Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why most fringe theories exist.


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#121    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,540 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:42 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 10 April 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

I requested we start with definitions of empirical and applied science.

You aren't there yet.

Quote

Though you skipped a few steps and have started directly with how a theory can be tagged as scientific which is a secondary consideration.

No, it's pretty much the number one consideration, without which nothing else has much significance.

Quote

Though the process you highlight is absent of any mention of 'empirical' procedure.

Yep.  You aren't there yet.

Quote

Let me put that into perspective for you,will start with the points you choose:

Let's leave the cut-and-paste to the side for now.  You don't learn anything that way.

Quote

The points that you put forward are more to do with purely theoretical hypothesis,i.e-absent of empirical procedure,which is what i call pseudoscience.

Remember this statement, because you will be wincing at it when you realize what science is actually all about.

Instead of assuming you know what they are about, ask questions to confirm that you know what they are about.

Quote

P.S.- you can choose to contest my references to evolution,but are we agreed on the rest? sorry for the bad editing.

No.  Harsh, the problem isn't that you are ignorant of specific things, like evolution or how to run an experiment.  Anyone can learn (or Google) anything they like to support whatever point they want.  The problem is that without understanding the context in which something is applied, or the culture which created the process, all it will be is an armchair observation of a ritual that you only know snippets about.  In short, you are ignorant about your own ignorance.  You don't understand what you don't understand, because you think that you understand it.  Even our discussion here, you believe this is a contest of some kind, and the only way to win is to never admit to losing.  That's not scientific thinking.  Science is all about losing.

And that is specifically where we need to start.  We need to correct your incorrect foundational assumption of what science is and, more importantly, what it isn't.


#122    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,950 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 04:24 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 10 April 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

I believe we were speaking way before 40,000 years. If modern HSS arrived 200,000 years ago,i can't believe that we needed 1,40,000 years to learn to speak and have a language.

Is this important to your theory.

It seems that sometime around 40 to 60 thousand years ago that HSS suddenly began
acting like humans.  It is my considered opinion that the primary difference between humans
and other animals is language; that it is language that allows us to question nature and our
place in it by the ability to pss complex ideas from generation to generation.  This makes
history simply the product of improvements and changes in language and our ability to use
it.

I applaud you for defining "science" but have come to believe that this definition is incomplete.
There are probably many ways to use logic and observation to learn about the world but a
more primitive means rather than observation> hypothesis> experiment> conclusion is obser-
vation> hypothesis> observation> conclusion.

Ultimately our understanding of nature is necessarily founded on logic and expressed by lan-
guage as well as passed generationally by language.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#123    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,735 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:12 PM

View Postcladking, on 10 April 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:


Ultimately our understanding of nature is necessarily founded on logic and expressed by lan-
guage as well as passed generationally by language.

Care to validate your own theories based on the above understanding??

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#124    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,735 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:14 PM

View Postcladking, on 05 April 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

No.  What I'm trying to say is that 99% of the "evolution" that has occured to us
took place long before there was even any life on earth. Evolutionist belief is that
99% of evolution occured before man invented writing so this is a very similar concept.

There are more holes in the theory of evolution than meat just as there are more missing
links than species.

View PostThe_Spartan, on 05 April 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

Few layman questions :

1. is this 99% evolution "occurring before there was any life on earth" applicable only to humans or all the lifeforms on our planet?
2. if so, how did they come to our planet? piloting spaceships?? wow..i can imagine roaches piloting their miniature spaceships to planet earth, elephants piloting their jumbo spaceships to earth.
3. If 99% evolution occurred even before there was any life on earth, what explains the fossil records? we have dates over every stratum of our soil. how does your 'Evolution occurring before there was life on earth" theory account for these dates? is it applicable to the 1%?


clad, don't throw around silly theories like with your geyser one.

Clad, you still haven't answered my questions.

Is it a deliberate case of memory loss?? :innocent:

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#125    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,950 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:33 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 10 April 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

1. is this 99% evolution "occurring before there was any life on earth" applicable only to humans or all the lifeforms on our planet?
2. if so, how did they come to our planet? piloting spaceships?? wow..i can imagine roaches piloting their miniature spaceships to planet earth, elephants piloting their jumbo spaceships to earth.
3. If 99% evolution occurred even before there was any life on earth, what explains the fossil records? we have dates over every stratum of our soil. how does your 'Evolution occurring before there was life on earth" theory account for these dates? is it applicable to the 1%?

