It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

page: 8
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: hydeman11

You're right that paradigms are not the problems... I didn't claim that they were.

What I said was that when people claim fact through paradigm or use overlapping fields findings as claims of increased evidence, that degrades the quality of the information and decreases the likelihood of breaking out of the paradigm when new evidences or interpretations of evidences are presented.

The problem with false claims of fact in regards to the paradigms are that it leads people to be overly skeptical of contrary evidence and interpretations of evidence.

The problem with using the fallacy of overlapping scientific fields' conclusions is that they both stemmed from the consensus based paradigms that spawned them and therefore suffer from the same assumptions (potentially false) and any conclusion based on a false shared premise results in a MORE flawed outcome, not a more substantiated conclusion.

So no claim of overlapping fields coming to the same conclusion can ever lead to the correct assumption of more evidence that the theory is correct and any claim of such is fallacious and lends to a lack of credibility of the party making said claim.

I am NOT speaking out against evolution with what I have been saying here. I am an evolution agnostic and I look at all of the sciences after years of blindly accepting them, with incredulity and intense skepticism.

When you look at actual evidences and the building blocks of fallacious, circular logic that has led to the modern paradigms instead of looking at the contrived evidences and pseudo science that passes for science today, you see that we have NOT advanced that far from the heliocentric, geocentrics and flat earthers of the past that modern science is so want to mock...

The modern flat earthers may well turn out to be the evolutionists and to not acknowledge that modern evolutionists are oft religious in many cases (in their fervor and lack of acknowledgement of ANY alternative evidences or theories) is laughable.

Jaden




posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden


I only claimed that we cannot take measurements of CURRENT C14 content in the air and that measured for the last fifty years and expect to correctly extrapolate it out to 20 or 30K years ago...

Which is exactly why that isn't the methodology used by scientists who use radiocarbon dating. Where did you hear that they were using measurements taken over the last 50 years and extrapolating out?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Howdy,

Apologies, I misunderstood you again.

I should clarify that I agree that science does not "prove" theories, it does indeed only provide evidence and support of said theories.

That said, I fail to see how overlapping fields reaching the same conclusions independently (which good science is) of the other does not increase the evidence in favor of something. Science is not a rigid, unchanging thing. It is a method by which people view and try to understand the world around them. It has strict rules that are aimed at reducing the kind of bias in paradigm of which you speak, as well as other problems. The first rule is to be skeptical of presented data, regardless of who presents it, and judge the work solely on the merit of the method and the soundness of the conclusions based on the presented data. That's why scientific papers include a Methods section, a Results section, and a Discussion section as the standard method of writing.

For example, if I find a sandstone, and I see that it has an angle of repose consistent with that of marine coastal environments (as measured in modern coasts), and inside that sandstone I find a fossil coral, I do not need to know the common observation in marine biology that corals live in marine environments to interpret that such is the case with geological reasoning. Surely you will agree that such interdisciplinary reasoning does indeed add support for the hypothesis that corals are marine organisms, yes? Certainly, if the premises are flawed, the reasoning is flawed, but can you state that that is always the case? Can you even say that it is the case the majority of the time?

Sure, human understanding is flawed. Data are not wrong, although they can be inaccurate to what you are actually testing or imprecise, data are just facts and are meaningless without an understanding of the methods used. The rules of the scientific method again seek to limit these problems.

Indeed, I am quite glad you have learned skepticism and choose to employ it. That said, your exaggeration of comparing modern scientists to geocentrists or flat Earthers is unwarranted, as there are indeed observable facts which easily discredit those ideas. That's how paradigms shift, with evidence, right?

That said, I'd very much like to see your evidence of fallacious circular logic in the fields of modern sciences. I certainly do like to follow the evidence, you see. I know several truly religious "evolutionists" in the sense that some of my professors are actually Christians and geologists... They aren't biblical literalists, though. They accept evolution and have a healthy religious life. I've actually discussed it with one of them (my paleontology professor), who said that his logical reasoning in such matters was inconsistent, but so be it.

In conclusion, not all evidence is created equal.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

That statement is not supposition, or my opinion, it is logical fact (if the premises are true)...

Here let's take a look at it for you...

premise 1) atomic clocks work by measuring the oscillation of an atom.

premise 2) atomic clock experiments were conducted by syncing up two atomic clocks to many decimal places and flying one high in the atmosphere and burying one deep in the ground.

premise 3) the atomic clocks when brought back together showed that the one under ground moved more slowly than the one in the airplane.

premise 4) special relativity predicts that gravity wells compress space/time and that compressed spacetime will lead to time dilation.


