Significant find on Human evolution

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]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?[/b]

Still no admission that the original question did not have "without any fossils" and now "scientists" ?

Your original question is pasted here "How were we going to come up with the exact theory from the start?"

Still shall attempt an answer but first to find aa scientist....Now this is not to fault Jame Watt and others... but may we pick one, say Charles Darwin?

Originally posted by shahenshah
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 su ...[text shortened]... ported by evidence and have not cause major change to basic theories of Chemistry and Physics.

The basic theory of biology, ie. evolution, has remained unchanged for 150+ years. I'm failing to see what your point is?

Originally posted by shahenshah
Still no admission that the original question did not have "without any fossils" and now "scientists" ?

Your original question is pasted here "How were we going to come up with the exact theory from the start?"

Still shall attempt an answer but first to find aa scientist....Now this is not to fault Jame Watt and others... but may we pick one, say Charles Darwin?

Still no admission that the original question did not have "without any fossils" and now "scientists" ?

Let me try and clarify this for you.

Our knowledge of our evolutionary family tree is dependent on the finding of fossils. In fact the the knowledge of the 'entire' evolutionary family tree is dependent on the finding of fossils, but for this scenario we'll stick with just 'our' family tree.

This is what you said earlier in the thread, note the bold i added -

BTW, I know that is how science works, but why can't we come up with the right hypothesis / theory from the start?

The 'start' in our particular scenario is when it was proposed that humans had evolved just like other animals. For arguments, and to not rile Richard again, we'll say 150yrs ago. 150yrs ago the fossil evidence, which is what we need to determine out evolutionary family tree, was pretty much none existent. I think one complete fossil and a few bits and bobs scattered here and there.

So in answer to your question, of why we couldn't come up with the exact theory from the start, is because we didn't have the evidence ie. fossils.

Does that make sense? If not where.

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

What is "the basic theory" of physics?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, we are not in agreement at all.

[b]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 la the folding wrong. We are merely understanding better how the laws work out in practice.

So you feel that the finding is not major?

"Newton's Laws are wrong".... ?
Approximations? Really? Superseded?
Meaning that Newton's Laws are replaced totally by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? So therefore Newton's Laws are no longer applicable?... is there any link /study?

Yes, I am excluding biochemistry from this discussion... I specifically mentioned just Chemistry and Physics.

(pardon the bold letters, I can't seem to get rid of them)

Originally posted by andrew93
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. ...[text shortened]... general view of what the puzzle looks like - as is the case with evolution.

My 2c

Thank you for the clarification about Hamlet, had me wondering.

Yes, we agree that astrology is hocus pocus.

I remember seeing "firmament" in the Bible in the Genesis chapter though.

We'll save Copernicus for another thread... don't get me started on that one. 🙂

I am not saying that we should throw out the baby with the bath water, though.

Originally posted by shahenshah
So you feel that the finding is not major?

It probably is major to somebody studying human evolution. To me it is very very minor indeed. In fact, I haven't bothered to even read any of the links yet.

"Newton's Laws are wrong".... ?
Approximations? Really? Superseded?
Meaning that Newton's Laws are replaced totally by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? So therefore Newton's Laws are no longer applicable?
As I said, Newtons Laws provide a good approximation for slow speeds. Yes, they are replaced totally by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

... is there any link /study?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

Newton's second law requires modification if the effects of special relativity are to be taken into account, because at high speeds the approximation that momentum is the product of rest mass and velocity is not accurate.

Yes, I am excluding biochemistry from this discussion... I specifically mentioned just Chemistry and Physics.
And that is because you want to prove your argument rather than understand the situation. There are far less chemical reactions that are not biochemistry than those that are. Therefore we can expect more discoveries in Biochemistry than in Chemistry. But in neither field would one really call this changes to the fundamental theory.

What you must also realise is that much of what is stated as laws / theories etc in all branches of science are in fact approximations of some as yet unknown more detailed phenomena. When we discover that more detailed phenomena, we update our models. But as with Newtons Laws, that does not make them totally useless, it just means we now have a better more accurate model. I think if you know a bit of chemistry, then you know that our knowledge of things like electrons, orbitals etc has undergone significant change over the last hundred years or so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It probably is major to somebody studying human evolution. To me it is very very minor indeed. In fact, I haven't bothered to even read any of the links yet.

[b]"Newton's Laws are wrong".... ?
Approximations? Really? Superseded?
Meaning that Newton's Laws are replaced totally by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics? So therefore Newton's Laws are no lo ...[text shortened]... ctrons, orbitals etc has undergone significant change over the last hundred years or so.

In fact, when matter approaches the speed of light, it seems to attempt a change to a two dimensional mode of existence. Say a bullet goes very close to c. When it is not moving we see a bullet, elongated like bullets are. But the closer to c we get, the bullet gets shorter and shorter like one dimension is being squeezed out. It's like the 3 rd dimensional relation of a car going in a straight line then reaching a banked curve in the road like a raceway. You coast through the curve with no power but you can chart the change from one dimension to another, you are originally going north but hit the curve and you are going east, say.

