Fair point mate. 2012 is the common consensus though. The mayan calendar is only out by 33 seconds after a couple of thousand years, compare that to ours which is out by 1 day every 4 years.
13,000 Year old temple,
- Thread starter HillBill
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Fair point mate. 2012 is the common consensus though. The mayan calendar is only out by 33 seconds after a couple of thousand years, compare that to ours which is out by 1 day every 4 years.
One of the best and best known examples of adaptation to changing surroundings, i.e. evolution, occurred right there in Britain. The case of the Peppered Moth. Peppered Moths were light greyish with black flecks. In pre-industrial Britain they were well known and catalogued. Their coloration was ideal, and when they alighted on the trees that they preferred, they disappeared from sight. Camouflage at work. Natural selection at work. The moths that were the hardest to see were the hardest for birds to find and eat, therefore the others got eaten at a higher rate. Leaving, in each generation more and more of the more "favorably" colored moths. As the Industrial Revolution preceded and huge quantities of black coal smoke poured out of chimneys all over Britain, trees became darkened by the soot. The light moths now stood out and were easy pickings for the birds. In a relatively short time a shift occurred and the light moths were replaced by the black one. With the advent of environmental concerns, chimney scrubbers, clean air laws, etc, the environment once again favored the lighter moth and it has made its comeback. This is Darwin's concept of "survival of the fittest" Illustrated TWICE in modern history. It is well documented. There is no doubt that it happened.
Survival of the fittest is a concept i can accept.That is visible everywhere, all of the time and is not just limited to lifeforms either, it holds true in many aspects of the modern world.
I'm not even saying his theory of evoloution is plain wrong, only that it can not be proven correct and we don't really "know" if thats how it works at all. There is a lot of presumption and tenuous links involved. I don't think a slight colour variation is evolving though, the fossil record is quite devoid of colour unfortunately. Like you say the birds ate all the light coloured ones but the black ones were there originally, It more refers to physical form. If the black moths had grown spines or its body shape changed to resemble a twig as well as the colour protection then yes that would be evoloution.
I'm not even saying his theory of evoloution is plain wrong, only that it can not be proven correct and we don't really "know" if thats how it works at all. There is a lot of presumption and tenuous links involved. I don't think a slight colour variation is evolving though, the fossil record is quite devoid of colour unfortunately. Like you say the birds ate all the light coloured ones but the black ones were there originally, It more refers to physical form. If the black moths had grown spines or its body shape changed to resemble a twig as well as the colour protection then yes that would be evoloution.
That's a good example of 'generations' evolving in the moth world.
I often wonder why cats e.g. haven't evolved to get out of the way of headlights, car noise yet?
They have a 'fast' generation line.
Maybe too soon yet.
How threads digress
Hillbill, I'll start with your notes about the fossil record, and how we assume the two samples are linked rather than seperate. This is because it is much more reasonable to believe that they are linked, rather than there have been loads of different types of humanoid animals
13 different species of the homo genus to be fair, Each species only to be found in certain areas so far. Different height, and weight and not going in one direction either. It also list more than one species living in the same periods. How if one species turned into another? Homo Erectus was there through the periods of 8 other species.
Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo georgicus and Homo ergaster all shared the same periods. So thats upto 5 different species at one time.
Evoloution????????????
So which is wrong? Darwin or dating methods?
Scroll down a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_genus
If this is evoloution the surely the various species would be found over all the areas mentioned?
Well no, not at all. You seem to be working on the basis that evolution is a prewritten series of growths and development, and it's not. Different developments depend vastly on habitat, types of food available, amount of food available, temperature, temperature variance (ie summer-winter), population, UV exposure, atmosphere, et cetera. Therefore it is perfectly understandable for things to develop differently depending on area.
And your point about the chimps and orang utans is moot, because it's likely they did evolve from the same thing. Are you honestly saying that every single type of snake, bat, monkey, ape, cat, dog, wolf, fox, bird, fish, everything is a completely distinct type of animal that has always and will always exist in its current form?
