Why most fringe theories exist.

[The_Spartan]

No. I meant it quite literally. I don't mean that there is no change in species on earth since

this is patently and obviously wrong. What I mean is that 99% of the make-up of any individual's

genome occured before it came to earth. Logically if we are so similar to oak trees it would

follow that we are also pretty close to dinosaurs since they came after the split of plants and an-

imals. If we are so similar to dinosaurs then where did all this evolution occur that made us so

complex and similar to other species? Our "species" may have evolved on more than just two

planets (one after another).

It looks to me as though Darwin isolated one tiny little facet of wevolution and blew it up into some-

thing it isn't; the origin of species. "Survival of the fittest" is insignificant in driving the real changes

that constitute change in species. Normally even defining "fittest" will prove a nightmare since

what's right for one species is wrong for another and every species needs the best genes passed

down from the healthiest individuals to have the best chances of survival. But every species needs

diversity in the gene pool as well to survive the near extinctions.

I believe that all those "useless" genes actually involve the coding required to live almost anywhere

under almost any conditions. Whatever conditions arise some life form will emerge to take advantage

of it whether it's here or anywhere. Nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it.

How about putting Clad King and some like minded persons on a space ship of some damn construction and send them off to any of the Earth like planets discovered in other galaxies. let us know how you evolve further out there.

[cormac mac airt]

No. I meant it quite literally. I don't mean that there is no change in species on earth since

this is patently and obviously wrong. What I mean is that 99% of the make-up of any individual's

genome occured before it came to earth. Logically if we are so similar to oak trees it would

follow that we are also pretty close to dinosaurs since they came after the split of plants and an-

imals. If we are so similar to dinosaurs then where did all this evolution occur that made us so

complex and similar to other species? Our "species" may have evolved on more than just two

planets (one after another).

It looks to me as though Darwin isolated one tiny little facet of wevolution and blew it up into some-

thing it isn't; the origin of species. "Survival of the fittest" is insignificant in driving the real changes

that constitute change in species. Normally even defining "fittest" will prove a nightmare since

what's right for one species is wrong for another and every species needs the best genes passed

down from the healthiest individuals to have the best chances of survival. But every species needs

diversity in the gene pool as well to survive the near extinctions.

I believe that all those "useless" genes actually involve the coding required to live almost anywhere

under almost any conditions. Whatever conditions arise some life form will emerge to take advantage

of it whether it's here or anywhere. Nature abhors a vacuum and will fill it.

Just in using one example the above bold portion is ignorance at its finest since you are effectively saying (using humans as an example) that 99% of a persons Y Chromosome DNA, 99% of a persons mtDNA and 99% of a persons autosomal/nuclear DNA all of which makes up a persons whole genome occurred before it ever got to earth. In short, 99% of a person came from somewhere other than earth. You really should stop before you dig yourself any deeper.

cormac

[Frank Merton]

It took me a minute to realize the position that was being put forward. One of the more extreme one that I would never be able to imagine on my own. At any rate I have no interest in following this thread any longer.

[Harte]

And if we continue to discard all objects that do give such dates as contaminated then we can continue to suppress this theory.We have to acknowledge the possibility and then reinterpret all the evidence we have and also look for new evidence in this new light,then you will be able to see a lot of proof emerging.

Why not have proper under water archaeological studies in Dwarka,Cuba,Mahabalipuram,Yonaguni and put so many of these daunting questions to rest.If we dismiss all possible evidence or sources of evidence and never explore it citing our current beliefs then how will the proof emerge?

Because they have been done:

Mahabalipuram

Dwarka

Yonaguni

There's never been anything found off Cuba. Just a claim and a few sidescan sonar blips, along with some artist's renderings which are today being passed off as "photos" on unscrupulous fringe websites.

Foot in mouth again? Maybe you should try and find out if what you are thinking is even remotely connected with reality prior to blurting it out in type for all to see.

Harte

[The_Spartan]

From the pdf on Dwarka that harte linked

Based on extensive, systematic underwater scanning of the area and specially absence of any pottery or other artefact even after airlift operations / underwater excavation at several places during last few years, present exploration do not suggest that they belong to some habitation site, they rather appear to be the remains of a jetty.

The studies of surrounding archaeological sites indicate that the submerged structure may not be as old as suggested earlier. However, the date of these structures may be still a matter of debate. A stone block with Gujarati script, found from the area indicates a later date for the stone structures.

Recent discoveries of stone anchors from all over the coasts of Indian Ocean suggest that Dwarka anchors may be related to Indo-Arab trade between 8th

century and 15th century AD.

However the date of stone anchors is subject to revision in the light of their association with some archaeological sites

There you go!!

Edited April 5, 2013 by The_Spartan

[cladking]

It took me a minute to realize the position that was being put forward. One of the more extreme one that I would never be able to imagine on my own. At any rate I have no interest in following this thread any longer.

