TED Conversations

Gerald O'brian

TEDCRED 50+

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

Evolution: "just a theory". Scientific caution is sometimes confusing.

The fact that our best available theories are still speculations misleads some people to believe that these ideas are not founded. Hence, some people suppose their uneducated opinion is just as bad, or as good, as the mainstream scientific hypothesis.
This trend is probably led by the way science has been taught, i e as a flawless method that offers facts about reality.
And by pre-scientific philosophy, still strong in our modern societies.

Evolution is "just a theory" the way Notre Dame is "just a pile of rocks", isn't it?

Thoughts?

+6
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 7 2013: I want to ask all of those not believing in revolution to consider the simple question why unlike other creatures humans walk on their foots. As far as I know there is no answer in any religious. However revolution theory has a very simple explanation for this. How can we deny revolution when 60 % DNA of any kind of life being is similar.
    • thumb
      Jun 7 2013: I heard that some distant ancestor found reproduction was more fun if the parties involved were face to face. Attempting to achieve this position, the pelvic girdle gradually shifted forward and walking upright followed.
      It amuses me to think that sex was a primarily force in human evolution.


      Being reminded that I am 2/3 earthworm does nothing for my sense of self worth, or self importance, or sense of mental acuity.
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2013: hhhhh sorry but your comment really made me laugh.
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2013: I think that that was just a friends hear-say. I know of no theory supporting this.

        There are 10 theories on Wiki, none of them concerning face to face sex.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipedalism#Humans
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2013: Yes, but when all is said and done, doesn't my theory sound best or at least better then some straight laced scientists?
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2013: Jimmy, life exists because living creatures procreate. Living creatures procreate because they have sex. They are driven to have sex because they get pleasure from it. So, why do you deny that having more pleasure from sex is not a driving factor of evolution? And why is this explanation any worse or better than the other 10?

          I think, we can find 2000 reasons why having our hands free has evolutionary advantage - from having face-to-face sex to being able to pick our nose. Do any of them really explain why we walk on 2 legs or are we, as usual, trying to find the reason for something that already exists without any reason for it?
      • thumb
        Jun 9 2013: Reminds me of another theory I heard ages ago.
        Men were excited by bottoms, so evolution made a bottom-like structure on the female chest. He was very serious. File it with Darwin's swimming bear that became a whale.

        :-)
      • thumb
        Jun 10 2013: Mike,

        It's a beautiful idea. Better... not really.

        It's the problem of cause and effect and I find it more probable that the face to face sex is an effect, not a cause.
        But who knows...
        I do however find many of the other theories more likely.
      • thumb
        Jun 10 2013: Arkady, yes sex is a necessity for life.

        There are some dominant theories out there, it is not valid to just have them tested against me. If you think that you've found some true explanation you should have it tested and verified, it will widen our knowledge of many things.

        But I still think that the thesis is invalid, mainly because I've never heard of any scientific explanation and I haven't been able to find one.

        Tell me, do you think that the scientific method is the best way of finding truth? If not, we really shouldn't be discussion this because it will lead nowhere.
    • Jun 7 2013: Ostrich walks on its feet. Also almost all the birds "walk" on their feet when not flying. And when a bird isn't flying, its wing are usually point downward, just like a pair of human arms. Also, a kangaroo uses only its hind legs for moving its body by skipping.
      • Jun 7 2013: Walking ostriches is another proof for revolution. Because they can observe predator's existence on their foot more easily.That's why they equipped with long necks. Revolution modifies ostrich's shape in this way which is absolutely compatible with their surrounding and increases chance of survive. That is exactly what has happened to humans through 2 or 3 million years. When our ancestors lived on trees, After eating all foods they had to descend from the tree and wend a little on the ground to find another food resources. But the ground was filled with pernicious animals and the distance between trees was very high due to climate condition of that time. Therefore, nature forced them stand on their foot to have a better picture about their surrounding. Through thousands of year and revolution they gained the ability of running to evade predators. About the birds, I think their foot's shape helps them in landing or taking-off process. Having extra foots or hands increase a bird's weight which makes flying impossible for them.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.