There was no life on earth and conditions gradually changed toward the planet's ability
to support life; much like a petrie dish full of agar.  Life blew in on the cosmic wind and
"seeded" the planet.  The very first life was already had the sequencing necessary to
give rise to species most capable of changing conditions to make them more favorable
to life.  Like a bag of grass seeds with different types of seeds there was a constant bar-
age of life falling on the surface and some took root and some fell by the wayside.  But
most of these early arrivals ad all the genes necessary to quuickly evolve into species
that could capitalize on extant conditions.

The change in species has less to do with survival of the fittest and much more to do with
genes that were ancient when they came to earth, with changing conditions wrought by
life itself, and with near extinctions that force change and mutation.

Darwin's theory is essentially wrong even though it is much less wrong if the time frame
is greatly extended to the first time life arose on a distant planet. Not only our atoms are
stardust but so too our genes and their origin.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#126    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,735 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:34 PM

View Postcladking, on 10 April 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

There was no life on earth and conditions gradually changed toward the planet's ability
to support life; much like a petrie dish full of agar.  Life blew in on the cosmic wind and
"seeded" the planet.  The very first life was already had the sequencing necessary to
give rise to species most capable of changing conditions to make them more favorable
to life.  Like a bag of grass seeds with different types of seeds there was a constant bar-
age of life falling on the surface and some took root and some fell by the wayside.  But
most of these early arrivals ad all the genes necessary to quuickly evolve into species
that could capitalize on extant conditions.

The change in species has less to do with survival of the fittest and much more to do with
genes that were ancient when they came to earth, with changing conditions wrought by
life itself, and with near extinctions that force change and mutation.

Darwin's theory is essentially wrong even though it is much less wrong if the time frame
is greatly extended to the first time life arose on a distant planet. Not only our atoms are
stardust but so too our genes and their origin.

Dont beat around the bush.

Care to answer my questions, point by point?

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#127    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,950 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:36 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 10 April 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

Care to validate your own theories based on the above understanding??

It's unnecessary.

It's life itself.  It's the nature of logic and nature.  Our brains are even wired
this way though modern superstition, confusion, and education all conspire
to obscure the facts and their meanings.

Untill 4000 years ago the statements were obvious tautologies.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#128    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,735 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:37 PM

Clad, are you proposing Panspermia of extra terrestrial origins or directed panspermia??

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#129    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,950 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:37 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 10 April 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Dont beat around the bush.

Care to answer my questions, point by point?

If you can't find the answers in there then you won't understand them phrased another way.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#130    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,950 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:40 PM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 10 April 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

Clad, are you proposing Panspermia of extra terrestrial origins or directed panspermia??

If I understand your terms, it's the former.

Everytime a sun goes nova it will blow any biosphere on circling planets to the wind.  I believe
there is life raining down everywhere.  Of course on planets with established life it has almost
no chance to take root because something more suited to the enviroment will already exist on
that very spot.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#131    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 7,932 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:51 PM

View Postcladking, on 10 April 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Is this important to your theory.

It seems that sometime around 40 to 60 thousand years ago that HSS suddenly began
acting like humans.  It is my considered opinion that the primary difference between humans
and other animals is language; that it is language that allows us to question nature and our
place in it by the ability to pss complex ideas from generation to generation.  This makes
history simply the product of improvements and changes in language and our ability to use
it.

...

No one can be absolutely certain when language first began but it was likely a lot farther back than 60,000 years ago. Early modern humans (Homo sapiens) were anatomically identical to us, including their physiological speech mechanisms and brains. The oldest piece of art (can't remember the material from which it was made) was a decorated object dating to 77,000 years ago in South Africa. Art and decoration are unique to Homo sapiens and represent a higher order of consciousness and thinking: there is no practical reason to decorate something unless it is for the sake of ritual or aesthetics.

Likewise, no one can be certain what the first language was—paleolinguistic theories aside—but it also represents a higher order of consciousness and thinking. I do agree with you about the vital step forward that language represents, but it no doubt occurred much earlier than you seem to think.