To each his own but I don't see anything remarkable about the concept of "seeds of

life" blowing around in space. The universe is extremely old and there have been count-

less millions of novas and supernovas that could spread a planet's biosphere from one

end of the universe to the other. Anytime a planet that's about ready to support life passes

through this material it simply becomes "seeded" like an enormous petrie dish.

People imagine that the earth is a closed system but in all probability there's not really

such a thing as a closed system.

[cladking]

Just in using one example the above bold portion is ignorance at its finest since you are effectively saying (using humans as an example) that 99% of a persons Y Chromosome DNA, 99% of a persons mtDNA and 99% of a persons autosomal/nuclear DNA all of which makes up a persons whole genome occurred before it ever got to earth. In short, 99% of a person came from somewhere other than earth. You really should stop before you dig yourself any deeper.

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.

[cormac mac airt]

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.

And you would still be wrong as every Y Chromosome, mtDNA or nuclear DNA change is a part of that evolution and most of it, where we are concerned, has happened within the last 200,000 - 300,000 years give or take. The genetic changes causing loss of body hair to what we have now, tolerance to lactose as well as eye color are also part of that evolution. All three of which have ALSO happened much more recently than your claim. The only thing relevant to your claim is the fact that amino acids have been found in meteorites indicating that the building blocks of life may have originated elsewhere. That's not the same thing as what you have incorrectly claimed twice now.

cormac

[The_Spartan]

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.

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.

Edited April 5, 2013 by The_Spartan

[Harsh86_Patel]

And you would still be wrong as every Y Chromosome, mtDNA or nuclear DNA change is a part of that evolution and most of it, where we are concerned, has happened within the last 200,000 - 300,000 years give or take. The genetic changes causing loss of body hair to what we have now, tolerance to lactose as well as eye color are also part of that evolution. All three of which have ALSO happened much more recently than your claim. The only thing relevant to your claim is the fact that amino acids have been found in meteorites indicating that the building blocks of life may have originated elsewhere. That's not the same thing as what you have incorrectly claimed twice now.

cormac

Again you claim that most of the y chromosome,mt DNA and nuclear DNA change has happened within the last 200,000- 300,000 years.....how do you attach time to genetic changes? There are multiple ways and time periods in which the changes can be interpreted, you are resorting to the beyond 200,000 date since the evolutionists claim the HSS xame into existence around 200,000 years ago.

Also Sitchin also suggested that Humanoids were genetically modified artificially around 300,000 years back,which sped up the so called evolutionary changes.

[aquatus1]

Harsh, did you decide not to follow up on learning how science works?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=245685&st=75#entry4724391

[cormac mac airt]

Again you claim that most of the y chromosome,mt DNA and nuclear DNA change has happened within the last 200,000- 300,000 years.....how do you attach time to genetic changes? There are multiple ways and time periods in which the changes can be interpreted, you are resorting to the beyond 200,000 date since the evolutionists claim the HSS xame into existence around 200,000 years ago.

Also Sitchin also suggested that Humanoids were genetically modified artificially around 300,000 years back,which sped up the so called evolutionary changes.

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

[Frank Merton]

I thought it was Yorkshire.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Nice swerve but an argument between scientists on the age and species/subspecies of human at La Sima de los Huesos, Homo heidelbergensis versus Homo neandertalensis, has nothing to do with the genetic origin of Homo sapiens (US). From the article itself:

cormac

I quoted the article in context of how: evidence is distorted to concur with the established norms.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Harsh, did you decide not to follow up on learning how science works?

http://www.unexplain...75#entry4724391

Lets go.

[aquatus1]

Lets go.

...

All right.

As I asked before, are there any of the pre-requisites of scientific methodology you would like further clarification on, or do you understand the reasoning behind them all?

[Harsh86_Patel]

Excellent, then let's define--

**sigh**

Let's...start off with something a bit simpler.

First, let's define exactly what it is that science requires before a theory can claim to be 'scientific'.

For instance, how exactly is a theory formed? Does the data have to preceed the theory, or can the theory preceed the data? At what point do we seperate faith as a belief and faith as a statistic? Is an abstract theory that has only been proven mathematicaly still count as a scientific theory?

The following are what are generally referred to as the pre-requisites of scientific methodology:

1) The first would be that it needs to explain or account for the currently existing data.

2) The second is that it would have to be able to predict future events based on that data, in order to encompass data discovered in the future.

3) The conclusion would have to be logical enough so that an unbiased third party would naturally arrive at the same results.

4) The theory must be falsifiable.

5) The explanation offered must be a verifiable event.

All theories, prior to being considered scientific, must meet all five of these points. Before we start getting into examples, is there any of these you would like further clarification on?

I requested we start with definitions of empirical and applied science.Though you skipped a few steps and have started directly with how a theory can be tagged as scientific which is a secondary consideration.Though the process you highlight is absent of any mention of 'empirical' procedure.

