TED Conversations

Manyika Sakambuki

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Mention one scientific theory you think needs adjustment. Why do you think that way?

Our assumptions fashion how we see and make decisions. in the past, astronomy was defined as the study of how heavenly bodies move around the earth because it was believed that the earth was the center of the solar system. that was until a Polish Astronomer- Nicolai Copernicus changed our thinking. same as when the atom was thought to be the smallest particle until electrons, neutrinos, etc. were discovered. bring forth your ideas!

+2
Share:

Closing Statement from Manyika Sakambuki

Ok thanks! Turns out that all theories which have no direct application to the physical world wont hang around for long. Most likely, they'll stay as just ideas of the 'geniuses' which have no proof but only serve to quench our thirst for understanding certain things that seem hard to understand e.g. black holes, perpetuity of life, being able to control infinitesimally small stuff(nano techs), death... and we can go on and on. This has been a useful conversation.

progress indicator
  • thumb

    mary kariuki

    • +1
    Mar 20 2013: Hello Faisel, People are scared of death because there isn't enough evidence to describe what happens when one is dying or when one dies. People beliefs make the process less scary, but not totally embraced. Fear of death need to be addressed, yet it is one thing that all have to face. I would love scientific experiment that could explain and theorize the so called "soul" and "spirit".
    The reason beliefs don't provide truth is because some believe in heaven/hell, other in reincarnation, others in end of someone when death occur and such. If only science can come in and attest to the truth of ceaseless life. Life change form but never end.

  • Jim Ryan

    • 0
    Mar 20 2013: If a black hole is a sphere, does this sphere have a casing?
  • thumb

    mary kariuki

    • 0
    Mar 20 2013: Theory of Body shutting down i.e. dying. Science seem not to grasp the holistic reality of what happens when the body shut down.
    • thumb

      Faisel Butt

      • 0
      Mar 20 2013: What is the holistic reality of dying?
  • thumb

    Testing Cancer

    • 0
    Mar 20 2013: Agreed. This entire topic can best be successful via a propoganda campaign based on no science.

    What disease states and damage the cholesterol controlling drugs cause is so profound, it could be linked to many disease manifestations today.

    If the drugs damage the liver, and inhibit the healing process by blocking the proper production of cholesterol.

    What does Cholesterol do? It is an integral part of the healing process and responds to healing crisis.

    If you stop the production artificially, what happens? Use your imagination.
    • thumb

      Krisztián Pintér 200+

      • +2
      TED Translator
      Mar 20 2013: statins reduce the production of cholesterol, do not stop it. as an effect, the person has exactly as much cholesterol in the bloodstream as any other person does. tell me how can having the same amount of cholesterol hurt.

      by the same token, we should not regulate fever, because the body should be warm, so cooling it obviously has adverse effects. seriously, people. use your heads!

  • carolyn mcauley 10+

    • 0
    Mar 19 2013: the theory that the animal world and everything contained in the natural world is a giant compettion you must dominate or be dominated,in a pyramid from man down to inferior organisms. This theory is outdated and is still used to explain every if not aggressive act,to imply nature herself uses this model. Most species are complementary and work in unison with others cooperatively. I see the competition model as a model pushed onto us by aristocrats trying to push their myth on us to get us all to fight for resources amongst ourselves..so with nature as part of the behaviour myth,how can we expect better?

    • Jim Ryan

      • 0
      Mar 20 2013: I can say that nature lives within its means so to speak, but man does not and man is destroying the planets air and water.

  • Jim Ryan

    • 0
    Mar 19 2013: New thinking never means it is right. It's just new thinking. New ideas, new questions and new debates are supposedly, what this site is all about, right?

  • Jim Ryan

    • 0
    Mar 19 2013: Unfortunately, most schools teach nothing more than cut and paste. Not one school in the US or probably the world, teaches people how to think for themselves. People that are taught or learn how to think for themselves, proving such, by adding brand new thinking to work, home and even science, are ridiculed, because they are different. Old dogs can't learn new tricks, because they hate more than they love to learn. There seems to be an abundance of people and ways to censor any.

  • Jim Ryan

    • 0
    Mar 19 2013: Since my post below keeps changing, I'll try reporting it.


    From what science claims, black holes are created by massive stars exploding or imploding, I see it as the spinning motion of our galaxy at approx 600,000 mph and the spin of each celestial body that spins and rotates around each other, at least that's how I see it. Science has claimed black holes are due to massive stars exploding or imploding and these largest of stars all just happen to be in te exact middle of each galaxy? How funny.

