour, then fell down so fast, it ripped my kitty's tail off, then made a five foot crater in the floor. The amazing thing - the water had a mysterious change, and was now WINE!

Dude, that just happened to me. I put down my glass of water, and it bounced up 30 feet, and stuck onto the ceiling. It waited for about an hour, then fell down so fast, it ripped my kitty's tail off, then made a five foot crater in the floor. The amazing thing - the water had a mysterious change, and was now WINE!

that happens to me all the time

It may very well be a 'historical fact', but it has not been shown to be a (and I quote) 'scientific FACT'.
A scientific fact is simply something that has been observed, as I said in the last post. Evolution has been observed. Evolution is therefore a scientific fact. How is this hard to understand?

A scientific fact is simply something that has been observed, as I said in the last post.

So is 'Jack Ruby shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald' a scientific fact?

Evolution has been observed.

Microevolution has certainly been observed, but speciation (which is integral to the larger scale of macroevolution) has never been observed.

We have scientific data which does not contradict the theory of evolution, but that does not mean that the theory has been proven.

Dude, that just happened to me. I put down my glass of water, and it bounced up 30 feet, and stuck onto the ceiling. It waited for about an hour, then fell down so fast, it ripped my kitty's tail off, then made a five foot crater in the floor. The amazing thing - the water had a mysterious change, and was now WINE!

Now I'm scared. Sure, it's been scientifially "proven" the red blood cells soak up oxygen, delivering them to different parts of the body, thus carring carbon dioxide to the lungs to be exhaled. But who says the fifty gazilinth time it won't suddenly make the cells EXSPLODE instead! Who knows? Science dosn't prove anything, just because it happens lots of times in a row!

Microevolution has certainly been observed, but speciation (which is integral to the larger scale of macroevolution) has never been observed.

We have scientific data which does not contradict the theory of evolution, but that does not mean that the theory has been proven.

What about the fossil record? Macroevolution is clearly visible there...

What about the fossil record? Macroevolution is clearly visible there...

Fossils are series of snapshots: single fossils do not show a process of change.

Extrapolating speciation on this basis is not the same thing as directly observing it. As such we see that this theory does not fit into CthulhuFhtagn's definition of what constitutes a scientific fact...


A scientific fact is simply something that has been observed, as I said in the last post.

So is 'Jack Ruby shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald' a scientific fact?
By definition, yes.


Microevolution has certainly been observed, but speciation (which is integral to the larger scale of macroevolution) has never been observed.
Speciation has been observed. The best known example is Drosophila, which has speciated in laboratories multiple times. Another example is the "nylon bug", a bacteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon, a substance not found in nature until recently, when humans started to manufacture it.

We have scientific data which does not contradict the theory of evolution, but that does not mean that the theory has been proven.
Science does not deal with proof. Scientific theories are not related to scientific facts. Stop confusing the two.

Water freezes at 32F ONLY at a specific atmospheric pressure (1 kPa).
Hmmm... so both sides are wrong. :rolleyes: LOL

I know some people who are so dogmatic about "water freezing temperature", that they just don't want to understand that on the top of the Everest, for instance, water freezes at 40F (because of the different atmospheric pressure). They just don't believe that such a basic truth wouldn't be universal but rather, dependent on other factors and context.

Humans like dogma. They don't like gray areas, non-linear relations and complex truths. They want to know things that are true, in all situations, without any calculation. They want to be answered "32" and not "it depends".

Same thing holds for mathematics. What is "mathematics", but a self-proving monument to itself? Once we have accepted the fact there there is not just ONE mathematic, but an infinite number of them, science has progressed much faster. Non-Eucledian geometry and Godel's theorems made us more intelligent, but more humble at the same time. 100 years ago, these ideas would have been totally rejected by scientists. Now they make us rethink the world.

I become more and more annoyed by these "science versus religion" debates. When there is a war of ideas, it's sad to see both sides becoming more and more extreme and dogmatic. The first victim of such a war is always the right to doubt and to question.

Science should be open to doubts and questions, as much as religion should be. But when opposed to extremists, scientific knowledge can turn quite dogmatic --religious-- too. Science becomes entrenched, fights any dissent.

I have my own doubts, and I am proud of it. I don't believe in the current particle theory, I think it's deeply flawed. I don't believe in the current explanation for quasars. Am I anti-scientific... or am I watering new ideas, so that they might someday florish?

One good example of science shooting itself in the foot, is the story of the Burgess fossiles. At first, scientists looked at these fossiles and classified them into well-known animal groups (trilobites, crustaceas, molluscs, worms, etc.) These fossiles were considered of minor importance, and stored in drawers in the basement of an university. More than 25 years later, one expert who was doing inventory work in the university's collection started looking more closely -- and realized that the fossiles' physical features had been *blatantly ignored*, in order to make them "fit" into well-known groups. He questionned the accepted interpretation, and re-classified these long-dead animals into new, now-extinct groups, different from anything modern. It took him years to have it accepted by the rest of the scientific establishment, because it was believed that all the original groups were known, and had representants in today's fauna (except for trilobites and ammonites).

You should read Stephen Jay Gould's books... it will make you doubt about many "accepted truths" about evolution. It doesn't reject Darwinism, it just points to flaws, incomplete parts, and different interpretations.

What if Darminism becomes a dogma? We wouldn't be able to accept Gould's theories. But who has heard of Gould's theories anyway? Almost nobody. Lots of scientists don't even want to consider any criticism of Darwin, or the fact that Darwin's theories account for only half of the explanations -- Darwin's theories need to be completed.

Believing in evolution is not about having a cult about Darwin, the way we do with Jesus. It's about considering Darwin's work and trying to question it, complete it and make it better. If we turn it into dogma, we won't ever solve its problems and mysteries, and Evolution's opponents will have plenty of reasons to diss it.

We need to be flexible in our acceptance of scientifiy theories. Science is about doubt. Too often, an absolute truth that we take for granted, is destined to be shattered later on.

But yes, temptation is always high to reject a theory... but we shouldn't reject any theory unless we have a better theory at hand. Rejecting science for the sake of it wouldn't be right. Occam's razor should always be used: try to find the simple, elegant explanation. Who knows? When you make a scientific proof and it looks so elegant and beautiful in its mathematical perfection, you can almost see God smiling at you.

Religious people tend to bury any question into the "we don't want to know" or "we wouldn't understand" universal answers. That's the saddest thing. We don't want to question theories and replace them with nothing; we want to question them in order to make them better.

Fossils are series of snapshots: single fossils do not show a process of change.
Well duh. Individuals don't change. Populations do. I refer to the Hyracotherium to Equus sequence in the fossil record as an example of macroevolution. (Incidentally, macroevolution is simply large amounts of microevolution. Denying that marcoevolution can happen wjile accepting that microevolution can is like denying that one can walk from New York to Florida, while accepting that one can walk from one block to the next.)

