Theory of Evolution is about to change a bit

[Gambit]

Don't get too uneased by Pad, this is just his way of saying hello.

He could've just said hello.

Its all good I am new and different to the crowd. I get it. Now I know not to take it personal lol

I like this guy; but then, I like everyone until they tell me I am going to hell. I'm kinda fickle like that.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I am open to a lot of ideas and beliefs. You are not.

What? I have not criticised news idea,only your insistent use of logical fallacies,with an inability/unwillingness knowledge such errors.

There are people who believes in the evolution of science and there is people that does not want to discover new things

False dichotomy,yet ANOTHER logical fallacy. You really have no idea do you..

In science EVERY question remains open to new evidence,new ideas,revision and change. Not being a living organism,sciences is not evolutionary with in my understanding. Further, the history of science shows that scientific change has as often as not been revolutionary as emerging power paradigms compete with old ones.

To accuse me of closed mindedness because I fault your arguments is yet another logical fallacy,called an ad homimen attack.


Bored now.

If an old,experienced scientist,full of honours ,says something is impossible, he's probably wrong. If a brilliant young scientist says something IS possible;he's probably right (anon)

[freedomfighter]

I am open to a lot of ideas and beliefs. You are not.

What? I have not criticised news idea,only your insistent use of logical fallacies,with an inability/unwillingness knowledge such errors.

There are people who believes in the evolution of science and there is people that does not want to discover new things

False dichotomy,yet ANOTHER logical fallacy. You really have no idea do you..

In science EVERY question remains open to new evidence,new ideas,revision and change. Not being a living organism,sciences is not evolutionary with in my understanding. Further, the history of science shows that scientific change has as often as not been revolutionary as emerging power paradigms compete with old ones.

To accuse me of closed mindedness because I fault your arguments is yet another logical fallacy,called an ad homimen attack.


Bored now.

If an old,experienced scientist,full of honours ,says something is impossible, he's probably wrong. If a brilliant young scientist says something IS possible;he's probably right (anon)

Yes on paper we are open to new ideas and theories. On paper we do follow the scientific method. But...

The truth is as much as scientist want to keep the rule of thumb they are limited on research because it costs money. In the science room we are limited to what we can do and what we can discover based on the budgets that are provided to our scientists, yes I do know that does not stop someone to come up with new theories or new ideas but it does cost money to test it.

Not only that science can evolve only if a budget is there but the people providing the budget really does not have an open mind.

Science does in fact keeps evolving but most people do not want to risk going deeper because its not profitable. That is my argument. I know it is the fact of life and reality but that is something maybe in the future we can change.

[Reforged]

Argument from incredulity. (look it up) Science makes no claims of perfection. Such discoveries do not change the basics of evolutionary theory. Nor did discovering and mapping the human genome.

I can't help but wonder if you have actually studied evolution, at the mots basic level.

I know what you mean and I a pro science but the issue is that most people use what they know now as a way to defend their beliefs when it is constantly evolving like us humans.

Yet we laugh at other people for what they believe in

---

Science books are frequently re-written.


Which class of books are never re-written.... what shall we call them.... what oh what, oh what, shall we call them!





Aaahhh!

Yeah and the Bible was rewritten in 2011 and a lot of the words have been taken out and changed a lot. That is nothing new either lol. KJV is a perfect example.

Oh right? Afew flaws in the word of God then?

[Angrboda]

"What a bunch of Hooey."

"It was not until some weeks later that I realized there is no need to restrict oneself to 2 by 2 matrices. One could go on to 4 by 4 matrices, and the problem is then easily soluable. In retrospect, it seems strange that one can be so much held up over such an elementary point. The resulting wave equation for the electron turned out to be very successful. It led to correct values for the spin and the magnetic moment. This was quite unexpected. The work all followed from a study of pretty mathematics, without any thought being given to these physical properties of the electron."

P.A.M. Dirac


Science doesn't so much follow the metaphysics as it follows the mathematics. The last century of science has repeatedly shown that metaphysics is a poor guide to reality. The metaphysics of quantum theory is secondary to the mathematics, and the current incarnation of T.O.E.'s is almost wholly driven by the mathematics. The idea that metaphysics is the point guard for science is ridiculous. This also explains your mystery about Einstein and black holes: the mathematics of Einstein's model predicted them. He didn't just pull it out of his ass. (And a quick check of Wikipedia indicates it wasn't even his ass — Karl Schwarzschild derived a solution to Einstein's equations for a point mass which was refined over time by several physicists until it was recognized for what it was; again, the mathematics drove the discovery. Metaphysics played almost no role whatsoever.) And if there hadn't been an Einstein, somebody else would have discovered relativity, because the conflict between Maxwell's equations and the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were lying there on the surface, just waiting for someone to reconcile them.