Let's look at the premises listed above. all of them are true according to the current paradigms. easily verifiable.

Now let's determine which ones are inherently true and which ones are supposition or theory.

P1) This is beileved to be true but is not completely verifiable and is actually theory although that they do tell time accurately is true, there could be other processes at work, but we'll accept this one as inherently true for these purposes.

P2, P3) These are inherently true and easily verifiable.

P4) This is supposition and theory, it is even stated as such, actually it's not even theory, it is a prediction based on a thoery, so we cannot accept this as inherently true as a premise.

So first let's look at the inherently true portions and the accepted true premises to come to a logically valid conclusion.

The clock underground moved more slowly where gravity had a greater effect. We CANNOT know for sure that it was gravity that is what slowed it down, because other processes and forces could be at work, but based on what we know as the accepted current paradigm, gravity was the main component that differed between the two locations. Acceleration would not have been a significant affect, because the second clock did not accelerate relative to the first clock for significant periods or at significant rates.

So what do we know? greater levels of gravity appeared to have slowed down the measuring of the oscillation of the atom that the atomic clock is based on.

The above statement is a logically valid conclusion based on the truth of the premises. We already discussed which premises are true and to what extent they are true. Now to establish an additional conclusion that is NOT based on a true premise. The fourth premise which is a prediction based on a theory.

This is where people are often confused and misled.

It is impossible for this premise to be concluded as being true, you can only supply evidence to support it, but even IF it is true, you cannot make a valid conclusion from it, because you CAN'T know WHAT the cause for the slowing down of the measurement of the underground clock is.

They're interdependent premises. We can't be sure that gravity is affecting the clock with certainty, but even if it IS, we don't know that it's NOT SOLELY the affect of gravity on the oscillation of the atom, as opposed to the indirect affect of gravity compressing space/time and time actually slowing down relative to the clock not as deep in the gravity well affecting the change in measurement.

So EVEN if ALL the premises are completely true, you still can only conclude that gravity affects the oscillation rate of an atom, and NOT that gravity dilates time causing an apparent slowing of the clock relative to one in uncompressed spacetime.

This jazz about citing shows that you have little understanding of how logical thought and evaluation works.

It is only the secondary conclusion that spacetime is compressed and time dilates that requires citing and consensus.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

Howdy,

Can I ask for some clarification on your scenario? How do you know that the velocity of the airplane was not significantly (as in notably) greater than the velocity of the clock relative to the Earth, and how do you know that the effect seen could not be caused by even a minor velocity differential?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

I had heard of pretty much the same thing as what you explained except this.




premise 3) the atomic clocks when brought back together showed that the one under ground moved more slowly than the one in the airplane.


Instead of it being deep underground and the other in a regular plane one was simply on earth and the other was in the SR-71 and the time dialation occured due to thespeed not the gravity.

I may have to look for the source on this and see which one is correct or if possibly both are correct.

Edit to add:

I looked around a bit and came across a forum with people far more knowledgeable than I and the answer I contrived was both are correct at least in theory.

An interesting premise was put forth about those on the ISS. less gravity speeds things up and more speed slows things down. The question was which are they experiencing more of seeing as how they are traveling faster and also effected by less gravity. I believe the answer was they are effected more by gravity so they are a bit older.

Unfortunately I cant post the link as it is another forum and would be against T&C. It is easy to find if you look though.

Pretty cool. IMHO.
edit on 25-8-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden




This jazz about citing shows that you have little understanding of how logical thought and evaluation works.




No, what it shows is that I deal in facts that can be both verified and repeated. i don't take second hand, anecdotal posting from Facebook as gospel truth. See, when dealing with statements of absolutes as you are presenting your side as, it is your responsibility to support it. Generally that includes a citation or at least a link to the information. When applying the scientific method, one of the most important aspects is due diligence. When one refuses to cite the source or repeats what is supposition and anecdote as though it is fact, it doesn't allow for anyone else to engage in due diligence and research the data for themselves to assess the viability of your information.

The fact that you chose to use condescension as your rebuttal shows me you have little understanding of how people who work in various scientific disciplines actually operate and that you haven't utilized the scientific method or done your own due diligence in this case.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Masterjaden




This jazz about citing shows that you have little understanding of how logical thought and evaluation works.