One good example of science shooting itself in the foot, is the story of the Burgess fossiles. At first, scientists looked at these fossiles and classified them into well-known animal groups (trilobites, crustaceas, molluscs, worms, etc.) These fossiles were considered of minor importance, and stored in drawers in the basement of an university. More than 25 years later, one expert who was doing inventory work in the university's collection started looking more closely -- and realized that the fossiles' physical features had been *blatantly ignored*, in order to make them "fit" into well-known groups. He questionned the accepted interpretation, and re-classified these long-dead animals into new, now-extinct groups, different from anything modern. It took him years to have it accepted by the rest of the scientific establishment, because it was believed that all the original groups were known, and had representants in today's fauna (except for trilobites and ammonites).

You're ignoring the second half of the story. The Burgess Shale fossils were later examined in death, and almost all of them have since been classified in phyla that still exist today. Only a few of them remain unclassifiable, most notably Opabinia. Science was correct the first time around.

By definition, yes.

Despite the fact that it was not observed in scientific conditions and is (almost) by definition an unrepeatable event and thus outside the ambit of scientific experiment?

So, are you saying that scientific facts are a subset of facts, such that although there may exist many facts which have not been observed, all facts which have been observed are scientific facts?



Speciation has been observed. The best known example is Drosophila, which has speciated in laboratories multiple times. Another example is the "nylon bug", a bacteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon, a substance not found in nature until recently, when humans started to manufacture it.

Okay, I'm reading up on this now. I'll make it clear now that I believe evolution to be a truth, and am not arguing against it, but instead the claim that it is a 'scientific FACT'.


Science does not deal with proof.

Yes, it deals with falsification.

Scientific theories are not related to scientific facts.

This comment I don't think I follow.

You're ignoring the second half of the story. The Burgess Shale fossils were later examined in death, and almost all of them have since been classified in phyla that still exist today. Only a few of them remain unclassifiable, most notably Opabinia. Science was correct the first time around.

Well, Opabinia fits in somewhere intermediate between Onychophora and Arthropoda (the Anomalocarids belong somewhere there too), however it has a multiplicity of derived characters on itself. Considering that Opabinia is from middle cambrian and metazoan life appears early cambrian / later proterozoic, this is enough time for these derived characters like those to appear.

This comment I don't think I follow.
You implied that scientific theories eventually become facts. They do not. They are wholly unrelated.

Well, Opabinia fits in somewhere intermediate between Onychophora and Arthropoda (the Anomalocarids belong somewhere there too), however it has a multiplicity of derived characters on itself. Considering that Opabinia is from middle cambrian and metazoan life appears early cambrian / later proterozoic, this is enough time for these derived characters like those to appear.
Thanks. Didn't know that. This leaves...

Actually, it doesn't leave anything.

You're ignoring the second half of the story. The Burgess Shale fossils were later examined in death, and almost all of them have since been classified in phyla that still exist today. Only a few of them remain unclassifiable, most notably Opabinia. Science was correct the first time around.
What are your sources?

And by "unclassifiable", do you mean "part of an extinct phyla", which would add weight to my argument. I didn't say that ALL fossiles were from new phyla.

You implied that scientific theories eventually become facts. They do not. They are wholly unrelated.

Here?

We have scientific data which does not contradict the theory of evolution, but that does not mean that the theory has been proven.

My intention there was not to imply that an accretion of data would eventually prove the theory of evolution and thus turn it in a scientific fact, instead to imply that as with any scientific hypothesis the possibility of a piece of experimental data being generated which falsifies the theory is a possibility.

Thanks. Didn't know that. This leaves...

Actually, it doesn't leave anything.

You're welcome. :)

I wonder if I should start a "Ask a palaeontologist" thread some time, but this would be non-legitimate considering palaeontology is not a religion... :D

EDIT: Btw, actually there's a few forms where I would say their relationship is unknown, but I'd have to look it up.

Despite the fact that it was not observed in scientific conditions and is (almost) by definition an unrepeatable event and thus outside the ambit of scientific experiment?

So, are you saying that scientific facts are a subset of facts, such that although there may exist many facts which have not been observed, all facts which have been observed are scientific facts?

I'm probably wrong on the death of Lee Harvey Oswald. I still haven't woken up fully.
An event does not necessarily have to be repeatable to be considered a scientific fact. It is a scientific fact that an asteroid hit what is now Chixilcub about 65 mya, but that event cannot be repeated.

What are your sources?

And by "unclassifiable", do you mean "part of an extinct phyla", which would add weight to my argument. I didn't say that ALL fossiles were from new phyla.
If you note, after being told where Opabinia fit, I corrected myself and said that all of the fossils belonged to known phyla.

I'm probably wrong on the death of Lee Harvey Oswald. I still haven't woken up fully.
An event does not necessarily have to be repeatable to be considered a scientific fact. It is a scientific fact that an asteroid hit what is now Chixilcub about 65 mya, but that event cannot be repeated.

I'd like to add something here: It's still disputed to what extend the Chicxulub impact was involved in the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction event. From what I know, the extinction began long before the impact and continued for circa 100,000 to 300,000 years afterwards.

An event does not necessarily have to be repeatable to be considered a scientific fact. It is a scientific fact that an asteroid hit what is now Chixilcub about 65 mya, but that event cannot be repeated.

What I'm not happy about with your definition is that it opens the door to lots of statements being judged as scientific facts without any scientific methodology being used in their formualtion or observation.

Thus I can state 'I am thinking of the colour blue' (and at the time of typing this statement I was actually thinking of the colour). I would not be happy if this statement qualified as a scientific fact.


As far as the asteroid hit goes: I would label it as a fact (possibly a historical one) that 'an asteroid hit what is now Chixilcub about 65 mya'. As far as related scientific facts go, I would be happy accepting statements such as 'high concentrations of such and such an element can be detected in the rocks of Chixilcub' or 'stones display the indications of high speed impact at this location', or such like.

If you note, after being told where Opabinia fit, I corrected myself and said that all of the fossils belonged to known phyla.

Actually, the Burgess shale forms aren't the really big deal (although they are truly fascinating!). What is far more mysterious is the Ediacara fauna, which may indeed belong to entirely different phyla. The problem about Ediacara is that they come from a relatively large-grained sediment which means that details of their body anatomy are relatively poorly visible.

:confused: Water does not freeze at 32F, it freezes at 0 C. Until science can get its act together, creationists can continue to promote stupidity by dividing and ruling the scientific world. BAN THE IMPERIAL SYSTEM NOW. NO MORE FARHENHEIT OR MILES OR INCHES!!! :confused:

I agree 100%.

If you note, after being told where Opabinia fit, I corrected myself and said that all of the fossils belonged to known phyla.
Well the main problem with the first interpretation of Burgess was that these animals were almost all misclassified. Even the ones that were classified in the right phylum, were associated to *existing* species, despite numerous details that pointed to these fossils being unknown animals.

So maybe they belong to existing phyla, or maybe not. I have consulted by "Life is beautiful" book by Gould. It doesn't claim anything about phyla, it just points to the fact that these animals belong to previously unknown species and classes. But still, all of these animals had been misclassified. Here's a "trilobite" (oh really? that's an unknown arthropod, maybe the trilobite's cousin). And so on. You get the picture.

