quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology
Paleontology is one of the historical sciences, along with archaeology, geology, astronomy, cosmology,philology and history itself.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology#cite_note-Laudan1992WhatSpecialP58-4][4][/url] This means that it aims to describe phenomena of the past and reconstruct their causes.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology#cite_note-Cleland2002MethodologicalAndEpistemicDifferences-5][5][/url] Hence it has three main elements: description of the phenomena; developing a general theory about the causes of various types of change; and applying those theories to specific facts.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology#cite_note-Laudan1992WhatSpecialP58-4][4][/url]
When trying to explain past phenomena, paleontologists and other historical scientists often construct a set of hypotheses about the causes and then look for a smoking gun, a piece of evidence that indicates that one hypothesis is a better explanation than others. Sometimes the smoking gun is discovered by a fortunate accident during other research. For example, the discovery by Luis Alvarez and Walter Alvarez of an iridium-rich layer at the CretaceousTertiaryboundary made asteroid impact and volcanism the most favored explanations for the CretaceousPaleogene extinction event.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology#cite_note-Cleland2002MethodologicalAndEpistemicDifferences-5][5][/url]
The other main type of science is experimental science, which is often said to work by conductingexperiments to disprove hypotheses about the workings and causes of natural phenomena note that this approach cannot confirm a hypothesis is correct, since some later experiment may disprove it. However, when confronted with totally unexpected phenomena, such as the first evidence for invisible radiation, experimental scientists often use the same approach as historical scientists: construct a set of hypotheses about the causes and then look for a "smoking gun".[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleontology#cite_note-Cleland2002MethodologicalAndEpistemicDifferences-5][5][/url]
From a scientific perspective...
8,472 Views |
104 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by Woody2006
There are a bunch of these things scattered all around the earth.
That's pretty weird, right? Seems like a thing that was alive at some point. How should we go about accounting for them?
That's pretty weird, right? Seems like a thing that was alive at some point. How should we go about accounting for them?
quote:The hilarious part is that even Ken Ham believes dinosaurs were things that existed. MQB says the jury is still out?
Philosocal skepticism remains undefeated in debate. That doesn't make it very useful or interesting though....
quote:quote:Sure, a male sperm uniting with a female egg produces a unique human being.quote:Can you give me an example of a scientific fact or a valid scientific conclusion so I have an idea of where the goalposts are?
Are all these jokes and cartoons attempting to mask the realization that this is an assumption, not a scientific conclusion?
I can think of many cases where this statement is false.
I don't think MQB has enough experience in science to understand that uniformitarianism is a foundational assumption in the performance of ALL SCIENCE. Whether we talk about sperms and eggs, launching a rocket or an app, or looking into the distant past through a telescope or fossil remains.
This is a philosophical assumption, but it is NOT only applicable to science about the distant past. All science, every last bit, operates under the assumption that the same laws and natural processes that govern the universe now also governed it in the past and will continue to govern it in the future. And that these processes hold true throughout the entirety of the universe.
This isn't unique to science done for the past. It's fundamental to the whole enterprise. From a philosophical point of view this is called the problem of induction. It's not provable. But may be reasonably inferred from abduction.
This is a philosophical assumption, but it is NOT only applicable to science about the distant past. All science, every last bit, operates under the assumption that the same laws and natural processes that govern the universe now also governed it in the past and will continue to govern it in the future. And that these processes hold true throughout the entirety of the universe.
This isn't unique to science done for the past. It's fundamental to the whole enterprise. From a philosophical point of view this is called the problem of induction. It's not provable. But may be reasonably inferred from abduction.
It's also an assumption made by every person on earth, pretty much constantly.
You can't prove that the floor will be there when you get out of bed in the morning, but it's hard to make it to work on time with that level of skepticism.
You can't prove that the floor will be there when you get out of bed in the morning, but it's hard to make it to work on time with that level of skepticism.
quote:quote:Those conclusions would have about as much "scientific" basis as the assumption that they lived at one time.
