Significant find on Human evolution

Originally posted by shahenshah
Well, take a look at Chemistry or Physics, one doesn't find so much change in the basic theory there?

The evidence being discovered at the LHC looks like 'supersymmetry' is going to have to be taken back to the drawing board. Also if the Higgs Boson isn't found, back to the drawing for that also.

Theorists working in the field have told BBC News that they may have to come up with a completely new idea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570

You still haven't answered my question tough - How were scientists expected to chart the evolutionary path of humans from the start without any fossils?

Originally posted by shahenshah
There is far less change in Chemistry and Physics and there is Biology, specifically evolution. eg Newton's laws don't seem to have changed.

There have been huge changes in the other fields of science that you mentioned. For example, in chemistry we no longer see alchemists attempting to transmute lumps of lead into gold. That is something we would laugh at today that was common in the past.

In the field of physics, we no longer see stars in the night sky described as patens of gold inlaid in the firmament. Or even more bizarre explanations of why some apparent stars did not move like the others.

It is common for science to constantly revisit previous assumptions and theories. Who can say we know all that can be known? There are many many things that are unexplained, and has been pointed out earlier, theories are revised as knowledge is increased. For instance you mentioned Newton's laws - these are being revisited given the observations of galaxy rotation do not fit Newton's laws. It doesn't mean we must discard Newton's laws as hocus pocus. Revision is a good thing, the alternative is (IMO) intellectual arrogance / ignorance.

Originally posted by shahenshah
We are in agreement then, that there is a major change.... I saw another report on the same finding and the title was "game changer" ... see the link below http://news.yahoo.com/game-changer-evolution-african-bones-140125430.html

While I never spoke on Jupiter, gravity, etc,
There is far less change in Chemistry and Physics and there is Biology, specifically evolution. eg Newton's laws don't seem to have changed.

It bears repeating again that the 'basic theory', as you call it, of evolution has not changed. Life evolves and that has been the premise since Darwin. How and why life evolves has constantly been updated since Darwin's day due to the discovery of 'evidence' ie. genes and DNA being probably the two most significant discoveries.

Originally posted by shahenshah
We are in agreement then, that there is a major change.

No, we are not in agreement at all.

I saw another report on the same finding and the title was "game changer"
Don't confuse the eye catching headlines of journalists with science.

While I never spoke on Jupiter, gravity, etc,
There is far less change in Chemistry and Physics and there is Biology, specifically evolution. eg Newton's laws don't seem to have changed.
Newtons laws are wrong, (or more accurately, only approximations) and were superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics.
But you are still confusing two basic elements of science: laws / theories and observations of actual instances of phenomena. There is more to discover in Biology, so of course there are more observations of given phenomena. By 'Chemistry' I assume you are excluding biochemistry as the most complex parts of biology are in fact chemistry. But when we discover how proteins fold or how a given protein folds we are not discovering a new law, or changing our theory if we got the folding wrong. We are merely understanding better how the laws work out in practice.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
shortened...
You still haven't answered my question tough - How were scientists expected to chart the evolutionary path of humans from the start without any fossils?

Proper Knob, to be fair, your original question did not have the last three words... "without any fossils"

I shall look at your link a little later and reply, thanks.

Originally posted by andrew93
There have been huge changes in the other fields of science that you mentioned. For example, in chemistry we no longer see alchemists attempting to transmute lumps of lead into gold. That is something we would laugh at today that was common in the past.

In the field of physics, we no longer see stars in the night sky described as patens of gold inlaid ...[text shortened]... cus. Revision is a good thing, the alternative is (IMO) intellectual arrogance / ignorance.

Agreed, Andrew, that there have been huges changes from the "pre-science" days to the "science" days. I wouldn't classify alchemy as a science though, neither astrology; whereas Chemistry and Astronomy are classified as sciences.

My point is that once the Chemistry and Physics were established as sciences and such eminent scientists like Newton came up with their theories, we don't find so much change in it as we do in Biology, especially evolution.

We are in agreement that these theories are being re-visited and revisions may be required to suit the exceptions-to-the-rule- phenomena. But in the case of evolution, the recent changes/revisions seems too major and looking back it was a little funny how we stuck to the previous lineage of humans and now it may be australopithecus.

Originally posted by shahenshah
Proper Knob, to be fair, your original question did not have the last three words... "without any fossils"

I shall look at your link a little later and reply, thanks.

Proper Knob, to be fair, your original question did not have the last three words... "without any fossils"


That's the point. When the theory was proposed that humans had evolved (1860ish i think) there were scant fossils, maybe only one complete fossil and a few bits and bobs. How were scientists supposed to lay down our evolutionary family tree if the members of that family tree had yet to be discovered?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It bears repeating again that the 'basic theory', as you call it, of evolution has not changed. Life evolves and that has been the premise since Darwin.

