Thread: What You Ought To Know - The Scientific Method

Personally, I don't see what's so great about these videos. It seems that he's just "trolling" youtube.

I'm confused, string theory comes down to math. There are 100 mathematicians doing the calculations on how strings are supposed to vibrate. If they start to come up with the periodic table, it works and becomes theory, if it doesn't, then it's rethought. That's science.

And this guy seriously needs to look at something called the Miller–Urey experiment.

Well truthfully these shows are made for a site, not youtube. But youtube is where I watch 'em all. And I just thought that, this being the science forum, it would be a good place to post them. He makes some points people tend to over look. Like that the big bang, evolution, and all those are not really science, or testable theories.

Not that there was really a discussion to be had from this thread. It was more of a public service announcement. Unless someone wants to argue with them, which I wouldn't doubt based on the videos' comment section.

Edit: There has been a post before this. I shall become informed before saying anything in response.

Okay, so from the wikipedia summary, I'm gathering that they succeeded in forcing some sort of evolution? Is that it? Please help me out by giving a normally-phrased way of putting it.

No Xedan, those videos are not science. They are pure propaganda. Most of the controversial things he says are objectively untrue; just flat out lies. Please don't listen to him, do some independent reading.

The Big Bang is science. There is evidence for it. That's why scientists believe it. The evidence is that almost all galaxies are flying away from each other.

Evolution is not only science, it's a pure fact. The narrator of the video clearly has no concept whatsoever of what evolution is, and he repeatedly conflates it with natural selection. 'Natural selection as evidence for evolution' literally makes no sense whatsoever; this guy is off his head. Evolution is a change in an organism over time. That's all it is. And it patently happens; just look at us. Children are not the same as their parents.

With respects to natural selection; the stuff he says about 'scientists admit it is very improbable' is basically just lies again. There's plenty of evidence for natural selection.

Evolution also has nothing to do with 'increasing complexity'.

The Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for abiogenesis, which is yet another thing the guy completely confuses with evolution when it's actually totally separate. The experiment basically showed how the chemical building blocks of life would have spontaneously formed in Earth's early atmosphere.

I don't think he said natural selection is improbable. We already know that happens. But to say not being completely the same as your parent is evolution still isn't quite true, because you have two parents, and if the same genes were to mix together in the same way, you'd turn out the same way. Assuming there were certain control variables involved. And you can't say "evolution has nothing to do with increasing complexity" when that's pretty much the general consensus outside of the scientific community. But even still I'm not aware of a species regressing in complexity. It seems like it would defeat the purpose of evolving.

And by the way, we both know you're just trying to further complicate your post if you talk about evolution in a way which is clearly not what the video talked about.

And I'm going to try and draw another conclusion about the experiment that I'm not sure is right. So are you saying they successfully proved that the resources were there for evolution to have occurred?

I don't think he said natural selection is improbable. We already know that happens. But to say not being completely the same as your parent is evolution still isn't quite true, because you have two parents, and if the same genes were to mix together in the same way, you'd turn out the same way. Assuming there were certain control variables involved.

Okay, the two parents thing complicates it. I'll change my example to dog breeding.

And you can't say "evolution has nothing to do with increasing complexity" when that's pretty much the general consensus outside of the scientific community.

So what? Why should I care about the consensus of ignorant people? They're wrong.

But even still I'm not aware of a species regressing in complexity. It seems like it would defeat the purpose of evolving.

Define complexity.

The purpose of evolving is to become more suited to your environment so that you have a greater chance of passing on your genes. How does this mean an increase in complexity? Consider viruses. Adding to their number of genes would just slow down their rate of reproduction, so there's a selection pressure against 'complexity'.

And by the way, we both know you're just trying to further complicate your post if you talk about evolution in a way which is clearly not what the video talked about.

What on Earth? I'm talking about evolution in the way that it is defined.

Or maybe should I arbitrarily change the meaning of 'organism' to 'rock'? Rocks don't evolve, they just sit there, QED, evolution is a lie.

No, the guy was using evolution to mean all kinds of things it has nothing to do with, and that's not how basic human communication works. Sorry for using words to mean what they're actually defined as.

And I'm going to try and draw another conclusion about the experiment that I'm not sure is right. So are you saying they successfully proved that the resources were there for evolution to have occurred?

Evolution has nothing to do with it.

All organisms are made of the same basic building blocks. Proteins, RNA/DNA, carbohydrates, etcetera. The experiment showed that these form automatically out of their constituent compounds like water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, etcetera.

Fuck me this guy is annoying.
has anyone sat through either of these without like, having a hernia or some shit yet?

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Fuck me this guy is annoying.
has anyone sat through either of these without like, having a hernia or some shit yet?

No, but I do think he looks like an ugly woman. Nonetheless, I like the show. Probably because this guy doesn't write the scripts.