In that sense, even though no energy was exchanged, if you ignore the east west dimension, when you are going north as you come to the curve you are decelerating in that dimension and simultaneously accelerating in the east-west direction and finally you are going totally in the east direction so you are undergoing both deceleration and acceleration at the same time.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[Let me try and clarify this for you.

Our knowledge of our evolutionary family tree is dependent on the finding of fossils. In fact the the knowledge of the 'entire' evolutionary family tree is dependent on the finding of fossils, but for this scenario we'll stick with just 'our' family tree.

This is what you said earlier in the thread, note the bol ...[text shortened]... ause we didn't have the evidence ie. fossils.

Does that make sense? If not where.[/b]

Since there is no objection to our discussion on Charles Darwin, I suggest we go ahead with Darwin.

Agreed, we shall not worry about the years, 150 or whatever...

While Darwin did examine some fossils in his time, his theories on evolution came about mainly from his observation of different species of finches and the tortoises of the Galapagos Islands.

So one doesn't need fossil evidence to come up with a theory. (Just stepping outside to physics... Einstein did not have to travel at the speed of light to come up with the theory of relativity. eg supersymmetry theory)... just need a bright idea!

But I agree as you say, the fossil evidence we have now, was not available at the time of Darwin.

The part where it does not make "sense" or in my words "laughable" is that the way scientists, are so quick to shift the H.Sapies to another branch, and so easily. Are we now Australopithecus Sapiens, in short A.Sapiens?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What is "the basic theory" of physics?

Sir, since you are a PHD student in Physics, could you help us out?
What are the basic theories in Physics and have the been replaced by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?

Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]It probably is major to somebody studying human evolution. To me it is very very minor indeed. In fact, I haven't bothered to even read any of the links yet.

And that is because you want to prove your argument rather than understand the situation. ...shortened..

Since you "haven't bothered to even read any of the links yet."
we will wait for you to study it and then answer.

Further, why are you assuming that I restricted the argument to Physics and Chemistry because "I wanted to prove my arguement"

The actual reason was to focus on the fundamental science such as Physics and to an extent Chemistry. Actually Biochemistry came about a 100 years later.

I had hoped that at least in the science forum the quality of discussion would be of a higher standard and focussed on logic and reasoning; rather than making guesses at what is going on in my mind or my motivation. Perhaps I was mistaken in that.

Originally posted by shahenshah
Since there is no objection to our discussion on Charles Darwin, I suggest we go ahead with Darwin.

Agreed, we shall not worry about the years, 150 or whatever...

While Darwin did examine some fossils in his time, his theories on evolution came about mainly from his observation of different species of finches and the tortoises of the Galapagos Islan ...[text shortened]... to another branch, and so easily. Are we now Australopithecus Sapiens, in short A.Sapiens?

But I agree as you say, the fossil evidence we have now, was not available at the time of Darwin.

So how then were we supposed to 'come up with the right hypothesis / theory from the start'?

Originally posted by shahenshah
Sir, since you are a PHD student in Physics, could you help us out?
What are the basic theories in Physics and have the been replaced by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?

By merely asking this question you show that you have not yet grasped the fundamental methods of science.

Richard

Originally posted by shahenshah
The actual reason was to focus on the fundamental science such as Physics and to an extent Chemistry. Actually Biochemistry came about a 100 years later.

So on the one hand, your key argument is that Chemistry hasn't changed, and on the other, you left out the largest changes in Chemistry (which 'came about 100 years later'😉 because you wanted to focus on 'the fundamental science'?

So are you saying that the exact placement of Homo sapiens on the family tree of life is part of 'the fundamental science' of Biology or evolution, or are you, as I stated before, picking and choosing to try and prove your point?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So how then were we supposed to 'come up with the right hypothesis / theory from the start'?[/b]

Proper knob, A genius scientist with a brilliant idea would help.


However, "we" who are not scientists can at least think twice about these theories before accepting them. Just because a theory seems fit nicely or 'beautiful", doesn't mean it is actually right.


I am quoting your link below.
Down the drain

Experimental physicists working at the LHC, such as Professor Nash, say the results are forcing their theoretical colleagues to think again.

"For the last 20 years or so, theorists have been a step ahead in that they've had ideas and said 'now you need to go and look for it'.

"Now we've done that, and they need to go scratch their heads," he said.

That is not to say that it is all over for supersymmetry. There are many other, albeit more complex, versions of the theory that have not been ruled out by the LHC results.

These more complex versions suggest that super-particles might be harder to find and could take years to detect.

Some old ideas that emerged around the same time as supersymmetry are being resurrected now there is a prospect that supersymmetry may be on the wane.

One has the whimsical name of "Technicolor".

According to Dr Lykken, some younger theoretical physicists are beginning to develop completely novel ideas because they believe supersymmetry to be "old hat" .

"Young theorists especially would love to see supersymmetry go down the drain, because it means that the real thing is something they could invent - not something that was invented by the older generation," he said.

And the new generation has the backing of an old hand - Professor George Smoot, Nobel prizewinner for his work on the cosmic microwave background and one of the world's most respected physicists.

"Supersymmetry is an extremely beautiful model," he said.

"It's got symmetry, it's super and it's been taught in Europe for decades as the correct model because it is so beautiful; but there's no experimental data to say that it is correct."