  • Jim Ryan

    • 0
    Mar 19 2013: If you hate the messenger, then surely you will hate each message and consequently skip over such. Wow, that's intelligent. :-). Surely we all know everything that everyone else knows, right? Are you the mall cop? :-)
  • thumb

    Farokh Shahabi Nezhad 10+

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Mar 19 2013: Theory of Everything . This theory tries to explain all the world. But I think it's too soon form humans to come up this kind of theory that even starts to explain the whole world around us.

    • Jim Ryan

      • 0
      Mar 19 2013: Did a teacher teach you that?

    • Jim Ryan

      • 0
      Mar 19 2013: Please show us how many new thoughts you have brought to science. Ok, just one. People that can bring new thinking, usually do so on a fairly constant basis. I know most of the censorship by heart. It is why I try to find new places, because debate is rare for me to find.

      Some try to hide behind a veil, thinking they are smart, but they simply hate what they will never be. You never once challenged.
      • thumb

        Farokh Shahabi Nezhad 10+

        • 0
        TED Translator
        Mar 20 2013: I'm sorry, Did I sounded like "anti" of this theory?
        I didn't mean that, I just simply think this is a huge step in science and maybe for the future not now.
        I'm not oppose research and theories and etc.

        • Jim Ryan

          • 0
          Mar 20 2013: Ok, So what was your first post about?
    • thumb

      Krisztián Pintér 200+

      • 0
      TED Translator
      Mar 19 2013: i think you can relax, because we don't have anything like that yet. it is pop science.

      • Jim Ryan

        • 0
        Mar 19 2013: What does that even mean. Lol

  • Jim Ryan

    • 0
    Mar 19 2013: From what science claims, black holes are created by massive stars exploding or imploding, I see it as the spinning motion of our galaxy at approx 600,000 mph and the spin of each celestial body that spins and rotates around each other, at least that's how I see it. Science has claimed black holes are due to massive stars exploding or imploding and these largest of stars all just happen to be in te exact middle of each galaxy? How funny.

    Somehow someone keeps changing my post!!

    • James McGuiness

      • 0
      Mar 19 2013: So Jim, they are not holes, they are spheres. And because they occupy space along three axes they have mass. What elements other than than the debris that "falls" toward the so-called black hole comprise the black hole proper? Bear in mind that there are some bigger than others and the power they seem to exert on other objects is related to the size and reach of this phenomenon. Assuming that to all be true, it appears that because the so-called "holes" are spherical and some bigger than others they are not an element in an of themselves but are communities of atoms that may have a wide variety of sizes. Thus since the seem to configure as spheres, whose to say that whatever these are made of do not cause the assembly of all spherical bodies? There is something more that "gravity" at work or it is likely the universe would be a lot more irregular and there would be chunks and slabs and all manner of pieces of matter. Nothing is the way it is for now reason--unless one's view is i whole or part tainted by belief in supernatural design. Who knows? Perhaps super natural design may be part of all of this but we should not assume it until we at least resolve these question of what element or elements comprise the sphere we have primitively been calling a "hole"? And since these phenomena are not all the same, to what extent can the atoms that have these properties exist in the smallest clusters? What happens when other matter within reach is of enough volume to cease being assumed to just fall into a hole and start becoming the crust of a growing spherical object which may become one of the myriad of celestial bodies we see as spheres in the sky?

      • Jim Ryan

        • 0
        Mar 19 2013: Please bring proof from science of your claim, perhaps they can explain it so that I fully understand what is claimed.

        Thanks.

        • James McGuiness

          • 0
          Mar 20 2013: I think the main problem is that we may be dealing with matter or elements which have properties on an order of magnitude that is outside human ability to test it in a lab. There are of course other phenomena in the natural universe which we haven't figured out how to capture or if we even can--neutrinos, magnetic monopoles, Higgs etc. I'm not a scientist in this field. I'm just a thinker positing some questions or suggestions and trying to back them up with logic. I think that's what TED is for--putting thinkers in touch for stimulative exchanges rather than academic turf wars. There are no Phd qualifications and 15 year olds and 80 year old won't even know that they have that much distance in age. If a particle of matter or a single atom of an element whose nature is such that it would weigh a million kilograms on earth yet be say the size of a grape, it could not be handled by humans and bore through the crust of the earth. If you read back at my other hypothesis you'll see that there is reason to believe such matter exists in differing size pieces and the bigger the group, the more gravity it has. Conversely, a small amount may be just strong enough to provide enough omnidirectional gravity to cause the spheres we know as planets, moons and stars to form with such elegant symmetry. I reject that a bunch of space junk just will congeal into these orbs without something at their core causing such a compelling influence. It's not a hole. And exists not in two dimensions but is a sphere in three. And therefore must be made of something. We have to define what that something is even though it would seem to be so dense we couldn't even go near it with its force crushing us.

