Fossils challenge old evoluton theory

[jackie hayes]

All I'm saying is that the further back you project your assertions, the more likely that you may be missing something that has not been observed and therefore, has not been understood. A lot more "noise" enters into the picture, and we cannot know everything that has happened back then until we get one of those time ships built. That is why it is always the best guess or theory based upon what we can study here and now. Your quotes are going way above and beyond that. At what point have I invoked a higher power to change how things are going right now or even in the past?

 

It's very simple the further you project in any direction, future or past, the more likely you may have missed something. I am not saying that we shouldn't try and understand things at all, or do these sort of projections. I am just trying to put it in an accurate perspective. It takes a sort of faith to confidently state that your projections can be accurate.

If you're only saying that current models may not be accurate, that there may be a more fundamental, underlying model beneath -- well, yeah... As I understand it, that's why string theory is. Science recognizes this. As such, projections are not "faith" -- they are conditional statements. "IF this model is correct, then..." Faith does not allow such a caveat.

 

If, on the other hand, you're saying that there may exist no real underlying order whatsoever, then the story I told is no less arbitrary than "slow" changes in natural laws, whether they arise from a deity or because nature randomly flips switches (and it would have to be some bizarre kind of randomness that would be impossible to quantify, in that case). Positing "slow" changes just makes the notion LOOK more palatable, without making it logically any less far-fetched than the idea that Newtonian physics might suddenly fail and we're all about to fly off the surface of the planet. Whatever faith is required to believe in the basic idea of science is perfectly universal.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I guess I got served...

[vandy125]

If you're only saying that current models may not be accurate, that there may be a more fundamental, underlying model beneath -- well, yeah... As I understand it, that's why string theory is. Science recognizes this. As such, projections are not "faith" -- they are conditional statements. "IF this model is correct, then..." Faith does not allow such a caveat.

IMHO, the "IF" portion of many scientific statements are usually left off. Many theories are presented as fact when they are really theories based upon our current knowledge and projection of that knowledge. Some people believe in these theories so deeply that they do call them fact, and that is where faith comes in. To be able to call it fact, you have to believe in certain projections to be true. Again, their relativity to our timeframe determines how much faith it takes to call something a fact. If the statements are predicated with conditional statements, then, I agree, that does not take "faith". It is merely a statement as to how we see things and not a statement of fact or truth.

 

If, on the other hand, you're saying that there may exist no real underlying order whatsoever, then the story I told is no less arbitrary than "slow" changes in natural laws, whether they arise from a deity or because nature randomly flips switches (and it would have to be some bizarre kind of randomness that would be impossible to quantify, in that case). Positing "slow" changes just makes the notion LOOK more palatable, without making it logically any less far-fetched than the idea that Newtonian physics might suddenly fail and we're all about to fly off the surface of the planet. Whatever faith is required to believe in the basic idea of science is perfectly universal.

What I was getting at was not a "slow" change in natural laws. I was getting at the possibility that the natural law is of a substance that over billions of years, the speed of light (as an example) does slow down due to an unknown force, or that it has sped up over billions of years due to some unknown force. We just have not been around long enough, measuring these types of things, to see that there is some force acting that we would need to add to our understanding to better describe how we see things.

 

I'll try to put it another way since that seems a bit jumbled. There is a possibility that there is a natural law that has not been discovered yet that acts on some of the laws that we have determined are constant. We cannot know whether or not that is true because we have not been around long enough to measure enough of these things.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Which I believe was my original point that started this. Thank you. It takes some degree of faith to accept unproven, and can never be proven, information.

 

I guess, but it is faith in the gradual revelatory process of science, not in the "truth" of any slice-in-time snapshot the process has allowed.

[jackie hayes]

IMHO, the "IF" portion of many scientific statements are usually left off. Many theories are presented as fact when they are really theories based upon our current knowledge and projection of that knowledge. Some people believe in these theories so deeply that they do call them fact, and that is where faith comes in. To be able to call it fact, you have to believe in certain projections to be true. Again, their relativity to our timeframe determines how much faith it takes to call something a fact. If the statements are predicated with conditional statements, then, I agree, that does not take "faith". It is merely a statement as to how we see things and not a statement of fact or truth.

 

Disagree. In scientific papers, everyone understands that a model is not unadulterated fact. In popularizations, it's simply cumbersome and apparently mealy-mouthed to mention it. In the latter, the scientists themselves certainly don't have "faith" in the model. And I can't think of many examples in which a scientist had so much faith in his model that he extended it confidently to very different environments -- have evolutionary biologists ever claimed that evolution must work on another planet exactly as it works here, for example? Most popularizations that I've seen are pretty good about respecting the limits of the theory. (I say this for the natural sciences; I will say that the social sciences are very sloppy about this kind of thing -- which is one reason why many people laugh at the idea that these are "sciences", at all.)