Conversely, it is not certain if Neanderthals had a language but it's more than likely they did not. It's quite unlikely they possessed the same higher order of consciousness and thinking enjoyed by early modern humans, which is ultimately one of the primary reasons that Homo sapiens supplanted them.

I flatly disagree with your premise that 99% of our genome came from space. As is obvious, no avenue of scientific inquiry would support that claim.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#132    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,735 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:56 PM

I will ask you the questions once again.

1. is this 99% evolution "occurring before there was any life on earth" applicable only to humans or all the lifeforms on our planet?
2. If 99% evolution occurred even before there was any life on earth, what explains the fossil records? we have dates over every stratum of our soil. how does your 'Evolution occurring before there was life on earth" theory account for these dates? is it applicable to the 1%?

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#133    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,950 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:30 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 10 April 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

No one can be absolutely certain when language first began but it was likely a lot farther back than 60,000 years ago. Early modern humans (Homo sapiens) were anatomically identical to us, including their physiological speech mechanisms and brains. The oldest piece of art (can't remember the material from which it was made) was a decorated object dating to 77,000 years ago in South Africa. Art and decoration are unique to Homo sapiens and represent a higher order of consciousness and thinking: there is no practical reason to decorate something unless it is for the sake of ritual or aesthetics.

I flatly disagree with your premise that 99% of our genome came from space. As is obvious, no avenue of scientific inquiry would support that claim.

I don't know when man began acting human and really don't keep up with the current science
on the issue.  Much of what I know is from more than a decade ago.

Modern people have the absurd notion that man is distinct fromother life forms on the planet.
Sure, it's not impossible that space aliens caused the ascent of man by some means but the
bottom line is that man is in no way distinct from animals other than our ability to pass knowledge
through generations by means of language.  It's possible that language makes possible forms
of thought that are out of the grasp of other animals but it's still language that makes us distinct.
If this is true and man used to not be distinct then it would seem to follow that language was by
some mneans an acquisition.  Since only man has a large speech center in the brain then it's
likely that it was the arisal of the speech center that set man apart because it led to language.
It simply isn't known when this speech center first appeared but logically it would be at that time
that man began behaving differently.

It's true that man was more clever than all other animals but this cleverness was of very limited
utility except to the individual and those able to pass down techniques without language.

As I stated earlier since man shares 50% of his genome with oak trees it would seem to follow
we have far more in common with dinosaurs.  So where did all that genetic information come from?

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#134    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:17 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 10 April 2013 - 01:42 PM, said:

You aren't there yet.



No, it's pretty much the number one consideration, without which nothing else has much significance.



Yep.  You aren't there yet.



Let's leave the cut-and-paste to the side for now.  You don't learn anything that way.



Remember this statement, because you will be wincing at it when you realize what science is actually all about.

Instead of assuming you know what they are about, ask questions to confirm that you know what they are about.



No.  Harsh, the problem isn't that you are ignorant of specific things, like evolution or how to run an experiment.  Anyone can learn (or Google) anything they like to support whatever point they want.  The problem is that without understanding the context in which something is applied, or the culture which created the process, all it will be is an armchair observation of a ritual that you only know snippets about.  In short, you are ignorant about your own ignorance.  You don't understand what you don't understand, because you think that you understand it.  Even our discussion here, you believe this is a contest of some kind, and the only way to win is to never admit to losing.  That's not scientific thinking.  Science is all about losing.

And that is specifically where we need to start.  We need to correct your incorrect foundational assumption of what science is and, more importantly, what it isn't.
I used other sources to reply to you as if i would have replied in my own words you or others would have asked for referrences and sources.But if you want to avoid copy-paste i am fine with it. You cannot start with the procedure to tag a theory to be scientific without first defining Empirical science.
It is you who has jumped the Gun,start with the basics.Maybe you will learn something new.Though your talks seem very pompous and presumptive,i feel you have hardly done actual experiments in a lab.
I am still waiting to know what is your version of Science, and i am already wincing because i can see where the steps are leading (i can see you have carefully edited the steps you listed down to not mention the empirical procedure. By any chance,are you a theoretical physicist?
You can start with agreeing or disagreeing with the definitions i have posted, i will then list down the steps of how a theory is considered scientific and also an example of a theory which is supported completely by empirical and experimental evidence. I will give a case study for referrence of a genuine scientific theory contrasted with scientific quackery. Also i will be coming back to the steps you put down for a theory to be tagged as scientific.As a thought experiment i will justify a false theory using all the steps you listed down (since you excluded reproducible experimentation and the empirical procedure my job will be very easy), i will prove to you that Unicorns are real using the steps you listed down.


