What a fascinating insight into how online content algorithms are just incinerating the boomer brain this is. It's like those deranged AI generated images your aunt keeps reposting on Facebook. The main feed of information for millions of people has just turned to nonsense.
Silurian Hypothesis
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
stfoskey12
Emperor of Foskania
The thing about humans is we have also domesticated tons of animals. It seems plausible that paleontologists looking back hundreds of millions of years could find chicken, dog, or cow fossils looking appreciably different from those of their wild ancestors.
Zardnaar
Deity
I assume you didn't watch it. It's quoting an academic thesis.
Voidwalkin
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2024
- Messages
- 1,178
Gen X is similarly if not more deeply effected
All it would take is one machined edged piece of stone. Surly they couldn't all be destroyed.
Then why are you referencing the institute of creation research and the beeb?
You are complaining that other people "place to much faith in science" yet are quoting non-science as fact. Do you not see the irony?
Zardnaar
Deity
Generally I'm pro science but know they don't no everything and it's subject to revision based on new discoveries.
But some posters were claiming that the Fossil record proves xyz. All the video is saying (which they didn't watch) is that the fossils record is very incomplete and very biased towards aquatic fossils.
I'm not advocating for creationism or cryptic or whatever.
Dinosaur asteroid event was debated for 20 odd years for example. Now it's more how much of an impact it had as they have found these as well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
They found the impact site as well but didn't go looking for it until the asteroid theory was circulated in the 1980s.
We missed a 10km asteroid impact crater for close to 200 years when dinosaurs became a science.
You are making specific numerical claims, backing them up with links to a creationist web site and complaining that others are "place to much faith in science".
Zardnaar
Deity
While ignoring everything else I've said. I was quoting from the vide9 who was referencing a published academic paper.
A video most didn't watch (I try to keep linked videos under 5 minutes 20 max).
To much faith in science I've also pointed out how it evolves.
Broadly speaking I believe in evolution just to be clear, I don't think there's a pre human industrialized species, and my link wasn't the best as I found several all saying sonething similar.
Very broadly speaking I thought it was common enough knowledge that majority of fossils are aquatic in nature and we have only found a relative few.
There's a lot more missing than we have found. They have found footprints of dinosaurs for example but no fossils of said Dinosaurs.
So I'm not disputing much of anything but there's big gaps in paleontology. I put creationism into the same category as Communism, UBI, the tooth fairy and Santa Claus btw.
I am not ignoring anything you have said. As I see it the argument is principally a probabilistic one, therefore the percentage of species identified in the fossil record is the most important value in the calculation, so seems like the obvious first place to start.
Yet you have been unable to provide a link.
I hope this tells you all you need to about relying so much on a video in the OP. There are not many scientific papers I spend more than 5 minutes 20 seconds on.
What do you mean by science? To me the heart of science is not just saying stuff, but backing it up with data. I said:
Now admittedly you need to go via sci hub to actually get to the calculation, but it is available. Below is some of the working. Sure, it is not a complete answer to the question we want answered, but it is a well specified question answered with real data and all the logic required to check the working. That is science (in the loosest sense of the word), and we should trust it exactly as much as the data supports.
Spoiler Example of working :
You said:
You have since failed to provide anything to justify this statement.
My supposition is it is THAT that we should not trust. I think we should have AI built into our browsers such that when people make claims like this without good referencing we get some sort of poo emoji. Of course I am not really criticising you for this, it is not a standard that most people meet. The fact that politicians tend to sound more like you than me upsets me, especially when they talk about science.
Zardnaar
Deity
I am not ignoring anything you have said. As I see it the argument is principally a probabilistic one, therefore the percentage of species identified in the fossil record is the most important value in the calculation, so seems like the obvious first place to start.
Yet you have been unable to provide a link.
I hope this tells you all you need to about relying so much on a video in the OP. There are not many scientific papers I spend more than 5 minutes 20 seconds on.
What do you mean by science? To me the heart of science is not just saying stuff, but backing it up with data. I said:
Now admittedly you need to go via sci hub to actually get to the calculation, but it is available. Below is some of the working. Sure, it is not a complete answer to the question we want answered, but it is a well specified question answered with real data and all the logic required to check the working. That is science (in the loosest sense of the word), and we should trust it exactly as much as the data supports.
Spoiler Example of working :
You said:
You have since failed to provide anything to justify this statement.
My supposition is it is THAT that we should not trust. I think we should have AI built into our browsers such that when people make claims like this without good referencing we get some sort of poo emoji. Of course I am not really criticising you for this, it is not a standard that most people meet. The fact that politicians tend to sound more like you than me upsets me, especially when they talk about science.
The exact numbers aren't to important. Is Wikipedia good enough?
I thought it would be a fun/interesting discussion. The hypothesis is new 2018 iirc.
The exact numbers may not be, but the difference between 1 in 5 and one in 100,000 is.