Pete
In your previous post you said
"and how we assume the two samples are linked rather than seperate. This is because it is much more reasonable to believe that they are linked, rather than there have been loads of different types of humanoid animals"
Why is it reasonable to believe they are linked when upto 5 species co-existed together, there was loads of different types.
So if chimps and orang utangs evolved from the same ape, what did that first ape evolve from? By this way of thinking all life came from one tiny bit of bacteria. Where did the bacteria come from? that has to have evolved too. If they did come from the same ape then that is evidence on one species branching into several new ones, it then stands to reason that those new species would then branch outwards into other new species and so forth, which would mean that each homo species would create more homo species. So where are the others? What happened to them? Chimps and orang utangs are still here, thats 2 from 1 where are the offshoots of neanderthal and if we are them, where are the offshoots of Homo rhodesiensis who lived alongside neanderthal? are we them too? Are humans from around the world all really different species?
I do not know about how evoloution occurs, if i did then i'd be the only one. Inter specie breeding probably has more to do with it than anything, there were no human barriers until very recently in the scale of things going on the 4 billion year old earth theory
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I have enjoyed reading through this debate, we have some good thinkers here. Particularly enjoyed BR vs BR.
Well interestingly Hedgehogs have, in the 60's they curled up when they saw headlights now they run. Not sure what that says about cats and hedgehogs if anything.
As I understand it BScs are about repeating what you have learned, MScs your final dissertation has to make some small new contribution to knowledge (ie you have to say something that has not been said before) and PhDs have to make a major new contribution to knowledge. To me that is entirely sensible. A bit like a musician first learning how to play the instrument by playing music that was written by others understanding the structure and how it works before writing themselves.
Were they talking about undergrads, postgrads or PhD students Red? Would you think it reasonable to ask an 18 year old to start constructing their own scientific theories before they learned what has gone before?
I think there are major problems with the current education system largely due to funding being based on students passing exams so schools and universities tutor to pass exams not to think. I suspect that is maybe what your father and colleagues were talking about and I am not sure that it is extendable to cover the whole of the scientific community. There are unquestionably a great many folk at the cutting edge who's paid job it is to come up with new work.
Oh yes and rather than attempt to address HillBills points I'll just Quote Abe Lincoln "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" There is no way I can prove that all pound coins have a queens head on them. I can count 500 of them but that is a tiny proportion of those in circulation. Frankly there is enough proof for me but not for you and that is fine it's for each of us to make our decisions.
Well interestingly Hedgehogs have, in the 60's they curled up when they saw headlights now they run. Not sure what that says about cats and hedgehogs if anything.
No, but it does have BScs MScs that are awarded for repeating an adhering to the same old theories.
Back to you
As I understand it BScs are about repeating what you have learned, MScs your final dissertation has to make some small new contribution to knowledge (ie you have to say something that has not been said before) and PhDs have to make a major new contribution to knowledge. To me that is entirely sensible. A bit like a musician first learning how to play the instrument by playing music that was written by others understanding the structure and how it works before writing themselves.
Were they talking about undergrads, postgrads or PhD students Red? Would you think it reasonable to ask an 18 year old to start constructing their own scientific theories before they learned what has gone before?
I think there are major problems with the current education system largely due to funding being based on students passing exams so schools and universities tutor to pass exams not to think. I suspect that is maybe what your father and colleagues were talking about and I am not sure that it is extendable to cover the whole of the scientific community. There are unquestionably a great many folk at the cutting edge who's paid job it is to come up with new work.
Oh yes and rather than attempt to address HillBills points I'll just Quote Abe Lincoln "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" There is no way I can prove that all pound coins have a queens head on them. I can count 500 of them but that is a tiny proportion of those in circulation. Frankly there is enough proof for me but not for you and that is fine it's for each of us to make our decisions.