Here's an excerpt from another discussion on Anomalocaris:

""It is not know what phylum of organisms Anomalocaris belonged to. It is frequently lumped with arthropods, on the basis of its jointed body; however, other creatures like annelids have also evolved a segmented body). An alternative explanation is that it was a kind of aschelminth (pseudocoelomate worm), as indicated for example by its asymmetrical mouth. Another possibility is that it is a form transitional between lobopods and true arthropods. Without doubt it among the "molting animals", ( a group that includes many segmented animals). Its difference from modern organisms is a reminder, as are all the problematica, of the diversity of life, and the fact that the type of creatures around at present are only a fraction of the number and diversity that have ever lived.""

That's the point with the Burgess story. Acknowledging that diversity of life, and the existence of such a high number of extinct species, classes, maybe phyla.

Anyway. We have to question existing theories. If they're right, it will make them stronger. If they're wrong, we'll have an opportunity to correct our mistakes.

Water freezes at 32F ONLY at a specific atmospheric pressure (1 kPa).
Hmmm... so both sides are wrong. :rolleyes: LOL

I know some people who are so dogmatic about "water freezing temperature", that they just don't want to understand that on the top of the Everest, for instance, water freezes at 40F (because of the different atmospheric pressure). They just don't believe that such a basic truth wouldn't be universal but rather, dependent on other factors and context.

I was the one that brought it up in the first place. The point concerning pressure has been around for a while:
Kelvin is Celsius with a different zero. One degree celsius is 100th of the difference between the freezing and boiling points of water at normal pressure.

No, there's a missing link in there somewhere. But there is eveidence enough to prove that we weren't always like this, of coarse. The Adam and Eve creation story is already disbunked by carbon dating, and the existence of the dinosaurs, and other life forms, before humans even existed, WELL before.

And on a bigger note, I wasn't specifically talking about evolution, but that is the main focus. Creationism can't be PROVEN therefore it is not SCIENCE. It is religion. Religion should be seperate from science in that acspect. Alternate theories should be tought, but religious viewpoints on it are for religion, not schools. Go to church to learn that.

And, finally, I do belive in God. I belive Evolution was God's will. I don't belive in a bible written by humans full of holes disproven by science. It is my belief that life has evolved from much smaller sources, and continues to do so, and I belive this is what God intended from the get go. Science is so complex, fits so perfectly and awe-imspiringly together, it is my belief that some higher being had some hand in it. It cannot be proven, I don't feel I need to prove it to other people, it's my own belief. I would enter a classroom and tell my students that "GOD made evolution happen"

The problem with creationist teaching is that in order for it to happen, you are saying GOD did it. That is religion, not science. What about the other religions? Would you then, after that, say that dinosaurs are a myth, the carbon dating showing the age of the earth is only one viewpoint (its PROVEN FACT) just because the Bible says otherwise? This is my problem with it.

AND PLEASE, don't forget to check my orginal link. This was supposed to be humor, and I would like the focus to stay on the sorce, not this post.
Good post. More power to you for being able to articulate your understanding.
*BOWS*

Somewhat spurious claim here, this only follows in any way if you teach multiple different theories of evolution (for example Lysenkoism and Lamarckian theories along with the more mainstream theory).

Incorrect, as the reasoning is different.

If we teach any religion in public schools, we must teach any and every religion. Otherwise, the government is setting up a state-sponsored religion to teach children.

Microevolution has certainly been observed, but speciation (which is integral to the larger scale of macroevolution) has never been observed.

Incorrect again.

Bodies, I know you hang out in these threads. The evidence has already been shown time and time again. Unless you have created your own definition of speciation different from those who actually study the organisms, we have observed it.

Of course, that still doesn't mean that the theory has been proven. Like any theory, it cannot be proven, but can be supported.

Kelvin is Celsius with a different zero. One degree celsius is 100th of the difference between the freezing and boiling points of water at normal pressure. 0 is freezing and 100 is boiling. Kelvin puts the zero at about -370-something, since this is absolute zero. Celsius is easier than Kelvin for the average person since they don't operate at such extreme degrees. Kelvin gets used in physics and chemistry though.

Yea, I knew that. But I think it makes much more sense to base "zeros degrees" on Absolute Zero than it does to base it on the freezing point, since that makes negative numbers.

And evolution is a theory, not a fact. Wrong, to anyone with scientific foundations, it is known that theory roughly means "imperfect fact". The theory part comes in only in regards to the specific mechanisms of evolution, ie, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. The process is known to occur, it is the details of that process that are debatable.

Are you claiming that evolution is a 'scientific FACT'?

I believe he is...

Corduroy, Scientific "Fact" changes at a fairly rapid pace. Better to teach the Scientific "Method" and let the kiddies decide what is, and is not, a fact. It used to be a "Fact" that a man couldn't run faster than a four-minute mile, that the Continents were always in one location (Yes, up until recently, Plate Tectonics was derided as wishful thinking!), and that man was not meant to fly in heavier-than-air machines.

So teaching regurgible "Facts" is a bad idea. Teach Testable Method instead, and let the chips fall where they will. (of course, my idea's just as repugnant to Creationists as yours, but it leaves room for the kiddies to make up their own minds about divisive issues...)

Evolution is not a fact, it's a good explanation which account of the facts with great accuracy. Evolution is a scientify tool, which can be use to explain and predict events. But it's sometimes tricky to use. Some errors were made already. For example, the evolution of horses was not as linear as thought until recently

So we need to take the general idea of Evolution (which make a lot of sense, I tell you) and dig & interpret as many fossils as possible, trying to figure out what happened really. We also need to observe current events to find situations that can be interpreted with Evolution. Though in each case, we must ALSO try to interprete these events with all possible explanations. That's science, after all, not politics.

The only REAL facts in science are the things you can prove with mathematics. And even these ones can be proved later to be just special cases, with a new theory covering more. For example, Newtonian physics work very well at the human scale... but Einsteinian physics cover more cases.

Statistics don't prove things, they just increase the confidence level.

Observation of non-quantified data can help make a theory more convincing.

But in the long run, we'll probably extend the Evolution theory just like we enhanced Newton's physics, and have a very solid theory of life & evolution.

Yes, but as mentioned, it is not the process that is beingd disputed (among scientists) it is the mechanisms of the process that are.

Wrong, to anyone with scientific foundations, it is known that theory roughly means "imperfect fact". The theory part comes in only in regards to the specific mechanisms of evolution, ie, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. The process is known to occur, it is the details of that process that are debatable.
Congratulations. You have just shown yourself to have no knowledge of science whatsoever. A scientific theory is not a FUCKING IMPERFECT FACT! How many times do I have to say this to get it into your skull.

A scientific fact is an observation.
A scientific is an explanation as to how that observation happens.

They are not degrees of the same thing! Read a book on basic science. It's one of the first things they tell you.

Why name-call your own system? :confused:

The basic unit of temperature (symbol: T) in the International System of Units (SI) is the kelvin (K). If the US switches to something else, use kelvin.
Yep. Water freezes at 273, boils at 373. So much easier then 0 and 100.

Congratulations. You have just shown yourself to have no knowledge of science whatsoever. A scientific theory is not a FUCKING IMPERFECT FACT! How many times do I have to say this to get it into your skull.

