Which Scientist stole your lunch money anyway


#1

From this post, my sciency buttons were pushed…

With regard to human evolution.

It is weird to me how uninteresting @supernokturnal finds normal scientific discourse / theory, as compared to how interesting you find religious stuff and conspiracy theory.

It is also weird to me how uninterested most on this forum are in scientific methods and theories in general, or perhaps it’s just not any fun to talk about it here since we have daily interaction with science and scientific approaches off the forum?

Preachy, atheistic, asshole scientists might be jerks but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything about their theories. Astute StellarMazians would surely note accurately that it likely makes them less likely to seek evidence that contradicts their views. Yes—but scientists exist in a domain that lives in the measurable world; there are other scientists who can benefit from destroying their theories and who can do it with reproducible evidence and such; I am not saying this is easy—it’s a slow slog to overturn dogma, even when there is evidence that is pretty freaking clear. Contrary ideas will be buried and people will not be funded and all that. But not forever. The system itself is not set up in a universe apart from empirical tests, and so, accurate counters to existing dogma have a tendency to slowly oscillate their way into the light.

I guess I wonder how many of the dogmatic scientist types you folks have met in real life. Are they preachier than the dogmatic religious or the dogmatic political? Perhaps they are—I’ve never met them, but I worked with scientists at BYU, a mormon school, like this one guy who said “I came to BYU to teach Mormonism about evolution.” Mormonism rejected Evolution 50 years ago but doesn’t anymore, though a conservative (who recently died) drew some line at human evolution in the mid 90s; this is not that much more sensical than saying that 2+2=4 but 4+2 totally does not equal 6.

Have you ever met a dogmatic person who discovers they are wrong and changes their views? I have, and their prior preachyness didn’t preclude it from happening. Either religious or political or scientific, it does happen.

There are very few places in my world in which science is defended or practiced. Not in the public sphere in the US, not in the private sphere in the US. I can’t quite relate to the idea that scientists are the bullies in the world. Really fucking hard for me to see that anywhere. I speak to almost no one who understands science.

ANDDD last of all, just because the theory of evolution is the most important bundle of things I understand about the world, by which I mean, the theory is a lens that changes the way I see almost everything in the world:

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a pretty robust theory, and is not particularly dangerous to the religious worldview. Hard to sum it all up in a bite sized chunk, but suffice it to say, if you put a gun to my head, or someone I love’s head, and said, “the gun is all knowing and the gun knows the answer and will fire if you get the answer wrong: which is most true:” Humans A) Did not, B) Might have, C) Probably did, or D) “for fucking sure” evolved from a primate ancestor of other existent Apes? You have a day to consider the question." Well, my heart rate would not rise as I replied in an instant that the answer is D, “For fucking sure.” This is because I’ve studied the fuck out of evolution. It’s always possible that I’m wrong, of course, but not possible enough to get my heart rate up. It’s possible that humans didn’t evolve in this way just like it’s possible that I might be living in a matrix or whatever. It’s possible in the way that is meaningless, in the postmodern way where there are no facts.

Anyway.


#2

okay dude stop crying about how triggered you are and prove to me why ape evolving to humans work Haha

I’m open to discussion and I often question it but I can’t find a reliable source.

since, most people that believes in evolution are not good at explaining it to me.
JUST LIKE how a lot of religious people can’t explain what they believe.

I’m gonna throw you a lot of questions later.
be prepared to answer them all.

meanwhile show me some good proofs.


#3

hardcore Ne right there.

but hey, please teach me theory of evolution using some logical data that goes with it.

and don’t just shove bunch of articles.

you can use charts, graphs, images, videos, articles, to REFERENCE your point.

but try to explain it in your own words how this works.

my knowledge on this is infant compared to you. so you have to take it step by step.

so here are few questions.

where did those apes come from?
why are there two different species?
which of our ethnic and race came from each species?
when did they gain consciousness?
how did language develop?
if chicken and duck can have a hybrid, why can’t humans have hybrid with other animals?
are we gonna evolve to another type of human in the future?
why are there only little bit on skeletons found? compared to billions of human corpse.
did God make humans? or did he evolve them from apes?
then does God exist?
how does religion and theory of evolution of ape becoming human go together?
if there is natural selection, why are there still monkeys and gorillas around? why didn’t natural selection destroy them or make them into subhuman of some sort?