MQB what is the alternative? They were placed there? They are really just natural geologic formations?
Not really. Where did the liquid fossils that power your car come from?
quote:
I don't think MQB has enough experience in science to understand that uniformitarianism is a foundational assumption in the performance of ALL SCIENCE. Whether we talk about sperms and eggs, launching a rocket or an app, or looking into the distant past through a telescope or fossil remains.
This is a philosophical assumption, but it is NOT only applicable to science about the distant past. All science, every last bit, operates under the assumption that the same laws and natural processes that govern the universe now also governed it in the past and will continue to govern it in the future. And that these processes hold true throughout the entirety of the universe.
This isn't unique to science done for the past. It's fundamental to the whole enterprise. From a philosophical point of view this is called the problem of induction. It's not provable. But may be reasonably inferred from abduction.
I'd like to add to this that the conservation of energy also logically implies time-symmetry of physical laws per Noether's theorem. Basically, what this means is that the basic physical laws that apply today also applied in the past and will apply in the future. So even uniformitarianism, which on the surface seems to be completely philosophical, has empirical support.
quote:
The awesome thing about moden genomics is that it confirmed the relationships between species that had been hypothesized based on the study of fossils and comparative anatomy. The bones in the ground, and the dates of those bones match with what moden animals (and thier DNA) tell us about diversity and decent. So it's not that genomics tells us about dinosaurs per se, it's that fossils in general make sense in the context of evolution.
Also there is the non-zero chance that ancient genomes could in the future be reconstructed computationally from an analysis of last common ancestors. Jurassic park without the need for chunks of amber....
Interesting, thank you for your reply!
quote:
I don't think MQB has enough experience in science to understand that uniformitarianism is a foundational assumption in the performance of ALL SCIENCE.
My working hypothesis for why these threads never go anywhere productive or interesting, and why people mostly don't take them seriously, is because he has a weird strawman concept of the whole scientific enterprise that is never explicitly stated, but which the rest of us can see traces of underneath his posts. But even though I cannot be there inside his brain, I can still construct a working theory that I can potentially refine by testing hypotheses with evidence. #science
Historical sciences as used in biological, cosmic, chemical, planetary, stellar and macro evolution utilize assumptions that do not withstand the scrutiny of observable science and the law of probability.
A temporary suspension of the laws of physics is required to produce a big bang.
This constitutes a miracle
How do the higher elements evolve from hydrogen?
How do planetesimals form from colliding particles?
How can life come from non-life?
Louis Pasteur proved it's scientifically impossible. The Law of probability states an event with a probability 10^-50 will never occur. The creation of one protein forming by naturalistic means possesses a probability of 10^-191. The creation of one cell is 10^-40,000.
How can complex organisms come from simple organisms?
No new genetic information is added from a mutation. Rather, genetic information is lost.
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is a special creation, and that is unthinkable." -Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition to Darwin's book, Origin of Species in 1950)
A temporary suspension of the laws of physics is required to produce a big bang.
This constitutes a miracle
How do the higher elements evolve from hydrogen?
How do planetesimals form from colliding particles?
How can life come from non-life?
Louis Pasteur proved it's scientifically impossible. The Law of probability states an event with a probability 10^-50 will never occur. The creation of one protein forming by naturalistic means possesses a probability of 10^-191. The creation of one cell is 10^-40,000.
How can complex organisms come from simple organisms?
No new genetic information is added from a mutation. Rather, genetic information is lost.
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is a special creation, and that is unthinkable." -Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition to Darwin's book, Origin of Species in 1950)
Every single one of your statements have been wildly diaproven. Pasteur disproved abiogenesis? DNA hadn't even been discovered yet.
Let's look at this non existent law of probability that creationists love to quote.