      • Jim Ryan

        • 0
        Mar 19 2013: So you're saying these black holes are now spheres,--- created by explosions or implosions? I'm all ears so ta speak. You mention falling into the hole. Where did you get that, from my post?


        sphere
        /sfi(ə)r/
        Noun
        A round solid figure, or its surface, with every point on its surface equidistant from its center.
        An object having this shape; a ball or globe.
        Synonyms
        orb - globe - field - area - realm - domain - circle


        Wow, tell us how black holes are spheres.

        Thanks

        • James McGuiness

          • 0
          Mar 20 2013: You tell me how they are holes. This is the problem. The name chosen prejudices people to cling to a perception that is most likely in valid. Nothing that is popularly believed about these phenomena implies that it is a flat circular hole in two dimensions. We only see it as cirle, but it make no sense to assum that if you move around it that it wil look eliptical and then a straight line. And then what is it a hole between?

          Distant light on the other side of this phenomenon appear to "bend"--that implies it has force that doesn't just face you and me but is a sphere. I think you make my case for why the "black hole" is a primitive and prejudicial term that needs to be upgraded to something closer to what we now know. To see it as a "hole" is anthropocentric--as if to say it only exists as a round region of flatness when it is perfectly aligned with our sight paths to appear that way

      • Jim Ryan

        • 0
        Mar 20 2013: Now the reply button appears. Lol
        If a black hole is a sphere, does this sphere have a casing?

        • James McGuiness

          • 0
          Mar 21 2013: Are you serious? or just pulling my chain? Can't see how you could ask that if you read and considered what I've been writing. One last time, the stuff black holes are made of comes in pieces of differing sizes. We know the biggest to be the super-massive black holes around which entire galaxies remain under the gravitational influences. The question is how small do the elements or atoms group into? If that is a golf ball size and is only one atom, it would seem theoretical that matter falling toward the smallish black hole phenomenon will be abundant enough to form a matter enclosure or crust, though the force still attracts more matter eventually building a sphere with a hot core of crushed matter that has nowhere further to fall. That hides its center which is the black hole material. I'm no more an expert than you. I am simply making what I feel to be logical questions that may explain why much of the universe takes the shape it does.

      • Jim Ryan

        • 0
        Mar 21 2013: So no big bang--explosion or implosion creates a black hole? If not, then what sort of evidence do you offer for your hypothesis?

  • James McGuiness

    • 0
    Mar 19 2013: Here's another, the absolute nonsense that is "time travel". It makes for romantic fantasy but if you look at it objectively it falls apart immediately. The concept of "time" is a product of motion. Time doesn't exist separately from motion for it it did, matter--the matter that moves like planets, stars, galaxies--would have to exist in every iteration of time--essentially making us into a static elongated solid. Matter however has no mechanism for multiplying it's own mass to suit the fancies of human beings. In order to travel back in time you would have to travel back in space to where the earth was when you've reached your goal. If you wanted to travel forward in time, you'd have to travel through space to the place earth will be at the time your shooting for--after all, you can't be here in this time and there in that time at the same time--that's millions of miles of space. What happens when the story expands to having say ten times the number of machines and time travelers or a hundred or a thousand? You would have matter that only exists in one place at one time being replicated through no explained means to exist in other places at other times. Consider that we are not the only intelligent species and other beings on other planets are whizzing through space to iterations of matter that supposedly could replicate itself to accommodate this fantasy--the could make our world collide with other matter passing through the same space at a different time. We would have a cosmos with a lot of objects smashing into each other. Matter doesn't replicate itself at each movement through space from nothing. Causes and effects are understood enough to know that you can't achieve infinite replications of the same matter without sources of other matter to be used. And no one is powerful enough to add iterations of the same universe to itself for any being's amusement or adventure. This is pure anthropocentrism and we're neither that powerful or central to the universe.