A scientific fact is an observation.
A scientific is an explanation as to how that observation happens.

They are not degrees of the same thing! Read a book on basic science. It's one of the first things they tell you.

You, sir, are a blithering moron. Furthermore, you can bitch about how many times you've had to drive it my skull, but then I can just point out the fact you have never quoted me and therefore your idiocy is showing again.

Unless you are contending an explanation of data, which is what an observation is, cannot be a fact, your argument falls apart at the seems. Now I suggest you look up the following four words in a science book and try this again. Data. Hypothesis. Theory. Law. Once you figure out how they relate to each other, give me a buzz.

You, sir, are a blithering moron. Furthermore, you can bitch about how many times you've had to drive it my skull, but then I can just point out the fact you have never quoted me and therefore your idiocy is showing again.

Nice. Don't even recognize the plural form of "you". Also, resorting to personal attacks isn't a productive way of debating.

I have looked up theory. That's why I know what it means. The definition for theory in a scientific context is not the same as it is in common usage. Claim it is all you like. Just don't expect people to listen to you.

Nice. Don't even recognize the plural form of "you". When you quote me and me alone, no, I tend not to see in plural. Also, resorting to personal attacks isn't a productive way of debating.You have just shown yourself to have no knowledge of science whatsoever. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I have looked up theory. That's why I know what it means. Could have fooled me. The definition for theory in a scientific context is not the same as it is in common usage. Correct, common usage it is equivalent to conjecture. In scientific context it is a not quite complete law. ie, an imperfect fact. Imperfect need not mean deeply flawed. Claim it is all you like. Just don't expect people to listen to you.
And the same goes to you when you are busy claiming gravity isn't factual because it is a theory.

And the same goes to you when you are busy claiming gravity isn't factual because it is a theory.
Gravity is both a theory and a fact. The theory part refers to how gavity occurs. It's a simple thing.

Which is exactly what I said about evolution.

Which is exactly what I said about evolution.
That's what I said about evolution. You were the one who claimed that theories become facts.

The theory part comes in only in regards to the specific mechanisms of evolution, ie, natural selection, genetic drift, etc. The process is known to occur, it is the details of that process that are debatable.

I said it too. And, if tested enough and describe all concievable scenarios perfectly, theories do become regarded as facts. Laws are considered facts and laws can rise out of theories.

ooo, I just love arguing about evolution.

ok, first things first.

there are two types of eveolution. Microevolution, and Macroevolution. Microevolution is the ability for every organism on earth to modify itself an infinite amount of times within it's own DNA in order to better deal with it's surroundings. Every example i've seen so far supporting evolution supports Microevolution. Microevolution is witnessed every day, countless times by countless scientific orginisations, and is considered scientific fact.
Macroevolution is ecsentially the theory that We evolved from apes, that apes evolved from lizards, and that lizards evolved from a single string of chemicals which formed the first living thing. This leaves a few things to be proven, and a few holes to be filled. I will post them, unbiased, in list form for you all to ponder.

1. whenever something reproduces, it copies it's DNA, and the DNA of it's partner's. This allows for any combination of the DNA, as well as slight deviations from it. This is the reason some people have red hair, while some have brown. A while back, we all had the same color hair. Then someone had a kid, and it's DNA was in the right configuration to produce red hair, for example, and it populated the earth with red-haired people. However it is important to note that some things just can't change. The number of ribs on a horse, the number of arms on a lizard, etc. All really big stuff. This prevents anything from leaving it's own family. e.g.- canaine. A dog can't turn into something else. It's been PROVEN that a dog can't turn into something else, no matter how many times it has reproduced. So to paraphrase. . . a poodle and a lab can make a new species of dog, and that new speices can make another, and another, etc, and can do so infinitly, but it will always be a dog. ALWAYS. Science has proven this.
But there is hope. . .

2. Mutations can give rise to any number of cool stuff happening. extra arms, three eyes, way too much hair, you name it. A great way to get around the fact that dogs are always dogs. If they mutate enough, they wont be a dog. Unfortuately there are a couple problems with this too. for every 'good' mutation there are literally millions of bad ones (as you could assume, if you thought about it), and it's even rarer for the mutation to be helpful. Think about it like this. Something mutates 1 billion times over 100 million years (that's 10 times a year- a fairly good estimate). 999 million are bad. 999,000 don't help you at all in your situation. that leaves 1000 good mutations over 100 million years. Not quite enough to turn early mammals into people. even if you times my approximation by 1000 you still aren't close, which says a lot.

3. but wait, maybe there was a lot of radiation back then? we have no way of knowing. That's true, but we still run into another problem. We have never found the process of evolution. For every 2 speices there should be 100 spieces connecting them, in a cool chain of morphing animals. So far, we havn't found any 'chains' of fossils that lead from one speices to another. not really. I know you all think you've seen them yourselves (the evolution of horses and man come to mind), but in reality those are flawed. most charts showing the process have all the fossils filled in (including all inter-dinosaur charts), while the few that we have found fossils for don't fit. Horses are a great example. We have found roughly eight fossils to fill in the gaps from a wierd horse-like dinosaur to modern-day horse. unfortunately, these fossils have really stupid deviations which discredit the whole slew of them. Most notably, the amount of ribs on each one fluctuates radically. it goes from something like 6 to 8 to 6 to 12, then back to eight, then to ten and on like that until we get to modern horse, which makes no sense in any way. Also, some of the fossils were later found to also be older or exist later. For example, fossil 4 in the list was found to still be alive around the time of fossil 6. This discredits Natural Selection.

4. I've even seen scientists ramble on about some crazy stuff too, like how maybe there were pockets of intense radiation which caused a lot of mutations over a short period, eliminating the possibility of finding the 'in-between' ones. this is just crazy, as that amount of radiation would easily kill anything nearby. Just one example of how sometimes scientist come up with crazy stuff to justify themselves, as do creationists (which give a lot of people a bad name- they aren't all like that)

5. Carbon dating isn't acurate past 5000 years. It just isn't. We don't know how much cabon radiation was around then, so we're just making a huge stab in the dark when we guess an age by carbon dating. Within those 5000 years, carbon radiation fluctuated by as much as 80% in only a century, meaning gauging things supposedly 250 million years old is a very wid guess with carbon dating. they could be 25 million for all we know, which would strain the theory of evolution even harder.

6. The chances of all the chemicals needed to created the first strand of the simplest DNA known, being in the same puddle at once is the same as drawing a royal flush 4 times in a row.


to be honest, I'm not trying to say evolution is wrong. It seems like a pretty good explanation to me. Way better then soem crazy creationist stuff. But as you can see, it is no more then theory right now, since there is so much contradicting it. Please feel free to try and de-bunk or explain away any and all of my list. After all, that's what it's for.

unless you find definitive answers to all those 6 points (or even the first 3) I hope you will stop calling Macroevolution a scientific law. Microevolution is.

Sorry, we didn't evolve from apes, we are apes. If we are a product of a supreme being's imagination -- admittedly, I'm spinning this topic out of a science vs. religious orthodoxy argument -- it has a hell of a sense of humour.

