Proof that at least one of two (evolution, ice age) key theories is false

official school material ^ | 04/05/21 | self

[Truth666]

These are three of the dogmas which we are endoctrinated nowadays in school : #1 - origins of the current forms life forms: by evolution from previous forms #2 - appearance of Homo Sapiens (from encarta): The oldest known fossils that possess skeletal features typical of modern humans date from between 130,000 and 90,000 years ago. #3 - last ice age (from encarta): the most recent ice age, the Pleistocene Epoch, lasted from about 1.6 million years to 10,000 years before present ... when temperatures were 5° to 7° C cooler than today.

#1 and #2 are part of current evolution theory; #3 is part of current ice age theory.

There can be no doubts that no other theory has so much impact on modern society as evolution theory. In view of the signs of climate change from the last years, ice age theory is impacting society more by the day.

From these dogmas we immediately can take the following conclusion : homo sapiens has already experienced an ice age.

Now hold on to your seat : relying solely on the assumptions of both theories, there's plenty of evidence that AT LEAST one of these theories is false ! In other words : these theories are incompatible.

Let's take one piece of evidence that any high school student can understand.

Lord Howe Island - living proof

This is not just another coral reef. This is Lord Howe Island, by far the southern-most coral reef in the world. Its existance is only possible due to particular climate conditions that affect an area of the world where no other land rises even remotely near sea level. In fact there's nothing but deep ocean until Port Macquarie, on the NSW coast, 550 kms away.

This wonder of the world would be immediately destroyed, if the ocean temperature would drop just one degree Celsius. If the temperature would drop 5°C both endemic unmistakable palms (including the most popular indoor palm of the world, howea forsteriana) would also perish. So, just to take these two examples, both the coral and the howea would have had to have developed from scratch during the last 10,000 years. A claim that nobody would dare to make.

[Physicist]

- what are the chances

Fallacy of Retrospective Astonishment ping.

[Physicist]

- what are the chances

Fallacy of Retrospective Astonishment ping.

[PatrickHenry]

From my post of 4 years ago:

The odds against it are so amazingly huge!!!

I've been struggling for a term to apply to this fallacy. The fallacy involves looking back to some earlier and arbitrarily chosen initial state, then speculating on all the nearly infinite events that might have happened (but which didn't happen), and concluding that the present state has such a low degree of probability that it must have been impossible to achieve by natural means. This "reasoning" makes literally everything impossible (and thus miraculous), and it is therefore an absurdity.

The explanation is that if each event in the chain was a natural event, then the whole chain of events was also natural. It only seems improbable in retrospect. Improbability works in the other direction too -- it is unlikely that in the beginning, with all the intervening variables, the final state could have been accurately predicted. (This does make sense, which is why accurate predictions, if unambiguous, are so highly regarded.) I'm onto something here, but I wish I knew what to call it. longshadow, who is lurking here, has suggested The Fallacy of Probabilistic Illiteracy, which is accurate but too cumbersome. I'm still working on it. Perhaps "The fallacy of retrospective astonishment."

[Truth666]

"Point to any lottery winner and ask yourself, "what were the odds of that person winning"? The answer is, "astronomically small". Does that make it a miracle?"
The comparison with winning the lottery doesn't stand, both in quantity and quality. Let's see just the last one :
- there must be a lottery winner - even when there's not one we know that somehwere there is ONE ticket that would have been the winner. - taking the palm example and keeping in mind that New Caledonia is the Eldorado for palm species : there is no evidence for even ONE single species that could make it to Lord Howe Island.

Now there are two VERY interesting things in your post, which I was waiting for. One is "big numbers" usage ("astronomically").
Qualitatively where do you see the fact that the earth hasn't been visited by other possible civilisations existing somewhere in the universe ? In the same category of lottery or Lord Howe (absence of any non-endemic palms ?)

[Physicist]

there is no evidence for even ONE single species that could make it to Lord Howe Island.

Let me get this straight: you expect a tropical island to be devoid of all palms, because you personally don't know the dispersal mechanisms by which they arrived?

Qualitatively where do you see the fact that the earth hasn't been visited by other possible civilisations existing somewhere in the universe ?

Qualitatively, I see it in a completely unrelated thread on another website, and in a different language. (I have no clue as to where you're going with this one.)

[Notforprophet]

I have read through this entire thread and am now dumber than I was before. Thanks, Truth666!

NFP

[longshadow]

Perhaps "The fallacy of retrospective astonishment."

My goodness, out of all the possible people in the world, what were the odds you'd end up living between the two neighbors you live between? There's six billion people in the world, and you ended up living in between those TWO exact people? What are the chances of that?

BTW, I should have used the expression "Probabilistic Innumeracy" not "... Illiteracy".

[Truth666]

"Qualitatively, I see it in a completely unrelated thread"
Qualitatively I see it in the same category as the absence of non-endemic palms in Lord Howe Island. I capitalised the word "ONE" before, to show that.
But let's compare both facts quantitatively : Fact 1 - NO traces of non-endemic palms in Lord Howe
Fact 2 - NO traces of civilisations of other planets in Earth.
What is statistically more astonishing ?