No, what it shows is that I deal in facts that can be both verified and repeated. i don't take second hand, anecdotal posting from Facebook as gospel truth. See, when dealing with statements of absolutes as you are presenting your side as, it is your responsibility to support it. Generally that includes a citation or at least a link to the information. When applying the scientific method, one of the most important aspects is due diligence. When one refuses to cite the source or repeats what is supposition and anecdote as though it is fact, it doesn't allow for anyone else to engage in due diligence and research the data for themselves to assess the viability of your information.

The fact that you chose to use condescension as your rebuttal shows me you have little understanding of how people who work in various scientific disciplines actually operate and that you haven't utilized the scientific method or done your own due diligence in this case.


You obviously CAN'T comprehend what you read... that isn't second hand anecdotal postings from facebook. It's WHAT I wrote on facebook.

Everything I stated was first hand from ME. I don't let others think for me. I stopped doing that after I started to discover and learn about contrived manipulated evidences that are taught in classrooms and put in textbooks.

Let's look at gigantopithecus.

I had to show my mother in law what evidence there is for gigantopithecus because she swore that they had a full skeleton, because THAT'S what they show to people. They show contrived evidence as opposed to the actual evidences.

They rarely distinguish between the two either.

All that has been found of the supposed gigantopithecus is some molars and portions of the lower jaw bone. THAT'S IT...

No skull fragments, no thigh bones, nothing. Yet whenever they show depictions of it, it is an entire skeleton with ridges on the skull, etc...

Where in the sam # did they come up with ridges on the skull when all they found were some molars and fragments of a lower jaw???

The answer is they MADE IT UP... They do that # ALL the TIME.. and you want to talk to me about citing regarding logical evaluation. Get real, I wouldn't cite those ass clowns if my life depended on it.

Unlike you, I don't need someone else to think for me. If you don't wanna think for yourself we have nothing to talk about.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Masterjaden

I had heard of pretty much the same thing as what you explained except this.




premise 3) the atomic clocks when brought back together showed that the one under ground moved more slowly than the one in the airplane.


Instead of it being deep underground and the other in a regular plane one was simply on earth and the other was in the SR-71 and the time dialation occured due to thespeed not the gravity.

I may have to look for the source on this and see which one is correct or if possibly both are correct.

Edit to add:

I looked around a bit and came across a forum with people far more knowledgeable than I and the answer I contrived was both are correct at least in theory.

An interesting premise was put forth about those on the ISS. less gravity speeds things up and more speed slows things down. The question was which are they experiencing more of seeing as how they are traveling faster and also effected by less gravity. I believe the answer was they are effected more by gravity so they are a bit older.

Unfortunately I cant post the link as it is another forum and would be against T&C. It is easy to find if you look though.

Pretty cool. IMHO.


WRONG...you're wrong... there were several different atomic clock experiments. The one that was a stationary on ground versus flying plane was due to gravity. Another one that used four different clocks flying them in alternate directions from each other were measuring relative velocity. It is the increase in velocity that is theorized within relativity to increase the mass of the object relative to the other objects which pretty much equates to the same thing.

The experiment I was referencing was relating two objects in different portions of a gravitic field though.

Either way it doesn't prove time dilation, it solely shows that gravity affects the oscillation rate of an atom and the emission of photons due to its' oscillation rate. The fact that claims are made that the atomic clock experiments prove time dilation, illustrates my point that science so often claims fact and proof where it doesn't exist.

The atomic clock experiments DO support that time dilation exists, but does not PROVE it. That's the only discrepancy that I'm pointing out. People that are cited as experts claim that it PROVES time dilation.

Jaden
edit on 26-8-2014 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2014 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2014 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

The reason that there is a skeletal frame for the Gigantopithecus is because scientists use characteristics from other primates that are similar to it using the fossils we do have of it to make educated guesses as to what it looks like. Though this doesn't mean that scientists recognize that this shape is set in stone and that it is EXACTLY what the animal looked like. Scientists are just applying known knowledge to guess at unknown knowledge, but at no point do scientists claim that as a definite.

Gigantopithecus


Gigantopithecus's method of locomotion is uncertain, as no pelvic or leg bones have been found. The dominant view is that it walked on all fours like modern gorillas and chimpanzees; however, a minority opinion favors bipedal locomotion. This was most notably championed by the late Grover Krantz, but this assumption is based only on the very few jawbone remains found, all of which are U-shaped and widen towards the rear. This allows room for the windpipe to be within the jaw, allowing the skull to sit squarely upon a fully erect spine as in modern humans, rather than roughly in front of it, as in the other great apes.