Macroevolution has been proven, and within the period of modern human existence (ca. 100 thousand years) by the diverse shapes and forms of humanity, by the fact that dogs came from wolves -- ah, mutation -- and that dogs can themselves develop into other species, which may produce viable offspring. To say there is no fact simply because the fossil record fails to conform to a strictly linear interpretation frankly repudiates not simply humanity's ability to deduce anything from observation, but much of science itself, which is silly. Science is based on observation, deduction, and reason. Evolutionary theory conforms with the available facts, on both the macro- and micro-level.

Creation stories, however, cannot be proven, thus are not scientific fact nor should they pretend to be so. They stem from religious belief, from faith not fact; therefore, opposing creation stories cannot be considered the same as failed evolutionary theories such as the Lamarckian theory, which patently contradicts scientific observation, so if one starts to demand the teaching of Christian creationism in schools, one will have to demand the same for other religious teachings in order to conform with the policy of State and Church being separate.

1. You are incorrect. Once a species of dog gets seperated from other species it can produce variations in the group to the level it is no longer capable of breeding with other types of dogs. It may eventually no longer resemble dogs. Humans and certain species of monkeys can trace our lineage back to a common ancestor, and we hare roughly 98-99% of our DNA with them, yet we are seperate species and can no longer breed.

2. Your numbers are way, way low here. Particularly early on when bacteria and other dividing microbes were the dominant life form on the planet. Then you would be talking probably literally trillions of divisions a minute, each being a chance for change. Second, your numbers are way, way off. Most mutations are neither bad nor good, they just are. Bad ones tend not to survive and thus they do not pass on genetic material. The rest do get passed on with varying levels of success and can produce dramatic changes over time.

3. We have found numerous chains connecting various animal species. The fact that fossils are extremely hard to preserve and require virtually ideal conditins to maintain are good enough reasons why we don't see every detail of every variation of every species over the history of time. It in no way discredits natural selection. Further, seeing as how any horse like dinosaurs would have died 65 million years ago and thus been unable to keep producing offspring with variations, I find it likely that example was pulled off a creationist tripe website and in no way resembles any real scientific claims.

4. Um... No. You have no basis for determining what levels of radiation would kill these things and what basis would produce a wealth of genetic variation. I've also never heard a credible scientist suggest this because such wild variations over such a short period of time would almost invariably result in difficulties breeding to spread on their genes.

5. First, Carbon Dating I believe has been used accurately close to 15,000 years. Second, carbon dating is one form of radiometric dating, there are more that go back much much further with equal accuracy, including hundreds of millions of years. Creationist websites tend not to mention these.

6. Nor does anyone suggest life began with DNA.

And, if tested enough and describe all concievable scenarios perfectly, theories do become regarded as facts. Laws are considered facts and laws can rise out of theories.
You're wrong on that count. Theories cannot become facts. This is a basic part of science. You're confusing the explanation with the occurence.

5. First, Carbon Dating I believe has been used accurately close to 15,000 years. Second, carbon dating is one form of radiometric dating, there are more that go back much much further with equal accuracy, including hundreds of millions of years. Creationist websites tend not to mention these.

Radiometric dating is accurate to ten half-lives, putting carbon dating at a maximum accuracy of about 57,000 years.

And, if tested enough and describe all concievable scenarios perfectly, theories do become regarded as facts. Laws are considered facts and laws can rise out of theories.

You're wrong on that count. Theories cannot become facts. This is a basic part of science. You're confusing the explanation with the occurence.
Exact! A fact is something you can record or gather. An hypothesis doesn't become a fact (but it IS based on facts, usually). Once proved/shown/argued, an hypothesis can become one of many things: a theorem, a theory, a law (in the scientific sense), ..., but never a fact by itself.

Isn't that how Celcius (sp?) works? America should have just went with Celcius/metric in the first place as a country, it's a much easier system once you learn it compared to our dumb ass system. 12 inches=a foot 3 feet=a yard
it's so random, it must be hell for people trying to learn it for the first time after only using metric.

The weird thing is we signed the Treaty of the Meter, which defined what a meter is. It's like how far Light travels in a vacum in 1/4,120,000,000 of a second or something.

The weird thing is we signed the Treaty of the Meter, which defined what a meter is. It's like how far Light travels in a vacum in 1/4,120,000,000 of a second or something.
Length traveled by light in vacuum during 1 / 299 792 458 of a second.

Isn't that how Celcius (sp?) works? America should have just went with Celcius/metric in the first place as a country, it's a much easier system once you learn it compared to our dumb ass system. 12 inches=a foot 3 feet=a yard
it's so random, it must be hell for people trying to learn it for the first time after only using metric.
All of this is so fascinating.

Where does the imperial system come from? Well, you can go back VERY far, as systems based on 12/16/60 were first used in... Babylon. The Babylonian astronomers were obsessed with numbers, and 12 & 60 were their favorites because they can be divided easily.
We still have a non-metric unit: the HOUR, which we should call "Babylonian time"! LOL

What makes the metric system so easy to use, is that everything can be scaled up/down by a factor of 10. It's so natural, since our number system is base 10.

The imperial system has ONE advantage that I know of. It is more human. The inch and the foot, especially, are very easy to evaluate because they are related to our body. These are "human-scale" measures, where the metric system is more at a "science scale" (the centimeter is too small, the meter is too long, the decimeter is not used).

In the long, run, whatever the basic units are, a base 10 (metric-like) system is better for us. Unless we change our number system! LOL

By the way, I have calculated how a metric time (hour) system would look like. If anyone is interested in the calculations.
10 hours/day
100 minutes/hour
100 seconds/minute
You juste have to adjust the duration of the metric second to 0.7 traditional second.
50 metric minutes (half a metric hour) are close to 1 traditional hour
The day is easily sliced into 50 metric minute intervals (=20 slices), as a base for human schedules.

Radiometric dating is accurate to ten half-lives, putting carbon dating at a maximum accuracy of about 57,000 years.

My mistake. I knew it was up in the tens of thousands somewhere. Out of curiosity, has it been used that far back? In all honesty I haven't been following particularly closely the advances in the ability to detect the exact levels with accuracy beyond certain points. Theoretical maximum aren't necessary what modern technology can produce.

You're wrong on that count. Theories cannot become facts. This is a basic part of science. You're confusing the explanation with the occurence. I am well aware of where you are getting this and quite frankly Gould is wrong. An explanation can be a fact. If I say this is what happened, this is what will always happen under these circumstances and this is how you can always know what will happen under any circumstance, which is what any mathemetical and physical law should do, you are speaking of facts (assuming of course the law is correct).

Observations are data, they cannot be refered to as facts because often times observations, and more frequently, extrapolations drawn from observations, are wrong. Now, perhaps this is an issue of semantics as I have been using "fact" as a substitute largely for "law" as I view facts to be the whole of a situation and mere observations frequently lack all explanatory data needed to cover that requirement. Laws, by definition must contain a complete account of reality, and are therefore factual.