If I gave you a die with 10^51 sides and you throw it, would you mind explaining what happens? Does it just hover? Does it cease to exist? Surely it won't land on a side because doing so would be below your "impossible" probability threshold.
But let's say this fictious law were true.
Prove the assertion that abiogenesis violates it. Show your math. In particular, be sure to include the number of trials.
Let's look at this non existent law of probability that creationists love to quote.
If I gave you a die with 10^51 sides and you throw it, would you mind explaining what happens? Does it just hover? Does it cease to exist? Surely it won't land on a side because doing so would be below your "impossible" probability threshold.
But let's say this fictious law were true.
Prove the assertion that abiogenesis violates it. Show your math. In particular, be sure to include the number of trials.
BTW to save you some googling, Pasteur never said a single word about abiogenesis.
Do you get all of your talking points from Ken Ham?
Your statistics are bunk. They assume instant creation from a singular neutral starting point.
Your arguments about mutations are bad.
Your argument about abiogenesis requires ignorance of organic chemistry.
And evolution is extremely well proven. Especially now that we have sophisticated means of mapping genomes and mutations. Your dude from 1959 is completely off base.
Your statistics are bunk. They assume instant creation from a singular neutral starting point.
Your arguments about mutations are bad.
Your argument about abiogenesis requires ignorance of organic chemistry.
And evolution is extremely well proven. Especially now that we have sophisticated means of mapping genomes and mutations. Your dude from 1959 is completely off base.
MQB comes off as a bad parody of Bishop Berkeley's spiritual monism. Physical reality is deceptive and only the mind (or in this case a book) can be assuredly real. It's a lazy way to avoid hard questions about faith.
Per Wikipedia
Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#cite_note-1][1][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#cite_note-2][2][/url] This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life."
Anything else dear doctor?
Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#cite_note-1][1][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#cite_note-2][2][/url] This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life."
Anything else dear doctor?
The statistics are from scientists that assume a universe that evolved from a "Big Bang".
Observational science shows no new genetic information is added by mutations. It is no argument.
DNA mapping has not produced a result supporting biological evolution that withstands the scientific method.
Observational science shows no new genetic information is added by mutations. It is no argument.
DNA mapping has not produced a result supporting biological evolution that withstands the scientific method.
quote:
Historical sciences as used in biological, cosmic, chemical, planetary, stellar and macro evolution utilize assumptions that do not withstand the scrutiny of observable science and the law of probability.
"Historical science" is based on observable science, and all science rests on the same basic assumptions.
quote:
A temporary suspension of the laws of physics is required to produce a big bang.
Which is why the production of a big bang is typically not discussed in a scientific context.
quote:
This constitutes a miracle
This is a gaps argument. Simply because we don't yet understand something doesn't mean it was miraculous.
quote:
How do the higher elements evolve from hydrogen?
Nucleosynthesis
Big bang nucleosynthesis
Stellar nucleosynthesis
quote:
How do planetesimals form from colliding particles?
Nebular Hypothesis
quote:
How can life come from non-life?
Again, just because there's an open question in science doesn't mean we answer it with magic.
quote:
Louis Pasteur proved it's scientifically impossible. The Law of probability states an event with a probability 10^-50 will never occur. The creation of one protein forming by naturalistic means possesses a probability of 10^-191. The creation of one cell is 10^-40,000.
Louis Pasteur made that remark about an 18th and 19th century theory termed spontaneous generation which posited complex organisms could spontaneously rise out of inanimate matter. Of course we now know that is impossible. He was correct in that assertion. He never made this claim regarding the beginning of all life, though. Abiogenesis theories posit proto-organisms that are substantially less complex than what Pasteur was refuting, and thus his refutation of spontaneous generation does not carry over.
One should also be wary of holding any one particular person in too high a regard. Obviously Pasteur was a brilliant man, but he was a 19th century biologist working with 19th century information. A lot of progress has been made in the field of biology since then. Even if he had said that there was no possible way for life to arise on Earth from non-matter, it wouldn't negate what we have discovered since the time of Pasteur.
quote:
How can complex organisms come from simple organisms?
