EPTThe missing link found. - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
On May 21 2009 13:12 Misrah wrote: So there my friend is the SLIDING MUSCLE FILAMENT THEORY You learned to type all that off the top of your head but you never learned what a scientific theory is? Oh god... | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On May 21 2009 17:12 Diomedes wrote: You learned to type all that off the top of your head but you never learned what a scientific theory is? Oh god... Actually, I'm going to turn that back on you. Anything with the label "theory" really, truly, could be completely wrong. And there is a non-infinitesimal chance of that being the case. In fact, every theory in the past has proven to be wrong... (obviously thats why its a theory from the past and not a current theory) Gravity is a good example. It was a good "theory" until someone discovered that it was kind of wrong. Now a physicist will look at you with a strait face and tell you that 95% of the universe isn't observable. The funny part is that he invented that extra 95% of the universe because he is assuming his old theory is correct, so the universe must be wrong. The point is that people shouldn't get so emotionally invested in theories. They are just temporary intellectual constructs to get from point A to point B, and they all are probably wrong. At the very least, they are most certainly not right (that is, equivalent to reality). | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
Have you understood anything about a scientific theory? He claims we don't know how muscles work based on the fact we have a model describing exactly how it works, underlining the word 'theory'. You seem to understand it even less than he does. Newton's theory of gravity didn't hold up in all cases. So now we have a better one. It was called a theory when it was 'true' and it's called one now that it is 'false'. That has nothing to do with it. Yeah we now have something called inflation theory which is very speculative. But this doesn't do anything to show you know what is meant when scientists use it. Regardless of if something is expected to be improved or refuted, regardless of if there is 100 years of experimental data or none at all to back it, it's still called a theory. | ||
|
ragnasaur
United States804 Posts
On May 21 2009 15:51 Slaughter)BiO wrote: If we didn't we would have T Rex flying f-14 like that one pic that was posted somewhere on TL :D Im pretty sure the dinosaurs won with the whole bird thing | ||
|
Vex
Ireland454 Posts
On May 20 2009 20:07 Aegraen wrote: Evolution is not against Religion. I don't know why some people relate it to that, but I guess that has to do with the hardcore fundamentals. Most christians acknowledge evolution, however, evolution in no way shape or form can disprove 'God', nor can science, because face it, there are things we will never understand, and even by understanding the laws of the universe / nature, it still doesn't mean that god didn't create those laws. Saying this though, I lean more agnostic. Doesn't matter if he exists or not, but you can't disprove or prove it's existence. like women, and cheese. | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
This fossil doesn't do anything. Not to mention, its in the completely wrong era. 47 million years ago is FAR too early to be ancestral to the ape-human lineage. Considering that according to modern evidence and classification, humans essentially ARE apes (that is, humans comfortably nest within chimps and gorillas, and all the apes are more closely related to one another than apes as a whole are related to monkeys). I wish they would stop pushing this shit for marketing reasons. The evidence for evolution is already overwhelming and is particularly well documented with regard to hominids. | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
 But yeah when people claim there is a missing ling in human evolution they can never answer where this missing species should be but. Between habilis and erectus? Between Australopithecus and habilis? Just before Australopithecus? If you take just cranial volume it's a pretty steady progression. | ||
|
AtlaS
United States1001 Posts
On May 20 2009 20:27 404.Nintu wrote: Young earth creationists have already had enough evidence to sorta screw that whole party. This link isn't really going to change a whole lot. afaik, most Christians don't believe in YE creationism. Nintu's right on this one. I was born and raised in a pretty Catholic family. I am a Catholic. Most of my friends from high school are Catholic. At my college, I have met people from all sorts of backgrounds and religions. Long story short, I know A LOT of catholics (as well as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, ect) and I am still yet to meet one person in my life who believes in creationism. I think the only people that still believe in Creationism are strict Mormons (don't quote me on this one, I may be wrong). The Church's stance on "The Beginning" is that evolution DID occur, but it was by the hand of God that we became the current product of millions of years of evolution. I mean, how do you expect to disprove something that is a separate entity of this world by using worldly discoveries? | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
It's really about non-catholic Christians and muslims and such as catholic dogma backs this science. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
| ||
|
irishash
United States285 Posts
| ||
|
Quanticfograw
United States2053 Posts
| ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On May 21 2009 17:12 Diomedes wrote: You learned to type all that off the top of your head but you never learned what a scientific theory is? Oh god... Yet another pseudo-intellectual with a degree in evolutionary theory, and molecular biology. It seems that once again i am academically out classed. | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On May 21 2009 18:06 Diomedes wrote: Anything made up by humans could be completely wrong. Is that your point? Have you understood anything about a scientific theory? He claims we don't know how muscles work based on the fact we have a model describing exactly how it works, underlining the word 'theory'. You seem to understand it even less than he does. Newton's theory of gravity didn't hold up in all cases. So now we have a better one. It was called a theory when it was 'true' and it's called one now that it is 'false'. That has nothing to do with it. Yeah we now have something called inflation theory which is very speculative. But this doesn't do anything to show you know what is meant when scientists use it. Regardless of if something is expected to be improved or refuted, regardless of if there is 100 years of experimental data or none at all to back it, it's still called a theory. Also if you would have actually read my rather short post about the supposed molecular interactions between myosin and actin- you can see where discrepancies lie. This is merely what science 'thinks' happens. But truthfully, we have no idea how it actually works. The sliding action of the two large protein molecules is simply hypothetical, and is postulated out from our very simple understanding of how these proteins work inside of a myosin filament. Are you one of the pseudo-intellectuals that also thinks we understand the brain? Because if so- i would love to hear your take on it. | ||
|
irishash
United States285 Posts
| ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
i shat brix | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 22 2009 04:48 irishash wrote: c'mon misrah, if you wanna talk about supposed molecular interactions between myosin and actin, there's a thread for that. bottom line is none of these theories are confirmed, which is why they're called theories. we're learning new things everyday in fields like these that completely change the way we look at life or how life works/originates/whatever. Then how come so many people take evolution as fact? As I pointed out earlier, its no different than religious zealotry. It's human nature. Humans will always instinctively believe in 'something' on faith. Personally, I'd rather have that believe at least have some philosophy involved. As we all know, most people need incentives in life. | ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On May 22 2009 04:55 Aegraen wrote: Then how come so many people take evolution as fact? They take it as a fact because it is. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Populations of biological organisms change over time; that is evolution and that is a fact. The explanations for how and why these changes occur are the theory and will probably be continuously revised into the foreseeable future. | ||
| ||
