Skull suggests human-Neanderthal link

miller8966

Collin wrote:

A team discovered an object (Eris) in 2005, Eris is larger than Pluto and the question came up whether to call Eris a planet or not, since it's bigger than Pluto. The IAU pick a group of astronomers to come up with a new definition of the term 'planet'. According to this new definition Pluto is no longer a planet but a dwarf planet.

I don't know how you can compare redefining an object because of a new scientific discovery with just making up random stuff.

Im just going to show how science is never right because it always changes...

Mookie Baylock

miller8966 wrote:

Im just going to show how science is never right because it always changes...

No offense friend, but that is an ignorant statement. Scientists initially called Pluto a planet knowing it was much different from the other 8 planets, but having nothing else to compare it to reluctantly called it the 9th planet. As new evidence has come to light it seems there are lots of Pluto-like objects out there it made sense to come up with a new name and definition of objects like this.

A planet is not a thing, there are lots of individual planets out there, all unique, but similar in that they share some characterics: they're round, they rotate on a axis, they follow an eliptical orbit with the sun in its centre.
But the word planet is nothing, it is just a term for lumping all planets together for comparision and analysis. What changed was the definition of that unit of classification. Pluto and its charicterists have not changed, been revised, or been reported in error. It's just been reclassified so as to make it easier to compare it to other things that it is similar to, and not things that it is different from making the information more easily understood and accesible. This happens ALL THE TIME in science. Pluto is just a very high profile case.

My point is that scientist were not wrong about Pluto. It was not a mistake to classify Pluto as a planet when it was discovered. It just now, with new data, makes sense to classify it differently to better understand it.

You see this as a weakness of science? That, my friend, is obtuse.



Regarding the neanderthal thing. My opinion is that humans and neanderthals could probably interbreed, but the offspring would be infertile hybrids, similar to a horse and a donkey making an infertile mule.

Collin

miller8966 wrote:

Im just going to show how science is never right because it always changes...

Science is never right?

Pearl Jam and toast

miller8966 wrote:

Im just going to show how science is never right because it always changes...

I know you're conservative, but I'm calling bullshit on this one. That's Colbert quality bullshit. I think he's fucking with you guys

sapperskunk

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

I know you're conservative, but I'm calling bullshit on this one. That's Colbert quality bullshit. I think he's fucking with you guys

You guys don't get what he's saying? Science changes all the time, you think we still believe some of the medical science that used to be SOP back in the 19th century? How about more recently, I recall the media reporting that scientific studies suggested a glass of wine a day is good for your heart, then bad, and now it's good again.

That's what he means by "it's always changing".

Collin

sapperskunk wrote:

You guys don't get what he's saying? Science changes all the time, you think we still believe some of the medical science that used to be SOP back in the 19th century? How about more recently, I recall the media reporting that scientific studies suggested a glass of wine a day is good for your heart, then bad, and now it's good again.

That's what he means by "it's always changing".

Science doesn't change all the time. It does however leave room for further experiments and research, it can progress. But it doesn't change all the time.

The example you gave, fine, but how does that make 'science never right'.

Rushlimbo

sapperskunk wrote:

You guys don't get what he's saying? Science changes all the time, you think we still believe some of the medical science that used to be SOP back in the 19th century? How about more recently, I recall the media reporting that scientific studies suggested a glass of wine a day is good for your heart, then bad, and now it's good again.

That's what he means by "it's always changing".

Did you and Miller have a conference call so you can get out his message?

sapperskunk

Collin wrote:

Science doesn't change all the time. It does however leave room for further experiments and research, it can progress. But it doesn't change all the time.

The example you gave, fine, but how does that make 'science never right'.

I don't agree with miller who says science is NEVER right, I do agree that some of it changes all the time, sometimes drastically.

sapperskunk

Rushlimbo wrote:

Did you and Miller have a conference call so you can get out his message?

Yeah buddy :rolleyes:

ClimberInOz

miller8966 wrote:

Im just going to show how science is never right because it always changes...

The irony of this statement arriving on my computer via a network of connected computers, all designed and constructed based on sound scientific principles that have not changed significantly in decades... is substantial.

bryanfury

sum'nbitch. that's not what my pastor says. and why would he lie?