Edit: and by the way, I made a mistake. Go figure. Me? Not perfect? Well anyways I said complex when I meant advanced, but still take into consideration that in most cases they go hand in hand. Like how a human is more complex AND more advanced than bacteria.

What on Earth does advanced mean? Morally? Technologically? Metabolically? :l

In an "able to survive" sort of way. Which can (but doesn't have to) involve all of what you said. Humans are more advanced than a bacterium because we live longer, have senses, can think (assuming you don't think things other than humans can think), and can use tools. All of that puts us more advanced than practically every land species. Of course we can't breath under water or fly, so you could argue that all fish and birds are more advanced. Of course we have submarines and planes, but those can cost millions of (or billions of) dollars.Things get confusing when you start to criss-cross the realms of land, water, and sky.

That's just wrong. Haven't you heard of hydra? They are far simpler organisms yet they're thought to be biologically immortal.

But again, can they see? Hear? Feel? Think? Change anything around them, really? I don't think life span really implies a species is advanced, but in the case of humans, we've effectively doubled our lifespans in the last century alone. THAT'S advanced. And doesn't the hydra just sprout off more of itself? In the case of "if one dies there's more to replace it" I don't really think that's considered immortal.

Originally Posted by Xedan

Humans are more advanced than a bacterium because we live longer, have senses, can think (assuming you don't think things other than humans can think), and can use tools.

Bacteria are more advanced than humans because:
1) they can produce more progeny in a fraction of the human generation time. Number of descendants is what counts in evolution, not how long you live.
2) they have colonized virtually every niche on the planet, most of which are uninhabitable for humans
3) they can adapt to environmental changes better than we can

One of the guy's statements really made me laugh:

Since microorganisms evolve 100,000 time faster that humans, it should take them 100,000x less time to evolve into advance life Uh, didn't microorganisms exist in the first place? So why does he think it should take any less than 3 billion years to form more complex life, like it did

This guy needs to learn basic biology.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

Bacteria are more advanced than humans because:
1) they can produce more progeny in a fraction of the human generation time. Number of descendants is what counts in evolution, not how long you live.
2) they have colonized virtually every niche on the planet, most of which are uninhabitable for humans
3) they can adapt to environmental changes better than we can

Okay, good points. But I'll still try to back up my claims, so here goes:

1) Having lots of kids is a danger for the human race. I'd go as far as to say only having one or two is an adaptation.
2) I think you're talking about Archaea which is not the most common of bacteria if memory serves. But anyways, while we can't survive in every niche of the planet, we can easily knock them all down and build a mini-mall
3) Okay, but I think this comes from being something totally different than a human as opposed to being more advanced. Comparing two seperate domains was a bad idea on my part, but humans are more advanced. It's a fact. I don't see how the most basic of life-forms around can be more advanced than humans when advanced means further along.

I can't tell if you're defending intelligent design or not.

I'm not really defending anything. I'm guessing you all believe in evolution?

Well, I was curious because if there is any discussion of Intelligent design, I'm moving this to the religion forum, because "god" has no merit in a science forum. Evolution vs Intelligent Design is not a scientific debate, Evolution is science, Intelligent Design is myth.

Eh, fine. As I said I didn't really intend for anything to be discussed. I'll unsubscibe though seeing as how r/s can make a debate where there is no debate being presented.

Okay, just know that what that guy said was the scientific method, isn't quiet so. And that evolution is science, as is the big bang, and string theory. Science has to be testable, but not field testable. There is an field division of science called "theoretical physics" it's no less science than applied physics.

What is it with people thinking something is weaker if it's a theory?

People seem to be like "oh if it's a theory they don't really know it". whut thu fuuuucckkkk

The fact is lots of theories were completely wrong. That's why people prefer fact. Wouldn't you? "I theorize that milk stays fresh for three years" That sound like fun

Originally Posted by Xedan

The fact is lots of theories were completely wrong. That's why people prefer fact. Wouldn't you? "I theorize that milk stays fresh for three years" That sound like fun

A theory is simply the organisation of factual empirical observations into the simplest deduction. The theory is just whatwe deduce from looking at what's there, in the world.

So we see all this massive evidence that animals have evolved, like the fossil record, DNA etc etc, and all these things that are certain fit perfectly together into the simplest and most obvious deduction, that is of evolution.

That certainly doesn't sound weak whatsoever. I'm admittedly no expert on this, but from what I figure, it's just the way in which to organise the facts we do know into a coherent model.

That doesn't seem weak, does it?

And your milk example is totally stupid and irrelevant

Originally Posted by Xedan

The fact is lots of theories were completely wrong. That's why people prefer fact. Wouldn't you? "I theorize that milk stays fresh for three years" That sound like fun

That isn't a theory in the scientific community. You have no evidence, no facts, no observations, and no experimental data that backs up that claim. Your "theory" is not...it is a flawed hypothesis. Go back to the drawing board.