No new genetic information is added from a mutation. Rather, genetic information is lost.
I don't understand how you people figure this. For simplicity sake, let's say there is a four nucleotide gene: ATGC. Generation after generation gets the ATGC gene. Then, after many generations, a point mutation occurs, and one individual organism gets a mutated version of the gene: ATAC. The mutated version of the gene does something different than the original gene. Now we have two different versions of the same thing floating around. How is this not information/variation being added to the gene pool?
quote:
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is a special creation, and that is unthinkable." -Sir Arthur Keith (he wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition to Darwin's book, Origin of Species in 1950)
Keith died in 1955. The Origin of Species was published in 1859. If this is what your website told you, your website is suspect.
quote:
Per Wikipedia
Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#cite_note-1][1][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#cite_note-2][2][/url] This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life."
Anything else dear doctor?
That article also states: "The generation of life from non-living material is called abiogenesis, and occurred at least once in the history of the Earth, or in the history of the Universe"
quote:
The statistics are from scientists that assume a universe that evolved from a "Big Bang".
Yea, idiots that believe Einstein and stuff.
quote:
Observational science shows no new genetic information is added by mutations. It is no argument.
ATGC -> ATAC.
That's new information. It's no argument.
quote:
DNA mapping has not produced a result supporting biological evolution that withstands the scientific method.
Sure it has. Before the advent of DNA sequencing organisms were grouped into phylogenetic trees based on phenotypic considerations. DNA sequencing has largely validated those phylogenetic trees. Furthermore, if life indeed evolved from a common ancestor one would expect to see less evolution on life-critical DNA sequences across all species than on other DNA sequences. Again, this has been confirmed.
quote:
The statistics are from scientists that assume a universe that evolved from a "Big Bang"
Nobody assumes this. It was a wild idea nobody conceived of until we discovered this is how the universe got to its present form.( after 100,000 years of thinking about it).
Even if you could prove evolution and cosmology are bunk... After you received a dozen Nobel prizes, you still have all your work ahead of you to prove the world was snapped into existence by a mind operating in a supernatural dimension.
I can't follow the original premise about the bones at all. Isn't it kind of like saying a lava flow doesn't prove there was volcanic activity??? When it would rather seem to mean it was a given--only the catalyst (impact, eruptive) in doubt.
quote:
I can't follow the original premise about the bones at all. Isn't it kind of like saying a lava flow doesn't prove there was volcanic activity??? When it would rather seem to mean it was a given--only the catalyst (impact, eruptive) in doubt.
That's a good analogy, but how else is a person who believes the Earth is 6000 years old supposed to rationalize these remains? Clearly these people will not accept that these bones are actually millions of years old.
quote:I'm talking about abiogenesis. Pasteur was talking about spontaneous generation. These are not the same things.
Per Wikipedia
Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#cite_note-1][1][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis#cite_note-2][2][/url] This is summarized in the phrase Omne vivum ex vivo, Latin for "all life [is] from life."
Anything else dear doctor?
quote:That's not what you said.
The statistics are from scientists that assume a universe that evolved from a "Big Bang".
You said
quote:
The creation of one protein forming by naturalistic means possesses a probability of 10^-191. The creation of one cell is 10^-40,000.
Show your work please. Walk us through how these numbers are derived, and I'll again ask you to tell us the number of iterations.
You also didn't answer my question about the completely fictitious law of probability. If events less likely than 1 in 10^50 are not possible, what happens when you throw a die with 10^51 sides?
New sock, or new troll?
quote:We can perceive with our senses that lava flow comes from volcanoes. We cannot perceive with our senses that dinosaur bones are from creatures who once lived. It's an assumption. As John Maplethorpe pointed out, what if aliens placed them here? You'd say we don't have evidence of that. I say we don't have evidence of it not happening (which is the common post here about the assumption they once lived).
