3 ms·
> that's how you explain things after the fact I agree, that's what I said "if what your parent comment suggests is true" In fact, said parent comment said "I
by sinxoveretothex 10y ago
> that's how you explain things after the fact
I agree, that's what I said "if what your parent comment suggests is true"
In fact, said parent comment said "It might have been a mere speculation but it kind of makes sense"
I agree with you that there is no predictive power in explaining things that way (indeed, what I said is speculation, hence why I worded it in the conditional), but that was not what I was responding to. I was only responding to the "design" part of your comment.
That being said, evolution does make predictions which have been confirmed. Notably Darwin's long-nosed moth. Here's a list of more predictions[1]
[1] http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html
- StavrosK 10y agoYou seem to have fixated on one word in my comment and are arguing against creationism. I'm not saying that evolution makes no predictions, I'm saying that saying "oh yes, everything is the way it is because it confers an evolutionary advantage" is a mostly wrong, largely useless answer.
- sinxoveretothex 10y ago> You seem to have fixated on one word in my comment and are arguing against creationism. Well, I would argue that the vibe of your whole comment was coherent in that sense: you talked about what nature wanted, about design and about what kind of stuff would make sense while looking at it from a architect perspective. It's a very odd way to look at it if you have no creationist conception of it all to be honest. As for your point that not everything has an evolutionary advantage, I agree. Deafness and blindness exist after all. But I don't really see your point as far as proposing hypotheses to account for certain prevalent traits, which, in my opinion, is what the original content was about (the grandmother hypothesis).