See it's not like scientists just assembled any old random shape, they guessed based on the existing fossils while using primates that we are more knowledgeable about with similar characteristics. But even then as can be seen in the above paragraph, scientists still disagree on these guesses though.
edit on 26-8-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Masterjaden




This jazz about citing shows that you have little understanding of how logical thought and evaluation works.




No, what it shows is that I deal in facts that can be both verified and repeated. i don't take second hand, anecdotal posting from Facebook as gospel truth. See, when dealing with statements of absolutes as you are presenting your side as, it is your responsibility to support it. Generally that includes a citation or at least a link to the information. When applying the scientific method, one of the most important aspects is due diligence. When one refuses to cite the source or repeats what is supposition and anecdote as though it is fact, it doesn't allow for anyone else to engage in due diligence and research the data for themselves to assess the viability of your information.

The fact that you chose to use condescension as your rebuttal shows me you have little understanding of how people who work in various scientific disciplines actually operate and that you haven't utilized the scientific method or done your own due diligence in this case.


You obviously CAN'T comprehend what you read... that isn't second hand anecdotal postings from facebook. It's WHAT I wrote on facebook.

Everything I stated was first hand from ME. I don't let others think for me. I stopped doing that after I started to discover and learn about contrived manipulated evidences that are taught in classrooms and put in textbooks.

Let's look at gigantopithecus.

I had to show my mother in law what evidence there is for gigantopithecus because she swore that they had a full skeleton, because THAT'S what they show to people. They show contrived evidence as opposed to the actual evidences.

They rarely distinguish between the two either.

All that has been found of the supposed gigantopithecus is some molars and portions of the lower jaw bone. THAT'S IT...

No skull fragments, no thigh bones, nothing. Yet whenever they show depictions of it, it is an entire skeleton with ridges on the skull, etc...

Where in the sam # did they come up with ridges on the skull when all they found were some molars and fragments of a lower jaw???

The answer is they MADE IT UP... They do that # ALL the TIME.. and you want to talk to me about citing regarding logical evaluation. Get real, I wouldn't cite those ass clowns if my life depended on it.

Unlike you, I don't need someone else to think for me. If you don't wanna think for yourself we have nothing to talk about.

Jaden


so...where do you get your science from, then?

also, comparative anatomy and extrapolation:

www.theguardian.com...

Amazing what you find when you do some actual research!
edit on 26-8-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Masterjaden

The reason that there is a skeletal frame for the Gigantopithecus is because scientists use characteristics from other primates that are similar to it using the fossils we do have of it to make educated guesses as to what it looks like. Though this doesn't mean that scientists recognize that this shape is set in stone and that it is EXACTLY what the animal looked like. Scientists are just applying known knowledge to guess at unknown knowledge, but at no point do scientists claim that as a definite.

Gigantopithecus


Gigantopithecus's method of locomotion is uncertain, as no pelvic or leg bones have been found. The dominant view is that it walked on all fours like modern gorillas and chimpanzees; however, a minority opinion favors bipedal locomotion. This was most notably championed by the late Grover Krantz, but this assumption is based only on the very few jawbone remains found, all of which are U-shaped and widen towards the rear. This allows room for the windpipe to be within the jaw, allowing the skull to sit squarely upon a fully erect spine as in modern humans, rather than roughly in front of it, as in the other great apes.


See it's not like scientists just assembled any old random shape, they guessed based on the existing fossils while using primates that we are more knowledgeable about with similar characteristics. But even then as can be seen in the above paragraph, scientists still disagree on these guesses though.


ARE you nukcing futs????

It's a MOLAR... you can't extrapolate a whole primate from a friggin molar. That is called manufacturing evidence'

Jaden



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Masterjaden




This jazz about citing shows that you have little understanding of how logical thought and evaluation works.




No, what it shows is that I deal in facts that can be both verified and repeated. i don't take second hand, anecdotal posting from Facebook as gospel truth. See, when dealing with statements of absolutes as you are presenting your side as, it is your responsibility to support it. Generally that includes a citation or at least a link to the information. When applying the scientific method, one of the most important aspects is due diligence. When one refuses to cite the source or repeats what is supposition and anecdote as though it is fact, it doesn't allow for anyone else to engage in due diligence and research the data for themselves to assess the viability of your information.