I can't follow the original premise about the bones at all. Isn't it kind of like saying a lava flow doesn't prove there was volcanic activity??? When it would rather seem to mean it was a given--only the catalyst (impact, eruptive) in doubt.
It is an assumption (i.e. all bones come from once living creatures), not a fact derived from science.
Have you seen every lava flow happen? Quite obviously aliens could land and place lava flows all over the world.
You still haven't shown any evidence of bones forming that do not belong to animals.
You still haven't shown any evidence of bones forming that do not belong to animals.
quote:
We cannot perceive with our senses that dinosaur bones are from creatures who once lived. It's an assumption. As John Maplethorpe pointed out, what if aliens placed them here? You'd say we don't have evidence of that. I say we don't have evidence of it not happening (which is the common post here about the assumption they once lived).
It is an assumption (i.e. all bones come from once living creatures), not a fact derived from science.
But even if say, a Promethean starship like the `Engineers' of the movie had carried the dinosaurs around as some kind of herd, like the Spanish brought horses, were not the dinosaurs or what we are talking about once alive aboard that starship even if the starship just dumped all the bones here?
Especially if it disembarked the creatures in a live state and they died off here after being abandoned. But even if just using Earth as a dump for the bones, were they not one alive???
quote:I would assume so. It would be a premise, not derived from science, but from the assumption that all bones come from once living creatures.
But even if just using Earth as a dump for the bones, were they not one alive???
quote:quote:I would assume so. It would be a premise, not derived from science, but from the assumption that all bones come from once living creatures.
But even if just using Earth as a dump for the bones, were they not one alive???
How would it not be derived from science to hold that the bones came from living a animals? Especially given the overwhelming supporting evidence?
quote:I asked for the evidence on page one and received an "oy vey" response.quote:How would it not be derived from science to hold that the bones came from living a animals? Especially given the overwhelming supporting evidence?quote:I would assume so. It would be a premise, not derived from science, but from the assumption that all bones come from once living creatures.
But even if just using Earth as a dump for the bones, were they not one alive???
quote:quote:quote:I would assume so. It would be a premise, not derived from science, but from the assumption that all bones come from once living creatures.
But even if just using Earth as a dump for the bones, were they not one alive???
How would it not be derived from science to hold that the bones came from living a animals? Especially given the overwhelming supporting evidence?
Maybe bones can form naturally from geological process. . . . you can't disprove it! Have you witnessed every geological process simultaneously on the entire planet for the entire duration of its existence?
quote:
I asked for the evidence on page one and received an "oy vey" response.
You, I presume, are a grown-ass man asking skeptically for evidence that dinosaurs ever lived on this planet. I stand by my original 'oy vey'.
Featured Stories
See All
19:55
54m ago
620
Brauny's Baseball Breakdown: Analyzing plays from A&M's series at LSU
by Ryan Brauninger
Texas A&M adds former Iowa WR Jacob Bostick via transfer portal
by Ryan Brauninger
28:09
1h ago
2.0k
9:39
3h ago
838
Father Knows Best: Shane Rink embraces Landon's Aggieland future
by Olin Buchanan
Big Shooter
The ending of an era and a turning of the page… (Goodbye, TexAgs)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
204
Dalton Hughes
The ending of an era and a turning of the page… (Goodbye, TexAgs)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
185
i is smart
Texas A&M BOR Approves $80MM Expansion for Blue Bell Park
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
48
KillerAg21
Texas A&M BOR Approves $80MM Expansion for Blue Bell Park
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
42
beerad12man
Texas A&M adds former Iowa WR Jacob Bostick via transfer portal
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
37
AgEngr12
Texas A&M BOR Approves $80MM Expansion for Blue Bell Park
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
34
aggiedent
Texas A&M adds former Iowa WR Jacob Bostick via transfer portal
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
27