DescentBB

flip wrote:Well I'm talking strictly biologically. Where's the new sarcastic ★■◆● at? . If you had 1000 breeding pairs 70,000 years ago, at what rate would they multiply biologically? . Again I'm not talking about a specific point in time, I'm talking about the SPAN of 70,000 years.

EDIT: Can we just be a bunch of simpletons and say "exponential?"

The thing is, there are a TON of factors that you'd have to consider here. How dispersed is your population, i.e., at what time did different portions of it split off? (We know it did split apart, otherwise we wouldn't have people all over the place.) Were all of those breeding pairs even in the same place to begin with? What was their average lifespan, and how many children did they have over it? What was childhood mortality like? We can take rough estimates of all of those quantities, but it'd be difficult to nail down one simple equation to describe it. Also, keep in mind that the estimates of that original "bottleneck" range from 1,000 all the way up to 10,000 breeding pairs, which is obviously a big difference.

SilverFJ wrote: I could very well regurgitate all the things I have been taught but I think for myself and take everything with a grain of salt. Go away.

There's a difference between skeptical and being obtuse.

What would be your estimate of the population say, 10,000 years ago?

I never understood the supposed dichotomy between micro- and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution says that small changes can happen over a small amount of time. Macro-evolution says that large changes can happen over a large amount of time. What reason is there for thinking that a lot of small changes in small amounts of time couldn't add up to large changes over large amounts of time?

flip wrote:Yes I guess your right. To be more specific, I am wondering when we decided to clothe ourselves.

I think we've had this discussion before. First, not every culture has decided to clothe themselves, and of those who did, it wasn't at the same time. Second, those who did clothe themselves did it because of migration and changing climate and as way to distinguish social hierarchy.

The only thing worse than saying evolution is “just a theory” is overreacting and calling scientific theory “fact”.

Scientific theory contains facts…but is not itself “fact”, and can’t “prove” a damn thing. (as has been stated by the best scientific minds this board has to offer)

In laymen’s terms…a scientific theory is a educated guess.

Example…Evolution

1. biology theory of development from earlier forms: the theoretical process by which all species develop from earlier forms of life.
According to this theory, natural variation in the genetic material of a population favors reproduction by some individuals more than others, so that over the generations all members of the population come to possess the favorable traits.

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


The fact…Mutations.

The extrapolation…Evolution.

1. vti infer: to use known facts as the starting point from which to draw inferences or conclusions about something unknown

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Spidey wrote:The only thing worse than saying evolution is “just a theory” is overreacting and calling scientific theory “fact”.

Scientific theory contains facts…but is not itself “fact”, and can’t “prove” a damn thing. (as has been stated by the best scientific minds this board has to offer)

In laymen’s terms…a scientific theory is a educated guess.

so does that mean relativity and gravity are just guesses?

You can't know anything in science with 100% certainty, but you can come pretty close.

flip wrote:What would be your estimate of the population say, 10,000 years ago?

I really couldn't calculate it myself, because that's definitely not my forte. According to this source, the estimated human population never increased above 15 million or so until the development of agriculture...which makes sense, given that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle would make for fairly sparse populations by its very nature.

Jeff250 wrote:You can't know anything in science with 100% certainty, but you can come pretty close.

Well, I'd be somewhat careful with that statement. We can certainly know specific facts with 100% certainty, because they're based on direct observations. We know that objects with mass have a force that attracts each other: we see it in the way the planets move, and in the simple fact that a dropped object falls down. We know that there were a whole bunch of other organisms that used to live on the Earth, because we can dig up their remains. We know that the Moon is a certain distance away from the Earth, because we can fire lasers off reflectors the Apollo astronauts left there and measure it precisely. The part where the inherent uncertainty in scientific theory comes in is when we're discussing why certain things happen. Two hundred years ago, scientists thought that Newtonian mechanics described the motion of everything in the universe...a hundred years later, the development of general relativity and quantum mechanics showed that Newtonian mechanics didn't extend quite far enough, even if it was perfectly capable of describing everyday sorts of motion. Theories may be revised and replaced, but that apple will always fall down from the tree branch.

Top Gun wrote:

Heretic wrote:Why so defensive?

I tend to do that when someone comes galumphing into a thread and responds to one of my posts with a tangent that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

Tools were never mention right? A tangent please grow up.

