Observing nature changing

Fantasus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2012
2,381
Northern part of European lowland
Nature changes over time and the most popular theory states even the universe had a beginning. Such changes may be "slow", ans scientists findout by making models ans theories.
Human lifespans seema too short for direct observations. Or so we may think but is it true? Natural sciences have existed for some centuries and for the later part of that time, say 100 to 200 years, many of its founding theories and methods were in use. Say 150 years ago, at the time of printing the "Origin of Species". That would be 1/30 million compares to age since earth and our solar system originated.
I think such a fraction should be enough to find out if many processes in nature follow the models. To see wether genetic evolution went as expected
and to see how continents moved. And even to observe at least some of the
changes in our cosmic environment "directly".
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,140
Connecticut
Nature changes over time and the most popular theory states even the universe had a beginning. Such changes may be "slow", ans scientists findout by making models ans theories.
Human lifespans seema too short for direct observations. Or so we may think but is it true? Natural sciences have existed for some centuries and for the later part of that time, say 100 to 200 years, many of its founding theories and methods were in use. Say 150 years ago, at the time of printing the "Origin of Species". That would be 1/30 million compares to age since earth and our solar system originated.
I think such a fraction should be enough to find out if many processes in nature follow the models. To see wether genetic evolution went as expected
and to see how continents moved. And even to observe at least some of the
changes in our cosmic environment "directly".
No I don't think so; in most cases more time is needed for perceptible changes to be noted.
 
May 2016
811
Vatican occupied America
No I don't think so; in most cases more time is needed for perceptible changes to be noted.
On the Origins of Species by Natural Selection was published November 24 1859, 2017-1860 = 157 years. There are 8.7 million known species, 157 x 8.7 million = 1,365,900,000 years for a new species to originate and none have = junk science. Real science is about something that's observable and testable AKA it's about something that one can publicly demonstrate and people can reasonably know.

Natural Selection and Charles Darwin were completely proven false in the 1920s by the science of genetics. This lead to a new hypothesis on the natural origins of life and speciation by genetic mutation over billions of years. This hypothesis too is junk science disproven by the fossil record which shows life stagnate most of the time and only changing occasionally at special times and massively then. Pretty much evolution is junk science, but being junk science does not mean life did not have natural origins, but only that we don't know whether or not it did and don't know how it happened if it did happen by natural origins.

If you can't show the goods you're not doing science or being scientific. You're just creating hypotheses that have no proof. Any model is no evidence and the unreliable eye witness testimony is a mountain of evidence compared model/hypothesis. Once can't use mathematical models to prove anything. Deductive reasoning can't prove a fact about the material world only inductive reasoning can do that and that means one must be able to both observe it and test it by experiment to confirm that what one is observing is really what one thinks it is.
 

Todd Feinman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
6,606
Planet Nine, Oregon
Evokution is constantly occurring, it's not junk science. There may be periods of extreme speciation. Epigenetics can possibly explain some seeming anomalous specialization in evolution.
 

Todd Feinman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
6,606
Planet Nine, Oregon
AND, hey folks. JUST BECAUSE you cannot get something near some equipment to test it with our system of science, doesn't mean it isn't real.
 

Fantasus

Ad Honorem
Jan 2012
2,381
Northern part of European lowland
No I don't think so; in most cases more time is needed for perceptible changes to be noted.
One thing is changes we don't observe with just our unaided eyes.
Another thing is what is registered by the most accurate scientific apparatus.
Such apparatus are often incredible sensitive and accurate.