  • James McGuiness

    • 0
    Mar 19 2013: Another scientific gripe I have is with the concept of "dimensionality". Nowadays in "string theory" you might hear it said that there may be as many as 11 dimensions when you get down to the quantum level. But one wonder does that number include the first three if left to right, up and down, and in and out which we would consider the three classical dimension of the Cartesian the axis coordinate system. Popular notion takes these "dimensions" way too literally and often people consider "time" the fourth dimension. The first three dimensions are not universal dimensions we all share in a "flat earth"--they are relative dimension based upon a human being's personal orientation to an object or region which displaces space so that object or region can be communicated in practical measurement terms that involve intersection of three right angles in absolute perpenducularites. There is no universal left to right, up to down or in to out and these value change if the object remain stationary and the person or another person views it from even the slightest of different angles. The world is a moving orb, not a flat static space so there is no universal "up" and "down". A virtual ray line draw to represent straight up and straight down will be invalid in an instant as as it extend out into space it will be at angle with the person it was drawn by assuming he or she does not move with the planet. So, a stipulation needs to be made that the 3-Ds are not really the kind of universal dimensions which can spawn "time" as the fourth. They are just local triple axes used for measurement relative to the person doing the measuring.
  • thumb

    Testing Cancer

    • 0
    Mar 19 2013: Antacid drugs are needed to fight acid reflux and acid indigestion. Completely false theory. These conditions are a result of the wrong foods, too little of the right kind of acid, and a negative impact on the digestive process, which could lead to and has led to cancer.
  • thumb

    Testing Cancer

    • 0
    Mar 19 2013: Cholesterol needs to be controlled by a drug because it causes heart disease. This has been a false scientific theory for over 50 years. It was proven false but the correct theory was suppressed because there were drugs to sell and foods to manipulate. The drugs used to manipulate cholesterol are dangerous and negatively affect the very organ that should be controlling it naturally or a good purpose; cholesterol is good; the theory that it is bad is a false theory.
    • thumb

      Fritzie Reisner 100+

      • 0
      Host
      Mar 19 2013: In the old days, I think people did not make the distinction ade commonly now between "good" cholesterol and "bad" cholesterol.
  • thumb

    Testing Cancer

    • 0
    Mar 19 2013: We have been told by the mainstream press and convetional medical establishment that it takes a drug to heal, a drug to stop pain, a drug, surgery or radiation to stop cancer, and all these theories are completely wrong and unproven. Natural healing trumps all of these theories and we prove it every day.

  • James McGuiness

    • +3
    Mar 18 2013: Another scientific wrong is that we must stop calling the phenomenon we have been calling a "black hole" a black hole. If it's spherical, it's not a hole. Just because it does not emit or reflect light does not make it "black". It appears we have stuck ourselves to the most primitive characterization of one of the most "compelling" phenomena in the known universe. Whatever this is, it is not a black hole. So when is it time to venture at least some summation of what these phenomena are which at least addresses it's dimensionality and light properties which we continue to prejudice incorrectly. Is it a big deal? Yes it is. It's a measure of what we accept of ourselves. Are we the type that stops learning how to use a computer when we finally get the one task we need done? Or are we they type that feels a sort of new birth when we discover the first of a myriad of new ways to do things? Black holes are for the former.

    • James Casey

      • 0
      Mar 19 2013: Many years ago I remember going on the Gravitron (centrifugal style amusement park ride). Brilliant experience - being pinned against the inside wall, hardly able to lift an arm or leg. If the operator had walked away and left it running, there would have been no escape (not even light could have escaped!). So if they ever change the name 'black hole' I vote they change it to 'gravitron'.

      • James McGuiness

        • 0
        Mar 19 2013: That's a start--perhaps a perfect one. But it occurs to me that if it is spherical and occupies space as is not a black hole in space, as it has been long mischaracterized, it is made of something that exists in this universe which can be an element but not on our standard periodic table of elements. Perhaps it is made up of a single element too powerful in its properties to ever hold in the human hand or even bring near the planet. Or perhaps it's an element which even a small bit of is at the center of every spherical orb which causes gravity to be equal on the surface from pole to pole. After all there are different sized "back holes", whose to say some of them aren't tiny and attract so much matter that it ceases being crushed and becomes the bulk of a planet, moon or star. and the reason it takes its spherical shape? Nothing about the universe should be accepted without cause and effect and simply saying gravity is what makes orbs like the earth, moon and sun round has always seemed an unacceptable answer. Something starts that enormous process, not just the close proximity of bigger pieces of space junk. That might cause a comet to congeal but there is something much stronger defining a planet et al. What elemental units compose a so-called black hole? And since there are more than one black hole and at differing sizes does that not imply that smaller and smaller parcels of this element.exist as a dynamic force in shaping all the large round spheres in the visible universe--with the motion of space junk like asteroids affected by varying gravitational influences of these larger concentrations of this un-named element either in a true black hole state or the smaller parcels hypothesized to be at the core of the orbs we take for granted as being round for pretty flimsy reasons?