By "in science" you can never know anything with 100% certainty, I mean that you can never know anything with 100% certainty via the scientific method. It isn't powerful enough to do that. All it can do is prove inconsistencies in theories. It has no mechanism for proving a theory correct. As a matter of practice, we tend to trust a theory more for each risky but successful prediction that it makes, but you could always find a counterexample in the next experiment. I think that Newtonian mechanics is actually a good example of this. It's not like Newton prefaced his theory of gravity with "except for objects moving near the speed of light." He didn't think to (nor was it possible for him to) perform that experiment. And in fact, it turns out his theory is only a very good approximation for objects moving more slowly.

I usually bring this up in the debate in response to someone's claim that e.g. "evolution has never been proven," as though there's some sort of mathematical "proof" you can give for any scientific theory. My intent isn't to be hyper-skeptical of scientific results, and I think doing that is the wrong conclusion.

Spidey, I think that people generally use the word "fact" a bit more loosely though than something requiring 100% mathematical proof, but I suppose it boils down to semantics.

Lol, gravity is a force…not a theory.

…………..

Of course Jeff, but theories still don’t have the weight that say a law or principal has. And are only good until the next one comes along.

Heretic wrote:

Top Gun wrote:

Heretic wrote:Why so defensive?

I tend to do that when someone comes galumphing into a thread and responds to one of my posts with a tangent that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

Tools were never mention right? A tangent please grow up.

Seriously, quit trolling this thread. What you posted had nothing to do with the conversation flip and I were having there. We were talking about the earliest evidence for tool use in hominids, not "oh hay chimps use tools too."

flip wrote:When are humans supposed to have developed speech and using tools?

Top Gun wrote:According to a bit of quick searching, hominids may have started using definable tools some 2.6 million years ago (which is where the term "Stone Age" comes from), so it was a looooong time before modern humans hit the scene.

Heretic wrote:Let see what animals use tools. Chimpanzees, Crows, Orangutans, Elephants, Dolphins, Sea Otters, Gorillas, Macaques, and even Rodents can be taught to use tools.

Chimpanzees use sticks to get termites out of their hive and have been know to make spears to hunt with.

Crows have prune twigs to poke in holes to get at food.

Orangutans make whistles to ward off predators.

Elephants

Dolphins

Point being Humans can not be defined by the use of tools seeing how more and more animals have been seen using tools.

So how does my post about tools have nothing to do with this? Maybe you need to grow a little more.

Jeff. I don't think the best programmer in the world could stop endless loop on this server.

Heretic wrote:So how does my post about tools have nothing to do with this? Maybe you need to grow a little more.

...do you have some massive reading comprehension issue going on here? Look what you just posted. Flip asked when we have evidence of humans starting to use tools and speech. I did a bit of digging and answered Flip's questions. You then proceeded to make some non sequitur about other species that happen to use primitive tools today, and then make some strange point about humanity not being defined by tool usage, which neither one of us was asserting anyway. I mean, why did you even post that in here?

Spidey wrote:Lol, gravity is a force…not a theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitatio ... ravitation

First Question

flip wrote:When are humans supposed to have developed speech and using tools?

Tools being used as a definable human trait.

Your answer

Top Gun wrote:According to a bit of quick searching, hominids may have started using definable tools some 2.6 million years ago (which is where the term "Stone Age" comes from), so it was a looooong time before modern humans hit the scene.

Tools being used as a definable human trait

My post saying tools are not a human definable trait

Heretic wrote:Let see what animals use tools. Chimpanzees, Crows, Orangutans, Elephants, Dolphins, Sea Otters, Gorillas, Macaques, and even Rodents can be taught to use tools.

Chimpanzees use sticks to get termites out of their hive and have been know to make spears to hunt with.

Crows have prune twigs to poke in holes to get at food.

Orangutans make whistles to ward off predators.

Elephants

Dolphins

Point being Humans can not be defined by the use of tools seeing how more and more animals have been seen using tools.

So go ahead and call me a troll and insult me because you think I have a Comprehensive Reading disorder when clearly it is you that is having a problem here just because I pointed out the use of tools isn't the way to go to define humans.

Yeah my point about the usage of tools and dress wasn't really headed towards whether they were human or not. Just that so many walking around (exponential ) there would have to be more evidence. Not all little piggys would have built their houses out of wood or straw.

flip wrote:Yeah my point about the usage of tools and dress wasn't really headed towards whether they were human or not. Just that so many walking around (exponential ) there would have to be more evidence. Not all little piggys would have built their houses out of wood or straw.