A law must be a fact. Observations need not always be factual. That is why I am saying a fact can rise from a theory because laws just don't appear out of nowhere, they have to be discovered and tested to achieve that status. Now I suspect this is largely a result of us agreeing on everything except the wording we are using.

My mistake. I knew it was up in the tens of thousands somewhere. Out of curiosity, has it been used that far back? In all honesty I haven't been following particularly closely the advances in the ability to detect the exact levels with accuracy beyond certain points. Theoretical maximum aren't necessary what modern technology can produce.
Carbon 14 dating has been calibrated using direct evidences. Carbon 14 starts decreasing as soon as a live plant or animal dies. This is because our cells tend to have a stronger bond with carbon 14 than with carbon 12. So as soon as the tree dies, for instance, it stops accumulating carbon 14. The accumulated carbon 14, being unstable, starts decaying into carbon 12.

For a live animal or plant, the carbon 14 level is fairly constant. For a dead animal or plant, it decreases according to the half-life of carbon 14.

Ideally you find some bones or organics that died during a recorded event; the best are volcanic eruptions, because they leave a distinctive layer in the soil. So if the eruption happened around year 500 and were recorded by the Chinese chronicles, it's a good start. Find the layer, find some bones. Measure carbon 14 / 12 levels.

Now do it again with as many bones as possible, from various recent periods.

You can also use dendrochronology to study the past climate and events that may have affected the carbon levels. This is the study of growth rings in tree. It's simple: 1 ring, 1 year.

You find a dead tree, ideally one that lives for a very long time and died a few centuries ago. Some cedars are known to live for 3000 years. You determine the year the tree died. It's very simple: you have to find the growth rings that have a specific look, associated with volcanic eruptions. If a tree has lived at the time of the eruption of the Krakatoa, which affected climate and the minerals in water, you can localize the corresponding growth ring. Dendrochronology will then be used to study the climate through the life of the tree, counting and measuring the growth rings to the center of the tree.

With a combination of techniques, we have built a fairly precise calibration chart that covers about 50 000 years. The calibration is extremely precise for the first 12 000 years, and after that there is a gradual drop in precision. So anything that died after the last ice age can be dated with a very high precision. For example, the Ice Man (Oetzi) was found to be 5000 years old. The grains we found in his pouch, his tools and clothes are consistent with the life and climate of this time.

I know how it works, I was just curious how precise they got the technology. Once the Carbon 14 gets to small enough levels it becomes hard to tell how far back the material being tested goes. I've seen some sights claiming they've gotten it up to 70,000 years.

I know how it works, I was just curious how precise they got the technology. Once the Carbon 14 gets to small enough levels it becomes hard to tell how far back the material being tested goes. I've seen some sights claiming they've gotten it up to 70,000 years.
Over 14,000 years, they use different isotopes than Carbon for radioactive decay dating.

Over 14,000 years, they use different isotopes than Carbon for radioactive decay dating.

Well, as mentioned c-14 dating can be calibrated for ~50,000 years. The point with it is that it can be only used for bones and other organic material. If you want to use larger time scales (ie million/billions of years), then you have to use different techniques, such as uranium/lead, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, samarium/neodymium and rubidium/strontium. Each of the methods has their limitations (for example uranium-lead can be only used for dating the age of zircon crystals from magmatic rocks, and potassium-argon can only measure the time when a material fell under a certain temperature for the last time), but the methods can be combined.

I am well aware of where you are getting this and quite frankly Gould is wrong. An explanation can be a fact. If I say this is what happened, this is what will always happen under these circumstances and this is how you can always know what will happen under any circumstance, which is what any mathemetical and physical law should do, you are speaking of facts (assuming of course the law is correct).

The problem being, that statistically, any "Law" can be disproven tomorrow by new evidence. This has already happened a number of times, and will probably happen again. "Fact"=Observational input, "Hypothesis" is what you do with facts, and Theories are Hypotheses that have large amounts of supporting experimental data as well as near-overwhelming observational support (short form, a Theory is a Hypothesis, based on Observed Data (facts) that has yet to be disproven after extensive testing.) a "Law" is a Theory with enough supporting evidence that we can't disprove, or even effectively challenge, its validity at this level of our technological development. (Newton's laws of Gravitation and Motion, as modified by generations of testng and refinement were superseded in some areas by Einstein's work in Relativity.)


Observations are data, they cannot be refered to as facts because often times observations, and more frequently, extrapolations drawn from observations, are wrong. Now, perhaps this is an issue of semantics as I have been using "fact" as a substitute largely for "law" as I view facts to be the whole of a situation and mere observations frequently lack all explanatory data needed to cover that requirement. Laws, by definition must contain a complete account of reality, and are therefore factual.

Within the grasp of current technical and scientific knowledge.


A law must be a fact. Observations need not always be factual. That is why I am saying a fact can rise from a theory because laws just don't appear out of nowhere, they have to be discovered and tested to achieve that status. Now I suspect this is largely a result of us agreeing on everything except the wording we are using.

See my comment above. "Laws" change as new data are uncovered. thus, "Laws" do not take full account of reality, because human beings are finite creatures and lack the characteristic of total Omniscience. Using your definition, "Facts" do not exist-because in order for them to exist, we have to have a full accounting of Reality (which, in spite of our arrogance to the contrary, we do not.) Such an accounting would, oddly enough, obselete Science as a practice, since there would be nothing left to discover or learn about how the Universe works.

The scientific method doesn't work by trying to prove a thing, but by trying desperately to disprove it. Only the most robust Hypothesis can survive ethical scientists to become a Theory, and only the most robust theories can survive ethical scientists to become "Laws"-which can and have been altered, eliminated, changed, or rewritten as technical ability increases.

This is why it's more important to teach people how to do science, rather than spoon-feeding them accepted hypotheses as dogmatic facts.

Only in Religion and Entertainment Fiction are there "Facts" that can not be disproved by someone eventually. For the rest of us, including the Scientists, there are only "Best guesses supported by the evidence". To take any other stand on it, is to make Science into a Dogmatic Religion where proper and thoughtful inquiry is suppressed, and groupthink is encouraged at the expense of Scientific Honesty for the sake of maintaining a status quo.

That situation we've seen before-in the case of the Catholic Church's suppresion of Renaissance thinkers and experimentalists like Galileo.

A law must be a fact. Observations need not always be factual. That is why I am saying a fact can rise from a theory because laws just don't appear out of nowhere, they have to be discovered and tested to achieve that status. Now I suspect this is largely a result of us agreeing on everything except the wording we are using.
You're misunderstanding the definition of a scientific theory. Theory has a very specific meaning in science. A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation as to how something happens that is supported by all available evidence. To say a theory has a different meaning that that in science is wrong.

Isn't that how Celcius (sp?) works? America should have just went with Celcius/metric in the first place as a country, it's a much easier system once you learn it compared to our dumb ass system. 12 inches=a foot 3 feet=a yard. it's so random, it must be hell for people trying to learn it for the first time after only using metric.

To be honest i prefer that system as you don't have to f**k about with a whole load of bloody decimal places...you can actually have whole 1/3s for example...


Although the other system is based on base 10 its still a pain to deal with. I've got brought up with both systems and quite happily intermingle them when it suits me, but on the whole i prefer the imperial system.