As a general point, no. However it is a great way to get to primary liturature. Had you linked there, and therefore to the 2018 paper I would not have complained about your sources. I will note that this paper does not support your thesis. This is what is says about that signature in the fossil record:
Faunal radiation and extinctions
The last few centuries have seen significant changes in the abundance and spread of small animals, particularly rats, mice and cats, etc. that are associated with human exploration and biotic exchanges. Isolated populations almost everywhere have now been superseded in many respects by these invasive species. The fossil record will likely indicate a large faunal radiation of these indicator species at this point. Concurrently, many other species have already, or are likely to become, extinct, and their disappearance from the fossil record will be noticeable. Given the perspective from many million years ahead, large mammal extinctions that occurred at the end of the last ice age will also associated with the onset of the Anthropocene.
Then note how it ends:
Discussion and testable hypotheses
we recommend further synthesis and study on the persistence of uniquely industrial byproducts in ocean sediment environments. Are there other classes of compounds that will leave unique traces in the sediment geochemistry on multi-million year timescales? In particular, will the byproducts of common plastics, or organic long-chain synthetics, be detectable?
Secondly, and this is indeed more speculative, we propose that a deeper exploration of elemental and compositional anomalies in extant sediments spanning previous events be performed
Perhaps unusually, the authors of this paper are not convinced of the correctness of their proposed hypothesis. Were it to be true it would have profound implications and not just for astrobiology. However, most readers do not need to be told that it is always a bad idea to decide on the truth or falsity of an idea based on the consequences of it being true. While we strongly doubt that any previous industrial civilization existed before our own, asking the question in a formal way that articulates explicitly what evidence for such a civilization might look like raises its own useful questions related both to astrobiology and to Anthropocene studies. Thus, we hope that this paper will serve as motivation to improve the constraints on the hypothesis so that in future we may be better placed to answer our title question.
That is great, but do you understand the irony I am pointing out?
Zardnaar
Deity
I wasn't claiming the video was accurate I just recapped sone of the content.
I don't really care if people refute the video.
But some people jumped in without watching the video claiming whatever and the video covered that.
Then you should be more clear. The post I was quoting did not mention the video at all. I am still waiting for the "published academic paper" that you refer to.
Zardnaar
Deity
I don't have access to jstor anymore or whatever it was published.
People have already pulled the "you quoted the beeb" card.
So why bother if people are just gonna crap all over the basic idea? After not watching the video that directly addressed what they're crapping over.
I thought I was common enough knowledge I wasn't really after a scientific debate more pop culture and people's thoughts on it.
Silurian hypothesis - Wikipedia
The Silurian hypothesis: would it be possible to detect an industrial civilization in the geological record? | International Journal of Astrobiology | Cambridge Core
The Silurian hypothesis: would it be possible to detect an industrial civilization in the geological record? - Volume 18 Issue 2
More links in Wikipedia.
This is the paper I just quoted the bit that talks about the fossil record from, and it is open access. By my reading it says the opposite of what you are saying, that the spread of invasive species would be detectable in the fossil record. This is why it is important to quote your sources.I don't have access to jstor anymore or whatever it was published.
People have already pulled the "you quoted the beeb" card.
So why bother if people are just gonna crap all over the basic idea? After not watching the video that directly addressed what they're crapping over.
I thought I was common enough knowledge I wasn't really after a scientific debate more pop culture and people's thoughts on it.
Silurian hypothesis - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
The Silurian hypothesis: would it be possible to detect an industrial civilization in the geological record? | International Journal of Astrobiology | Cambridge Core
The Silurian hypothesis: would it be possible to detect an industrial civilization in the geological record? - Volume 18 Issue 2www.cambridge.org
More links in Wikipedia.
They also reference the natural nuclear reactor, which we have detected from nearly a billion years ago.
Last edited:
You're not going to find any fossils of mammals from hundreds of millions of years ago, let alone any that were domesticated.
BTW, folks: This whole "hypothesis" really isn't a new idea at all. Various science fiction writers have produced numerous stories on this theme, including one where the first manned mission to Mars explores the "Face" and finds the ruins of a waiting room for some kind of transit station - with writing on the wall that refers to Atlantis. The story hammers home the idea that our own civilization is barely 10,000 years old, and given how long humans have actually been around, there's no reason why technological civilizations couldn't have risen and fallen many times, each fall casting humanity back to the Stone Age (successive stone ages) so we have to start over again.
Of course these are just stories and there's no actual evidence that we're not the first technological civilization on Earth to make it this far.
The video provides an opportunity to ponder the question briefly, and it does make a good point about finding fossils. For instance, the region of the world where I live is rich in dinosaur fossils, and the place where I'm typing these words right now used to be at the bottom of a large inland sea.
Zardnaar
Deity
Video didn't say you couldn't detect them but it's possible we muss it. We would gave to g9 looking for it and interpret it correctly.
Video also addressed that as well using a layer they found 50 million years ago. Probably volcanoes.
As I said I don't think such a civilization would be undetectable. More how we would detect or interpret it.
Can you not see the problem here? You say "a layer they found 50 million years ago" with no reference. What are you talking about? The paper you reference talks about events in the Cretaceous, Jurassic, Early Mesozoic and Late Paleozoic. None of those are 50 million years ago. 50 million years ago was early in the Eocene, which is known for good times rather than mass extinctions the paper talks about being hard to distinguish from us. If the only reference you are willing to provide is a video that on the face of it is not serious how can we have a serious discussion?
I will ask again, do you see the irony about railing against trust in science, which I define as justifying everything you say, while constantly coming up with claims without good justification?
Similar threads
