Originally posted by Phoenix2001
http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/out-of-africa-theory-officially-debunked.htmlRan into this on facebook. Wanted to know what everyone else's take on this is.
I think that what was written here has got to be one of the silliest things that I have ever read. How can a theory so old be debunked? How can this research ever be proven without a doubt? Did hundreds of people suddenly sprout up out of nowhere? Or was it one male, and one female? I think that the people doing the research had better solve an easier question before taking on something as big as this. How about they find out which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Originally posted by Stoic
I think that what was written here has got to be one of the silliest things that I have ever read. How can a theory so old be debunked? How can this research ever be proven without a doubt? Did hundreds of people suddenly sprout up out of nowhere? Or was it one male, and one female? I think that the people doing the research had better solve an easier question before taking on something as big as this. How about they find out which came first, the chicken or the egg.
thank u..
Originally posted by Stoic
I think that what was written here has got to be one of the silliest things that I have ever read. How can a theory so old be debunked? How can this research ever be proven without a doubt? Did hundreds of people suddenly sprout up out of nowhere? Or was it one male, and one female? I think that the people doing the research had better solve an easier question before taking on something as big as this. How about they find out which came first, the chicken or the egg.
So an old theory cannot be proven right or wrong? Long before there was the word "theory" there were theories. The Earth being flat was a theory. Is the Earth flat?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So an old theory cannot be proven right or wrong? Long before there was the word "theory" there were theories. The Earth being flat was a theory. Is the Earth flat?
You tell me. All i know is that a theory or theories are just that, probabilities that have not been proven 100%. One person say theory one year, and ten years later it becomes fact.
Originally posted by Stoic
You tell me. All i know is that a theory or theories are just that, probabilities that have not been proven 100%. One person say theory one year, and ten years later it becomes fact.
You are confusing the common use of the word theory with a scientific theory. They are not the same thing. I’ve included an article that will explain what a scientific theory is, and is not.
What is a Scientific Theory?
Kim Ann Zimmerman
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.
A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html#
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are confusing the common use of the word theory with a scientific theory. They are not the same thing. I’ve included an article that will explain what a scientific theory is, and is not.What is a Scientific Theory?
Kim Ann ZimmermanA scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.
A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.
A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.
A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html#
Thank you for providing clarity to this subject. However which one do you believe the theory is, in this very thread? Do you believe this to be scientific theory, or do you believe it to be something that someone just thought up in the shower? How can it be so easily debunked? The reason why I thought what was mentioned in the theory within this very thread was silly, was because things happen. Things like natural disasters, that could destroy crucial evidence to support a theory as old as this one appears to be.
Okay let's look at this subject like we would a crime scene, and nature playing a part in the crime (the destruction of crucial evidence). There could be circumstantial evidence involved in all of the years gone by, that may not have been looked at here; such as freakish weather, i.e wind storms, or whatever may have occurred over centuries. In this time, crucial evidence to support it could have been erased, or buried in sink holes, or swept away by water, or acid erosion. Whatever, you understand what I'm saying I hope.
This is why I said that they should try to figure out what came first, the chicken or the egg, which is an equally difficult problem to solve. Either way, both theories would hold the same amount of weight, if they were not 100% correct. But, before you ask, I do believe that many theories are fact, based on scientific proof, such as water causes most metals to rust in order to protect itself from further degradation.