The fact that you chose to use condescension as your rebuttal shows me you have little understanding of how people who work in various scientific disciplines actually operate and that you haven't utilized the scientific method or done your own due diligence in this case.


You obviously CAN'T comprehend what you read... that isn't second hand anecdotal postings from facebook. It's WHAT I wrote on facebook.

Everything I stated was first hand from ME. I don't let others think for me. I stopped doing that after I started to discover and learn about contrived manipulated evidences that are taught in classrooms and put in textbooks.

Let's look at gigantopithecus.

I had to show my mother in law what evidence there is for gigantopithecus because she swore that they had a full skeleton, because THAT'S what they show to people. They show contrived evidence as opposed to the actual evidences.

They rarely distinguish between the two either.

All that has been found of the supposed gigantopithecus is some molars and portions of the lower jaw bone. THAT'S IT...

No skull fragments, no thigh bones, nothing. Yet whenever they show depictions of it, it is an entire skeleton with ridges on the skull, etc...

Where in the sam # did they come up with ridges on the skull when all they found were some molars and fragments of a lower jaw???

The answer is they MADE IT UP... They do that # ALL the TIME.. and you want to talk to me about citing regarding logical evaluation. Get real, I wouldn't cite those ass clowns if my life depended on it.

Unlike you, I don't need someone else to think for me. If you don't wanna think for yourself we have nothing to talk about.

Jaden


so...where do you get your science from, then?

also, comparative anatomy and extrapolation:

www.theguardian.com...

Amazing what you find when you do some actual research!


I make a concerted effort to find the actual evidences and evaluate them logically to find what I can know, what I can assume and what is inferred and I take each for what it's worth...

You can KNOW much less the way I evaluate, but are much less likely to be wrong and to be hampered with wrong knowledge and assumptions.

If learning institutions would teach with actual evidences and focus on teaching how to logically evaluate them, we would be much better off.

It is against human nature though, so I'm not holding my breath.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
What I said was that when people claim fact through paradigm or use overlapping fields findings as claims of increased evidence, that degrades the quality of the information and decreases the likelihood of breaking out of the paradigm when new evidences or interpretations of evidences are presented.

The problem with false claims of fact in regards to the paradigms are that it leads people to be overly skeptical of contrary evidence and interpretations of evidence.


Well yeah. That's how science works. The more evidence that is discovered in favor of something, the more likely it is to be true, whether it's an "overlapping" field or not. I've never heard somebody say it's a bad thing that more facts = less likely to be wrong. A fact is a fact. Scientists are skeptical of everything until verified repeatedly.


The problem with using the fallacy of overlapping scientific fields' conclusions is that they both stemmed from the consensus based paradigms that spawned them and therefore suffer from the same assumptions (potentially false) and any conclusion based on a false shared premise results in a MORE flawed outcome, not a more substantiated conclusion.


I didn't realize that there was a fallacy of "overlapping scientific fields' conclusions". Funny I can't find that one anywhere. When more than one field of science verifies the same phenomena in different ways, it increases the likelihood of truth. They aren't assumptions when physical data and experiments confirm it. Scientific theories are premises that are VERIFIED BY FACTS. If not it is just a hypothesis. You seem to think that hypotheses and theories are the same thing and are just guesses.


So no claim of overlapping fields coming to the same conclusion can ever lead to the correct assumption of more evidence that the theory is correct and any claim of such is fallacious and lends to a lack of credibility of the party making said claim.


More evidence = more likely to be true. It sounds like you are trying to attack science claiming that it's all assumptions that people just randomly agree on, with no data or observations to back it up. This is a ridiculous notion, and it makes sense that more facts in support of something makes it harder to shift the paradigm away from that. Such is the case with evolution. There are literally mountains worth of scientific research papers on it, and lay folk with strong religious ties seem to think they can debunk it with presumptuous statements that in reality have nothing to do with it.


I am NOT speaking out against evolution with what I have been saying here. I am an evolution agnostic and I look at all of the sciences after years of blindly accepting them, with incredulity and intense skepticism.


Evolution agnostic? How is that possible when evolution isn't a belief system? Are you a gravity agnostic or round earth agnostic as well? What paradigm shift is being prevented by the facts behind evolution? Trust me if you discovered fact based data that conflicts with evolution scientists all over the planet will try to duplicate your findings, and if it's verified it WILL shift the paradigm, however none such evidence has EVER been presented by anybody other than fringe creationists, and their "evidence" is often extremely subjective, so calling it as such does it a disservice (not saying this is your viewpoint).


