Humans May Not Have Evolved from Apes

[imkongkong]

For all the ones I have cited, during that certain period of time it has been the generally accepeted theory (only because there has always been discrepencies among the "specialists"). However, due to new data gained has there been revisions and changes to that certain theory. (The topic of this thread is an example of it)

Much of the ones I've cited have gone through the scientific process, and thus, changes have been made.

Popular culture has fully embraced the idea that Pluto is a planet. We see Pluto on placemats and postage stamps, on lunch boxes, in text books. The tiniest planet is beloved by school kids, who are themselves tiny. Pluto the planet is even more popular than Pluto the cartoon dog.

To find the troublemaker, 24-year old Clyde Tombaugh made a careful survey of the sky from the Lowell Observatory in Arizona.

On Jan. 23, 1930, he spotted Pluto, a dim speck moving among the stars. It was quickly hailed as the 9th planet from the Sun--not to mention the first planet ever discovered by an American. In the USA, patriotic feelings ran high.

Since 1930, it was the generally accepeted theory that Pluto was definitely a planet.

SOURCE: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=624

Mike Brown of Caltech and his colleagues have recently proposed that population of small bodies which may share the orbit with the candidate body should be taken into account when defining a planet. They propose that if a body's mass is greater than the total mass of small stuff which orbits in the same region, it is a planet. So, Mercury might not be too big, but since very few asteroids orbit the Sun in its vicinity, it is definitely a planet. Jupiter shares its orbit with numerous so-called Trojan asteroids, but their total mass is negligible compared with that of Jupiter, so Jupiter is also a planet. Pluto, according to this criterion, is not a planet, because its mass is smaller than the estimated total mass of all other Kuiper Belt Objects.

The theory behind this definition is that once an object is large enough it would "sweep up" smaller bodies in its vicinity, leaving its orbit empty except for itself, few transient interlopers (comets etc.) and maybe a resonant population with a small mass (e.g. Trojans). Eight major planets managed to do this, but not Pluto, which is not a major influence on the Kuiper Belt.

While this definition of a planet is probably the most objective one proposed so far, there might be practical problems with it. It is unrealistic to expect that a classification of a body has to be delayed until the neighboring region has been thoroughly explored. This might not be possible for decades in the case of most extrasolar planets, or even some very distant bodies in our solar system (like Sedna, for example).

The bottom line is that if Pluto were discovered now, most likely we would not call it a planet. However, most astronomers think that a change in Pluto's status would be of limited usefulness while confusing, so it will probably continue to be considered a planet. The exact and universal criteria on what constitutes a planet are not agreed upon yet, and we might need to wait for many years until most scientists agree on one.

Update Aug 2006 by KLM: The International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted this month to redefine a planet much a long the lines that Matija discusses above. There is both a size limit, and a requirement that the object sweep out its orbit. In addition the object must independently orbit the Sun (excluding several large moons of Jupiter). This new classification redefines Pluto as a "dwarf planet", leaving the Solar System with 8 "classical planets". New additions to the dwarf planet class are Sedna, the largest asteroid, Ceres and Eris (previously "Xena" or 2003 UB313). Many more objects may join the class, pending more accurate determinations of their size, including Quaoar, and several other Kuiper belt objects. This definition followed an earlier suggestion that all objects independently orbiting the Sun which have sufficient gravity to become roughly circular should be called planets - such a definition could have dramatically increased the number of planets. Dynamical astronomers (like Matija) argued that the orbital criteria (that the object dominate its orbit) was equally important, thus excluding Pluto, and these many other small objects from the "classical" planets.

This new definition of planets which exludes Pluto has caused a lot of interest and discussion, with Astronomers and the general public alike coming out loudly on both sides of the argument. I think it's safe to say that any decision by the IAU would have upset someone, but putting the definition of a planet on an objective scientific footing will likely (ultimately) be popular with Astronomers. Pluto will always retain a special place in our hearts, having been considered a planet for over 3/4 of a century and with a NASA mission (New Horizons) on its way to reach the Pluto-Charon system in July 2015, Pluto will not be forgotten.

Now due to changes and revisions through scientific studies, Pluto is no longer considered a planet.

Scientific method? Check.



