[_ Old Earth _] An interesting thought

[brother Paul]

I stumbled across this article and though it should be considered....

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.1.html

 

[Jim Parker]

I stumbled across this article and though it should be considered....

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.1.html

Yup.
Interesting.

 

[Vaccine]

I stumbled across this article and though it should be considered....

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.1.html

I noticed the phrase "..were thought to..". Anytime I see the words were surprised by, unexpected by, or previously thought to these are admissions the models they work from are wrong. Things are changing though, a good sign.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I noticed the phrase "..were thought to..". Anytime I see the words were surprised by, unexpected by, or previously thought to these are admissions the models they work from are wrong. Things are changing though, a good sign.

That is because research is based on the evidence available. Its similar to how detective never know 100% what happened at a crime scene, and can't completely 100% reproduce it, but they can use the evidence from the scene to lead them to the most probable events and suspect.

 

[brother Paul]

I noticed the phrase "..were thought to..". Anytime I see the words were surprised by, unexpected by, or previously thought to these are admissions the models they work from are wrong. Things are changing though, a good sign.

You got it....

 

[Jim Parker]

Anytime I see the words were surprised by, unexpected by, or previously thought to these are admissions the models they work from are wrong.

Science is done by making a hypothesis and then testing it by experimentation (if possible) and examination of the results of tha experiments or the available data.
The next step is to refine the hypothesis and repeat the process.
That is how science works and it does work very well indeed.

 

[brother Paul]

Indeed!

 

[Barbarian]

I noticed the phrase "..were thought to..". Anytime I see the words were surprised by, unexpected by, or previously thought to these are admissions the models they work from are wrong. Things are changing though, a good sign.

That was the language used in journals when I was an undergraduate in the 60s. Scientific prose never changes much. It usually very cautious.

 

[Vaccine]

Science is done by making a hypothesis and then testing it by experimentation (if possible) and examination of the results of tha experiments or the available data.
The next step is to refine the hypothesis and repeat the process.
That is how science works and it does work very well indeed.

I don't doubt thats how it works.
What hypothesis would that be from the article?
Also, when you say experimentation 'when possible', why should an untestable idea be considered a valid hypothesis?

 

[Jim Parker]

What hypothesis would that be from the article?

The hypotheses upon which the paleontologists proceeded with their work are not stated in the article.
I am not a paleontologist so I do not know the hypotheses from which they work.

Also, when you say experimentation 'when possible', why should an untestable idea be considered a valid hypothesis?

Because it appears to be the most accurate description of nature at this point in the process of discovery.
When more is learned, they will adjust their hypotheses.

iakov the fool

 

[Vaccine]

The hypotheses upon which the paleontologists proceeded with their work are not stated in the article.
I am not a paleontologist so I do not know the hypotheses from which they work.

Because it appears to be the most accurate description of nature at this point in the process of discovery.
When more is learned, they will adjust their hypotheses.

iakov the fool

No offense, but I disagree with your characterization of a hypothesis. Being testable is important because if it can't be falsified it's pseudo science.
In another thread you said you were against destructive materialist philosophies? Yet, their origin story appears to be the most accurate description? True, their story does have merit, it just could be the way it happened. But it's not 100%.
The article is controversial not because it is merely replacing one hypothesis with another. The controversy is because the tracks falsify a prediction:
"What evolution enables us to do is to make specific predictions about what we should find in the fossil record. The prediction in this case is clear-cut. That is, if we go to rocks of the right age, and the rocks of the right type, we should find transitions between two great forms of life, between fish and amphibian. ...What we see when we look at the fossil record, at rocks of just the right age, is a creature like Tiktaalik"
-Neil Shubin (co-discoverer Tiktaalik)
If it were merely adjusting a hypothesis there wouldn't be any controversy. The controversy is because their claim "will not be accepted by all".

 

[Barbarian]

No offense, but I disagree with your characterization of a hypothesis. Being testable is important because if it can't be falsified it's pseudo science.

This is very true. It's why, for example, "intelligent design" is regarded as pseudo science there is no conceivable way to objectively verify the religious premises on which ID is founded. Creationists are wise to be leary of ID. Experimentation is not the only way to gather data, however. Observation of nature is often sufficient without human intervention.

The hypothesis that these marks are the footprints of four-legged land animals is intriguing, but we need some further evidence.

For example, the sprawling gait of all known early tetrapods, including those that ventured on land, is inconsistent with the interpretation of these marks as tracks, assuming the dating of the rocks is accurate, as it seems to be.

We do know that tetrapods were walking about on pond bottoms long before they were walking on land. We know this, because the earliest known ones, did not have limbs connected strongly to the spine, and so could not have supported a body out of water. It's always possible that the gait has been misinterpreted, although this seems unlikely.

The failure to find any trace of an actual fossil of an organism that could have made the tracks, in the subsequent seven years, seems to be why the find hasn't gotten much interest.

 

[Jim Parker]

No offense, but I disagree with your characterization of a hypothesis. Being testable is important because if it can't be falsified it's pseudo science.

And just how do you propose to test an hypothesis used in paleontology? You can't create a new universe and watch for 14 billion years and then have other scientists repeat the 14 billion year process to verify your conclusions.
Paleontology is a forensic science. It involves examining the evidence and developing hypotheses from the evidence.

if it can't be falsified it's pseudo science.

That doesn't make sense. Are you asserting that "real" science is characterized by it being susceptible to falsification?

If it were merely adjusting a hypothesis there wouldn't be any controversy. The controversy is because their claim "will not be accepted by all".

Einstein's theories of relativity were not accepted by all. It took decades to be able to prove that gravity bends the path of light and then it still wasn't believed by all his peers.
I'm not sure what it is you're arguing about.
Some hypotheses can be tested in a laboratory by setting up experiments.
I don't think paleontology is like that.