No, again, you're implying that there are set rules for evolution - ie, that every species is constantly changing and growing "superior" (where superior is defined by humans and therefore an obsolete term) - if an animal has existed in the same habitat for millions of years, and there hasn't been significant change to the habitat, the animal won't change much either. I expect that some homo-subspecies died out - survival of the fittest. I expect that ones that existed in the same for whatever reason at the same time may have interbred, or the stronger one dominated the weaker one - survival of the fittest at work. If an animal is well suited to its environment then it just doesn't need to change. Can you explain why humans get back problems from walking on two legs, and pelvic problems from walking on four? Probably because we've not yet fully evolved to walk on two, we're at an inbetween stage.
As for the bacteria, it's again much more likely that bacteria spontaneously came into being than fully fledged animals. That's actually one of the things I was meaning to mention when we were talking via PMs about quantum physics - organisms can arise out of a random fluctuation of the chaos that is our universe and the uncertainty it goes with, but if we rule out divine intervention (and all the problems IT brings up) then it's much more likely that an exceedingly simple organism came into being and reached a stage of self-perpetuation and evolution. As the complexity of the organism goes up, the odds of it happening rise exponentially - sure, it could still happen (google Boltzmann Brain, one of the more out-there theories, but a very entertaining read) but when there exists a working theory for a smaller, simpler organism developing into more complicated organisms over a period of millions/billions of years, there's no reason at all to assume that everything started big.
Pete
Careful.
What you have with the Peppered Moth is natural selection. This is NOT the same as evolution.
So how did Neanderhthal change in such a short period of time? You say it takes much more than 3000 to 300,000 years to evolve. Neanderthal went through an ice age unchanged may be more than one.
Since when did humans get back problems from walking on 2 legs? I have never heard or experienced this before. We can get back problems yes, personally i believe it has more to do with lifestyle than evoloution. Use your back and your back gets strong, dont use it and your back muscles are weak and cant handle lifting or load bearing. I am 6'3" and never had problems, i used to carry weights of up to 60kg for long distance on my back. My friend on the other hand is scared of a bit of work and his back hurts if he plays football because his back muscles are under developed and under more strain. This has nothing to do with evoloution and everything to do with lifestyle.
The bacteria thing. So we are expected to follow a scientific theory that says every species either evolved or died. But going on that theory we always come down to the original lifeform, the bacteria in this case. So are we expected to just throw the theory away when we get there and add a bit of magic to create life just so the theory can then fit. It does not work that way. Darwins theory is a reasonable one until it hits that wall. Then it does not matter what you can prove. When you work it backwards it is feasable, but when you work it forwards it does not get past the first hurdle,
If you can assume that bacteria did just appear from nowhere and you assume that larger life can not, then how can you do a test on bacteria and judge evoloution by the results. Going on what you say above one can not match the other in that respect so how can you get an accurate comparison. You can not have it both ways. one or the other. if you insist that bacterial evoloution is the same principles as complex life then complex life can also just appear from nowhere.
Somethings wrong somewhere, and that one flaw, flaws the whole argument.
What many people fail to realise is that evolution favours any modification that works at the time. All the organism has to do is reach maturity and breed, for the genes to be passed on.
The mutation does not have to be for the overall benefit of the species, just enough of a benefit to allow the progeny with the mutation to breed. When circumstances change, that particular mutation might well be detrimental and that line could die out.
Take sickle cell anaemia in some human populations. In areas with endemic malaria, having HbS in the red cells causes the cell to rupture when invaded by a plasmodium parasite, limiting the infestation. However, sickle cell anaemia is a nasty crippling disease in it's own right.
Evolution does not produce the "perfect" species, it stops when something works and if the environmental conditions change too rapidly there can be no time for the species to get another chance.
The mutation does not have to be for the overall benefit of the species, just enough of a benefit to allow the progeny with the mutation to breed. When circumstances change, that particular mutation might well be detrimental and that line could die out.
