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

#106    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,675 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:19 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 05 April 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

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.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#107    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,675 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:25 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 05 April 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

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. :rolleyes:   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.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#108    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:32 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.

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 city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#109    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,708 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:40 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.


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 by The_Spartan, 05 April 2013 - 08:40 PM.

"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

#110    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 09 April 2013 - 06:41 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 05 April 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

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.


#111    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,141 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:57 AM

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

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


#112    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:39 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 09 April 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

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

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#113    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 13,072 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 09 April 2013 - 12:53 PM

I thought it was Yorkshire.


#114    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 10 April 2013 - 09:05 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 05 April 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

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.


#115    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 10 April 2013 - 09:08 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 09 April 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

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

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


#116    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,141 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:20 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 10 April 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

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?


#117    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 10 April 2013 - 09:52 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 05 April 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

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 by Harsh86_Patel, 10 April 2013 - 10:51 AM.


#118    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 10 April 2013 - 10:36 AM

View Postcladking, on 05 April 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

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.


#119    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 10 April 2013 - 11:39 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 05 April 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

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.


#120    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,409 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:28 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 10 April 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

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

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users