When you look at actual evidences and the building blocks of fallacious, circular logic that has led to the modern paradigms instead of looking at the contrived evidences and pseudo science that passes for science today


This is flat out BS. Science today is more scrutinized than it has ever been. Science is merely a method for gathering facts and understanding how things work. What contrived evidence and pseudo science are you referring to?


The modern flat earthers may well turn out to be the evolutionists and to not acknowledge that modern evolutionists are oft religious in many cases (in their fervor and lack of acknowledgement of ANY alternative evidences or theories) is laughable.


This is an absurd comparison. Flat earth was never a scientific theory, and wasn't even believed worldwide. Religious scientists (not evolutionists lol, that's a false word made up by creationists and ID proponents) doesn't prove anything. You don't have to be an atheist to accept the facts behind modern evolutionary synthesis.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Masterjaden

The reason that there is a skeletal frame for the Gigantopithecus is because scientists use characteristics from other primates that are similar to it using the fossils we do have of it to make educated guesses as to what it looks like. Though this doesn't mean that scientists recognize that this shape is set in stone and that it is EXACTLY what the animal looked like. Scientists are just applying known knowledge to guess at unknown knowledge, but at no point do scientists claim that as a definite.

Gigantopithecus


Gigantopithecus's method of locomotion is uncertain, as no pelvic or leg bones have been found. The dominant view is that it walked on all fours like modern gorillas and chimpanzees; however, a minority opinion favors bipedal locomotion. This was most notably championed by the late Grover Krantz, but this assumption is based only on the very few jawbone remains found, all of which are U-shaped and widen towards the rear. This allows room for the windpipe to be within the jaw, allowing the skull to sit squarely upon a fully erect spine as in modern humans, rather than roughly in front of it, as in the other great apes.


See it's not like scientists just assembled any old random shape, they guessed based on the existing fossils while using primates that we are more knowledgeable about with similar characteristics. But even then as can be seen in the above paragraph, scientists still disagree on these guesses though.


ARE you nukcing futs????

It's a MOLAR... you can't extrapolate a whole primate from a friggin molar. That is called manufacturing evidence'

Jaden


i didnt realize you were the resident expert on all things palaeontology. check out this link and educate yourself.

www.theguardian.com...



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Well now you know there is. Come on, think for yourself, do you have to be fed EVERY logical fallacy or can you actually think for yourself.

Think about it. If two fields are both inter-related and make conclusions based on the same information or similar information and are subject to the same erroneous evaluation from data, do they provide MORE evidence that their conclusions are accurate or the same, or less???

I can tell you that logically if a premise is wrong, the conclusion is also wrong.

If a premise is based on logical fallacy, then the premise is erroneous. So, if two inter-related fields come to the similar conclusions using the same erroneous premise along with other premises and then come to the same conclusion, is the conclusion they come to a logically valid one???

I'll help you, the answer is no. It is logically invalid. So the question becomes, do inter-related fields of study who are within the current paradigms really bolster the related conclusions they come to or do they have to stand on their own merits to be logically valid?

The answer is that they have to stand on their own merits. That means it is a fallacy to claim that they are MORE likely to be accurate because they separately come to the same conclusion.

Now, is it POSSIBLE for two inter-related fields to provide additional support for each other? Yes, but when you start comparing them to each other, you increase the likelihood that each one will be based on fallacious logic or false premises, which makes it a less substantial support that is commonly subscribed to it.

Jaden



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
ARE you nukcing futs????

It's a MOLAR... you can't extrapolate a whole primate from a friggin molar. That is called manufacturing evidence'

Jaden


It's not exactly a huge leap of logic to analyze a modern ape's jawbone in comparison with the Gigantipithicus jawbone found, and to notice that they are almost identical except for the size. Logic would dictate that it would be much larger than the modern ape with the similar jawbone type. Have you studied paleontology? They don't just guess, they compare every detail. It sounds like you would prefer them to not analyze it at all and just give up and say "we don't know".
edit on 26-8-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Masterjaden

The reason that there is a skeletal frame for the Gigantopithecus is because scientists use characteristics from other primates that are similar to it using the fossils we do have of it to make educated guesses as to what it looks like. Though this doesn't mean that scientists recognize that this shape is set in stone and that it is EXACTLY what the animal looked like. Scientists are just applying known knowledge to guess at unknown knowledge, but at no point do scientists claim that as a definite.