The controversy is because their claim "will not be accepted by all".

There's a bit more to it than that. Claims are not immediately accepted by all. That's just life.

 

[Barbarian]

There are some experimental methods in paleontology. For example, we know that Ambulocetus, the first whale known to have functional walking legs, was a freshwater animal, based on oxygen isotope ratios in the fossils.

The hypothesis that dinosaurs and birds had the same ventilation system, unlike that of other tetrapods, can be tested by looking for key anatomical features like uncinate ribs, air sacs in bones, and so on. (they have since been documented).

The hypothesis that dinosaurs were active, energetic organisms can be tested by looking for Haversian canals in their bones, and by functional analyses of their skeletons.

The speed of dinosaurs can be tested by comparing stride length (from footprints) with the length of legs and applying the appropriate Froude number.
https://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/bsci393/lab8/part2/dino2.html

 

[Vaccine]

This is very true. It's why, for example, "intelligent design" is regarded as pseudo science there is no conceivable way to objectively verify the religious premises on which ID is founded. Creationists are wise to be leary of ID. Experimentation is not the only way to gather data, however. Observation of nature is often sufficient without human intervention.

The hypothesis that these marks are the footprints of four-legged land animals is intriguing, but we need some further evidence.

For example, the sprawling gait of all known early tetrapods, including those that ventured on land, is inconsistent with the interpretation of these marks as tracks, assuming the dating of the rocks is accurate, as it seems to be.

We do know that tetrapods were walking about on pond bottoms long before they were walking on land. We know this, because the earliest known ones, did not have limbs connected strongly to the spine, and so could not have supported a body out of water. It's always possible that the gait has been misinterpreted, although this seems unlikely.

The failure to find any trace of an actual fossil of an organism that could have made the tracks, in the subsequent seven years, seems to be why the find hasn't gotten much interest.

Which 'religious premise' would that be?
Also, should intelligent design theory be defined by those who proposed it or it's critics?

 

[Vaccine]

And just how do you propose to test an hypothesis used in paleontology? You can't create a new universe and watch for 14 billion years and then have other scientists repeat the 14 billion year process to verify your conclusions.
Paleontology is a forensic science. It involves examining the evidence and developing hypotheses from the evidence.

That doesn't make sense. Are you asserting that "real" science is characterized by it being susceptible to falsification?

Einstein's theories of relativity were not accepted by all. It took decades to be able to prove that gravity bends the path of light and then it still wasn't believed by all his peers.
I'm not sure what it is you're arguing about.
Some hypotheses can be tested in a laboratory by setting up experiments.
I don't think paleontology is like that.

There's a bit more to it than that. Claims are not immediately accepted by all. That's just life.

Technically paleontology is an observational science in so far as the spatial relationship between the rocks and fossils are concerned. That is testable. The rest is natural history though, aka philosophy. The origin of walking animals for example is based on materialistic assumptions. Based on those assumptions they made a prediction and new evidence shows that prediction was wrong. That's what I meant about their models being wrong. But things are chainging.

 

[Jim Parker]

Also, should intelligent design theory be defined by those who proposed it or it's critics?

Intelligent design assumes a "designer" which is simply another way of saying "God the creator."
Since it assumes that God created the universe, and that assumption cannot be proven, (because you can't get God into a test tube to test him) it is deemed "pseudo-science" by those who hate the idea of the existence of a God to whom they will have to answer.

The hypothesis that there is a designer cannot be proven by scientific methods.

iakov the fool

 

[Barbarian]

Which 'religious premise' would that be?

The self-stated "Governing Goals" of ID:
Governing Goals

• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

https://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

To be fair, I've met IDers who have said that they entirely reject the guys who started ID as well as their religious premises. But the official version, from the Discovery Institute, is basically an unorthodox religious belief.

There are dissenters to some of the doctrines, like Michael Behe, who admits the reality of evolution and has even admitted the possibility that irreducibly complex features can evolve. (he thinks it never happened though, in spite of evidence showing that it did)

And (possibly former) IDer Michael Denton takes it a step further:

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.


In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Natures Destiny

Also, should intelligent design theory be defined by those who proposed it or it's critics?

I've always gone with their statements. But over time, they've diverged considerably, as you see. Denton and Behe still put different kinds of god into their philosophies. Behe accepts the fact of evolution, but thinks that God steps in every now and then to keep it on track or to fix something that couldn't evolve, given the way He set things up. Denton accepts evolution, and seems to be sort of a deist who supposes that God had something in mind, but once things were set up, hasn't messed with it thereafter.

Philip Johnson remains a YE creationist for all practical purposes, and Jonathan Wells remains an follower of Rev. Myung Son Moon's Unification Church.

So a lot of really diverse theologies in this. But so far as I know, none of them have rejected the basic religious goal of the movement.

 

[Jim Parker]

The origin of walking animals for example is based on materialistic assumptions.

That is a tautology. All science is based on materialist assumptions. Science has to do with the materials of the universe and their interactions. Science does not deal with a creator-deity Who cannot be seen, examined, tested, etc.

Based on those assumptions they made a prediction and new evidence shows that prediction was wrong.

Scientists, researchers, inventors do that all the time. They form a hypothesis and test it. If it proves to be wrong, they discard it and form a new hypothesis based on the data they have gained. That is how science is done.
Thomas Edison tried over 1000 different filament materials before he discovered that tungsten worked. He described the experiments as 1000 successful experiments which identified materials which would not work.

 

[Roro1972]

I stumbled across this article and though it should be considered....

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/012345/full/news.2010.1.html

they can only date back 20,000 years how do they get a date of 400,000 ???????
it must be speculation or estimate or guessing??????????
anyone know about this??????????