[Physicist]

Fact 1 - NO traces of non-endemic palms in Lord Howe

First, I don't think you have a clear idea of what "endemic" means. Second, considering the basic things you've gotten wrong on this thread, I won't take your word for it that there are no non-endemic palms on LHI. Please provide a source. Third, just because the LHI palms are not now found elsewhere, it doesn't mean that they didn't come from elsewhere in the past. Fourth, you've not presented any evidence that no existing species of palm elsewhere might have served as a parent stock to any given LHI palms. Fifth, you've given no indication of how different the LHI palms are from palms elsewhere. Sixth, you've presented no evidence that any of the palms (or rather, their ancestors) might have weathered the last ice age on LHI. Seventh, I thought you'd given up on the palms in favor of the coral.

Fact 2 - NO traces of civilisations of other planets in Earth.

That's very hard to parse; at least one preposition is poorly chosen. However, it seems you are referring to the Fermi problem: if alien civilizations exist, why haven't they already arrived here? My personal expectation is that civilizations don't last long. As their intelligence becomes ever greater, the timescales that are relevant to the civilization shrink to zero.

What is statistically more astonishing ?

I don't think either observation lends itself to any kind of statistical inference.

[Truth666]

"First, I don't think you have a clear idea of what "endemic" means. "
I precised what I meant with endemic "in the sense that they don't exist or were recorded anyhwere else" - and included it in the new version, post 188

[Truth666]

"I won't take your word for it that there are no non-endemic palms on LHI."
Should I be astonished that an expert on evolution theory comes up with this?
In view of the endemism facts about unique climates I shouldn't need to included any remarks about palm endemism in the article.
In view of the facts about correlating endemism and how isolated the area and how seldom the climate is, I shouldn't need to included any remarks about palm endemism in the article.
Some facts about (palms) endemism : the worldwide and largest nearby examples (of the palm family).

Madagascar

This large island off the east coast of Africa has the most remarkable palm flora of anywhere in the world. Dransfield and Beentje (1995) describe as native 167 species in 13 genera; only two of these species are also found in mainland Africa, giving Madagascar a palm species endemism rate of 99 percent.

New Caledonia

New Caledonia has 32 indigenous palm species, all endemic (Moore and Uhl, 1984)

[Truth666]

Third, just because the LHI palms are not now found elsewhere, it doesn't mean that they didn't come from elsewhere in the past.
This is part of Fact 2, that you correctly described as another example of the Fermi problem. Answer later, in the scope of Fact 2.

[Truth666]

Fourth, you've not presented any evidence that no existing species of palm elsewhere might have served as a parent stock to any given LHI palms.
Again this in the scope of Fact 2. Statistically it's even less probable, since it requires additionally :
- only the LHI endemic palms made it to Lord Howe
- they were extremely seldom in their supposed original habitats, since no traces of them anywhere else

[Truth666]

Fifth, you've given no indication of how different the LHI palms are from palms elsewhere.
Yes I did. Survival id one of the best systems to measure how unique a species is :
- at the lowest end of the scale you have the invasive species, that when introduced in a new habitat destroy the native species in shortest time.
- at the top end of the scale you have in second place species that are still able to survive at least in one other habitat under natural conditions (without care) but are not able to keep all their features (for instance the cork tree (quercus suber), that produces cork only in its natural habitat, some small areas of southwestern Europe)
- at the very top of the scale you have species additionally are not able to survive without care - Lord Howe palms are among them.

[Truth666]

Sixth, you've presented no evidence that any of the palms (or rather, their ancestors) might have weathered the last ice age on LHI.
Yes I did. I mentioned first temperature and then cloud cover.
You can say that extinction of a species due to causes other than humans is a function of how unique the species and how isolated the habitat is. I've shown in the previous point that Lord Howe palms (BTW, the same for corals) are the world leading palms for that function.
In other words, the first palm species to perish as a result of climate change would be the Lord Howe island palm species(probably along with the Juan Fernandez islands palm).

[Truth666]

Seventh, I thought you'd given up on the palms in favor of the coral.
Obviously not, since before posting the revised version at #188 (which continued to include both) I answered every objection about palms.

[Truth666]

So now let's check your answer to fact 2.
I don't think either observation lends itself to any kind of statistical inference.
No surprise here. Evolution theory avoids statistiscs like the devil avoids the cross ...

[Truth666]

... like this example of today shows :

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1119037/posts?page=289#289

Venus enters SOHO (first time experience for any of the 6 billion populating the nearest planet)

[Truth666]

It is very simple to see what is statistically more astonishing ...

[Truth666]

The hunter that discovered the only mature specimen of the only species of the genus Pritchardiopsis of the palmae family (that was considered to be extinct) holds a fallen leaf of the now most seldom plant of the world