(August 21, 2015 at 2:42 am)Aractus Wrote:

(August 17, 2015 at 9:41 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Evolution is the process by which living organisms change over generations, and it is a scientific fact.

Incorrect, the process itself (the "how") is not understood and it's disputed as to what that process is. What you are describing as "scientific fact" isn't the how but the end result. The end result of evolution is not disputed - i.e. there exists a process, about which there is much dispute, and the result is that living organisms change and develop into new species over time.

Where is the dispute? We know how genes and population mechanics work. As far as I can tell it is quite understood.

Well it isn't. There are multiple possibilities - it could be that mutated genes drive Evolution - but that's unlikely due to the fact that there is high genetic variability across a species without changing fundamental aspects of the species. It could be that environmental changes drive physiological changes which then alter gene expression. And there are plenty of other explanations out there as well, there's not one clear answer to the question of what the process is.

There was a dinosaur discovered recently that had a full plumage. Yet prior to that discovery it was very widely believed that the plumage is something that developed after flight - we now know that's not true.

(August 21, 2015 at 4:25 am)Aractus Wrote: Well it isn't. There are multiple possibilities - it could be that mutated genes drive Evolution - but that's unlikely due to the fact that there is high genetic variability across a species without changing fundamental aspects of the species. It could be that environmental changes drive physiological changes which then alter gene expression. And there are plenty of other explanations out there as well, there's not one clear answer to the question of what the process is.

There was a dinosaur discovered recently that had a full plumage. Yet prior to that discovery it was very widely believed that the plumage is something that developed after flight - we now know that's not true.

They're starting to think lots of dinosaurs had feathers, and I want to say I heard somewhere recently that they found a fossil of a dinosaur sitting on its eggs like a bird. There has already been some speculation that the dinosaurs were warmblooded, and there's now some conjecture that feathers may have helped with warming eggs long before they were used for flying.

(August 21, 2015 at 9:52 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: They're starting to think lots of dinosaurs had feathers, and I want to say I heard somewhere recently that they found a fossil of a dinosaur sitting on its eggs like a bird. There has already been some speculation that the dinosaurs were warmblooded, and there's now some conjecture that feathers may have helped with warming eggs long before they were used for flying.

It's still debated, but the general consensus leans more and more towards the birds being direct descendants of dynosaurs.

(August 17, 2015 at 7:05 am)Aractus Wrote:

(August 17, 2015 at 5:18 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: My main beef with the study presented in OP is this - where's the damn control group?

I want to know how happy people over 50 are, who DON'T waste what time they have left on church, community, charity, politics, nor educational courses (I mean - seriously - old people don't feel happy when they're expected to learn sh*t? Shocking...).

Or is that - somehow - not an option? Because when I turn 50 - you just watch me...

That's not how longitudinal surveys work. By definition they are surveys, not cohorts of people instructed to do different things. It would be unethical to tell a group of people not to participate in any forms of social activity for the next 20 years until the final results of the study are compiled.

But also, data obtained without the researcher modifying the behaviours or environment of the participants is the most reliable to be compared with real world data. That is, the people who were a part of the SHARE survey are completely representative of ordinary people, the researchers didn't instruct them to change their behaviours they simply observed. You really have no valid argument against the legitimate of longitudinal follow-up surveys like this, they provide excellent quality data.

Don't surveys suffer the weaknesses of self-selection and internal bias?

A selective group and still....

Randy, in his usual assertive dishonesty, didn't adress that the survey didn't come to a conclusive result. As I repeatedly said, without getting any explanation, excuse or however you may call a possible response to the question, they speak of "may". May lead to sustained happiness. So there is actually no result confirming what Randy said in the OP.

(August 21, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Don't surveys suffer the weaknesses of self-selection and internal bias?

Not sure about surveys but Randy obviously does.

(August 21, 2015 at 9:52 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: They're starting to think lots of dinosaurs had feathers, and I want to say I heard somewhere recently that they found a fossil of a dinosaur sitting on its eggs like a bird. There has already been some speculation that the dinosaurs were warmblooded, and there's now some conjecture that feathers may have helped with warming eggs long before they were used for flying.

Although what you said is mostly correct you have to remember that only specific types of dinosaurs had feathers. Dinosaurs that walked on four legs for instance did not have feathers. Just the carnivorous ones that were bipedal. Your stegosaurus, brontosaurus, etc. were not feathered. That dinosaurs are the ancestors to birds and were warm-hearted isn't speculation it's accepted scientific fact - there's hard evidence from fossils and even harder evidence from bird DNA.

(August 21, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Don't surveys suffer the weaknesses of self-selection and internal bias?

Not necessarily, that's why you explain where you got your participants from and how they were selected. The data that the paper used covered a wide range of people across 10 different countries, so I'd say they'd done their bit to get as wide as possible a sample.

Religion doesn't make you happy.
Religion well the judo christian religions teach you that you are nothing but a piece of shit and not worthwhile but
you will be worth while if you kiss this specific beings ass.

(August 21, 2015 at 3:17 pm)abaris Wrote: A selective group and still....

Randy, in his usual assertive dishonesty, didn't adress that the survey didn't come to a conclusive result. As I repeatedly said, without getting any explanation, excuse or however you may call a possible response to the question, they speak of "may". May lead to sustained happiness. So there is actually no result confirming what Randy said in the OP.

That language is pretty standard across scientific studies, in fairness. You'll very rarely find a scientist who won't couch their reports in terms of probabilities, rather than certainties. I see theists jump on all the "may" and "possibly" in scientific reports as a way to wriggle out of the conclusions, but in truth that's just good practices for reporting. Science is probabilistic in nature.