  • Andrew Breen

    • +2
    Mar 18 2013: CERN's recent confirmation of the existence of the Higgs Bosson particle has re-ignited my inner quest to rationalize the fundamental construct of our Universe, including the concept of particles and their interactions we measure.

    What if what we view as a particle is in fact merely a sliver of a larger multidimensional super particle, some areas of which tend to exist in hyper dimensional space, others which happen to occupy our space (namely in the form of the 12 particles we know). See, we are limited (dimensionally speaking) to measure objects and events, being constrained to x, y, z, and t.

    This certainly opens the possibility of demystifying the wave/particle conundrum. In the double slit experiment, though electrons were fired individually, they still created an interference pattern, suggesting the behavior of waves despite the look of particles. This was rationalized by concluding the electron likely occupies all spaces and probabilities along it's path to the target detector.

    If we re-define our understanding of why we see a particle as a particle (an intersection of a hyper dimensional object in our 3 and 4 dimensional space), then to us it's in fact a particle behaving like a wave, because to us and our system of measurement it manifests as a particle, but to observe it from a higher dimensional perspective we see that it is in fact connected "behind the curtain" thus able to interfere with itself unbeknownst to 3rd dimensional observers.

    As for dark matter, the extra mass detectable by the inter-dimensional transmission of gravity, might just belong to the hyper dimensional super particle we simply can't detect from our limited perspective of 3 and 4 dimensional space.

    I oft wonder if quantum entangled paired electrons are actually the same electron viewed from the "front" and "back" simultaneously as if their "waistline" exists in hyperdimensional space. Food for thought.

  • Ed Stephenson

    • 0
    Mar 17 2013: Admittedly a social science but in Economics the theories around the monetization of utility need a GREAT DEAL more development in order to either better capture non-business oriented externalities (like environmental health) or define the limits of application of the theory.

    I'm not an economist, I just play one on TV.
  • thumb

    Krisztián Pintér 200+

    • +2
    TED Translator
    Mar 16 2013: i put a bet on quantum mechanics not surviving another 50 years.
    • thumb

      Casey Christofaris 10+

      • 0
      Mar 16 2013: I'll take that bet and say modern physic wont survive
    • thumb

      Faisel Butt

      • 0
      Mar 17 2013: I agree that quantum mechanics in its present form is incomplete. But to say that it will not survive the next 50 years I find highly unlikely. It is a theory that has proven itself time after time. As a whole we haven't understood it properly, but that is not an argument for discarding it.

      What is it about QM that makes you think that it is inadequate to describe our reality? And what other theories do you think will replace it?
      • thumb

        Krisztián Pintér 200+

        • +1
        TED Translator
        Mar 17 2013: two reasons.

        1. all other theories have a very "simple" mathematics that capture the essence of what's going on. they are quite minimal yet effective. aerodynamic, so to speak. on the other hand, i feel, after watching some material on youtube, for example leonard susskind's lecture series on the subject, that the math of quantum mechanics is "bloated". it is so large, yet we used it to describe something fundamentally simpler. so, as some 6th sense, i feel that the observed phenomenon must have a mathematically more "fitting" description.

        2. the arthur fine argument. since bell, we know that any good models of the world has to be probabilistic, because nature is in fact probabilistic. arthur fine argues that it is still not decided yet, and we do have a simple explanation for the actual experiments that seem to break the bell inequalities.

        so i expect another theory, deterministic, local and markovian, and smaller in scale what we have today. my prediction is that at higher energies and with better detection technology, we will see deviances from quantum theory, which will continued to be patched but eventually abandoned.
      • thumb

        Krisztián Pintér 200+

        • 0
        TED Translator
        Mar 17 2013: ps. what i know as the "arthur fine" argument is actually known as "loopholes in bell test experiments", and suggested by many authors. seems that he only advocates it, not the originator.
        • thumb

          Faisel Butt

          • 0
          Mar 18 2013: Hi Krisztián

          Regardless of how you feel about QM it does actually work and describe the world we live in. I don't understand why you think that the math that describes how matter in the universe behaves is too complex. You have no way of extrapolating the nature of these laws from your macroscopic experiences.