 

What I was getting at was not a "slow" change in natural laws. I was getting at the possibility that the natural law is of a substance that over billions of years, the speed of light (as an example) does slow down due to an unknown force, or that it has sped up over billions of years due to some unknown force. We just have not been around long enough, measuring these types of things, to see that there is some force acting that we would need to add to our understanding to better describe how we see things.

 

I'll try to put it another way since that seems a bit jumbled. There is a possibility that there is a natural law that has not been discovered yet that acts on some of the laws that we have determined are constant. We cannot know whether or not that is true because we have not been around long enough to measure enough of these things.

 

I don't think any scientist anywhere would have any problem with that idea. All that would mean is that there is some supermodel that contains the current one as a special case. Newton's laws were subsumed in general relativity, and science was happy.

[vandy125]

Disagree. In scientific papers, everyone understands that a model is not unadulterated fact. In popularizations, it's simply cumbersome and apparently mealy-mouthed to mention it. In the latter, the scientists themselves certainly don't have "faith" in the model.

I think that this is the key point here. Most people are going to get their information from the popularizations and not from scientific papers. Therefore, it is seen as fact by the general population. Most people are not taking into consideration that these are the best theories out there so far based upon the scientific model, and they do believe that it is all completely true instead of a theory. By doing that, they have placed placed their "faith" in that model without even realizing it.

[jackie hayes]

I think that this is the key point here. Most people are going to get their information from the popularizations and not from scientific papers. Therefore, it is seen as fact by the general population. Most people are not taking into consideration that these are the best theories out there so far based upon the scientific model, and they do believe that it is all completely true instead of a theory. By doing that, they have placed placed their "faith" in that model without even realizing it.

That's not faith in a model, that's faith in authority. Much, much different. And I think you're wrong about people having "faith" in the idea. If people in general had faith in an idea, you wouldn't see everyone constantly jumping from one diet to the next. Everyone I know would still be eating bagels and commenting about how slim they're gonna be by avoiding all that fat. Still waiting.

 

The silliness that would result from mentioning 'theory-not-fact' for every idea for which it is true is mind-boggling. We'd have to explain that exercise may burn calories, but it's really not proven. Things may fall towards the Earth at 9.8 m/s^2, but it's just one idea. That's a world that no one wants.

[vandy125]

That's not faith in a model, that's faith in authority. Much, much different. And I think you're wrong about people having "faith" in the idea. If people in general had faith in an idea, you wouldn't see everyone constantly jumping from one diet to the next. Everyone I know would still be eating bagels and commenting about how slim they're gonna be by avoiding all that fat. Still waiting.

Agreed that it is a faith in the authority of the model (theory) that the scientists may not necessarily have.

 

I think that you do see people put faith into different ideas. They invest time and money into the different fads because they believe them to be true. When they see that it is not working, they jump to the next fad that they believe in. The thing is that the things we are talking about do not even occur within one person's lifetime, and they cannot see whether or not it is working. So, people do hold on the ideas that cannot be proven one way or another.

 

The silliness that would result from mentioning 'theory-not-fact' for every idea for which it is true is mind-boggling. We'd have to explain that exercise may burn calories, but it's really not proven. Things may fall towards the Earth at 9.8 m/s^2, but it's just one idea. That's a world that no one wants.

 

I think that you are confusing the here and now ideas with the projected out over a time period theories. You can say that things do fall towards earth at 9.8 m/s^2. The theory comes in when you say that things will always and have always fallen towards earth with that same velocity. As you get further out from the current time, the assertions will hold less weight. For example, take four statements, which do you have more confidence in?

1. It is now raining.

2. It will rain tomorrow because there is a front moving in.

3. It will rain on Monday of next week.

4. It will rain on September 29, 2007.

 

As you keep going, more unknown variables enter the equation. We were not around at the beginning of time or even a billion years ago. So, we can only come up with theories. I think that many of those types of theories (they may even be good ones) are often passed around as fact today, and that is where I wish there was some sort of qualification. That is JMHO. You may disagree with that.

[Balta1701]

As you keep going, more unknown variables enter the equation. We were not around at the beginning of time or even a billion years ago. So, we can only come up with theories. I think that many of those types of theories (they may even be good ones) are often passed around as fact today, and that is where I wish there was some sort of qualification. That is JMHO. You may disagree with that.

The question then becomes...how do you evaluate the theories and evidence you do have? Because there are some items we simply don't know a lot about, and others we have lots of information about, and it's not always how old an event is that determines how much evidence we have about it.

[vandy125]

The question then becomes...how do you evaluate the theories and evidence you do have? Because there are some items we simply don't know a lot about, and others we have lots of information about, and it's not always how old an event is that determines how much evidence we have about it.

Exactly what is being done today. You search and probe and try to find the best answer with the acknowlegdement that this is the best answer so far based on such and such information (may be a little or not very much), and may change when further things come to life.