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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

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

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgNm8sbKR5o
      • thumb
        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
          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
          Mar 17 2013: So how is it not evolution?
        • 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
          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.
    • 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
        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
        Mar 19 2013: You can make predictions based on evolutionary theory and test them.
    • thumb
      Mar 16 2013: for the same reason as any other old theory: because it is proven.
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: What do you consider proof of evolution?

        :-)
      • thumb
        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
          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
        Mar 17 2013: You'd make a good politician Krisztian. :-))
      • thumb
        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
      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
        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
          Mar 18 2013: From what I understand you are a creationist claiming that the theory of evolution requires a prior belief. The irony...
      • thumb
        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
        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
          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
        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
          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.
        • 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.
    • 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
        Mar 21 2013: But they are all dogs; there is no dispute over variation; we need a case of something 'evolving' into something else.

        :-)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.