          Do you really believe that the world is deterministic? If I had all the information about you down to a microscopic level would I be able to predict your behaviour?

          Do you believe that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would be violated once we have better measuring equipment?

          Regarding the Bell inequalities it is a shame that an experiment hasn't been conducted to settle this once and for all. I am quite confident that it will be in favour of QM.

          Doesn't Susskind teach string theory? That would definitely explain the bloated math.
      • thumb

        Krisztián Pintér 200+

        • +2
        TED Translator
        Mar 18 2013: i was talking about that lecture actually. string theory is like super bloated, and they are still inflating it, because it refuses to describe reality entirely. now we have 20 dimensional strings, complex states, plus branes of whatever dimension that strings are locked onto. all this to explain like cross sections, which pretty much seems to a combinatorial problem. just the very idea that we use a string freely vibrating in 20 dimension space, which can do so many things, to describe quantum states that can be described by some simple integers. that does not feel good.

        compare it to the local formulation of newtonian mechanics. we have phi, gravitational potential, we have rho, density, and we have a beautiful differential equation describing how the density causes the field: div grad phi = rho, constants omitted. or consider general relativity, which is basically the same thing, except we have stress-energy tensor in place of the density, and the einstein tensor in place of the gravitational potential, and it is elegant.

        or just look at the initial assumption of those fields. general relativity follows from a simple assumption of c being constant, and acceleration being the same as gravity. add our ordinary knowledge about classical mechanics as special case, and voila, you get the theory. in contrast, the assumptions made in quantum theory are so numerous, i can't even list.

        yes, i think the physics we are looking for is deterministic, local and markovian. i don't believe in probabilistic theories. nor non-local theories. and especially not in superdeterminism nonsense.

        • richard moody jr 10+

          • 0
          Mar 19 2013: Gravity and acceleration are only approximately equivalent. If I am a giant 100 miles tall in a spaceship, gravity affects me in ways that acceleration doesn't. If my feet are closer to the center of gravity, they are pulled more than my head so I know that I am in a spaceship. Acceleration in a spaceship should not show this effect.

          In addition we speak of a "center of gravity". We do not refer to a center of acceleration.

  • Allan Hotti

    • 0
    Mar 16 2013: If time were compressible, would we be observing far off objects in real time, stable and not accelerating?
  • thumb

    Andrew Magdy Kamal

    • 0
    Mar 16 2013: Could we really calculate the origins of our universe through the big bang or quantum activity and it would be valid? Some theories in physics are treated as valid, when they actually never been fully proved? Great scientist like Tesla, Albert Einstein, Fred Hoyle all rejected ideas that described the Big Bang. Einstein himself said, "God doesn't play with dice".

  • Jim Ryan

    • 0
    Mar 15 2013: Alan, that's very true, but not what I'm talking about. Science claims we are seeing back in time, billions of years ago, as they claim that we are seeing back into the past, because the light from those worlds has taken that long to reach us. I simply said that even if the light from celestial bodies are billions of light years away, we won't see the planets, but we may see the light.
  • thumb

    Peter Law 30+

    • +2
    Mar 15 2013: The Theory of Evolution seems cast in stone for some reason. However it seems to rely on the opinions of scientists rather than on empirical evidence.

    :-)
    • thumb

      Casey Christofaris 10+

      • 0
      Mar 15 2013: Please tell me how birth of a child is not evolution?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgNm8sbKR5o
      • thumb

        Peter Law 30+

        • +1
        Mar 16 2013: Hi Casey.
        Never heard that one. Normally we are told that evolution happens so slowly that we can't see it happening. A new child is created by the mixing of genes from two different extremely complex biological machines to produce a new extremely complex biological machine. As far as I know the baby will not have any attributes that were not in the parents; save a couple of hundred mutations which we hope wont cause harm. Never been a case of a non-human baby from human parents as far as I know. Why do you think this is evolution ?