okay more questions to follow after you answer them.

i hope you can answer them.

just like how Geneva threw bunch of questions about my belief and I was able to explain each one.
I’m not saying my belief is the truth. but it’s still my belief.

so i want you to tell me how you understand your belief in this theory. or this ‘possibility’


#4

There is so much about evolution and archeology in general that you probably have to take a full few college courses to understand the basics. I don’t know if anyone besides INTP (maybe sciency ENFP?) has energy for this kinda one-on-one explaination so good luck to John lol.

Like if you are at “why we still got monkeys” as a talking point, I am afraid it’s already gonna take too long to unbundle.


#5

I mean I had no problem explaining my belief so I expect the same for someone who can Ti.

i think it’s important to explain complicated theories in a simple term for people to understand.

but I don’t think you have to do years of research to understand the basics.
that’s saying for someone to understand basically theology, they have to go to take theology class and learn the whole Hebrews and Greek and their history and blah blah…
but

really smart person can explain complicated and sophisticated theory into more simple and brief term.

I’m not saying all those minor details are useless.

but it’s like “hey daddy why do I have to brush my teeth before going to bed?”

you don’t have to explain to a child how food turns to sugar and different chemical and it eats away your teeth because of plague and blah blah blah chemical compounds and bacteria having sex between the teeth eating your soul blahbakag


#6

So this is ELI5 “human evolution” kind of. Right?

ELI5 is hard for me, and certainly this is something I also view as a weakness.

But I do like talking about it and do want to try so I will


#7

more like ELI13. like i just hit my puberty of knowledge and maybe i’m curious about a lot things and ready to take on information but also think i know everything in the world like a 13yr old so i need someone to school me hard logically.

so yeah. ELI13.

just use your own words. if i have to reference some points, then i’ll look it up.
but so far nobody has convinced me to believe this and they usually just reference me to a whole book or fucking 5-hour long videos.

no. teach me. if you get it. then you should be able to explain it.
do it like INTJ would.
i can ask INTJ about something they know and they have everything memorized and usually only use logic to explain things.
i guess ISTJ is good at that too.


#8

I’m going to start with a couple foundational concepts that I think you will eventually ask about based on this first question.


Explain like I’m 5, how does speciation occuR?

Sub q 1.a: what are species?

A: Species are like neighborhoods in SanFrancisco. There isn’t anything about turning right outside my wife’s old apartment that immediately suggests “you’re in fucking insaneville now,” but two intersections on, anybody can smell you’re in the Tenderloin. Meanwhile, go left, and you’ll be eating overpriced brunch in just a few short hours of waiting in inexplicably long fucking lines within view of her front door. She used to say she lived in the Tenderknob. Different maps alternately call it “downtown” or make it disappear.

<img src="/uploads/db8680/original/2X/a/a3a936c89ccec1f2c7da5a917e89ba2ace71296d.PNG" width=“281” height=“500”

FiNd the Tenderloin! And nob hill! And the Tenderknob!

It’s arbitrary distinctions

Until a liger is taking a dump on a homeless person

“These are of two different species” is approximately the same claim as “I don’t live in the Tenderloin.”

How do you know?

Because people dare to drink coffee outside the place downstairs is how.

How do I know two things are different species ?

they can’t create viable offspring if you mate them naturally or unnaturally. That’s basically how to know if you’ve got two different species

TBC


#9

damn I gotta take social studies before going to science?? hahahaha

this was interesting. geography/history lesson learned.

if I ever visit there I’ll know what to look out for. this is fun hahaha


#10

This is less “explain like i’m 5” and more like explain like i’m on meth or something lol

I await further professor john lectures on how convergent evolution is just like tool and die manufacturing or something.


#11

hahahaha
or explain while he’s on meth


#12

Boring, quick and too lazy to look anything up answers

where did those apes come from?

gorillas, chimps, orangutans, bonobos, and humans evolved from a common primate ancestor. Phylogenic trees start with a common ancestor and branch off into species.

why are there two different species?