SOURCE: History of Physical Astronomy: from the Earliest Ages to the Middle of the 19th Century by Robert Grant

Through continuous scientific studies done, there has been revisions and changes.

Scientific method? Check.



SOURCE: http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

Christopher Columbus

So what was Columbus's mistake? The disagreement between him and his critics was over the size of the world - not an easy thing to measure. The story of this controversy can be traced back to the ancient Greeks and the various ways their writings were transmitted to the West.

The Greeks had tried hard to find out how large the Earth is and managed to calculate many different figures depending on the methods and accuracy of their work. The most famous effort today is that of Eratosthenes, Librarian of Alexandria, who wrote a treatise On the Measurement of the Earth (now lost) in which he gave a figure for the Earth's circumference of 250,000 stadia. Depending on how long a stadia actually was this is the equivalent of about 23,000 miles, creditably close to the true figure of 24,900 miles. However, given his method involved pacing out the distance between two points 500 miles apart, we must allow that he enjoyed a good deal of luck as well.

At the time Eratosthenes's result did not demand universal assent and was widely seen as too big. A more popular figure is that given in by Strabo and Ptolemy, two distinguished Greek geographers of around the first century AD who both suggested 180,000 stadia. We are not sure where they got their figures from but they were repeated by the Latin writer Seneca who transmitted them to the medieval West. By the time that it became a live issue for Columbus, Eratosthenes' figure was back in vogue and the experts were wisely urging the Italian not to set sail. In particular a committee set up in Salamanca examined the plans and rejected them on the grounds that Columbus had underestimated the distance he would have to travel. Their concern is easy to understand - imagine how much trouble Columbus would have been in if the Americas had not been there. He could not possibly have survived the trip all the way to the east coast of Asia and was very lucky that some land intervened before he and his crew had to pay for his mistake. In the end, however, Queen Isabella of Spain was won over and donated the resources required.

It is not difficult to see how the story of Columbus was adapted so that he became the figure of progress rather than a lucky man who profited from his error. According to Jeffrey Burton Russell here, the invention of the flat Earth myth can be laid at the feet of Washington Irving, who included it in his historical novel on Columbus, and the wider idea that the everyone in the Middle Ages was deluded has been widely accepted ever since.

There has been some type scientific process that isn't fully understood by us today in measuring the Earth, where they both came to two conclusions: it was flat (the more popular version) or was actually in some spherical shape (unpopular version).

SOURCE: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000200.html

This is the first crude picture obtained from Explorer VI Earth satellite launched August 7, 1959. It shows a sun-lighted area of the Central Pacific ocean and its cloud cover. The picture was made when the satellite was about 17,000 miles above the surface of the earth on August 14, 1959. At the time, the satellite was crossing Mexico. The signals were received at the South Point, Hawaii, tracking station.

Through modern technology we have had picture-proof of a round earth.

Scientific method? Check.

"Hmm...This girl has too much over the top make up on...I have a theory that this chick is a whore".

Still a theory. But there is still testing that can be done to try to prove this point, which would either approve or disprove it.

real "theory" is part of the scientific method, so is an "hypothesis". You are thinking of a "hypothesis", which is more or less an educated guess through observation. A REAL theory is after the hypothesis has been proved enough times.

If a "real theory" and "hypothesis" are part of the scientific method

and a "hypothesis" is an educated guess through observation

then a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, which is an educated guess through observation.


We were able to disprove those previous theories because of the modern technology that allowed us to study them more indepth.

The point: science is always changing and evolving. It's not 100% fault-proof. We can't always be so sure.

Until we have a sensible theory that can explain the natural spiral shape of galaxies without invoking unseen matter and strange forces, we have no right to claim we have the ability to deduce a "theory of everything."

Einstein's relativity, which reigned supreme for a century, is a flawed basis for such a theory. Although it deals with gravity, it tells us nothing else about the nature and interactions of matter. Crucially, general relativity is incompatible with quantum theory. Since the 1960s, theorists have struggled to solve this problem, so far to no avail. And the trouble is we have nothing to put in relativity's place.

-Nobel laureate David Gross

"In spite of the fact that we call it the big bang theory, it tells us absolutely nothing about the big bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, or what caused it to bang. It doesn't allow us to predict the conditions immediately after the bang."