Take sickle cell anaemia in some human populations. In areas with endemic malaria, having HbS in the red cells causes the cell to rupture when invaded by a plasmodium parasite, limiting the infestation. However, sickle cell anaemia is a nasty crippling disease in it's own right.
Evolution does not produce the "perfect" species, it stops when something works and if the environmental conditions change too rapidly there can be no time for the species to get another chance.
So how did neanderthal negotiate an ice age or two unchanged, and where did it go 3000 years ago?
Thats a contradiction, first you say they changed in a short period of time and then that they didn't change at all...
It was something I read quite a while ago, I'll see if I can find where. But if you take a look at the number of people who suffer back problems as they get older it's not unbelievable.
So you think it's more likely that not only did complex life spontaneously come into being, but it spontaneously happened billions of times to come up with all the minutely different species, than happen once with a very simple organism? It's not "magic", that's just another argument to try and discredit any counter arguments. Look it up.
Firstly, comparing evolution between complex and simple organisms, and comparing spontaneous formation of complex and simple organisms is a world apart. Evolution and the effects are observable irrespective of complexity. If you look at the science, you'll find that it is trillions of times more likely that a single celled organism "just happened" than a human, which has about 100,000,000,000,000 cells. Same as the phasing through wall example I told you about before. For it to happen with single celled organisms it only has to happen a few times for it to self perpetuate and evolve - for evolution to not exist, it has to happen an immeasurable number of times instantaneously.
Pete
Like most species it has to be assumed that they migrated to a more temperate region to escape the worst of the ice, just like Sapiens.
Where did they go? If you look back at my previous post, you will see that when conditions, climate, food supply, competition for land, predation and a thousand and one other things occur, some species don't have time to evolve out of trouble and become extinct.
It may even be the case that Neanderthals mated with sapiens and became merged with us, though there is no concrete evidence that I'm aware of for that supposition.
I enjoyed it too
. Its lovely to cross intellectual swords with someone who is articulate and enjoys a reasoned debate
To anser your specific question, it was more a general observation was discussed Robin - in terms of educational approach.
The approach was generally to teach and then to ask students to re-create what was learned, rather than for the student to observe and then for the lecturer to explain what they found. The approach to an experiment that did not return the expected result was to state that the student had "got the practical wrong". This engendered a mind set of trying to "prove" rather than "test" a theorum.
Even in publishing papers, the incentive was to "build" or "expand" existing accepted knowledge.
One of the most (to me) insightful statements I heard was that "most of the truly ground breaking advances in science would find themselves stifled by modern academic approaches".
I find this highlighted by a defence of the nebulous concept of "science".
Defending "science" is about as logical as defending "religion". Religion is full of the broad range of the human condition - from the truly holy (whatever you perceive that to be) to the utter charlatan. So is science.
I will cite the following example of "pseudo science" watch any advert for shampoo or cosmetic products. It will probably contain terms that are meaningless to the target audience. Indeed many of the "substances" claimed are wholly invented terms. This, to me, is the equivalent of the practice of selling relics or indulgences. People are taught to accept and not to question.
"Its science - so it must be right"
Even on here I have heard various things explained as "containing a lot of complicated maths".
Its the attitude of unquestioning acceptance that I find worrying - along with the implication that some things are beyond question. Enquiring and challenging received wisdom is what, to my mind, allows advance in understanding and the refutation of hokum. Therefore not only is "science" (whatever that broad term means) not above question but said questioning is both healthy and to be desired.
Whenever "the man in the street" is expected to accept that things are so, simply because they are told that they are, without recourse to question or challenge, by whatever "authority" be it religion, science or politics then we have compromised our ability to advance and grow.
Red
I enjoyed it too
To anser your specific question, it was more a general observation was discussed Robin - in terms of educational approach.