Well that's better than getting all defensive about what I typed and calling people a troll and asking if they're having reading comprehension issues.

I agree with that. Personal feelings should be left out of a discussion like this. I simply state why I think what I do and move on. If that moves somebody to despise me, good. It all comes down to what makes sense to yourself, but only after really thinking it through for yourself. Both sides are arguing from truth and lies, so establishing absolute truth's would go a long way to clearing up confusion. Which is all I care about. Is it really true or not.

This is for Jeff and Spidey -

This article by Laurance Moran explains what scientists means when they say that "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory". The fact of evolution is the observed evidence of life from ancient times to the present. The theory of evolution is the discussion around the mechanisms for how this observed evidence came to be. The fact and the theory are two different things.



edit -

flip wrote: ... so establishing absolute truth's would go a long way to clearing up confusion. Which is all I care about. Is it really true or not.

as Jeff has been trying to explain, if you want absolute truth, then science will disappoint you - there's just not much there to be had. Scientists learn to live with the fact that the next new experiment or observation could blow even the most elegant theory out of the water. For absolute truth you need to show that your answer is true, AND that there is no other possible answer. You can do that in mathematics because everyone agrees up front about what the assumptions are. You can't do that in the real worlds of the observational and experimental sciences. You can, however, show that something, given what we currently know, is very, very (very, very) likely.

well put, Dissent. There are few immutable Laws in Science(the highest definition of fact), and really not all that much that a true scientist will accept as beyond challenge. Therein lies the key aspect which should keep Science and Religion to separate realms: Science asks that everything be challenged, constantly. Religion asks that things be accepted on faith. Those two approaches will result, naturally, it far different conclusions. That doesn't mean that either is entirely right or wrong, or that one cannot have a belief system without rejecting Science. It just makes it messy when folks try to use one to disprove or discredit the other.

The problem as I see it is not the coexistence of science and a belief system, but when science becomes or replaces that belief system.

I’m not an expert or anything, but I do believe that a belief system is part of the natural human makeup. So when a person no longer puts any credence in the spiritual aspects of life…science then replaces that aspect.

Not to say that this is a problem in most people who reject spiritual beliefs, but there seems to be as many people who get fanatic about science as there are people who get fanatic about religion. (percentage wise)

Many of the statements made on this board and by others in the secular community have led me to this belief.

.........................

Thanks dissent, I'll read that when I get a chance.

Heretic wrote:

flip wrote:Yeah my point about the usage of tools and dress wasn't really headed towards whether they were human or not. Just that so many walking around (exponential ) there would have to be more evidence. Not all little piggys would have built their houses out of wood or straw.

Well that's better than getting all defensive about what I typed and calling people a troll and asking if they're having reading comprehension issues.

*facepalm*

You know what...I'd probably be better off talking to a brick wall. Flip already said there that that wasn't what he meant in the first place, so I won't even bother anymore.

if you want absolute truth, then science will disappoint you - there's just not much there to be had

See, I have no problem at all with this statement if only they would quit pushing it as the only alternative and as truth. There is another possibility. Science has determined to make all discoveries in absence of the belief in God, and I understand that but this is how it's presented from childhood:

Are we descended from mammals, reptiles or amphibians?
A. Mammals (true)
B.Reptiles (false)
C.Amphibians (false)

And that is wholly dishonest and mind control.

Are we descended from mammals, reptiles or amphibians?
A. Mammals (true)
B.Reptiles (false)
C.Amphibians (false)

Uh... We ARE mammals.

Technically, we are descendents of all three as well.

Amphibians -> Reptiles -> Mammals (us)

SilverFJ wrote:The study of Jupiter. scientists make so many claims about it that are taught in schools, but nobody's...ever...been...there.

But, but... you were there! In D1 levels 11-14, and again in D3 level 8! Surely you must have seen it in the sky with your own eyes.

Spidey wrote:I do believe that a belief system is part of the natural human makeup. So when a person no longer puts any credence in the spiritual aspects of life…science then replaces that aspect.

my view is different(not to infer whatsoever that I feel yours is wrong): It always seemed to me that man tended to create belief systems to address two key needs-
1. The fear of death, to provide some comforting explanation for life after.
2. To explain the unknown, which generally is frightening to most people.

Science, on the other hand, seems to be a more organized form of man's inherent curiousity about the world and universe around us. As such, it became organized as men developed the tools and systems of measurement needed to achieve some sort of precision that could be communicated consistently.