4 ms·

> Why does every feature of every living thing have to have an evolutionary explanation? This phrasing implies the premise is true, which I don't agree with, s

by kortex 4y ago

> Why does every feature of every living thing have to have an evolutionary explanation? This phrasing implies the premise is true, which I don't agree with, so I am going to tackle 3 related questions: - Why does /any phenomenon/ require explanation? Because we are curious, and want to know how and why things do what they do. Answers lead to more questions, to more answers, in a loop of learning - Why do all biological phenomena need an evolutionary explanation? Because outside of artificial selection, natural selection is the only causal mechanism (outside of pure chance). Mitosis, Miosis, and Mutation are the building blocks. But much of that boils down to, "why is x the way it is? Because chance". which is not very interesting, which leads to... - Why does bee sting suicide in particular warrant an explanation? Because under a naive understanding of evolution, it is a paradox. Also, there was a time when proto-hymenoptera were not eusocial, so how did they become eusocial? Those are really interesting problems to look at. You are right in pointing out that pop-sci evolutionary handwavy explanations are a problem. But I don't think that is common in the broad science in biology.

_xnmw 4y ago
> natural selection is the only causal mechanism (outside of pure chance) It is this particular cult-like insistence on the omnipotence of natural selection that I challenge. Maybe there are other causal mechanisms? In any case, it needs to be a falsifiable hypothesis before we can call it "science". Can you prove natural selection caused this particular feature of suicidal honeybees? Even if we assume the author's natural selection explanation makes sense, the causal mechanism is FAR from clear. My complaint is, biologists are wrong by limiting themselves ONLY to the evolutionary toolbox instead of seeking other causal mechanisms. And it looks like a conspiracy theory when the come up with fanciful unfalsifiable unprovable "evolutionary" explanations of everything. > Because under a naive understanding of evolution, it is a paradox. Then maybe the response should be, something is wrong with the theory of evolution, i.e. the theory of evolution cannot explain every feature of every living being, and we need not pretend it can.

by kortex 4y ago

_xnmw 4y ago

> natural selection is the only causal mechanism (outside of pure chance) It is this particular cult-like insistence on the omnipotence of natural selection that I challenge. Maybe there are other causal mechanisms? In any case, it needs to be a falsifiable hypothesis before we can call it "science". Can you prove natural selection caused this particular feature of suicidal honeybees? Even if we assume the author's natural selection explanation makes sense, the causal mechanism is FAR from clear. My complaint is, biologists are wrong by limiting themselves ONLY to the evolutionary toolbox instead of seeking other causal mechanisms. And it looks like a conspiracy theory when the come up with fanciful unfalsifiable unprovable "evolutionary" explanations of everything. > Because under a naive understanding of evolution, it is a paradox. Then maybe the response should be, something is wrong with the theory of evolution, i.e. the theory of evolution cannot explain every feature of every living being, and we need not pretend it can.