Humans are getting stupider, it would probably be hard for Romans to relate to us for example.
New Homo erectus Skull Shakes up Palaeontology
by cofty 192 Replies latest social current
-
-
cofty
Speak for yourself.
-
-
braincleaned
science does not use the expression "new light" - it uses the expression "new evidence". The WTS calls new light where hindsight they were wrong, giving them the holy right to change their minds as many times conveniant to them.
-
adamah
mad giant said-
Not exactly. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
Not exactly. Facts DO change.
BOTH facts and theories are subject to change as compelling evidence presents itself. That's why science is better than religions, which typically require dogmatically clinging to religious "truths".
Here's a free PDF of Chapter One of Eugenie Scott's book, which explains why facts can and must be subject to change:
http://ncse.com/files/pub/creationism/Evo%20vs.%20Creationism--2nd%20edition--Chapter%201.pdf
Adam
-
adamah
Data Dog said-
We can't prove or disprove whether or not our anscestors were "human" because they are gone, and we can't try to procreate with them and fail, thereby proving speciation occured. We can guess, but we can't know for sure.
Speciation is not just a light-switch, which is either on or off. Look at the mule/horse/donkey example, where some may be able to produce offspring, but usually the 'hybrids' are sterile.
Or look at dogs, where even if a chihuahua managed to mate with a great dane by overcoming the differential in physical sizes (!), the fetus may not be viable and/or the chi female may not be able to survive the delivery process. Chihuahuas and Great Danes may in fact becoming separate species, given more time....
Once you know what to look for, evidence of evolution is literally all AROUND YOU, only most people are too clueless and ignorant of biological science to see it.
Adam
-
mind blown
Made the front page of the Los Angeles Times today...
-
bohm
sbf:
Have you read the paper? Here is the main graph:
Notice the effect is driven by the two outliers. Thats very dangerous ground statistically speaking.
It seem entirely more plausible that there is something funky with the experiment conducted back then than there is some grand sweeping effect in place which reduce our collective IQ despite clear evidence to the contrary ala measureable increase in IQ since the 1940s.
There is a way to test this: Go to some primitive part of the world and test their reaction times, if this study is true i see no reason why their reaction times should not be a lot lower, and they should not be a lot smarter than us. However I strongly doubt thats the case, which make the result seem even more spurious.
-
slimboyfat
Soon we won't understand graphs like that.
-
MadGiant
"Not exactly. Facts DO change. BOTH facts and theories are subject to change as compelling evidence presents itself. That's why science is better than religions, which typically require dogmatically clinging to religious "truths"." - Adam
Agree, but not completely: Human understanding have change/modified over the years. But the real meaning of the facts still in place. In 1687 Newton’s law of universal gravity define gravity as differently of what Einstein thought in 1915. Although Newton's theory has been superseded, most modern non-relativistic gravitational calculations are still made using Newton's theory because it is a much simpler theory to work with than general relativity, and gives sufficiently accurate results for most applications.
That doesn't mean that they changed.
"Adjustments", yes changes, don't think so.
A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.
Take care, Ismael
