- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Science is debunking itself again
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:40 pm to Flats
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:40 pm to Flats
quote:We can't observe Lincoln IRL, but we can observe evidence of his existence, and in doing so, know he had a beard.
I didn't realize we could observe something that happened millions/billions of years ago.
We understand genetics, heritability, and environmental impacts on life. We have a fossil record and through it can see how life progressed to increasingly complex forms overtime.
Those are observations, not extrapolations. From there we form a hypothesis in an attempt to explain those facts. Then we test the hypothesis.
2
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Those are observations, not extrapolations.
But we have enormous gaps in what we can actually observe (historical evidence) and the hypothesis that people are claiming is "fact". We don't have a fossil record from single cell to every species; we just don't. Saying that it's possible is one thing, pretending that it's been proven is just a religion. And there is no testing the hypothesis because of the time scales. You can test chunks of it then extrapolate, which is fine, but call it what it is.
You can say Abe had a beard; you can't claim to know that it grew 0.050" over a 48 hour period.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 2:56 pm to Flats
quote:... and that is why I responded to the biological evolution component of your post. Abiogenesis is normally parsed out as a separate subject. Earth is about 4.5B yrs old. Rock did not begin to form for 500M yrs.
I was merely defining the term "evolution" and what it means.
Suffice it to say that it is currently extraordinarily difficult to reconstruct the global environment for Earth's first billion years or so. E.g., Even simple things such as how did water form in such quantity? Much less how did abiogenesis occur.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Suffice it to say that it is currently extraordinarily difficult to reconstruct the global environment for Earth's first billion years or so. E.g., Even simple things such as how did water form in such quantity? Much less how did abiogenesis occur.
It is extraordinarily difficult, so how silly would it be for someone to claim they know exactly how it happened?
Abiogenesis is a bit of a different animal, in that we can't even come up with theoretical possibilities. Not only do we not know how it happened, we're struggling with how it could have happened.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:05 pm to NC_Tigah
So it all hinges on spontaneous life. My oh my. Good luck
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:07 pm to Herooftheday
quote:
So it all hinges on spontaneous life. My oh my. Good luck
Not really, but even that is more compelling than "my god did it."
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:08 pm to Flats
quote:
The internet is serious bidness.
Imagine having such a small amount of integrity that you think being anonymous gives you the right to spout nonsense.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:10 pm to LSUbest
quote:
I worked as a Biologist for the DOE.
There is a poster on here, also some sort of researcher, who believes the gender spectrum (the Bill Nye version) is real.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:11 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Not really, but even that is more compelling than "my god did it."
Your best bet is aliens accidently left something behind. I'm sure that's been seriously considered already.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:12 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Then we test the hypothesis.
How?
When they admit that it takes millions of years for a beneficial genetic mutation to result in one solitary organism.
Does that create a new species?
If so where is it's reproductive partner?
If not then we have adaptation, which we see real time now.
But it's like a flux drifting back and forth to match it's environment.
The odds of two reproductive partners evolving in the same locality and time to begin a new species is....a miracle.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:13 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
believes the gender spectrum
Is this the part of the thread where we start confusing gender with sex?
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:14 pm to Herooftheday
quote:
Your best bet is aliens accidently left something behind. I'm sure that's been seriously considered already.
How much does it bother you that aliens is a better explanation than your god?
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:15 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
the gender spectrum
I don't participate in mass psychosis.
I quit the Biology field because of the guidance offered by the fund providers.
I was a nationally recognized Biologist, top 1% nationwide by academia.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:19 pm to Flats
quote:No.
We don't have a fossil record from single cell to every species
But in terms of life, we see the same recurrent pattern, and we see it repeatedly.
Simple => Complex.
We also see after each of 5 mass extinction events, the number of new species explode in the aftermath.
We see life on isolated islands develop uniquely within that limited predation, low competition environment. Life from less isolated environments is inevitably hardier d/t impact of natural competition and predation. E.g., Christmas Island, or the Galapagos.
In terms of speciation, is it not fairly genetically evident that horses, zebra, and donkeys had a common ancestor?
In addressing those observations, what is your hypothesis?
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:22 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:FWIW, Those two are not exclusionary.
How much does it bother you that aliens is a better explanation than your god?
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:23 pm to Flats
quote:
I didn't realize we could observe something that happened millions/billions of years ago. Extrapolation isn't observation, mensa.
Of course we can. Grab you a telescope and look up at the sky one night. Boom done, quite literally observing something millions/billions of years ago.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:24 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
How much does it bother you that aliens is a better explanation than your god?
Was I right though? Aliens? I know that, for some, ANYTHING is better than ANYTHING biblical. That doesn't bother me. What got me was trying to twist scripture to fit in evolution. Why do these theories need to square with the bible for some? Same with homosexuality. They try to reword the parts they don't like. And once they realize it won't jibe, they dismiss the bible as nonsense. You don't see Christians trying to bridge the gap with science theories because why would they? The bible is sufficient. But theories are results in search of the middle parts. And anything is on the table, including the bible initially. I'm guessing because it's so encompassing or simply the first book.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:26 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
FWIW, Those two are not exclusionary.
Sure, a lot of people are open to an explanation that includes both. The poster I replied to doesn't seem to fall into that group.
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:26 pm to TrueTiger
Science is science and should be trusted, until it changes again. Ooops...
Not all, but a good portion of science is changed just to fit a narrative.
Not all, but a good portion of science is changed just to fit a narrative.
This post was edited on 9/22/23 at 3:31 pm
Posted on 9/22/23 at 3:28 pm to Herooftheday
quote:
Was I right though? Aliens?
Right about my "beliefs?"
No.
quote:
Why do these theories need to square with the bible for some?
I don't know. As I said, the Bible is nonsense and it doesn't matter to me what it says on this topic.
Page 23 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News