        :-)
        • thumb

          Casey Christofaris 10+

          • 0
          Mar 16 2013: Because if it wasn't evolution we would grow to giant sperm (maybe sperm whale) or into a giant egg (or earth)

          If it wasn't evolution it would have to be growth and that does't fit. Evolution makes sense.

          And Idea is created a thought is evolved
        • thumb

          Casey Christofaris 10+

          • 0
          Mar 17 2013: So how is it not evolution?

        • Andrew Breen

          • +1
          Mar 18 2013: Evolution is a process, it's not an overnight express delivery. It's the cumulative effect of minute changes over time, changes which occur randomly. In many a case, the minute changes incur a deficit thus that being fails to thrive, it's genes rarely making it to the next generation.

          Occasionally, a random mutation will incur a net benefit which serves to increase likelihood for survival, often beyond the norm, readily inserting itself into nearly all future generations until the arena of survival changes and that gene is no longer a benefit, another more beneficial trait displacing it.

          As for it being opinions over facts, true scientists don't function on opinion, rather they ask questions about the World in which they are immersed, develop a working hypothesis (not to be confused with an opinion), and go about trying to disprove that hypothesis in an attempt to find flaws. Failure to find fallacy forges a scientific principle and eventual law (though I think the term "law" is antiquated since even those seem to need modification more and more as we learn to dive deeper and deeper into the inner workings of our Universe).

          Evolution is steeped in facts, in fact it is buried in a mountain of evidence, not a pile of opinions.
        • thumb

          Obey No1kinobe 50+

          • 0
          Mar 19 2013: 'A non human baby from human parents.'

          This is not what evolution proposes. Just another creationist straw man, or genuine misunderstanding.

          My understanding is change of gene frequencies in a population over time.

          So a child will be able to reproduce with contemporary peers. But go back far enough and it would not be able to reproduce with distant ancestors.

    • Betsy Punch

      • 0
      Mar 16 2013: I understand that some scientists reject string theory because it cannot be tested. From a college class called Philosophy of Science we were instructed that an accurate theory is an explanation that can be restated as an hypothesis which accurately predicts the outcome of an experiment. So, should we refer to "the presumption of evolution?"
      • thumb

        Peter Law 30+

        • 0
        Mar 16 2013: Presumption of Evolution sounds spot-on Betsy, that is what happens anyway in most circles. It would be nice to have some solid experimental evidence for the presumption though.
        :-)
      • thumb

        Obey No1kinobe 50+

        • 0
        Mar 19 2013: You can make predictions based on evolutionary theory and test them.
    • thumb

      Krisztián Pintér 200+

      • 0
      TED Translator
      Mar 16 2013: for the same reason as any other old theory: because it is proven.
      • thumb

        Peter Law 30+

        • 0
        Mar 16 2013: What do you consider proof of evolution?

        :-)
      • thumb

        Peter Law 30+

        • 0
        Mar 17 2013: I have read most of the rhetoric ? What I need is the best repeatable / falsifiable / scientific experiment which would indicate simple to complex evolution has taken place; ever. I am asking for the one which you find most persuasive personally.

        :-)
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • +1
          TED Translator
          Mar 17 2013: just gave you a link with like a dozen of them. none of them are the best. not a single evidence alone can support a scientific theory. only a plethora of evidence can support. and plethora we have.
      • thumb

        Peter Law 30+

        • 0
        Mar 17 2013: You'd make a good politician Krisztian. :-))
      • thumb

        Fritzie Reisner 100+

        • +1
        Host
        Mar 19 2013: I now need to look up "coyote physics," Krisztian. I have never heard the term, but then I had somehow missed until recently knowing of the widespread enthusiasm for and investment in what I now understand is called "quantum mysticism" or "mystical physics."
    • thumb

      Faisel Butt

      • 0
      Mar 17 2013: Hi Peter

      If humans haven't evolved from other species, which scientific idea that accounts for life on this planet do you subscribe to?
      • thumb

        Peter Law 30+

        • 0
        Mar 18 2013: Hi Faisel.
        I believe the evidence points to design & build by someone who understood what he was doing. On this particular thread I am trying; without success ; to elicit some scientific evidence in favour of the theory of evolution. All the evidence seems to require a prior belief in the theory in order to reach the appropriate conclusion.

