Scientific Urban Legends

I loved this video and watched it through.

I was a bit surprised that he didn't mention the "we use 10% of our brain" myth.

Good stuff.

I would have added 'Abiogenesis is actually a thing' to the list.

Cute Leadfood. But no, that doesn't fit the topic of the video for two reasons.

1) The term "abiogenesis" is mainly used in religious propaganda. The video is about common misconceptions. Abiogenesis is only talked about by people in specific, mostly evangelical Christian communities. Most people on the street don't even know what you are talking about.

2) Evolution is settled science. Outside of people with ideological objections, the scientific community doesn't even see this as controversial. (For people who don't know what abiogenesis is, it is an objection that creationists have to modern science based on their belief that life can not happen unless God exists.)

I think the sugar makes kids hyperactive myth is amazing.

Every parent (myself included) would swear that this is the case. We have all used this as an excuse to not give our kids sweets and we have probably said this to our kids.

And yet it isn't true (as confirmed by double blind studies). This is an example where a myth has affected the perceptions of parents on a wide scale.

Cute, trying to change the subject to religion or evolution, but no, I wasn't talking about either.

If you define 'abiogenesis' as a religious term, what term do you use for the origin of biological life?

The other Urban Legend is that there is such a thing as "settled science". What a laugh riot.

I want to ignore you... but your awkward attempt to settle a religious score in a thread about scientific urban legends amuses me.

What you seem to be saying is that the origin of biological life is an urban legend. That made me chuckle.

Please do.

Does anyone here really want to talk about Scientific Urban Legends?

I find the topic interesting; commonly held beliefs that go against modern science. Does anyone else have some favorites?

I like the concept of vast unerground rivers where water supplies in New York state have their starts in Canada. Some well -drillers actually believe this and use dowsing to "prove their point".
There are only a very few actual underground streams and these occur in fractured limestone rock.

I hadn't heard that one. Cool.

The term "abiogenesis" was coined by Thoms Huxley in a misunderstanding he had with the term "Biogenesis" first introduced by Henry Bastian. Bastian used "Biogenesis" to merely men the beginnings of life on earth an Huxley, (probably lotsa alcohol,was ingot into one of these endless "frank Apisa" arguments where Huxley stated oiver and over, that Bastians use of "Biogenesis" could only mean that life could arise from previous life (and of course he unwittingly negan the interminable argument and the creation of "Creationist myths" . Bastian had really no intention to be so tricky with the use of phrases to raise the religious POV. SO Huxley, in order to submit his thoughts as Darwin's"bulldog" created a one person argument that for some reason we cannot extract ourselves.

viz


So the term "evolutive abiogenesis" was "designed" to distinguish the biological definition from a religion based one.


Since all beginnings of life are abiogenesistic ("No ****"), and we scientists must take credit for the stupid turn of phrase , we can only sit back and take whatever gets tossed our way and deal with it.

I WILL, however, never EVER use the phrase "Evolutive Abiogenesis" , sounds creepy. Also the term panspermia (Sounds like we should be looking for afterbirth in meteorites). Nevertheless, they are with us and are words that start many a good fight as witnessed above.

We dont even have any theories of the origin of life on our planet. We have several hypotheses , some with a few pieces of direct circumstantial evidence, but no slam dunks . (I dont say "yet" anymore, Ill give Bob Hen a couple more years to correlate his mineralogical evolution with that of life strata on earth and maybe we get closer to a "Yet".

The urban legend is that noone has come close to rally knowing, so we deal with method naturalism and seek evidence.

Is there another kind ? I hope you puter peepps dont try to "repurpose" another few words from perfectly reasonable techy english

why not? there are degrees of agreement and application no?

My spelling is on the shitty side tonite. Ive got a couple of pain pills and my left hand is wrapped because of two really fucked up joints on my remaining fingers.
I meant to say "Ill wait for BOB HAZEN's work on the evolution of minerals on earth to compare the occurences of life based on the P chemistry of how certain rocks turn into other rocks based on their environments.

My objection to Leadfoot's post is that he is implying that evolution is an "urban legend" rather than settled science. I am pretty sure he is a creationist (he can correct me if I am wrong).

I think my objection was appropriate. The video in the OP is from a actual scientist with a PhD in biology. He is promoting real science (as taught in universities and practiced by real scientists).

There are right answers in science. The right answers are the answers that have been determined by the experts (i.e. PhDs who have spent the time studying the subject and have done real research).

The expert scientists tell us the Earth orbits the Sun. There have been measurements, and experiments and a lot math done on the subject and scientists consider the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun to be settled. Now, it is possible that future scientists will discover with new math that the Earth actually is the center of the universe and orbited by the Sun.

But until that point, the right answer is that the Earth does, in fact, orbit the Sun.

This video talks about points where common knowledge is contradicted by the right answer according to science. Evolution is not an example of this.

Im on your side on this. We have lotsa things that are seemingly "unsettled" but , in actuality are more like differences of opinion about the best way that each others paint should be applied.

Ive been doing the religion v science, or science v self dealing politics, for some years. We can see how , even with good solid visible evidence ,if ya dont wish to accept sciences interpretation, just dont try to manufacture a bogus argument that "EVEN LARGE PERCENTAGES OF TRAINED SCIENTISTS DONT ACCEPT THIS MAJOR TOPIC".

Ive gotta say however, much of the bible belt denial of evolution, ntural selection, the entire cncept of Global warming, and anthropogenic climate change, seems to be quieting. Its only the major contributors in sponsorship of much of the bogus science who remain active and alert. I really think much of the country is waking up.
Even the Discovery Institute has IMV, been trying to "redesign", Intelligent Design to become more Intelligent "Creation" and then Intelligent "hands off".

Do i need to repeat that i specially Was Not talking about evolution?

Kudos to farmer on setting the origin of 'abiogenesis' straight.

sorta like the capture of the terms Micro v macro-evolution as a belief rather than a carefully investigated concept of biology.

Yep, the macro side rests only on a pile of bones and assumptions.
The micro side has been researched to heck and back with far less results.