4 ms·

Evolution is not an opinion, it is a fact based on reproducible and falsifiable experiments. You can even simulate evolution and see it at work. https://rednu

Evolution is not an opinion, it is a fact based on reproducible and falsifiable experiments. You can even simulate evolution and see it at work. https://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/ https://rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/ You can also see evolution taking place within our lifetime (nylonase evolved to eat nylon, a man-made substance from the 20th century). I do not mean to be rude or start a flamewar, but we have to stand our ground when it comes to scientific progress. The collective survival of humanity requires us to teach these subjects. Understanding evolution across the geological eras and extinction events is crucial to steering the new generations towards a sustainable future.

plsbenice34 3y ago
Unquestionable facts do not exist in science. It is not how the scientific method works. It is a serious issue that the basic foundations of scientific method are now completely misunderstood by the vast majority of the public. This issue is spilling into politics and academia, as showed completely clearly with covid and terms like 'The Science' being used in an outright authoritarian or even religious way. I think science needs to be taught through a different lens, without unquestionable facts, all the way from childhood. If done properly it only has positive effects in improving critical thinking and adding a sense of wonder about all the facets of the universe that remain to further understand. Unfortunately it likely comes down to the unfortunate observation that political powers want a public that is trained to be obedient and accept facts handed down from above.
- 29athrowaway 3y ago
  You make it seem more subjective than it is. Scientific progress represents a "local maximum" of the best available explanation we can provide. If you have proof for a better explanation then that explanation becomes the accepted one.
  - plsbenice34 3y ago
    Essentially every model is wrong and will be continually replaced with an improved one. Classical mechanics was incredibly convincing. Don't fall into the fallacy that our era is the first to have it all solved. It isn't subjectivity, it is the objective philosphy of science and definition of scientific method. There was a time when your messages would be applied to argue that Earth is the centre of the universe and people were killed if they disagreed. For evolution in particular, I am not religious at all and probably have as much 'faith' in the basics of it as any evolutionary biologist would, but there are massive questions still open, like abiogensis being completely unsolved >If you have proof for a better explanation then that explanation becomes the accepted one. There is no proof, there is only evidence. It simply takes some softer wording to say 'we observe x, so we conclude y' instead of proof and facts
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
mythrwy 3y ago
Evolution is not a fact. It's a theory. This is not to say evolution doesn't occur, of course it does, and most rational people without an overzealous religious bent recognize this. It's an obvious explanation and it fits, it predicts successfully and it explains satisfactorily. But it's important to differentiate between a fact and a theory. A fact is simple observable phenomena without explanation. An apple fell to the ground is fact. "Why" the apple fell the ground (gravity) is theory. This doesn't dispute predictive power or best fit explanation of gravity at all. Likewise with evolution. That is how things work, yes almost certainly, but it is still a theory.
- 29athrowaway 3y ago
  Use whatever terminology you prefer, however, you cannot ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence around us in the fossil record.
  - User23 3y ago
    The fossil record isn't particularly good evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection because of the nature of fossilization. It requires special conditions and the overwhelming majority of creatures never fossilize. It is good evidence that creatures that used to be around aren't anymore though. Evolutionary biologists tend to be very defensive though. If you say to a particle physicist "hey the standard model isn't that great" he'll say "yep, wish we could do better." If you say to an evolutionary biologist "hey the theory of evolution by natural selection isn't that great" he'll resort to ad hominems. This is probably because the standard model is hard science, whereas evolution by natural selection is more of a best effort conjecture. And there is a really important distinction to be made. Evolution in the sense of heritable traits being selected for is undeniable fact. Dogs are a thing after all so we've verified the effects of selection in a controlled setting. So when someone critiques the theory of evolution by natural selection it should be understood as part of the process of coming up with a better theory, not "muh anti science."
    - 29athrowaway 3y ago

plsbenice34 3y ago

Unquestionable facts do not exist in science. It is not how the scientific method works. It is a serious issue that the basic foundations of scientific method are now completely misunderstood by the vast majority of the public. This issue is spilling into politics and academia, as showed completely clearly with covid and terms like 'The Science' being used in an outright authoritarian or even religious way. I think science needs to be taught through a different lens, without unquestionable facts, all the way from childhood. If done properly it only has positive effects in improving critical thinking and adding a sense of wonder about all the facets of the universe that remain to further understand. Unfortunately it likely comes down to the unfortunate observation that political powers want a public that is trained to be obedient and accept facts handed down from above.

29athrowaway 3y ago
You make it seem more subjective than it is. Scientific progress represents a "local maximum" of the best available explanation we can provide. If you have proof for a better explanation then that explanation becomes the accepted one.
- plsbenice34 3y ago
  Essentially every model is wrong and will be continually replaced with an improved one. Classical mechanics was incredibly convincing. Don't fall into the fallacy that our era is the first to have it all solved. It isn't subjectivity, it is the objective philosphy of science and definition of scientific method. There was a time when your messages would be applied to argue that Earth is the centre of the universe and people were killed if they disagreed. For evolution in particular, I am not religious at all and probably have as much 'faith' in the basics of it as any evolutionary biologist would, but there are massive questions still open, like abiogensis being completely unsolved >If you have proof for a better explanation then that explanation becomes the accepted one. There is no proof, there is only evidence. It simply takes some softer wording to say 'we observe x, so we conclude y' instead of proof and facts
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

mythrwy 3y ago

Evolution is not a fact. It's a theory. This is not to say evolution doesn't occur, of course it does, and most rational people without an overzealous religious bent recognize this. It's an obvious explanation and it fits, it predicts successfully and it explains satisfactorily. But it's important to differentiate between a fact and a theory. A fact is simple observable phenomena without explanation. An apple fell to the ground is fact. "Why" the apple fell the ground (gravity) is theory. This doesn't dispute predictive power or best fit explanation of gravity at all. Likewise with evolution. That is how things work, yes almost certainly, but it is still a theory.

29athrowaway 3y ago
Use whatever terminology you prefer, however, you cannot ignore the overwhelming amount of evidence around us in the fossil record.
- User23 3y ago
  The fossil record isn't particularly good evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection because of the nature of fossilization. It requires special conditions and the overwhelming majority of creatures never fossilize. It is good evidence that creatures that used to be around aren't anymore though. Evolutionary biologists tend to be very defensive though. If you say to a particle physicist "hey the standard model isn't that great" he'll say "yep, wish we could do better." If you say to an evolutionary biologist "hey the theory of evolution by natural selection isn't that great" he'll resort to ad hominems. This is probably because the standard model is hard science, whereas evolution by natural selection is more of a best effort conjecture. And there is a really important distinction to be made. Evolution in the sense of heritable traits being selected for is undeniable fact. Dogs are a thing after all so we've verified the effects of selection in a controlled setting. So when someone critiques the theory of evolution by natural selection it should be understood as part of the process of coming up with a better theory, not "muh anti science."
  - 29athrowaway 3y ago