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

1.THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.^[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.^[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."^[3]

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way.^[52] An explanatory thought experiment or hypothesis is put forward, as explanation, using principles such as parsimony (also known as "Occam's Razor") and are generally expected to seek consilience—fitting well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena.^[53] This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by experiment or observation. The predictions are to be posted before a confirming experiment or observation is sought, as proof that no tampering has occurred. Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress.^[54][55] This is done partly through observation of natural phenomena, but also through experimentation, that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions, as appropriate to the discipline (in the observational sciences, such as astronomy or geology, a predicted observation might take the place of a controlled experiment). Experimentation is especially important in science to help establish causal relationships (to avoid the correlation fallacy).

Source:http://en.wikipedia....pirical_science

Words used to describe scientific method:Empirical, Experimentation,Repeatable,Measurable,Predictable,Falsifiable.

In context to evolution: Macro-Evolution i.e speciation cannot be described as predictable,repeatable,falsifiable,no experiment can demonstrate speciation.

2. EMPIRICAL SCIENCE

empirical adj

derived from experiment and observation rather than theory.

Source:http://empirical.askdefine.com

Empirical science is based on repeatable experimentation and observation. Any theory/hypothesis to be considered empirical must be demonstrated by a reproducible experimental process in it's entirity.

i.e- I can't claim speciation is empirical as i cannot demonstrate it in the form of a reproducible experiment.

3. APPLIED SCIENCE:

Applied science is a discipline that applies existing scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications, such as technology or inventions.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science

Evolution cannot be considered an applied science as it is not predictable and hence can not lead to any useful technology being developed around it.

The above represents what science is for me. This is the only sort of science that i understand.

It has to empirical,based on experimentation and observations which can be reproduced by a third party,and also should have riders which make it falsifiable, results of experimentation should also be measurable and predictable based on the hypothesis.

Anything that lies outside the bounds of this procedure is not Science,this brings me to my next point:

4. BAD SCIENCE/ PSEUDO SCIENCE:

An area of study or speculation that masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy that it would not otherwise be able to achieve is sometimes referred to aspseudoscience, fringe science, or "alternative science".^[44] Another term, junk science, is often used to describe scientific hypotheses or conclusions which, while perhaps legitimate in themselves, are believed to be used to support a position that is seen as not legitimately justified by the totality of evidence. Physicist Richard Feynman coined the term "cargo cult science" in reference to pursuits that have the formal trappings of science but lack "a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty" that allows their results to be rigorously evaluated.^[45] Various types of commercial advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories.

There also can be an element of political or ideological bias on all sides of such debates. Sometimes, research may be characterized as "bad science", research that is well-intentioned but is seen as incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or over-simplified expositions of scientific ideas. The term "scientific misconduct" refers to situations such as where researchers have intentionally misrepresented their published data or have purposely given credit for a discovery to the wrong person.^[46]

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_science

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.

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

Edited April 10, 2013 by Harsh86_Patel

[Harsh86_Patel]

40,000 years ago give or take. It seems to have required just several generations

to sweep across the world since language users became far more advanced very

rapidly.

I believe thought is overrated and is accomplished by all of God's creatures and even,

to a lesser extent, plants and other living things. Humans are not that much more

clever than other animals and individuals are a product of their time and place. We

accomplish most of our feats by habits.

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.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Which is based on the lack of evidence for Homo sapiens remains prior to c.200,000 BP. Again, one can't base an argument on evidence one DOESN'T have.

cormac

Also you can't foolishly assume that since you have not found evidence means that they had to originate in 200,000 BP. Have you dug the whole Earth up for proof? It is a little naive to assume that since the oldest specimen we have dates to 200,000 BP means HSS came into existence 200,000 years ago.

We have assumed the date of creation of modern HSS with inconclusive evidence,not only that we make further assumptions and interpret more evidence based on this assumption.Sounds like a recipe for trouble.

[cormac mac airt]

Also you can't foolishly assume that since you have not found evidence means that they had to originate in 200,000 BP. Have you dug the whole Earth up for proof? It is a little naive to assume that since the oldest specimen we have dates to 200,000 BP means HSS came into existence 200,000 years ago.

We have assumed the date of creation of modern HSS with inconclusive evidence,not only that we make further assumptions and interpret more evidence based on this assumption.Sounds like a recipe for trouble.

And as I've said many, MANY times you can't base an argument on evidence you don't have. But then again, I assumed you were intelligent enough to know what you were talking about. It appears I was wrong. Mea culpa.

cormac

[aquatus1]

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

You aren't there yet.

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.

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

Yep. You aren't there yet.

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.

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.

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.

[cladking]

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.

[The_Spartan]

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??

[The_Spartan]

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.

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??

[cladking]

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.