–Alan Guth in the BBC Horizon program, Parallel Universes.

Science isn't 100% fault-proof

 

[Pain]

Scientific method? Check.

You'll notice the subject in question is whether or not these topics are theories, not whether or not they employ the scientific method. You'll also notice the word theory suspiciously absent from each of the articles you cited, aside from a mention on the theory of gravity.

Feel free to try again.

 

[imkongkong]

A real "theory" is part of the scientific method, so is an "hypothesis".

Replying to Chakra-X's post, not sure if you actually read through that. Fit's his requirements of what a theory needs perfectly.

I think I've already made it clear in the previous post that during those periods of time those theories arised, they were the popular standard of science back then. However they were proved wrong and discredited.

They were theories because they couldn't be completely proven. Thus the idea of a theory is to explain something that is not completely understood.

 

[Pain]

Indeed, I knew you were responding to his post. He's saying much the same thing I am, in that you're not using the term "theory" correctly with regard to science.

What you showed is that these things at least somewhat employed the scientific method. Using the scientific method does not in itself make something a theory.

In simpler terms, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

 

[imkongkong]

Therefore we need to create a theory by which the facts we observe can be explained.

Using the scientific method does not in itself make something a theory.

You keep beating around the bush instead of making yourself clear on what is required of theory, even I find some discreprencies with what you and chakra-x are saying.

Though I really do like these little end comments that really contribute nothing to the topic.

Feel free to try again.

In simpler terms, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

The main fact is science is never 100% fault-less. Theories are just incomplete guesses to explain something not completely understood.


EDIT: Well if you're so caught up by the evidence of continually changing ideals and revisions of science, take a look at the Big Bang theory.

http://www.internationalreporter.com/News-700/survival-of-big-bang-theory-at-stake-.html

The source ousted the list of 33 scientists from various countries who not only disagreed with the Big Bang Theory but also questioned its validity, since there is a big difference between this theory and its observations. They asked if the theory of Big Bang is right, then the Universe could be a lot mysterious than ever thought of. The survival of the Big Bang theory is definitely at risk.

One of the big problems with the Big Bang theory is how can something come from nothing? What exactly was the origin of these molecules that just suddenly appeared together and "banged" which essentially became the beginning of the universe? How does one really know if they aren't there in person?

The answer: we won't know.

To explain the phenomenon of where we are, the Big Bang theory has been created to satisfy that curiousity.

"In spite of the fact that we call it the big bang theory, it tells us absolutely nothing about the big bang. It doesn't tell us what banged, why it banged, or what caused it to bang. It doesn't allow us to predict the conditions immediately after the bang."

–Alan Guth in the BBC Horizon program, Parallel Universes.

You may say, well they were wrong, the Big Bang theory isn't true.

The point is science is not 100% fault-less. Don't take every evidence given and say that's the ultimate way of things, when in fact you might be wrong.

Until we have a sensible theory that can explain the natural spiral shape of galaxies without invoking unseen matter and strange forces, we have no right to claim we have the ability to deduce a "theory of everything."

 

[harSens]

However, a "theory" is one step below a "law" which is absolutely concrete.

Wrong. Theories do not evolve into laws, laws are not absolute. Absolute truth does not exist in science, a theory or law is necesarily falsible. Fitts's law or Hooke's law are certainly not more true than the theory of gravity for instance. See also [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory[/ame]


It has been proven that it is impossible to find even a complete and consistent set of axioms for simple arithmetics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems). The best we can hope for is to build some models and theories that approximate reality in a good enough manner.

 

[imkongkong]

Wrong. Theories do not evolve into laws, laws are not absolute. Absolute truth does not exist in science, a theory or law is necesarily falsible. Fitts's law or Hooke's law are certainly not more true than the theory of gravity for instance. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Laws are not absolutely as harsens said. Those also are up for revisions and changes.

It has been proven that it is impossible to find even a complete and consistent set of axioms for simple arithmetics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems). The best we can hope for is to build some models and theories that approximate reality in a good enough manner.

We can only hope and approximate, but can never be 100% unmistakenly correct.

So feel free to imagine how and what has been. Don't take it as the ultimate way of things.