#135    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:48 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 09 April 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Newly revised mutation rates which clearly put the DNA changes, concerning anatomically modern humans (US), within the timeframe I mentioned.

Nope, the earliest physical remains (Omo 1 from Ethiopia) are what the c.200,000 BP date is based on which is supported by genetic studies dealing with mtDNA Haplogroup L at c.192,400 BP. Both of which concern our parent group Homo sapiens, the earliest anatomically modern humans.

J. K. Rowling wrote about a Wizard School somewhere in Scotland. I guess you'll be looking for it next.

cormac
Here are a few assumptions made by evolutionists and geneticists who support evolution while drawing inferrences:

Step 1. Assume evolution is true. Evolution has to be assumed as the very first step in the process of dealing with the genomic data because the authors will be using phylogenetic trees as their means of analyzing the genomic data. Barry G. Hall, author of Phylogenetic Trees Made Easy,explains that building a phylogenetic tree from genomic data is valid only if the sequence similarity present in the genes under consideration is due to shared evolutionary ancestry, a condition called homology.2 If the sequence similarity in the genes is due to common function or common design, then it is invalid to assume that building a phylogenetic tree from the sequences will give you real information.
Starting with the assumption that evolution is true, the authors of the paper identified 26,909 high-quality gene sequences that could be used to build gene trees for humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and rhesus monkeys.
Step 2. Align the sequences of each of the 26,909 genes and generate a gene tree for each of them to yield 26,909 gene trees.
Step 3. Assume that rhesus monkeys were the first of the five species to emerge in the species tree (that is, assume that rhesus monkey is a valid outgroup for building a phylogenetic tree with human and great ape gene sequences) and eliminate any gene trees that don’t show rhesus monkeys as the oldest species. This assumption results in the elimination of 1,409 (five percent) of the gene trees from the analysis. 25,500 gene trees now remain.
Step 4. Assume that genes acquire mutations in a clock-like fashion (molecular clock theory). This assumption is the basis for the belief that one can use the changes in gene sequences from one species to another to calculate the time they diverged from one another. Gene trees that generate divergence times inconsistent with the theoretical species tree are discarded because the authors conclude they aren’t behaving in a clock-like fashion. This process eliminates 2,190 (eight percent) of the gene trees. 23,310 trees now remain in the analysis.
Step 5. Assume that the theoretical species tree is correct and eliminate gene trees that differ drastically from the theoretical tree. This assumption eliminates 11,365 (42 percent) of gene trees, leaving 11,945 trees. The scientists identify the remaining sequences as “phylogenetically informative.” This phrase simply means that the remaining gene trees give them more or less the story of the evolutionary relationship they expected to find. In the end, the researchers have rejected ~56 percent of the initial data because, in one way or another, they don’t match the hypothesized species tree.
Step 6. The researchers can now tackle the paper’s real objective—explaining the inconsistency between so many of the gene trees and the theoretical species tree. Armed with the set of gene trees considered valid and making two additional assumptions—that orangutans emerged ~16 million years ago and that the generation time for the species is 20 years—the scientists calculate the probability that gene trees that do not agree with the species tree would turn up in their analysis.
Fortunately for their research, the probability is exactly what they observed occurring in their data. This calculation serves as a justification for upholding the evolutionary paradigm in spite of so much data being eliminated from consideration because it isn’t consistent with the hypothesis. The authors further conclude that the original population of humans was between 24,000 and 49,000. So, having started with the assumption that evolution is true (see step 1)

Point no.4 highlights one of the biggest assumptions made by proe-evolution geneticist.
Ask yourself how many factors other then time can impact the mutation rate?
If you start with the assumption that modern HSS are 200,000 years old and then interpret gentic data in that light then ofcourse you will come back to the same date, but it is circular reasoning.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users