        :-)
        • thumb

          Faisel Butt

          • +1
          Mar 18 2013: From what I understand you are a creationist claiming that the theory of evolution requires a prior belief. The irony...
      • thumb

        Peter Law 30+

        • 0
        Mar 19 2013: As an engineer, I see no mechanism to produce the magnificent nano technology.
        Feel free to illuminate me, surely there is one empirical scientific fact behind all the rhetoric, apart of course from my lack of understanding, which is legion.
        :-)
      • thumb

        Peter Law 30+

        • 0
        Mar 19 2013: I am wide open Krisztian, if you have evidence, please give me it. I understand random mutation and natural selection. I guess this is where you put your faith. Natural selection only gets to select once we have a viable trait; arm, flipper, heart etc. So we rely on mutation coming up with the goods in the first place. This is a long shot, not least because most mutations are non-beneficial.
        Anyway to return to the original question; I think evolution needs to take a long hard look at itself , that's all I'm saying.

        :-)
        • thumb

          Krisztián Pintér 200+

          • 0
          TED Translator
          Mar 19 2013: i think you need to take a long hard look on evolution. because your knowledge is ... lacking, to be polite. i already gave you material, you did not look. what you have described here, does not even resemble the theory of evolution. try telling to any biologist that evolution works like mutation causes an arm or a flipper or a heart to develop, and then selection checks if it is good. try telling that, and watch their face. you will see shock, disappointment, pain, confusion and finally heavy feeling of hopelessness. it is as close to actual evolutionary biology as coyote-physics to real physics. you have no excuse. this material is out there, targeted at age group 6 to adult, long, short, with or without pictures. if you don't understand, you can only blame yourself.
      • thumb

        edward long 100+

        • +2
        Mar 19 2013: Mr. Butt, if you are arguing from evidence based upon the Scientific Method, I beg you to share the actual evidence supporting cross-species reproduction. No, I am not a scientist but, please, share the information so I can muddle through it in my own amateurish, uninitiated way. My understanding right now is that there is no such evidence consistent with scientific methodology. If this is not the case please share what you have learned about the idea of every member of the Animal Kingdom coming from a single, common ancestor.
        • thumb

          Obey No1kinobe 50+

          • 0
          Mar 19 2013: We are all DNA based life forms.
          We share traits and basic biological features with other animals.
          4 limbs. Skeletons. Lungs. 2 eyes. 2 ears. Sexual reproduction. Our biological similarities are consistent with evolution.
          Transitional species in the fossil record, which yec attack because they think the world is < 10 k old.
          We understand the mechanism.
          You can see the tree of life, DNA similarities to less similar.
          Don't you think mammals have a lot in common?
          Also, with vertibrates.

          I find it very easy to grasp the evolution of multicellular organisms into different species and the facts of what we see are consistent with the theory.

          The tricky bits for me are from single cell to complex multicellular life, and the origin of life itself, which is perhaps outside of evolution. But even simple life forms and plants are dna based.

          I understand why some may speculate outside agency to get life started. I don't really understand how people can reject the idea we share common descent with other primates, mammals, vertibrates etc.

        • Jim Ryan

          • +1
          Mar 20 2013: Mr. Long, If I were a scientist, I'd have my ducks in a row before tangling with you. Something tells me your muddling is better than most scientists best work. I'll be seeing ya.

    • Robert Woodward

      • 0
      Mar 20 2013: Domesticated dogs are an excellent example of evolution. Dogs (like the kind you would keep as a pet) evolved from wolves under the directed influence of humans. When humans began domesticating wolves a long time ago, they began choosing to breed only those wolves with certain traits. These traits may have been fluffy hair, big eyes, or floppy ears for example. And now many years later we have dogs like the chihuahua or the poodle, which certainly do not exist anywhere in nature outside of human breeding.

      Here's a nice documentary on the history and relationship between dogs and humans
      http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dogs-decoded/
      • thumb

        Peter Law 30+

        • 0
        Mar 21 2013: But they are all dogs; there is no dispute over variation; we need a case of something 'evolving' into something else.

        :-)

  • Jim Ryan

    • +1
    Mar 15 2013: From all I read, science as a whole is controlled and answered by a tiny few and lay people are not allowed to question the presenters, because they know they would be embarrassed if they had to defend the ignorance they choose.
    • thumb

      Faisel Butt

      • 0
      Mar 17 2013: Hi Jim

      I agree that the scientific community can be rather closed from outsiders, but what ignorance is it that scientists choose?

      Which scientific theories do you believe to be wrong and do you have better explanations?
Load more comments…