 

[Pain]

You keep beating around the bush instead of making yourself clear on what is required of theory, even I find some discreprencies with what you and chakra-x are saying.

I don't know how to make it any clearer. Scientific theories are used to explain facts and observations that have been tested and are reliable. Usually this involves having to survive the academic arena and come out on the other side in one piece. What you still don't seem willing to accept is that the common use and meaning of the word "theory", synonymous with "guess", is not the same in the scientific realm. I've been saying this from the word go, and for some reason you keep ignoring it.

As for my little end comments, yes, that first one was due to my patience wearing thin. I've already pointed out the faults for your argument that counting and redefining words are somehow theories. In fact I've done it several times now, and as you can imagine, it starts to become a chore.

That last one was actually an attempt to illustrate that just because something uses the scientific method it doesn't automatically become a theory as a result.

One of the big problems with the Big Bang theory is how can something come from nothing? What exactly was the origin of these molecules that just suddenly appeared together and "banged" which essentially became the beginning of the universe? How does one really know if they aren't there in person?

The answer: we won't know.

To explain the phenomenon of where we are, the Big Bang theory has been created to satisfy that curiousity.

Please forgive me, I can't really think of a nice way to put this, but I mean no offense. This is a very simplistic way to look at it and it betrays your ignorance of the subject. It's like someone saying that there's a big problem with evolution because we don't know exactly how the first life forms came into being. Evolution does not deal with how life came into existence, only with how life progressed and evolved.

The big bang theory does not have a say in how it began, only that it did happen. There are mountains of evidence to support an expanding universe, one which is expanding from a single point. As I mentioned before, red and blue shift have played large parts in proving this, as well as the background radiation left over from the event itself, which lets us look back to, I believe it was about a tenth of a second after the universe came into being.

Nothing in science is really "just made up" or a "stab in the dark", as it seems you keep trying to imply. It's more like detective work. You look at the evidence and you draw a conclusion which conforms to all the evidence.

 

[imkongkong]

I don't know how to make it any clearer. Scientific theories are used to explain facts and observations that have been tested and are reliable. Usually this involves having to survive the academic arena and come out on the other side in one piece. What you still don't seem willing to accept is that the common use and meaning of the word "theory", synonymous with "guess", is not the same in the scientific realm. I've been saying this from the word go, and for some reason you keep ignoring it.

So the information gathered about Pluto is merely guesses from what you're saying. Guesses that scientist themselves observe, recorded, tested, and changed.

As for my little end comments, yes, that first one was due to my patience wearing thin. I've already pointed out the faults for your argument that counting and redefining words are somehow theories. In fact I've done it several times now, and as you can imagine, it starts to become a chore.

It's great your willing to show a bit of disrespect because of a thinning out of your patience. I'm merely presenting the evidence and arguments without any of these kinds of attacks you are giving.

That last one was actually an attempt to illustrate that just because something uses the scientific method it doesn't automatically become a theory as a result.

Yes. The many observations done on Pluto for about 3/4 of a century was merely a guess.

Please forgive me, I can't really think of a nice way to put this, but I mean no offense. This is a very simplistic way to look at it and it betrays your ignorance of the subject. It's like someone saying that there's a big problem with evolution because we don't know exactly how the first life forms came into being. Evolution does not deal with how life came into existence, only with how life progressed and evolved.

The predominant scientific position regarding the origin of the universe is The Big Bang. This theory (or type of theory) maintains that an incredible explosion kicked off the universe as we know it. There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest this, including the fact that all the stars in the universe are moving outward (away from the center of the universe) at an amazing rate. The principle of sufficient reason still leads us to think that the biggest explosion in the history of the universe cannot just burst into existence for no reason at all. If there is nothing, how can something come from nothing?

Simple > Complex. It helps the mind grasp the overall concept of idea, instead of complex explanations that the average person may not understand. You have no idea of my education level and really have no grounds to judge how much I know.

The big bang theory does not have a say in how it began, only that it did happen. There are mountains of evidence to support an expanding universe, one which is expanding from a single point. As I mentioned before, red and blue shift have played large parts in proving this, as well as the background radiation left over from the event itself, which lets us look back to, I believe it was about a tenth of a second after the universe came into being.