And we've already noticed your inability to distinguish between theory (evolution) and the data that supports it (physical and biological specimens). I'm guessing you're more open to divergent ideas because you lack the discrimination to separate the wheat from the chaff.


"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."

Jack Handey

[CliveStaples]

And if there hadn't been an Einstein, somebody else would have discovered relativity, because the conflict between Maxwell's equations and the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were lying there on the surface, just waiting for someone to reconcile them.

I'm not sure I follow; relativity (or rather, the proper expression for Lorentz boosts) can be derived from Maxwell's equations.

[Whateverist]

Yeah, best not to take it personal, but learn from what a wise guy like pad is saying. I mean pad's taught me a lot about fallacies since I've been here, he knows his shit.

Sorry pad, I'll stop licking the rim of your arse and let you guys carry on...

This is starting to sound a bit fellatious too. What we have here is the fallacy of sucking up.

[freedomfighter]

"What a bunch of Hooey."

"It was not until some weeks later that I realized there is no need to restrict oneself to 2 by 2 matrices. One could go on to 4 by 4 matrices, and the problem is then easily soluable. In retrospect, it seems strange that one can be so much held up over such an elementary point. The resulting wave equation for the electron turned out to be very successful. It led to correct values for the spin and the magnetic moment. This was quite unexpected. The work all followed from a study of pretty mathematics, without any thought being given to these physical properties of the electron."

P.A.M. Dirac


Science doesn't so much follow the metaphysics as it follows the mathematics. The last century of science has repeatedly shown that metaphysics is a poor guide to reality. The metaphysics of quantum theory is secondary to the mathematics, and the current incarnation of T.O.E.'s is almost wholly driven by the mathematics. The idea that metaphysics is the point guard for science is ridiculous. This also explains your mystery about Einstein and black holes: the mathematics of Einstein's model predicted them. He didn't just pull it out of his ass. (And a quick check of Wikipedia indicates it wasn't even his ass — Karl Schwarzschild derived a solution to Einstein's equations for a point mass which was refined over time by several physicists until it was recognized for what it was; again, the mathematics drove the discovery. Metaphysics played almost no role whatsoever.) And if there hadn't been an Einstein, somebody else would have discovered relativity, because the conflict between Maxwell's equations and the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were lying there on the surface, just waiting for someone to reconcile them.

And we've already noticed your inability to distinguish between theory (evolution) and the data that supports it (physical and biological specimens). I'm guessing you're more open to divergent ideas because you lack the discrimination to separate the wheat from the chaff.


"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."

Jack Handey

So before Galileo when scientist and astronomers believed that this world was in the center of the universe they used math too to prove their theories but they lacked an open mind and the astronomers at that time in order to keep their stuff straight ran to the church to complain about Galileo because they had to be right and Galileo a magician.

I am not against evolution that was not the purpose of the post. There is no fallacy to keep an open mind to new frontiers of science. There is a lot of things we discovered throughout history accidentally, without testing, without using the scientific method. I believe we should start opening our boundaries a bit more rather than to keep it close, that is my personal opinion. That makes me wrong or full of fallacies I guess.

[Reforged]

"What a bunch of Hooey."

"It was not until some weeks later that I realized there is no need to restrict oneself to 2 by 2 matrices. One could go on to 4 by 4 matrices, and the problem is then easily soluable. In retrospect, it seems strange that one can be so much held up over such an elementary point. The resulting wave equation for the electron turned out to be very successful. It led to correct values for the spin and the magnetic moment. This was quite unexpected. The work all followed from a study of pretty mathematics, without any thought being given to these physical properties of the electron."