What are these 2?

which of our ethnic and race came from each species?

White skin from vitamin D deficiency with cold climate and grain based diet. Europeans have a little more Neanderthal ancestry, Asians more Denisovan.

when did they gain consciousness?

Consciousness and how very first life forms began are still pretty much 2 of the biggest scientific mysteries.

how did language develop?

African click languages are oldest. Linguistics would be a huge topic.

if chicken and duck can have a hybrid, why can’t humans have hybrid with other animals?

Can a chicken and duck really have hybrid? We did interbreed with Neanderthals and Denisovans

are we gonna evolve to another type of human in the future?

Probably not unless some major crisis event squeezes us to a very small population

why are there only little bit on skeletons found? compared to billions of human corpse.

Millions of years for skeletons of human ancestors. Time and weather erodes things Also there weren’t that many.

did God make humans? or did he evolve them from apes?
then does God exist?
how does religion and theory of evolution of ape becoming human go together?

John can do this one. Catholics have an explanation that reconciles it.

if there is natural selection, why are there still monkeys and gorillas around? why didn’t natural selection destroy them or make them into subhuman of some sort?
[/quote]

Same reason there’s still ducks, pelicans, and penguins. Small populations evolved for environmental niches and successful ones proliferated. Classic Darwinian example was finches in Galápagos Islands; the beaks became notably different as finches that were best able to access different food sources proliferated.


#13

As the resident INFJ forensic scientist around here, I’ve been studying, practising and defending scientific theories, methodologies and interpretation of results for as long as I care to remember (I’m wearing my white lab coat right now!), surrounded by other scientists doing exactly the same thing.

I feel very strongly about the value and importance to society of enlightened, evidence-based science; however it isn’t the answer to everything as some scientists would have you believe (usually the more dogmatic types, who are every bit as preachy and righteous as religious or political zealots).

It’s just less obvious when you encounter a dogmatic scientist, because they are as dry and dessicated as the emotionless, overdone “passive voice” style they pedantically insist upon as the only correct method for writing or talking about science.

Here’s a taste:

“…to confirm the nature of electrical breakdown of nitrogen in uniform fields at relatively high pressures and interelectrode gaps that approach those obtained in engineering practice, prior to the determination of the processes that set the criterion for breakdown in the above-mentioned gases and mixtures in uniform and non-uniform fields of engineering significance.”

The oppressive effects of this excruciating and unintelligible technobabble are not to be underestimated. For example, there is really only one way for ambitious scientists to demonstrate their academic talent and progress their career, while simultaneously attracting funding to their institutions in order to extend their tenures. And that is to rapidly, frequently and continuously get their research work published in academic journals. The pressure is intense and the competition fierce, and to be truly successful at this relentless game one must learn to exploit its unwritten rules. And lesson number one is to adopt an accepted “scientific” writing style, which inevitably means the dreaded passive voice.

In case you think I’m exaggerating, here are two abstracts from honest–to-God genuine research articles that were published in recognised academic journals in the last few days. Pay particular attention not just to the ludicrous abuse of the passive writing style, but also to the complete and utter pointlessness of the research material itself.

“WTF?” does not begin to express my feelings about these wonders of modern scientific prowess!

