10 ms·
One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher
- predators372 7y agoProved -> Proven? Have we reached the point where basic vocabulary is too difficult for HN users now?
- switch007 7y agoOr phys.org editors? The HN guidelines suggest using the original title.
- smichel17 7y agoIt's HN policy not to editorialize the title. In this case, the linked article uses "proved".
- thiagocesar 7y agoBoth forms are correct, but proved is more prevalent in recent style guides. As one who is intimate with spelling should know, English has no unified body of spelling, grammar, or rules at all, therefore it’s very hard to say that one’s spelling is particularly incorrect.
- steanne 7y agohttps://grammarist.com/usage/proved-proven/ https://grammarist.com/usage/proved-proven/
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- AndriyKunitsyn 7y agoSome day, irregular verbs in English will be completely getted ridded of!
- normalnorm 7y agoScientific theories are not "proven", that is not how science works. All theories are always and forever open to falsification. The scientific attitude is one of eternal doubt. "Proof" is something that only exists in the realm of pure math.
- keiferski 7y agoYes, thank you. I really wish scientists (and the general public) learned more about the fundamentals of their field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
- sn41 7y agoActually I wonder whether Karl Popper is considered very important by philosophers of science. I have had arguments with people who claim that Feyerabend has a better "approach" to science. On the other hand, practicing scientists consider Popper's falsification one of the great unifying themes guiding scientific research. Though perhaps not as well-known, Popper's approach towards falsification of probabilistic claims is also a great read.
- vikramkr 7y agoWe discussed popper in some classes I took, the main theme for that for like an explanation yes it needs to be falsifiable, but also sometimes science is just "look I made a thing!" Or "look I found a thing!" And it's less relevant there. The unanimous belief accross different classes in the sciences I took was that yes, when we think about science we look at it from the perspective of falsification, but when we actually do science, we usually think of it as exploration until we have something we think falsifies the status quo or needs rigorous data collection to reject the mill. Nobody is really running an RNA sequencing experiment to evaluate the impacts of a drug on the rna transcriptome with falsification in mind (even if in a sense the null of "nothing changes" is what you're trying to falsify"). Psychologically it's just seen as some exploration to see what happens.
- throwaway4787 7y agoThis may be the appropriate thread to remind people that Darwin was far from the be-all and end-all of evolutionary biology and much of what he said turned out to be actually mistaken. This isn't so much of an attack on him as a celebration that we've come a long way since the 19th century. Also, you should be suspicious of any argument involving non-geneticists invoking Darwin to justify such and such social outcome - actual modern-day geneticists don't invoke Darwin for much of the same reason actual modern-day physicists don't invoke Democritus.
- msla 7y agoI think Darwin was closer to Newton than Democritus in terms of knowing what the Hell he was talking about. But, yes, your point stands: Evolutionary biology has moved on, and people who try to poke holes in a 19th Century version in order to discredit the whole field are misinformed and, likely, doing it with a partisan, rather than an academic, intent.
- shmageggy 7y agoCare to provide any references?
- DariusMarkus 7y agoUnbelievable that science still has to be proved - Aren't we living in a modern world?
- ausbah 7y agoI wonder what adopting the idea of subspecies to evolutionary algorithms would look like, and if any benefits would be encountered.
- Der_Einzige 7y agoIt's been done before. Check out "cooperative coevolution"
- bayesian_horse 7y agoOne problem when discussing species and subspecies is that there is no clear-cut definition between species, subspecies and "just some genetic diversity". The best hint is the genetic distance between any two individuals. In general, that distance is bigger between species than between subspecies. But no clear thresholds can be applied to the whole tree of life. Taxonomy is still mostly defined through differences a researcher can see with his own eyes (or a microscope). Much of taxonomy is in the process of being redefined through molecular methods, though.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago> there is no clear-cut definition between species It's not clear-cut in all cases. But it's clear cut bilaterally. Two organisms are in the same species if they can successfully reproduce, i.e. produce an offspring that can itself produce offspring. If they can't, they're in different species. (Multilateral fuzziness arises if A can reproduce with B, and B with C, but A not with C.)
- sago 7y agoSo all animals are in different species to members of their same sex? I'm joking a little of course. But only to make the point that the definition of species taught in high school is very difficult to pin down. You identified one way. Even more common: not all organisms reproduce sexually. But also: some organisms (protists) perform sexual recombination separately to reproduction. And even for well known higher mammals (which is where the 'offspring must also be fertile' clause comes from), 'fertile' is by no means binary! A sexual definition of species is simple, but rather difficult down in the nitty-gritty. It is always worth bearing in mind that species is a human classification concept, not a biological reality. It's not surprising that it has very grey edges.
- virtuous_signal 7y agoAt least for sexually reproductive species, your first objection could be addressed by defining the species relation as the transitive closure of the relation A ~ B if A can reproduce with B. (so for instance male1 ~ female0 and male2 ~ female0 by the original definition, and then male1 ~ male2 via the closure)
- smoyer 7y agoMy key take-away - humans have no sub-species but it can be beneficial to the species as a whole. Let's get to work people! (or perhaps we just haven't formed divisions in the human population yet?)
- shard972 7y agoThere are divisions but it's considered politically incorrect to posit that their might be.
- kuprel 7y agoI found an interesting genetic distance matrix on Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AGenetic_similarities_between_51_worldwide_human_populations_%28Euclidean_genetic_distance_using_289%2C160_SNPs%29.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AGenetic_similarities_...
- tabtab 7y agoIt generally divides along continental lines, which is mostly as expected. It's harder for genes to cross continents.
- L_226 7y agoWait until we start breeding in space, then we're really gonna be diverse. Shortly after I predict various parties on either side will start agitating to purge the others to keep the pool "clean".
- botwriter 7y agoA bit uncomfortably quick to point out that humans don't have subspecies... Oh boy thats one ladder you don't want to go down. Career ending in fact with this climate.
- jovial_cavalier 7y agoShut up. This is on the intellectual level of a middle schooler. This is not an interesting conversation. You are only hurting your own side. Shut up. If I were Laura Van Holstein, I would be embarrassed of this article, especially with that headline. Anyone who claims to have "proven" something of this nature, or to have "settled" the discussion, needs to not be taken seriously.
- ggggtez 7y agoIt seems like everyone commenting on this article lost their gosh-darn minds. Can I helpfully remind folks to try to have productive discussions instead of quibbling about the definition of "proven", and outright vitriol?
- mplanchard 7y agoVitriol is never justifiable for this sort of thing, I agree. I do think calling out the unscientific use of the word “proven” or “proved” is reasonable on a forum where so many people have at least some scientific training. I studied and taught biology and chemistry in grad school in the south. Lots of people don’t “believe” in evolution and will base some of that on the fact that the theory isn’t “proven”, without understanding the rigor that proof implies in a scientific context. Usage like we see in the article is problematic. What if this finding were disproven later? What does that teach people who don’t know any better about the nature of proof?