The approach was generally to teach and then to ask students to re-create what was learned, rather than for the student to observe and then for the lecturer to explain what they found. The approach to an experiment that did not return the expected result was to state that the student had "got the practical wrong". This engendered a mind set of trying to "prove" rather than "test" a theorum.
Even in publishing papers, the incentive was to "build" or "expand" existing accepted knowledge.
One of the most (to me) insightful statements I heard was that "most of the truly ground breaking advances in science would find themselves stifled by modern academic approaches".
I find this highlighted by a defence of the nebulous concept of "science".
Defending "science" is about as logical as defending "religion". Religion is full of the broad range of the human condition - from the truly holy (whatever you perceive that to be) to the utter charlatan. So is science.
I will cite the following example of "pseudo science" watch any advert for shampoo or cosmetic products. It will probably contain terms that are meaningless to the target audience. Indeed many of the "substances" claimed are wholly invented terms. This, to me, is the equivalent of the practice of selling relics or indulgences. People are taught to accept and not to question.
"Its science - so it must be right"
Even on here I have heard various things explained as "containing a lot of complicated maths".
Its the attitude of unquestioning acceptance that I find worrying - along with the implication that some things are beyond question. Enquiring and challenging received wisdom is what, to my mind, allows advance in understanding and the refutation of hokum. Therefore not only is "science" (whatever that broad term means) not above question but said questioning is both healthy and to be desired.
Whenever "the man in the street" is expected to accept that things are so, simply because they are told that they are, without recourse to question or challenge, by whatever "authority" be it religion, science or politics then we have compromised our ability to advance and grow.Red
100% in agreement Red.
It is ignorance, examples of which have been displayed in one or two posts on this thread, which is the problem. This ignorance is seized upon by the media to boost sales. The most recent and damaging example being the widespread publication of a charlatan "scientist" who stated that MMR vaccine was dangerous. The general public ingests this "scientific information" without bothering to check on it's legitimacy because "it's in the papers." There was general condemnation in the general medical community of this prat's stance but this was ignored by joe public.
Mind you, HMG's abuse of scientific information in the past has rendered denials useless.
I never said neanderthal changed at all Pete. I asked how it could change in such a short period of time when you state that
"if an animal has existed in the same habitat for millions of years, and there hasn't been significant change to the habitat, the animal won't change much either.
Yet neanderthals environment changed exponentially a coulple of time during their known period of existence which was less than 300,000 years, they didn't change or die out until 15000 years after the ice receeded, How did they survive the ice? Why did they die out in favourable conditions? IMO this shows they were wiped out by a seperate species, so no evoloution there.
All animals suffer problems with age, it is not restricted to humans or backs. Nor can it be linked to evoloution
I think it is just as likely that neither complex or bacterial life just happened, i do not claim to know the origins of life, but i do doubt the official theories as it just does not make sense to me, and it is a leap of faith to assume what happened with no evidence. Think about it Pete if bacteria did not just happen then Darwin is wrong in everything and no one can prove the answer to this one question, probably the most important question in science. Darwins theory of evoloution came before the theory of the origins of life. In fact they had to make a theory of the origins or darwin could not be taken seriously as his theory hits a brick wall that cannot be overcome by the same theory.
Darwins whole idea is based on presumption. An educated and knowledgable man of that there is no doubt. But an educated guess is still just a guess. I agree that there is evidence to support his work, but i also know that it is nothing more than an idea based on the available info, and that is way too incomplete to be classed as anywhere near solid and proveable.
If bacteria can appear from nowhere on a planet with no life or atmosphere and we can not then the evoloution of bacteria is different to our own and everything else. So why can the test carried out even begin to encroach on our own evoloution when as you say bacteria does what we do not? Presumption, Presumption, Presumption based on incomplete evidence. We all know presumption is the mother of all f### ups.
On this forum we have advocates of science who say there is no faith, yet debate the validity of darwins theory which is not even fact, it is just a popular idea that some evidence supports.
you said
"It's not "magic", that's just another argument to try and discredit any counter arguments. Look it up."