Others hypothesize that the universe has always existed as an infinitely long causal chain. On this view nothing ever literally “comes into existence,” but rather, all matter and energy is continuously recycled in an endless series of big bangs. This view is supported by the fact that our expanding universe is slowing down in its rate of expansion, and it looks as if it will eventually come to a stop. Gravity will nevertheless continue its pull, causing all the matter in the universe to reverse its course and be pulled back toward the center. While this would be very slow at first, all of this matter (stars, planets, dust, etc.) would steadily pick up speed as their masses move closer together, until they ultimately all collide in an enormous explosion – another big bang – starting the process all over again.

According to the expand/contract diagram, every event has a cause, but there is no first cause to the whole chain. Our expanding universe was caused by a big bang, which was caused by a contracting universe, which was caused by the gravitational pull upon all the objects in a prior period of expansion. That period of expansion was in turn caused by another big bang, which was caused by contraction, etc., for all eternity. If this was so, the problem is this big question: What CAUSED the first contraction?

No one knows this answer, unless they were there when it happened, or they someone became endowed with such knowledge magically.

There is also evidence that shows the expand/contrac diagram, that the universe instead is indeed flat, has been disproven.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm

There is not enough mass to cause such contraction.

Again, these theories are just merely those, theories. They are not fault-proof, they have been analyzed and changed and tweaked. They are not 100% factual.

Nothing in science is really "just made up" or a "stab in the dark", as it seems you keep trying to imply. It's more like detective work. You look at the evidence and you draw a conclusion which conforms to all the evidence.

Drawing certain conclusions from the evidence available doesn't necessarily means it is correct. There may be lack of evidence, incorrect understanding. The people back then though the earth was flat, but new evidence today shows it is round.

Even this thread it was thought by others man evolved from apes. Even the title of this thread says otherwise.

 

[Big Finish]

nah, we can always be certain, as long as we have hard facts...if u eliminate the impossible, all that remains, however improbable, must be the truth.....and of course we didn't evolve from these apes...many people forget the basic law of evolution, that when species evolve from a former one, the former once doesn't exist anymore...that is to say if "B" evolved from "A", "A" wouldn't co-exist with "B" and thus will be obliterated...and the apes (Chimps, Orang Utan etc etc) are our nearest relatives..that is to say they are very very similar to us..that doesn't mean that we evolved from them..we might have a common ancestor but that is yet to be discovered who that is...but for now..they are separate from us and we didn't evolve from them...

 

[Pain]

So the information gathered about Pluto is merely guesses from what you're saying. Guesses that scientist themselves observe, recorded, tested, and changed.

No, the information gathered about Pluto are facts from what I'm saying. We know it's there, we can measure it's orbit, we can approximate its size, and whatever else you want to know about it. Do you really want to tell me these things are guesses? Nothing about Pluto has changed. The only thing that has changed is the definition of what makes a planet a planet. There is no guesswork here, and there is no theory involved here either.

The principle of sufficient reason still leads us to think that the biggest explosion in the history of the universe cannot just burst into existence for no reason at all. If there is nothing, how can something come from nothing?

You were doing good until you got to this point. I already pointed out this fallacy in my previous post. The big bang does not deal with how or why the universe began. To bring up this point in reference to the theory only shows that you have some very common misconceptions.

You have no idea of my education level and really have no grounds to judge how much I know.

You're right, I have no idea what your education level is. I don't know what degrees you have or what your major is. I don't even know what university you go to, if you go to one at all. I don't believe I claimed to know such information either. What I can do however, is judge you on what you say. And what you've been saying is telling me that you don't understand certain concepts and refuse to learn.

Again, these theories are just merely those, theories. They are not fault-proof, they have been analyzed and changed and tweaked. They are not 100% factual.

I don't think anyone has made the claim that theories are infallible, you keep saying this in almost all your posts and I don't see why. Another thing you keep doing is saying "it's just a theory", which again shows that you regard the term in science to mean the same thing as the layman term, which is wrong, plain and simple.

Even this thread it was thought by others man evolved from apes. Even the title of this thread says otherwise.

One person's misconception or opinion does not make or break a theory. If someone came into this thread and had some evidence, it would be a different story. For now we can only conclude ignorance, willful or otherwise.