Is This The Way True Science Works In Various Situations?

While nature holds a vast wealth of unknowns in which man can glean and learn from but practicing science in evolution can be very imaginative.  From an examination that came from a fragmentary set  of jaws and teeth, scientists in Paleontology decided this was a dinosaur known as “Azendohsaurus madagaskarensis.” Originally the fossil of bones and teeth were found in 1972,  near (and named for) a village in Morocco’s Atlas Mountains. The current research paper draws it’s study from fossils that were discovered in the late 1990s in southwestern Madagascar.

New research had revealed after analyzing the whole skull turned out these fossils are not a dinosaurs after all but rather are part of a group of animals that includes birds and crocodilians but not lizards, snakes, or turtles. Did they admit fault for now being more through with their examination of just jaws and teeth? No, instead they restored into mentioning a rescue theory known as convergent evolution where by similar features were found to be in unrelated lineages.

This is the way science works,” says John J. Flynn, curator in the Division of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History. Really? So in other words even believing in convergent evolution one makes broad assumptions with so little data? Dinosaurs are vastly used to promote evolution, hype is also used in competition with other funding in other branches, but this is not the way science works! Being wrong on classification is one thing but dodging one’s responsibility for the reason of the reclassification that had to occur is quite another.

What about expansion of science theories? Inflation which was invented during the 1980s to rescue problems in cosmology has undergone several modifications. There is a growing belief that one inflation wasn’t the answer to solving the problem so another proposal from two studies was invented which stated that two inflation periods were needed.

New Scientist describes it…

“Just 10-37 seconds or so after its birth, a period of inflation is thought to have caused the universe to balloon in size. This process is thought to have amplified tiny quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, giving rise to the megastructures we see all around us in the universe today.”

“A second profound transformation is thought to have followed hot on the heels of inflation. Just microseconds old and at trillions of degrees, the universe condensed from a superhot soup of sub-nuclear particles called a quark-gluon plasma (QGP) into particles such as protons and neutrons. But exactly how this happened is far from clear…”

“Right now, the two new studies raise more questions than they answer. The physics of QGPs that contain more matter than antimatter is difficult to calculate, so little is known about how they behave.”

Could we see more stages beyond just two? Quite possible, as they stack one problem on top over another (until the majority of the group decides to try a new theory). This all seems like they are not progressing very well and it’s not how science works either!


7 thoughts on “Is This The Way True Science Works In Various Situations?

  1. Hi Michael !

    we’re *still* waiting for the answers to these three questions:

    (1) Blog readership numbers

    (2) Your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject, in response to the challenge to Olorin.

    (3) A substantive review of Signature in the Cell, promised for August 2009.

    Come on Michael, you can do it !

  2. Aaaaand we have the outstanding queswtion on mitochondrial Eve, too. To repeat: Even if Michael’s date of 10,000 years for the birth of mtEve is coerrect, why would this constitute evidence for the creation of humans within the biblical time frame?

  3. Could we see more stages beyond just two? Quite possible, as they stack one problem on top over another (until the majority of the group decides to try a new theory). This all seems like they are not progressing very well…

    No, Michael, you have it inside-out again. This is exactly how science progresses. A problem occurs in a current theory. The theory is modified, extended, or replaced. New evidence is collected and published. The theory is modified or replaced again. Repeat until fully cooked. The last theory is better than the first one—it is more accurate, it covers a wider field, it explains more phenomena. What do we call this? WE CALL IT PROGRESS.

    Meanwhile, creationists persevere with the same old theory for three thousand years. No new knowledge. No understanding. No new applications. Confronted with new evidence? Explain it away. Deny it. Lie about it—you have no integrity to lose anyway. But, tweak the theory? Never! What do we call this? WE DO NOT CALL IT PROGRESS.


    …. and it’s not how science works either!

    Michael, please explain to us scientists exactly how science does work. IN WHAT WAY HAVE WE BEEN DOING IT WRONG FOR FOUR CENTURIES? Be specific.

    Oh, and you might list your qualifications for judging what science is or what it should be. We’d really like to know whether you’re shoveling shinola at your readers from incredible ignorance, or from deliberate deception. Your choice, Michael.

  4. Well, here’s at least one prediction by an evolutionist that has been proven true—-

    Upson Downes on May 21, 2010 at 4:34 pm [in Michael’s May 18 post]

    Michael, it’s time to send up another creationist hot-air balloon. This post on “Mt St Helens Pumping Up Evolutionary Expectations” has deflated.

    Creationist procedure:
    (1) Read results of actual scientist.
    (2) Distort or deny results of scientist.
    (3) Launch fatuous claim that result supports creationism.
    (4) If challenged, Change the subject.
    (5) Repeat forever.

  5. Olorin,

    There is nothing inside-out about it, I predict a possible third inflation to correct the other two’s problems. How many times does a theory go through modifications before it’s rendered useless? Stacking theories upon more theories is not increasing knowledge because for one, the theory (inflation) is unobservable nor testable and relies merely on assumptions and speculation which cannot be verified. New speculation is not evidence. What have you really learned from the inflation theory that has advanced mankind’s knowledge since it was invented during the 1980s?

    You hold to a philosophy that in order to obtain knowledge you cannot practice creationism. Again, this sounds like a cult not someone who practices science.

  6. Olorin: “What do we call this? WE DO NOT CALL IT PROGRESS. ”

    How can you say that creationism has not brought progress?

    Who conceived the theory of disease caused by evil spirits?

    Who was it who introduced the theory of a flat earth, when those arrogant Greeks “knew” it was rtound?

    Who conducted the experiment proving that a man could live inside a fish for three days?

    Who found that the entire earth floats upon vast waters of the deep?

    Who determined that the volume of water in the oceans could multiply itself a hundred times over to flood all the land?


  7. Michael

    How many times does a theory go through modifications before it’s rendered useless?

    Yet another failure of creationist comprehension of science. A scientific theory becomes more useful, not less, when modified. Elementary logic says that a theory would not be modified at all if the modification made it less useful.

    Let’s analogize to a car. The Belchfire 300 that you bought new a few years ago is starting to show its age. The turboencabulator is not pumping as much as it used to. The frammis clutch is beginning to slip. But it has been a good ride overall. So the time comes either to sell the BF or to fix it up. On what basis do you make that decision? Basically, usefulness of the car with the modifications versus usefulness of another car. (Cost being part of “usefulness.”)

    Let’s analogize to a scientific theory. Basic Darwinian evolution has worked well for many decades, but new evidence calls into question Darwin’s “blending” of inherited traits. Natural selection by itself seems unable to account for some changes that become widespread in populations. But DE has led to many understandings, and has in general been a good ride. Do we junk it, or do we look for modifications? The failure of trait-blending is easily fixed with discrete inheritance, via Mendel’s discoveries We can add more power to the natural-selection engine by bolting on neutral drift. Now the theory works even better than before! It can explain more phenomena over a wider area than before.

    The modifications to the theory have not only rescued it from the scrap heap, but have made it better than it was to begin with.

    How many times does a theory get modified before being declared useless? Michael,is driving in the wrong direction here.. Scientific theories become more useful with modification, not less. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t bother modifying them.

    One more aspect of Michael’s misunderstanding of science in general, and of the nature of scientific theories in particular.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s