4 ms·

Here is an intermediate form theory I just came up with as I read your comment. FALL SURVIVAL THEORY OF WING EVOLUTION Any tree dwelling creature is at risk

Here is an intermediate form theory I just came up with as I read your comment. FALL SURVIVAL THEORY OF WING EVOLUTION Any tree dwelling creature is at risk of falling and dying. Creatures that can better survive a fall (proto-wings, etc) have an improved chance of propagating this trait to off-spring. Furthermore, if they can better survive a fall they can risk higher climbs. The higher climbs make them better able to avoid predators and hunt prey further increasing selection pressure on fall survival and would dovetail nicely into gliding mutations. From there it is not a far jump to flying [pun intended]. No theory about the deep deep past can ever be certain. We weren't there to watch it happen.

EGreg 7y ago
That just illustrates my point. The ability to come up with THEORIES is not the same thing as validating SCIENTIFIC theories which are falsifiable. Just because it’s easy to come up with a theory off the cuff means there is a lot more work to do in actually explaining how something happened. Phlogiston and Luminiferous Ether were two theories in physics that actually had WAY MORE evidence for them than these, but turned out to be wrong. What separates a mere theory from a scientifically validated theory is falsifiability and experiment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- tylerjwilk00 7y ago
  So your solution to difficulty is simply that we should give up trying? No Thanks. Theories are a prerequisite to scientific experiment.
  - foldr 7y ago
    That's a bizarre reading of EGreg's comment. If the best theories that we have at present in some domain are weak, then we should acknowledge that. Doing so obviously doesn't prevent people from trying to develop better theories. On the contrary, it should spur them on.
    - EGreg 7y ago
      foldr is exactly right. Admitting the truth is major thing in science. The upshot of admitting the truth is that you shouldn't rely on theories that haven't been proven or even tested. You can certainly search for ways to make them falsifiable and try to disprove them. But don't for example make public policy based on them, or publish definite statements about how this theory finally "disproves" competing theories. But again, this applies in any area of science. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
      - philbarr 7y ago
        > or publish definite statements about how this theory finally "disproves" competing theories. But again, this applies in any area of science. Which competing theory does evolution disprove?
        foldr 7y ago
        Lamarckism would be one example.
        philbarr 7y ago
        Oh I must have missed that press release. And I'm sure he was talking about lamarckism. Give it a rest.
        foldr 7y ago
        I think EGreg was talking about specific theories of how particular traits developed, not The Theory of Evolution as a whole. I was just answering your question.
        philbarr 7y ago
        I think EGreg doubts evolution itself: "I think the evolution of flight is one of the clearest examples that the standard theories of evolution purely by mutation and natural selection are still lacking explanatory power."

EGreg 7y ago

That just illustrates my point. The ability to come up with THEORIES is not the same thing as validating SCIENTIFIC theories which are falsifiable. Just because it’s easy to come up with a theory off the cuff means there is a lot more work to do in actually explaining how something happened. Phlogiston and Luminiferous Ether were two theories in physics that actually had WAY MORE evidence for them than these, but turned out to be wrong. What separates a mere theory from a scientifically validated theory is falsifiability and experiment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

tylerjwilk00 7y ago
So your solution to difficulty is simply that we should give up trying? No Thanks. Theories are a prerequisite to scientific experiment.
- foldr 7y ago
  That's a bizarre reading of EGreg's comment. If the best theories that we have at present in some domain are weak, then we should acknowledge that. Doing so obviously doesn't prevent people from trying to develop better theories. On the contrary, it should spur them on.
  - EGreg 7y ago
    foldr is exactly right. Admitting the truth is major thing in science. The upshot of admitting the truth is that you shouldn't rely on theories that haven't been proven or even tested. You can certainly search for ways to make them falsifiable and try to disprove them. But don't for example make public policy based on them, or publish definite statements about how this theory finally "disproves" competing theories. But again, this applies in any area of science. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
    - philbarr 7y ago
      > or publish definite statements about how this theory finally "disproves" competing theories. But again, this applies in any area of science. Which competing theory does evolution disprove?
      - foldr 7y ago
        Lamarckism would be one example.
        philbarr 7y ago
        Oh I must have missed that press release. And I'm sure he was talking about lamarckism. Give it a rest.
        foldr 7y ago
        I think EGreg was talking about specific theories of how particular traits developed, not The Theory of Evolution as a whole. I was just answering your question.
        philbarr 7y ago
        I think EGreg doubts evolution itself: "I think the evolution of flight is one of the clearest examples that the standard theories of evolution purely by mutation and natural selection are still lacking explanatory power."