What is scientific evidence?(split from Guidelines for speculations)

[SamCogar]

All righty, now I understand what you meaning, …… like so, huh?

 

Distinguished scientists, such as Harold Jeffreys and Charles Schuchert, were outspoken critics of ...... "this fine example of someone's sloppy, wild-ass guesswork”.

 

in 1912 the meteorologist Alfred Wegener amply described what he called continental drift, expanded in his 1915 book The Origin of Continents and Oceans and the scientific debate started that would end up fifty years later in the theory of plate tectonics.

 

Despite much opposition, the view of continental drift gained support and a lively debate started between "drifters" or "mobilists" (proponents of the theory) and "fixists" (opponents). During the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, the former reached important milestones proposing that convection currents might have driven the plate movements,

 

 

WOW, fifty (50) years of debating someone's sloppy, wild-ass guesswork before it was finally discarded as "junk science" for lack of evidence.

[Strange]

All righty, now I understand what you meaning, …… like so, huh?

 

 

WOW, fifty (50) years of debating someone's sloppy, wild-ass guesswork before it was finally discarded as "junk science" for lack of evidence.

 

 

Surely you mean 50 years of debate before it was accepted?

 

And that is exactly why science works. It demands high levels of evidence (not "proof"). Especially for extraordinary new ideas.

[swansont]

You might note that it was accepted after there was sufficient evidence and a working model. And even at the start, Wegener had some evidence. It was not a WAG.

[SamCogar]

Surely you mean 50 years of debate before it was accepted?

 

And that is exactly why science works.

 

 

It sure don't work that way on this SFN Science Forum

 

It's more like 50 minutes of "badmouthing" all NIH commentary, .... declaring it to be a WAG ...... and forbidding any further discussions or postings of the declared "WAG" subject matter.

 

I wonder if ...... all posted subject matter is declared a "WAG" iffen it is the least bit contradictory to any of the Academically declared "settled science"?

 

And ya'll have ignored this fact, to wit:

 

"in 1912 the meteorologist Alfred Wegener amply described what he called continental drift,"

 

 

 

HA, iffen Alfred Wegener, ..... a meteorologist, ...... had posted his original "tectonic plate" thoughts on this Forum, ........ WHOOOOOOPEEEE.

[swansont]

It sure don't work that way on this SFN Science Forum

 

 

You haven't presented any evidence of this (which was the problem before – not presenting evidence), but this isn't the proper place for that. This thread is for a discussion of the speculations guidelines.

[SamCogar]

You haven't presented any evidence of this (which was the problem before – not presenting evidence),

 

Given the fact that neither you nor anyone else is capable of citing, noting or presenting any evidence to support your preferred belief(s), …… or citing any evidence provided by those persons who you believe are correct, ……. concerning the two (2) subjects of contention, 1) the environment necessary to cause and/or influence the evolving of the physical attributes of modern humans; 2) the nurturing and functioning of the brain/mind from birth onward, ……. is literal proof that prejudice is your determiner of what is “evidence”.

 

A “consensus of opinions” is not evidence and it does not dictate, nor mandate, what has occurred or is occurring in the natural (nature) world of planet earth.

[swansont]

Given the fact that neither you nor anyone else is capable of citing, noting or presenting any evidence to support your preferred belief(s), …… or citing any evidence provided by those persons who you believe are correct, ……. concerning the two (2) subjects of contention, 1) the environment necessary to cause and/or influence the evolving of the physical attributes of modern humans; 2) the nurturing and functioning of the brain/mind from birth onward, ……. is literal proof that prejudice is your determiner of what is “evidence”.

 

A “consensus of opinions” is not evidence and it does not dictate, nor mandate, what has occurred or is occurring in the natural (nature) world of planet earth.

 

 

You were the one that introduced the discussion, so the burden of proof is upon you to present the evidence. That evidence needs to support the model to the exclusion of other models.

 

So if you think e.g. hairlessness is the result of aquatic dependence, then a hairless rodent that evolved away from the water squashes that as exclusive evidence. Also for bipedalism, when quadrupedal animals exist under the same conditions.

[Argent]

 

HA, iffen Alfred Wegener, ..... a meteorologist, ...... had posted his original "tectonic plate" thoughts on this Forum, ........ WHOOOOOOPEEEE.

I have read Wegener's work in translation. He provided very detailed evidence to support and develop his hypothesis and did so in a tightly reasoned and well structured manner. This contrasts with the manner in which you have, thus far, presented your opinions.

 

Personally I think the aquatic ape hypothesis is an interesting one. However, I haven't found your apparent argument for it a positive thing. Might you reconsider your style? You may find that a productive discussion would develop if you were less aggressive. Just a suggestion.

[swansont]

Personally I think the aquatic ape hypothesis is an interesting one.

 

 

Note that he was not actually suggesting the AAH. He is using a watered-down (as it were) version of it. But that would be for the other thread, if it were still open. (We won't be discussing that here)

[SamCogar]

 

You were the one that introduced the discussion, so the burden of proof is upon you to present the evidence. That evidence needs to support the model to the exclusion of other models.