Gigantopithecus


Gigantopithecus's method of locomotion is uncertain, as no pelvic or leg bones have been found. The dominant view is that it walked on all fours like modern gorillas and chimpanzees; however, a minority opinion favors bipedal locomotion. This was most notably championed by the late Grover Krantz, but this assumption is based only on the very few jawbone remains found, all of which are U-shaped and widen towards the rear. This allows room for the windpipe to be within the jaw, allowing the skull to sit squarely upon a fully erect spine as in modern humans, rather than roughly in front of it, as in the other great apes.


See it's not like scientists just assembled any old random shape, they guessed based on the existing fossils while using primates that we are more knowledgeable about with similar characteristics. But even then as can be seen in the above paragraph, scientists still disagree on these guesses though.


ARE you nukcing futs????

It's a MOLAR... you can't extrapolate a whole primate from a friggin molar. That is called manufacturing evidence'

Jaden


What part of this do you not understand?


This was most notably championed by the late Grover Krantz, but this assumption is based only on the very few jawbone remains found, all of which are U-shaped and widen towards the rear. This allows room for the windpipe to be within the jaw, allowing the skull to sit squarely upon a fully erect spine as in modern humans, rather than roughly in front of it, as in the other great apes


Assumptions aren't evidence, they are just guesses. So no it isn't manufacturing evidence. It's just scientists making the best guess they can with the little evidence they have. If you were to talk to a anthropologist about the shape of a Gigantopithecus none of them would ever tell you that the shape of it is definite or set in stone. I'm sure every anthropologist is 100% willing to revise their idea of what one looks like if new fossils are found.

Manufacturing evidence is where someone casts a fake bone and tries to pass it off as the real thing. Hoaxes are discredited and ignored from scientific knowledge.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Barcs

Well now you know there is. Come on, think for yourself, do you have to be fed EVERY logical fallacy or can you actually think for yourself.

Think about it. If two fields are both inter-related and make conclusions based on the same information or similar information and are subject to the same erroneous evaluation from data, do they provide MORE evidence that their conclusions are accurate or the same, or less???


I just don't see the fallacious reasoning you are referring to.

If they are based on the same data using the same methods, then their conclusions are exactly the same. It wouldn't count as additional evidence. If they found the same conclusion using different evidence or methods, then it would count.


I can tell you that logically if a premise is wrong, the conclusion is also wrong.

If a premise is based on logical fallacy, then the premise is erroneous. So, if two inter-related fields come to the similar conclusions using the same erroneous premise along with other premises and then come to the same conclusion, is the conclusion they come to a logically valid one???

That is a HUGE if. Please name a scientific theory with a wrong or invalid premise. I really don't see what you're getting at here. The premise behind evolution is verified 100%. The only debate in the scientific community right now is about specific dates and time frames of certain organisms and other minor details like filling in the gaps in the fossil record for time periods we don't have much information on.


I'll help you, the answer is no. It is logically invalid. So the question becomes, do inter-related fields of study who are within the current paradigms really bolster the related conclusions they come to or do they have to stand on their own merits to be logically valid?


If a premise is based on repeated observation and experimentation, then it is certainly not erroneous and all scientific theories are based on scientific facts.


The answer is that they have to stand on their own merits. That means it is a fallacy to claim that they are MORE likely to be accurate because they separately come to the same conclusion.


Again, it depends on the data and the methods. When you see the field of genetics confirming everything that scientists suspected about the fossil record in their research, then it DOES indeed count as MORE evidence, as that evidence is different, yet the same conclusion is reached.


Now, is it POSSIBLE for two inter-related fields to provide additional support for each other? Yes, but when you start comparing them to each other, you increase the likelihood that each one will be based on fallacious logic or false premises, which makes it a less substantial support that is commonly subscribed to it.


Sorry, but that's wrong. Why would you increase the likelihood of faulty logic, because 2 separate confirmed fields of scientific study confirm the same thing? You are acting like science is pure guesswork. It's not.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden





WRONG...you're wrong...


Based on what exactly??? Your word??

I may be wrong but your word doesn't convince me of that. If you wish to make such a claim you should really post a link.

Especialy because you claim your right over the experts. Can you please give your qualifications to make such claims?




top topics



 
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join