Since before Darwin, thank you very much. I cannot stand this fetishisation of Darwin, as if he were the one and only person ever to have the basic idea of evolution. He nicked most of it from Lamarck, anyway, and even before that there were several rudimentary philosophical ideas about evolution.
Darwin is the James Watt of evolution: he slotted the one piece into place which finally made the thing useful, but many people before him invented the very early models, and many people after him made great improvements. He did not single-handedly invent the whole thing, despite what his fans want you to think

Richard

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Since before Darwin, thank you very much. I cannot stand this fetishisation of Darwin, as if he were the one and only person ever to have the basic idea of evolution. He nicked most of it from Lamarck, anyway, and even before that there were several rudimentary philosophical ideas about evolution.
Darwin is the James Watt of evolution: he slotte ...[text shortened]... d not single-handedly invent the whole thing, despite what his fans want you to think

Richard

He did not single-handedly invent the whole thing, despite what his fans want you to think.

I am well aware of that and never said he did. But for the purpose of this discussion it was better, i felt anyhow, to talk in broader strokes.

Thanks for your input Richard.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sure thing cat dude, i readily admit that i can be sharp tongued and abrasive, even
obnoxious and spiteful, a fabricator and manipulator of scientific data i am not.

This was the scenario, i make a statement based on scientific data i know to be true,
twithead examines the statement, goes to wikipedia, finds nothing, goes to google,
finds ...[text shortened]... least by me. I would deem it a
kindness if he would extend the same to me - regards Robbie 🙂

It seems that you guys are Kipling's east and west! Perhaps the friction here is due more to commonality than contrast, did you consider this possibility? Not in views, obviously - evolution and creation share precious little ground. And evolution is obviously the right position to take in that battle ... 😀

Originally posted by Dasa
There is no such thing as transitional fossils.

You either have specimen A. or specimen B. or specimen C ............but never specimen A becoming specimen B. or C.

What the confused science person is doing is.........that they are finding specimen B, and think foolishly that it is specimen A turning into specimen C. but it is just specimen B. and has always been specimen B because it is a specific species in its own right.

Exactly. And why do we see no transitional animals today? Has evolution stopped?

Originally posted by galveston75
Exactly. And why do we see no transitional animals today? Has evolution stopped?

we don't? how do explain mammals that fly and birds that swim?

Originally posted by galveston75
Exactly. And why do we see no transitional animals today? Has evolution stopped?

All animals are transitional animals. Your question shows that you haven't really thought about it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The evidence being discovered at the LHC looks like 'supersymmetry' is going to have to be taken back to the drawing board. Also if the Higgs Boson isn't found, back to the drawing for that also.

Theorists working in the field have told BBC News that they may have to come up with a completely new idea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14680570

shortened...]

The link actually suggests that the "Supersymmetry Theory" may have to be discarded due to the lack of results/evidence found at LHC.

So my point stands that major changes are not happening in Chemistry and Physics. The Basic theories remain the same but at best are revised or modified.

While we are coming up with newer ideas; these have not been supported by evidence and have not cause major change to basic theories of Chemistry and Physics.

Originally posted by shahenshah
Agreed, Andrew, that there have been huges changes from the "pre-science" days to the "science" days. I wouldn't classify alchemy as a science though, neither astrology; whereas Chemistry and Astronomy are classified as sciences.

My point is that once the Chemistry and Physics were established as sciences and such eminent scientists like Newton came e funny how we stuck to the previous lineage of humans and now it may be australopithecus.

The description of stars as patens of gold inlaid in the firmament was referring to astronomy, not astrology (which I'm sure we agree is hocus pocus). I used the phrase 'firmament' but I believe that in Hamlet it was referred to as heaven's floor, which was thought to be a globe that surrounded Earth (i.e. the firmament) into which the stars were embedded. I'm sure the people (the Greeks?) who came up with that explanation believed they were the experts of the day (what is a scientist?) and this was the accepted view which was held for some time.

It is very easy for us to look back at things like this, which were taken very seriously at the time (Copernicus anyone?), but my guess is the scientists in say 500 years time from now will laugh at our construction of the atom, and would consider things like string theory as complete and utter garbage. That is also probable with some parts of evolution. Knowledge is not a destination, it is a journey. Accepting we don't know everything enables us to learn. We don't know everything yet and I'm guessing that, as a race, we never will.

If pre-historic humanic forms are reclassified in some way based on this discovery, who can say it won't happen again? And if we do, do we then discard the entire theory? Of course not, we revise it, unless someone else can come up with a better theory, which we haven't seen yet.

If you allow me to use an analogy, science is a bit like a jigsaw puzzle. Occasionally we will pick up a piece and have no idea how it fits into the overall puzzle. So instead of fixating on that piece and that piece alone, we put it to one side and keep working on other bits of the puzzle. Eventually we come to a point where that piece that previously didn't fit can be fitted. Bring this back into the real world, we do not have all of the pieces of the puzzle when it comes to evolution - we are working with a few bits of the puzzle. It is probable we don't have, and never will have, all of the pieces. But with enough pieces of the puzzle we can form a general view of what the puzzle looks like - as is the case with evolution.

My 2c