So what is it Pete you say spontinaeity, as in something just happened with no reason. Well that isn't science is it? It is also contradictory of everything discussed in this thread , of darwin, and of science as a whole. In fact it is nothing more than faith in someone elses ideas. Fully accepting without proof is the same as taking the word of a priest about god and we know what science thinks of that, yet contradicts itself over this issue which can prove it all wrong. That is why they give you the idea that its correct. Darwinism would be hoofed out the front door sharpish. All darwiners have to believe it or their idol would be just another bloke with a flawed theory.
"if an animal has existed in the same habitat for millions of years, and there hasn't been significant change to the habitat, the animal won't change much either.
Yet neanderthals environment changed exponentially a coulple of time during their known period of existence which was less than 300,000 years, they didn't change or die out until 15000 years after the ice receeded, How did they survive the ice? Why did they die out in favourable conditions? IMO this shows they were wiped out by a seperate species, so no evoloution there.
All animals suffer problems with age, it is not restricted to humans or backs. Nor can it be linked to evoloution
I think it is just as likely that neither complex or bacterial life just happened, i do not claim to know the origins of life, but i do doubt the official theories as it just does not make sense to me, and it is a leap of faith to assume what happened with no evidence. Think about it Pete if bacteria did not just happen then Darwin is wrong in everything and no one can prove the answer to this one question, probably the most important question in science. Darwins theory of evoloution came before the theory of the origins of life. In fact they had to make a theory of the origins or darwin could not be taken seriously as his theory hits a brick wall that cannot be overcome by the same theory.
Darwins whole idea is based on presumption. An educated and knowledgable man of that there is no doubt. But an educated guess is still just a guess. I agree that there is evidence to support his work, but i also know that it is nothing more than an idea based on the available info, and that is way too incomplete to be classed as anywhere near solid and proveable.
If bacteria can appear from nowhere on a planet with no life or atmosphere and we can not then the evoloution of bacteria is different to our own and everything else. So why can the test carried out even begin to encroach on our own evoloution when as you say bacteria does what we do not? Presumption, Presumption, Presumption based on incomplete evidence. We all know presumption is the mother of all f### ups.
On this forum we have advocates of science who say there is no faith, yet debate the validity of darwins theory which is not even fact, it is just a popular idea that some evidence supports.
you said
"It's not "magic", that's just another argument to try and discredit any counter arguments. Look it up."
So what is it Pete you say spontinaeity, as in something just happened with no reason. Well that isn't science is it? It is also contradictory of everything discussed in this thread , of darwin, and of science as a whole. In fact it is nothing more than faith in someone elses ideas. Fully accepting without proof is the same as taking the word of a priest about god and we know what science thinks of that, yet contradicts itself over this issue which can prove it all wrong. That is why they give you the idea that its correct. Darwinism would be hoofed out the front door sharpish. All darwiners have to believe it or their idol would be just another bloke with a flawed theory.
Its not just the members of the general public several members on this site ie people who should know better, have just reposted whatever viral email has been sent them, verbatim and without checking the validity or source. It take but a few moments to check a reputable source, or failing that the internet, snopes, wikipedia.100% in agreement Red.
It is ignorance, examples of which have been displayed in one or two posts on this thread, which is the problem. This ignorance is seized upon by the media to boost sales. The most recent and damaging example being the widespread publication of a charlatan "scientist" who stated that MMR vaccine was dangerous. The general public ingests this "scientific information" without bothering to check on it's legitimacy because "it's in the papers." There was general condemnation in the general medical community of this prat's stance but this was ignored by joe public.
Mind you, HMG's abuse of scientific information in the past has rendered denials useless.
People want to be outraged and want to make it known that they are outraged. So given the opportunity they will rage over some red-topped rag, without checking.
Its not like you need to be a rocket scientist to check something, internet connection and a healthy dose of scepticism.
Similar threads