P.A.M. Dirac


Science doesn't so much follow the metaphysics as it follows the mathematics. The last century of science has repeatedly shown that metaphysics is a poor guide to reality. The metaphysics of quantum theory is secondary to the mathematics, and the current incarnation of T.O.E.'s is almost wholly driven by the mathematics. The idea that metaphysics is the point guard for science is ridiculous. This also explains your mystery about Einstein and black holes: the mathematics of Einstein's model predicted them. He didn't just pull it out of his ass. (And a quick check of Wikipedia indicates it wasn't even his ass — Karl Schwarzschild derived a solution to Einstein's equations for a point mass which was refined over time by several physicists until it was recognized for what it was; again, the mathematics drove the discovery. Metaphysics played almost no role whatsoever.) And if there hadn't been an Einstein, somebody else would have discovered relativity, because the conflict between Maxwell's equations and the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were lying there on the surface, just waiting for someone to reconcile them.

And we've already noticed your inability to distinguish between theory (evolution) and the data that supports it (physical and biological specimens). I'm guessing you're more open to divergent ideas because you lack the discrimination to separate the wheat from the chaff.


"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."

Jack Handey

So before Galileo when scientist and astronomers believed that this world was in the center of the universe they used math too to prove their theories but they lacked an open mind and the astronomers at that time in order to keep their stuff straight ran to the church to complain about Galileo because they had to be right and Galileo a magician.

I am not against evolution that was not the purpose of the post. There is no fallacy to keep an open mind to new frontiers of science. There is a lot of things we discovered throughout history accidentally, without testing, without using the scientific method. I believe we should start opening our boundaries a bit more rather than to keep it close, that is my personal opinion. That makes me wrong or full of fallacies I guess.

Math is established as being a working system that reaps many rewards and can be demonstrably recreated to yield the same benefits, you cannot say the same about religion.
Alot of the time we depended on serendipity to make our discoveries and it is very obviously not the best way but its what we depended on when we were essentially fumbling in the dark.
It would be a really stupid idea to choose that over the now perfected and informed techniques of making discoveries we have obtained over hundreds of years.
What next? Should we go back to using candles instead of lightbulbs?

[freedomfighter]

"What a bunch of Hooey."

"It was not until some weeks later that I realized there is no need to restrict oneself to 2 by 2 matrices. One could go on to 4 by 4 matrices, and the problem is then easily soluable. In retrospect, it seems strange that one can be so much held up over such an elementary point. The resulting wave equation for the electron turned out to be very successful. It led to correct values for the spin and the magnetic moment. This was quite unexpected. The work all followed from a study of pretty mathematics, without any thought being given to these physical properties of the electron."

P.A.M. Dirac


Science doesn't so much follow the metaphysics as it follows the mathematics. The last century of science has repeatedly shown that metaphysics is a poor guide to reality. The metaphysics of quantum theory is secondary to the mathematics, and the current incarnation of T.O.E.'s is almost wholly driven by the mathematics. The idea that metaphysics is the point guard for science is ridiculous. This also explains your mystery about Einstein and black holes: the mathematics of Einstein's model predicted them. He didn't just pull it out of his ass. (And a quick check of Wikipedia indicates it wasn't even his ass — Karl Schwarzschild derived a solution to Einstein's equations for a point mass which was refined over time by several physicists until it was recognized for what it was; again, the mathematics drove the discovery. Metaphysics played almost no role whatsoever.) And if there hadn't been an Einstein, somebody else would have discovered relativity, because the conflict between Maxwell's equations and the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment were lying there on the surface, just waiting for someone to reconcile them.

And we've already noticed your inability to distinguish between theory (evolution) and the data that supports it (physical and biological specimens). I'm guessing you're more open to divergent ideas because you lack the discrimination to separate the wheat from the chaff.


"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."

Jack Handey

So before Galileo when scientist and astronomers believed that this world was in the center of the universe they used math too to prove their theories but they lacked an open mind and the astronomers at that time in order to keep their stuff straight ran to the church to complain about Galileo because they had to be right and Galileo a magician.

I am not against evolution that was not the purpose of the post. There is no fallacy to keep an open mind to new frontiers of science. There is a lot of things we discovered throughout history accidentally, without testing, without using the scientific method. I believe we should start opening our boundaries a bit more rather than to keep it close, that is my personal opinion. That makes me wrong or full of fallacies I guess.

The purpose of this article was to announce that we are now following a new trail of this new discovered species and I am very excited to discover where it will lead to. Point blank.

I thought that science is the human method of understand the world around us, so we can only measure things we can see, not the things we can't am I right or wrong?

What I love about science is that there is so much in this world and out of this world that is waiting for us to discover it (symbolically speaking).

There are so many things we couldn't see before that we can see now.

Just because we are limited to our technology does not make me wrong to believe any theory can be tested, that is the purpose of science.