 

 

YADA, YADA, YADA, ……… where was/is your “burden of proof” demands for the creators/originators of the other models?

 

Where was/is your demands that the creators/originators of the other models provide actual, factual physical evidence to support their models?

 

Why are you obsessed with …… demanding that I provide actual, factual physical evidence to support my per se “model” of/for origins, ……….. while at the same time …… you have bestowed permission upon the creators/originators of the other “model” of origins to claim, infer, assert, etc., whatever the ell they want to claim, infer, assert, etc., without any physical evidence whatsoever to support their claims or their model?

 

If I had introduced a discussion of the generally accepted or preferred "model" of origins ........... would your "burden of proof" demands for providing actual, factual physical evidence been presented in response to my posting of said?

 

I don't think so.

[swansont]

The evidence supporting the mainstream theories is easily found in the literature. The burden of proof has already been met. People discussing these theories here are generally familiar with this evidence. That you are not is something that is easily remedied, should you decide you wish to learn.

[Lord Antares]

I was actually defending you at the start because I thought that you didn't object about having to provide evidence, but you started doing that.

You don't actually realize that all mainstream theories are supported by a heap of evidence, in this case evolution?

 

Why would you think that scientists would accept those theories if they weren't backed up by evidence? I'm sure googling would be an easy way to find them.

You provided nothing but imagination and stories.

 

By saying ''creators'' of the other models, you're admitting that you think they aren't based on reality or neccessarily correct.

The difference is they all met the requirements of the speculation forum. Yours didn't.

Edited February 26, 2017 by Lord Antares

[SamCogar]

The evidence supporting the mainstream theories is easily found in the literature. The burden of proof has already been met. People discussing these theories here are generally familiar with this evidence.

 

 

 

 

You don't actually realize that all mainstream theories are supported by a heap of evidence,

 

Why would you think that scientists would accept those theories if they weren't backed up by evidence?

 

 

Well now, swansont and Lord Antares, I sincerely apologize to each of you for ever doubting the brilliance of your learned knowledge of paleoanthropology, ..... but, .... I personally think that both of you are doing a disservice to the science for keeping the "evidence" you speak of a "secret" from the scientific community.

 

By the way, I just hafta ask ,,,,, does your "secret" evidence support the Multiregional Continuity Model of human origins or the Out of Africa Model of human origins?

 

 

Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa?

 

There are two theories about the origin of modern humans: 1) they arose in one place—Africa—and 2) premodern humans migrated from Africa to become modern humans in other parts of the world.

 

Most evidence points to the first theory because:

 

• fossils of modern-like humans are found in Africa

• stone tools and other artifacts support African origin

• DNA studies suggest a founding population in Africa

 

One of the most hotly debated issues in paleoanthropology (the study of human origins) focuses on the origins of modern humans, Homo sapiens.

 

Roughly 100,000 years ago, the Old World was occupied by a morphologically diverse group of hominids. In Africa and the Middle East there was Homo sapiens; in Asia, Homo erectus; and in Europe, Homo neanderthalensis. However, by 30,000 years ago this taxonomic diversity vanished and humans everywhere had evolved into the anatomically and behaviorally modern form. The nature of this transformation is the focus of great deliberation between two schools of thought: one that stresses multiregional continuity and the other that suggests a single origin for modern humans.

 

The Multiregional Continuity Model contends that after Homo erectus left Africa and dispersed into other portions of the Old World, regional populations slowly evolved into modern humans.

 

In contrast, the Out of Africa Model asserts that modern humans evolved relatively recently in Africa, migrated into Eurasia and replaced all populations which had descended from Homo erectus.

 

[snip]

 

Homo sapiens of the Upper Paleolithic/Late Stone Age was quintessentially modern in appearance and behavior. Precisely how this transformation occurred is not well understood, but it apparently was restricted to Homo sapiens and did not occur in Neanderthals. Some archaeologists invoke a behavioral explanation for the change.

 

Read more @ http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

 

 

OH, MY, MY, ....... one of you, swansont or Lord Antares, please explain to me exactly what this statement means, to wit:

 

Precisely how this transformation occurred is not well understood, but it apparently was restricted to Homo sapiens

 

 

 

As soon as one of you tell me "how that transformation occurred" ....... then I will almost be as intelligent as you two are.

[swansont]

Well now, swansont and Lord Antares, I sincerely apologize to each of you for ever doubting the brilliance of your learned knowledge of paleoanthropology, ..... but, .... I personally think that both of you are doing a disservice to the science for keeping the "evidence" you speak of a "secret" from the scientific community.

 

It's not being kept secret (as I said, it's in the literature), and these shenanigans are getting tiresome.

 

By the way, I just hafta ask ,,,,, does your "secret" evidence support the Multiregional Continuity Model of human origins or the Out of Africa Model of human origins?

 

 

The existence of an unanswered question within a theory is just that, an unanswered question. It does not mean that the main parts of the theory lack evidence. Only that someone has gone a' cherry-pickin'