3 ms·

Exactly. Evolution can't explain evolution.

tkot 5y ago
Should we expect evolution to explain evolution, though? It reminds me a bit of the "falsifiability is not falsifiable" kind of argument - just like falsifiability doesn't apply to itself (it applies to science and falsifiability is a metascientific term), evolution is a biological term and doesn't apply to cosmogony.
mod 5y ago
Perhaps it can. Put simply, (maybe) life that does not evolve gets out competed and dies out. I actually think that's the logical conclusion.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  Yes, but how did the rules for evolution come about?
  - jacobr1 5y ago
    We can push the question further back. In the abstract, we can say that some form of evolution is going to occur whenever you have imperfect replication. That is the only criteria needed, and the "rules" emerge naturally such a start. You could ask, ok, why DNA based molecules and while not definitive, we have models around how their chemical precursors could become available in conditions similar to earths ancient past. You could ask why did earth have such conditions, and the answer is something like: many planets could have similar conditions, and given the size of the universe regardless of how common such conditions, one might expect them to arise like earth's somewhere. Ok, then you might ask what causes the universe have the types of stellar conditions and planetary formations and similar, to which we have cosmological models that generate these conditions from early energy states after the big bang. Ok, so then you ask what created the big bang, or the universe as whole? We don't have a great answer. But understanding how evolution itself comes to be doesn't require such a leap if we are will to accept an earlier starting point and start examining phenomenon from there.
  - gaganyaan 5y ago
    Consider that your question is based on a misunderstanding. There aren't "rules" of evolution, it's just our label for part of what happens when you leave a bunch of hydrogen sitting around for an extended period of time. It's emergent behavior. You're driving at some sort of god thing, but that's actually unrelated. Sure, you can make the argument that the universe was created by something else, but however the universe got created, one bit of emergent behavior from it is the process of evolution.
eeZah7Ux 5y ago
[citation needed]
woodruffw 5y ago
The word "evolution" describes a process we've observed in systems with heritable characteristics and environmental pressures that more or less randomly select for or against those characteristics. It doesn't need a prime mover per se, because it's a statistical phenomenon.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  How did the laws or rules for that process come about?
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    The thing we call “science” is a loose collection of deductive, inductive, and abductive rules of inference, combined with empirical observation. A great deal of ink has been spent trying to determine the exact “laws” of science; Popper and Kuhn can probably help you with the details.
5e92cb50239222b 5y ago
Religious fanatics have used this argument for the past few million things that have since been explained by science. Will likely do so for the next who knows how many years until everything is explained.
- rglover 5y ago
  It's a valid argument (prepending "religious fanatics" to discredit it is intellectually weak). Science is nothing more than humans finding explanation for what was already created. The worship of it leads to an ignorance of the "why" and "who," putting an overemphasis on the what, where, when, and how.
  - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
    Why? and who? are questions humans ask about their societies, families, and products. Assuming it applies to non-human natural phenomenon is quite intensely anthropomorphic and more than a little arrogant.
    - rglover 5y ago
      I shudder at the thought of your upbringing if curiosity is viewed as arrogance. I'm not assuming that it applies, those are just the best tools I have at my disposal for understanding right now. I patiently await the monolith that changes that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHWs3c3YNs4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHWs3c3YNs4).
      - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
        My upbringing was evangelical Christian... thus my distaste for theological supremacism.
        rglover 5y ago
        Yeah, that will do it (I have a close friend in the same boat and understand the distaste). It's difficult, but I'd urge you to separate your views of God from that point of view.

tkot 5y ago

Should we expect evolution to explain evolution, though? It reminds me a bit of the "falsifiability is not falsifiable" kind of argument - just like falsifiability doesn't apply to itself (it applies to science and falsifiability is a metascientific term), evolution is a biological term and doesn't apply to cosmogony.

mod 5y ago

Perhaps it can. Put simply, (maybe) life that does not evolve gets out competed and dies out. I actually think that's the logical conclusion.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Yes, but how did the rules for evolution come about?
- jacobr1 5y ago
  We can push the question further back. In the abstract, we can say that some form of evolution is going to occur whenever you have imperfect replication. That is the only criteria needed, and the "rules" emerge naturally such a start. You could ask, ok, why DNA based molecules and while not definitive, we have models around how their chemical precursors could become available in conditions similar to earths ancient past. You could ask why did earth have such conditions, and the answer is something like: many planets could have similar conditions, and given the size of the universe regardless of how common such conditions, one might expect them to arise like earth's somewhere. Ok, then you might ask what causes the universe have the types of stellar conditions and planetary formations and similar, to which we have cosmological models that generate these conditions from early energy states after the big bang. Ok, so then you ask what created the big bang, or the universe as whole? We don't have a great answer. But understanding how evolution itself comes to be doesn't require such a leap if we are will to accept an earlier starting point and start examining phenomenon from there.
- gaganyaan 5y ago
  Consider that your question is based on a misunderstanding. There aren't "rules" of evolution, it's just our label for part of what happens when you leave a bunch of hydrogen sitting around for an extended period of time. It's emergent behavior. You're driving at some sort of god thing, but that's actually unrelated. Sure, you can make the argument that the universe was created by something else, but however the universe got created, one bit of emergent behavior from it is the process of evolution.

eeZah7Ux 5y ago

[citation needed]

woodruffw 5y ago

The word "evolution" describes a process we've observed in systems with heritable characteristics and environmental pressures that more or less randomly select for or against those characteristics. It doesn't need a prime mover per se, because it's a statistical phenomenon.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
How did the laws or rules for that process come about?
- woodruffw 5y ago
  The thing we call “science” is a loose collection of deductive, inductive, and abductive rules of inference, combined with empirical observation. A great deal of ink has been spent trying to determine the exact “laws” of science; Popper and Kuhn can probably help you with the details.

5e92cb50239222b 5y ago

Religious fanatics have used this argument for the past few million things that have since been explained by science. Will likely do so for the next who knows how many years until everything is explained.

rglover 5y ago
It's a valid argument (prepending "religious fanatics" to discredit it is intellectually weak). Science is nothing more than humans finding explanation for what was already created. The worship of it leads to an ignorance of the "why" and "who," putting an overemphasis on the what, where, when, and how.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Why? and who? are questions humans ask about their societies, families, and products. Assuming it applies to non-human natural phenomenon is quite intensely anthropomorphic and more than a little arrogant.
  - rglover 5y ago
    I shudder at the thought of your upbringing if curiosity is viewed as arrogance. I'm not assuming that it applies, those are just the best tools I have at my disposal for understanding right now. I patiently await the monolith that changes that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHWs3c3YNs4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHWs3c3YNs4).
    - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
      My upbringing was evangelical Christian... thus my distaste for theological supremacism.
      - rglover 5y ago
        Yeah, that will do it (I have a close friend in the same boat and understand the distaste). It's difficult, but I'd urge you to separate your views of God from that point of view.