Incorrect again.

Apologies. My brain seems to be idling in neutral today.

Of course, that still doesn't mean that the theory has been proven. Like any theory, it cannot be proven, but can be supported.

Therein lies the nub of what I am saying: I am not arguing against evolution, instead saying that labelling it a 'scientific FACT' is in error.

Therein lies the nub of what I am saying: I am not arguing against evolution, instead saying that labelling it a 'scientific FACT' is in error.
You're confusing the theory and the fact. Talkorigins has a nice article on that very subject. I'll post it when I find it.

Incorrect, as the reasoning is different.

No, not really: proper scientific method is not written on tablets of stone. In the end what is accepted as 'proper' scinetific method depends on the scientific community and their systems of peer review.

If we teach any religion in public schools, we must teach any and every religion. Otherwise, the government is setting up a state-sponsored religion to teach children.

State-sponsored religion = bad?
whereas
state-sponsored science = good?

You're confusing the theory and the fact. Talkorigins has a nice article on that very subject. I'll post it when I find it.

Okay: lets break this down here.

When refering to the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools Cadillac-Gage described it as "a good example of how I look at the movement to stop teaching scientific FACT".

This I took issue with. The theory of evolution is neither a 'scientific FACT' nor 'scientific FACT'.

It may very well be that the theory accurately describes the process which has given rise to the varied different species in the world today. This is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Okay: lets break this down here.

When refering to the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools Cadillac-Gage described it as "a good example of how I look at the movement to stop teaching scientific FACT".

This I took issue with. The theory of evolution is neither a 'scientific FACT' nor 'scientific FACT'.

It may very well be that the theory accurately describes the process which has given rise to the varied different species in the world today. This is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Evolution is a scientific fact (eg, we know that it happens, just not why). The theory of evolution through natrual selection is scientific theory.

State-sponsored religion = bad?
whereas
state-sponsored science = good?
Unlike Religion there is no seperation of science and state

Unlike Religion there is no seperation of science and state

(In your particular country).

(In your particular country).
Correct

Yep. Water freezes at 273, boils at 373. So much easier then 0 and 100.

Happy to see someone finally understands it.

Kelvin: 0, 273, 373
Celsius: −273.15, 0, 100
Fahrenheit: −459.67,32, 212

State-sponsored religion = bad?
whereas
state-sponsored science = good?

(a) There is nothing in the Constitution against the government sponsoring science. Of course, if the government were to pick a pet theory and support it above and beyond all else within science - even if it were the most accepted, would screw with the process of science.

(b) If the public decided that we should not teach science in public schools, it would not be taught. I would move to another location, as I would want my children to receive a proper science education.

Okay: lets break this down here.

When refering to the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools Cadillac-Gage described it as "a good example of how I look at the movement to stop teaching scientific FACT".

This I took issue with. The theory of evolution is neither a 'scientific FACT' nor 'scientific FACT'.

It may very well be that the theory accurately describes the process which has given rise to the varied different species in the world today. This is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Um, I think you have me mixed up with someone else, because I've been arguing the same line of reasoning you have.

Um, I think you have me mixed up with someone else, because I've been arguing the same line of reasoning you have.

...

This is a good example of how I look at the movement to stop teaching scientific FACT

?

...



?

I was quoting the original poster, and screwed up the tags. check my subsequent posts, including the one on page... seven.

1. You are incorrect. Once a species of dog gets seperated from other species it can produce variations in the group to the level it is no longer capable of breeding with other types of dogs. It may eventually no longer resemble dogs. Humans and certain species of monkeys can trace our lineage back to a common ancestor, and we hare roughly 98-99% of our DNA with them, yet we are seperate species and can no longer breed.

2. Your numbers are way, way low here. Particularly early on when bacteria and other dividing microbes were the dominant life form on the planet. Then you would be talking probably literally trillions of divisions a minute, each being a chance for change. Second, your numbers are way, way off. Most mutations are neither bad nor good, they just are. Bad ones tend not to survive and thus they do not pass on genetic material. The rest do get passed on with varying levels of success and can produce dramatic changes over time.

3. We have found numerous chains connecting various animal species. The fact that fossils are extremely hard to preserve and require virtually ideal conditins to maintain are good enough reasons why we don't see every detail of every variation of every species over the history of time. It in no way discredits natural selection. Further, seeing as how any horse like dinosaurs would have died 65 million years ago and thus been unable to keep producing offspring with variations, I find it likely that example was pulled off a creationist tripe website and in no way resembles any real scientific claims.

4. Um... No. You have no basis for determining what levels of radiation would kill these things and what basis would produce a wealth of genetic variation. I've also never heard a credible scientist suggest this because such wild variations over such a short period of time would almost invariably result in difficulties breeding to spread on their genes.


1. what are your sources? I was under the impression we shared only about 10% of our DNA with monkeys (although it could be as high as 40%, I'm not sure), and even less with apes, while fruitflies have 99% of our DNA (it's true, ask NASA, they've been doing studies with them in space). Also, it hasn't been proven yet that a speices can propagate until they can no longer breed with their original speices, no longer resemble them, and have left their family (e.g.- canine). Yes dogs came from wolves but guess what? That is yet another example supporting microevolution. Speices can modify themselves infinitly, but they can never modify their DNA, meaning they will always have the same DNA, and alwyas be roughly the same. Please give proof otherwise.

2. I don't think I was clear on this, as it was obviously interperted slightly wrong. There are billions of ways to mutate, as you will agree. Things mutate a LOT. Only a few are benificial. Even less will get passed on. It's just not viable, as it would take millions of sucessful, passed on mutations to give rise to another speices. It has also never been observed.

3. Please PLEASE give proof. Show me one of your 'numerous chains' which connect two speices. Show me even one which has been proven and I will be convinced. Mind you, make sure it proves Macroevolution, not micro. I agree that there are many, many chains proving micro, but none that prove macro. I would be very glad if you would show me one, or direct me to a site with one. By the way, I have never been to a creationist site, talked with a creationist scientist, or am in any way influenced by them, so don't assume I got my info from them. The linear horse evolution model has been disproven.

4. Actually yes, as I do know how much radiation would kill, mammals, lizards, birds, and such. According to macroevolution, everything evolved, so since nothing other then some bacteria can currently resist large amounts of radiation, we can only assume our ancestors couldn't either. But we all know this theory is crazy anyway, it was only an example showing the idiocy of humans in general, and what we are willing to come up with in order to try and make an unproven theory generally accepted (which is what some creationist, and some scientists both do). Science has made Macroevolution generally accepted, it just has to prove it now :P.

So show me proof is what I'm saying. talk is talk, I'm not trying to argue against Macroevolution, I'm just trying to find even a single proven argument for it. I thought showing some faults might shed light on some proven facts.

what are your sources? I was under the impression we shared only about 10% of our DNA with monkeys (although it could be as high as 40%, I'm not sure), and even less with apes, while fruitflies have 99% of our DNA
LOL

Are you talking about yourself?

I was quoting the original poster, and screwed up the tags. check my subsequent posts, including the one on page... seven.

