 meepmaker
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 6716 Posts
|
Thursday, January 06, 2011 9:07:35 AM
P-U |
|
 Same4Walls
Female, 18-29, Southern US
351 Posts
|
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 8:36:28 PM
I'm an anthropologist and this is so exciting for me! Oh, and we didn't evolve from monkeys. We are of a separate, but close, line to them. Ugh, forget it. I'm just not gonna get into this. lol |
|
 handys003
Male, 50-59, Western US
2402 Posts
|
Tuesday, January 04, 2011 3:35:55 AM
@Angilion
Brah your bouncing all over. I gave you quotes that came from cited resources of Ph. D's and you still disagreed with them. Get a grip. Typical arrogant European who still thinks Americans with Ph.D's are dumb. What a troll. |
|
 Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9533 Posts
|
Friday, December 31, 2010 2:51:09 PM
One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'
That's a good summary.
You quoted it. So why aren't you doing it?
Here's a law:
F=ma.
Now tell me how that gives you a means to explain *why*.
Or any other scientific law you care to choose.
None of them will explain "why" or "how" or anything else, because laws don't. Laws tell you what is, not why it is so. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9533 Posts
|
Friday, December 31, 2010 2:46:59 PM
Since I can't copy text from my library. I will link you toward several sites. That back my assertion. You can argue and tell those with doctorates are wrong as well.
How about I just quote from the first set of definitions that you think supports your assertions?
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
You're wrong. Even the definitions you link to show that you're wrong.
Scientific laws don't explain how things happen or why things happen or anything else. That's what theories do. Laws just state what happens under specific circumstances.
It's not hard to tell - just look at any scientific law and ask yourself what it explains. The answer will be "nothing".
One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why' [/quot |
|
handys003
Male, 50-59, Western US
2402 Posts
|
Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:28:17 PM
@phoneybones
There is a difference between monkeys and apes. |
|
 phoneybone
Male, 18-29, Western US
1750 Posts
|
Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:09:41 PM
why whenever they find old/ancient (possibly) human remains it's always: "changes the idea of human evolution!" ? Uh, no it won't, at least not in any major way.
We came from monkeys, yesterday it was 200,000 yrs ago, now it's 400,000 yrs ago; woooo big change there |
|
handys003
Male, 50-59, Western US
2402 Posts
|
Thursday, December 30, 2010 4:55:42 PM
@Angilion
Since I can't copy text from my library. I will link you toward several sites. That back my assertion. You can argue and tell those with doctorates are wrong as well.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
http://chemistry.about.com/bio/Anne-Marie-Helmenstine-Ph-D-7815.htm[/url
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/index.html < |
|
 SmilinSam
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
3603 Posts
|
Thursday, December 30, 2010 4:54:05 PM
For some reason i expected CrakrJak to be on here sayin how this proves evolution has been wrong all along or something equally as rediculous. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9533 Posts
|
Thursday, December 30, 2010 4:07:50 PM
Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.
Scientific laws do not explain. They describe.
For example, one of the most famous laws is F=ma. Which explains nothing. It describes the relationship between force, mass and acceleration. It offers no explanation of the relationship, just a description of it.
Although strictly speaking it should no longer be considered a law because it has been proven to be not entirely accurate. |
|
 magoo22
Male, 30-39, Australia
663 Posts
|
Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:20:32 AM
BTW: Angillion. Scientists and non-scientists alike often say "theory" when they mean "hypothesis"...just to mix it up a little I guess ;)
|
|
handys003
Male, 50-59, Western US
2402 Posts
|
Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:15:54 AM
@Angilion replied:
"A law is a very narrow, very specific description of what will happen in certain circumstances".
Hmmm....Specific description huh? A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'
|
|
magoo22
Male, 30-39, Australia
663 Posts
|
Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:10:46 AM
I'd say at this point the Israeli researchers would still be hypothesising about the age of the teeth and likely antiquity of the owners. I think it would take more discoveries and more research to prove that H. Sapiens originated somewhere outside Africa. So no new theory just yet I think.
BTW: Is the head guy's name really Gopher?. How appropriate! |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9533 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:52:05 PM
I wasn't going to say anything about your fundamental misunderstanding of scientific terms, but since I've had a nap and a cup of tea and you've been snarky about being so wrong, I will.
A theory is a broad-ranging explanation of how a thing (or a collection of related things) works. It's developed from a hypothesis or from a number of hypotheses.
A law is a very narrow, very specific description of what will happen in certain circumstances. It has a very narrow range and it explains nothing at all. It is simply a statement of "If this happens, that will happen" and can often be expressed as an equation.
It is impossible for a theory to become a law (or vice versa). They are completely different things and not simply a matter of a timeline being different. |
|
handys003
Male, 50-59, Western US
2402 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:03:08 PM
@I-IS-BORED
Pooptart19 can speak for himself. That's not how it appeared to myself.
Second- Please do tell me how this vet of 22 years on my lack of understanding such. |
|
 I-IS-BORED
Male, 18-29, Canada
2432 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:48:27 PM
@handys003
Pooptart was clearly talking about the people leaving comments on the article, not the article itself.
Also, your understanding of the differences between something being a theory and something being a law is rather lacking. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9533 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:19:36 PM
ACTUALLY: (this is for everone claiming that human teeth are similar to those of other organisms) well, our teeth are very different. very different indeed.
That depends on which organism you're talking about. Very different to, say, a cat, sure. But not very different to very closely related species in the homo genus.
That's the key point here - if these remains are specifically homo sapiens and they are 400,000 years old, it changes what was thought to be the timeline of humanity and is some degree of challenge against the currently most likely theory about the origins of humanity. If they're a different homo species, for example homo neanderthalensis, it just means that some of them they went further east than was originally thought. Homo neanderthalensis is a very close relative to homo sapiens and you can't be sure from teeth alone. If you saw one walking done the street, they wouldn't look outrageously strange. |
|
 Angelmassb
Male, 18-29, S. America
15474 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 4:38:31 PM
Adams tooth |
|
petshadow
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
39 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 4:35:43 PM
LOL @ archaeologist named "Gopher" digging in the ground. |
|
 ParasyT
Male, 13-17, Southern US
531 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 3:25:17 PM
"looks like a regular old tooth to me :| all living things have teeth right? right?"
Of course all living things have teeth. Just last week i saw my tree in the back yard sprout another molar. |
|
 ElMustache
Male, 18-29, Western US
1585 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 3:24:29 PM
Reminds me of BSG. So say we all! |
|
 cobrakiller
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
6843 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:45:49 PM
shaboinkin, of course they are crazy, they are still using dial-up. |
|
cobrakiller
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
6843 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:44:24 PM
dixxyrarr, it doesnt really change the origin itself, just what we know about it and can conclude with the knowledge we can gain from this. |
|
 Intaresting
Male, 18-29, Europe
812 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:39:28 PM
Probably just jewish propaganda. |
|
 Fatninja01
Male, 18-29, Australia
23995 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:54:59 PM
Probably just people with a time machine messing around! |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}