The Cognitive-Evolutionary Model of Surprise: A Review of the Evidence

Abstract

“Research on surprise relevant to the cognitive-evolutionary model of surprise proposed by Meyer, Reisenzein, and Schützwohl (1997) is reviewed. The majority of the assumptions of the model are found empirically supported. Surprise is evoked by unexpected (schema-discrepant) events and its intensity is determined by the degree if schema-discrepancy, whereas the novelty and the valence of the eliciting events probably do not have an independent effect. Unexpected events cause an automatic interruption of ongoing mental processes that is followed by an attentional shift and attentional binding to the events, which is often followed by causal and other event analysis processes and by schema revision. The facial expression of surprise postulated by evolutionary emotion psychologists has been found to occur rarely in surprise, for as yet unknown reasons. A physiological orienting response marked by skin conductance increase, heart rate deceleration, and pupil dilation has been observed to occur regularly in the standard version of the repetition-change paradigm of surprise induction, but the specificity of these reactions as indicators of surprise is controversial. There is indirect evidence for the assumption that the feeling of surprise consists of the direct awareness of the schema-discrepancy signal, but this feeling, or at least the self-report of surprise, is also influenced by experienced interference. In contrast, facial feedback probably does contribute substantially to the feeling of surprise and the evidence for the hypothesis that surprise is affected by the difficulty of explaining an unexpected event is, in our view, inconclusive. Regardless of how the surprise feeling is constituted, there is evidence that it has both motivational and informational effects. Finally, the prediction failure implied by unexpected events sometimes causes a negative feeling, but there is no convincing evidence that this is always the case, and we argue that even if it were so, this would not be a sufficient reason for regarding this feeling as a component, rather than as an effect of surprise.”

Quasi-steady state aerodynamics of the cheetah tail

Abstract

“During high-speed pursuit of prey, the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) has been observed to swing its tail while manoeuvring (e.g. turning or braking) but the effect of these complex motions is not well understood. This study demonstrates the potential of the cheetah’s long, furry tail to impart torques and forces on the body as a result of aerodynamic effects, in addition to the well-known inertial effects. The first-order aerodynamic forces on the tail are quantified through wind tunnel testing and it is observed that the fur nearly doubles the effective frontal area of the tail without much mass penalty. Simple dynamic models provide insight into manoeuvrability via simulation of pitch, roll and yaw tail motion primitives. The inertial and quasi-steady state aerodynamic effects of tail actuation are quantified and compared by calculating the angular impulse imparted onto the cheetah’s body and its shown aerodynamic effects contribute to the tail’s angular impulse, especially at the highest forward velocities.”


#14

While the awesomeness of the cheetah abstract is noted, the most careful of readers could be forgiven for struggling to grasp the final sentance’s implications, given its reliance on opaque parallelism and its general shittiness, caused no doubt by what this researcher would diagnose as its unsturdy antecedent to its its.


#15

does vitamin D change the hair texture?

what about black people? which ancestry?

you answered it, Denisovan and Neanderthal, but why two?

how do we know that?

yes Chicken and duck can force bred. it’s tested.
but most hybrid animals cannot have offsprings, can Neanderthal + Denisovan have offsprings?
and how do we know they inter bred?

THIS kind of evolution I’m very familiar with.
adaptation.


#16

The first humans were black, and the first ‘Europeans’ were black too. They got de-pigmented, and as Geneva already noted, it’s more advantageous to have a white skin where there is less sunlight in order to synthesize vitamin D; they developed lactose tolerance for the same reason (vitamin D in milk). See: adaptation.

What I wonder is: you could find answers to all these questions by looking up the internet (like I just did), but apparently, when you’re using internet, you end up with something like Flat Earth Theory. By which mysterious ways do you come up with such stuff?


#17

what about hair? eye color? different face shape?

i already heard of these. i just want someone to explain it from their own head.
did you not read what i said above?

i know the ‘theory’ of why some places people are taller, some places people are shorter.

this is for johno to answer. i just wanna see how he explain everything.

now don’t be a smartass


#18

No, seriously, I want to know!


#19

okay, I’ll tell you.
when I occasionally do mindless research about the most random shit on the internet, like “most dangerous criminals” or “rarest breed of dogs” or something like that, there’s always a related article with attention grabbing title that goes "former NASA scientist claims that the earth is actually flat!"
and I’m like ‘whaaat?’ so i click on it, read or listen or watch it. sees their point of argument, and goes down the rabbit hole until I catch the damn rabbit.

but don’t worry. my Ti always asks more questions, like "but what about this? and this? and this??"
and it eventually helps me figure out the distorted logic. or sometimes truth.

and I’m trying to make this a fun thing so don’t patronize me by saying shit like “just use the internet (the place you found flat earth theory) to look it up”


#20

Now you’re asking stuff I’d have to look up, maybe someone who is not too busy or too lazy will do that.

This I might research. Are they chucks or dickens? How could I not know chucks and dickens are a thing?