I appear in my last post to have for some reason confused you with the Corduroy chap. Apologies.

1. what are your sources? I was under the impression we shared only about 10% of our DNA with monkeys (although it could be as high as 40%, I'm not sure), and even less with apes, while fruitflies have 99% of our DNA (it's true, ask NASA, they've been doing studies with them in space).

Have you been reading the National Enquirer. Even biology textbooks, which are always a bit out of date, don't claim 10% or 40% with monkeys.

In fact, we share about 99.9% with chimpanzees. A little less with other apes, and a little less still with monkeys.

Fruitflies have many similar genes (and some we don't have at all). They make a good animal model for studying genetics because they breed quickly and it is easy to create knockout and transgenic models (where you either get rid of a gene or add one in).

Also, it hasn't been proven yet that a speices can propagate until they can no longer breed with their original speices, no longer resemble them, and have left their family (e.g.- canine).

No, it hasn't. Of course, science never proves anything. It only disproves hypotheses and supports them. If they get enough support, they become an accepted theory.

Meanwhile, for that to happen would take much more time than human beings have been observing.

That is yet another example supporting microevolution. Speices can modify themselves infinitly, but they can never modify their DNA, meaning they will always have the same DNA, and alwyas be roughly the same. Please give proof otherwise.

I'm not sure what you mean here. DNA is modified constantly through mutation. You have several different versions of your own DNA throughout your body due to alterations, mutations, copying errors, etc.

Meanwhile, science does not distinguish between micro- and macroevolution. Macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolution.

I don't think I was clear on this, as it was obviously interperted slightly wrong. There are billions of ways to mutate, as you will agree. Things mutate a LOT. Only a few are benificial. Even less will get passed on. It's just not viable, as it would take millions of sucessful, passed on mutations to give rise to another speices.

Not really millions, but quite a few, yes. Of course, they don't all have to be beneficial. They can be neutral, as mutations often are.

It has also never been observed.

I believe the nylon bug has been declared a new species. And since nylon is man-made, it had to have happened in recent times.

Please PLEASE give proof.

If you are looking for absolute proof, science is not the field for you. It is logically impossible to use the scientific method to prove anything.

The linear horse evolution model has been disproven.

It has? Source?

Macroevolution generally accepted, it just has to prove it now :P.

Sorry, that is impossible, as science cannot prove anything.

So show me proof is what I'm saying. talk is talk, I'm not trying to argue against Macroevolution, I'm just trying to find even a single proven argument for it. I thought showing some faults might shed light on some proven facts.

If you want a proven argument for anything, science is the wrong place to look. In fact, the only field in which you can get a proven argument is math and even then it is dependent on the axioms.

I'm sad to see that most people are unable to use correctly certain words.
Here they are (from strongest to weakest):
- to prove
- to demonstrate
- to show
- to state

You can PROVE a mathematical theorem (always remebering what axioms you choose, as was stated before in this thread).
You can PROVE certain properties of logic systems.
NOTE: A PROOF is supposed to be TRUE within the chosen axioms, domain or referential system.

You can DEMONSTRATE a relationship between cause and effect, using any quantitative set of data, statistics or qualitative observations.
You can also DEMONSTRATE that something works, by making it work.
NOTE: A DEMONSTRATION is supposed to be CONVINCING. It may or may not be true (as it can be based on circonstancial evidence). Most of our knowledge of the universe has been demonstrated.

You can SHOW that something happened, or that it followed a certain path, by exposing evidences and statistics.
You can SHOW a relationship that was recorded but not yet generalized.
NOTE: A PRESENTATION of facts is supposed to be HONEST and respect its original data (journalism shows, it doesn't prove or demonstrate). A lot of medicines have been SHOWN to be effective.

You can STATE that you believe that something will work, or that you have an idea or an hypothesis about something.
NOTE: Most scientific work begins with a statement.

Actually, ice on Jupiter exists at temperatures of over 15,000 degrees.

Although I don't think it's all water, but pressure plays a role as well.

But good point well made.

Sorry, that is impossible, as science cannot prove anything.

If you want a proven argument for anything, science is the wrong place to look. In fact, the only field in which you can get a proven argument is math and even then it is dependent on the axioms.

I believe you're mistaken. Science can prove anything it wants, as "proof", can be defined as merely being a convincing demonstration. Any proof may be proven otherwise later, if another, more convincing demonstration is put against it. This is where you're getting the confusion. It can be said that science can't prove anything because it always has the possibility to be proven wrong later, but in fact, anything is considered proof until evidence is presented otherwise.

The link is broken for me.

The link is broken for me.
That's because the link hates you, but not other people.

!!!!!111 CONSPIATION TEHORY OMG OMG !!!!1!

I appear in my last post to have for some reason confused you with the Corduroy chap. Apologies.

Accepted. may even be easy mistake to make-we're both apparently windbags.:P

I believe you're mistaken. Science can prove anything it wants, as "proof", can be defined as merely being a convincing demonstration. Any proof may be proven otherwise later, if another, more convincing demonstration is put against it. This is where you're getting the confusion. It can be said that science can't prove anything because it always has the possibility to be proven wrong later, but in fact, anything is considered proof until evidence is presented otherwise.
Yeah, let's ignore the very basis of science. Let's also ignore the scientist, because she obviously doesn't know what she's talking about. :rolleyes:

Isn't that how Celcius (sp?) works? America should have just went with Celcius/metric in the first place as a country, it's a much easier system once you learn it compared to our dumb ass system. 12 inches=a foot 3 feet=a yard
it's so random, it must be hell for people trying to learn it for the first time after only using metric.
There *was* no metric system when America became a country. The metric system was a byproduct of the French revolution. Americans had been Englishmen, and were still using the English system of measurement, because it's always easier not to change. Plenty of people have tried, but at any given time, the majority of America thinks in inches, feet, miles, degress Fahrenheit (sp?), pints, and pounds. I was first exposed to the metric system in about fourth grade, and it seemed really nifty and convenient. I promptly forgot most of it, until I started doing physics, chemistry, and wargaming, all of which use at least some metric. I now typically think/estimate in inches, meters, or miles, and use the American system for weight and fluids, although I often use liter, rather than quart.

Accepted. may even be easy mistake to make-we're both apparently windbags.:P

I think we prefer to be called "bagpipes".

I believe you're mistaken. Science can prove anything it wants, as "proof", can be defined as merely being a convincing demonstration. Any proof may be proven otherwise later, if another, more convincing demonstration is put against it. This is where you're getting the confusion. It can be said that science can't prove anything because it always has the possibility to be proven wrong later, but in fact, anything is considered proof until evidence is presented otherwise.

Incorrect, that is a horrible misinterpretation of the scientific method.

The method begins with a hypothesis.

This hypothesis is tested. If that hypothesis is disproven, it is considered disproven. If it is not disproven, it is not considered proven. It is simply considered to be supported. The test is considered evidence that the hypothesis may be correct.

If that hypothesis is tested again and again and again by all available evidence, and is always supported, it becomes a theory.

If that theory holds up to more questioning than the others, it becomes the leading theory.

Nothing in science is ever said to be proven.