7 ms·

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 religiou

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
    Evolution can be simulated in a computer as a reproducible experiment and I have even done it myself. Genetic algorithms, evolutionary computing, etc. So no.
    - User23 3y ago
      Demons and space marines can be simulated on a computer too. That’s not evidence for their existence. So no. Also, show me the code and I’ll show you that you’re simplifying so grossly it has no bearing on reality.
      - 29athrowaway 3y ago
        If you create a simulated environment that results in selection, mutation and crossover, and a measure of fitness, even if not implicit, and then add a few cells, let it run for millions of iterations and then end up with space marines, that would be more akin to what you claim "has no bearing on reality".
        User23 3y ago
        I can simulate a creationist environment in which anything in your simulated evolutionary environment also exists. Is that evidence for creationism? No of course not. Computer simulations aren’t evidence for anything. So no.
        User23 3y ago
        Come to think of it, according to the simulationists, the existence of computer simulations in our reality is evidence that we live inside such a simulation. So if anything your simulation of evolution is evidence for the simulationist form of intelligent design creationism.
        29athrowaway 3y ago
        Well, partner, if simulations don't resonate with you go believe whatever you want. Be free and go enjoy the world. Go outdoors, dig a little bit until you find a fossil and then dig a few more of them. Then, classify those fossils and keep track of where in the geological record you found them. Then try to come up with a plausible explanation of how those fossils ended up there, keeping in consideration their classification and age. Maybe you will find a consistent trend and then hear about people that have been doing exactly that for many years now. They all seem to have reached a consensus around how those fossils ended up there. It's about a little word that begins with E. You'll find that story very interesting.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mythrwy 3y ago
  This is not "what terminology I prefer" It's what science is about and how it defines things! Apparently some people are looking at the first sentence and assuming "Evolution Denier!" and this is not the case at all. This is simply an argument for good science and correct terminology when talking about scientific principals! Gravity, and Evolution are theories. That is what they are. They are not facts (scientifically speaking). A fact is something else. This has no relevance to evolution being best fit explanation for biological diversity (which, just to be clear, I agree with 100%) or gravity being best fit explanation for why things fall down at a consistent rate.

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
  Evolution can be simulated in a computer as a reproducible experiment and I have even done it myself. Genetic algorithms, evolutionary computing, etc. So no.
  - User23 3y ago
    Demons and space marines can be simulated on a computer too. That’s not evidence for their existence. So no. Also, show me the code and I’ll show you that you’re simplifying so grossly it has no bearing on reality.
    - 29athrowaway 3y ago
      If you create a simulated environment that results in selection, mutation and crossover, and a measure of fitness, even if not implicit, and then add a few cells, let it run for millions of iterations and then end up with space marines, that would be more akin to what you claim "has no bearing on reality".
      - User23 3y ago
        I can simulate a creationist environment in which anything in your simulated evolutionary environment also exists. Is that evidence for creationism? No of course not. Computer simulations aren’t evidence for anything. So no.
        User23 3y ago
        Come to think of it, according to the simulationists, the existence of computer simulations in our reality is evidence that we live inside such a simulation. So if anything your simulation of evolution is evidence for the simulationist form of intelligent design creationism.
        29athrowaway 3y ago
        Well, partner, if simulations don't resonate with you go believe whatever you want. Be free and go enjoy the world. Go outdoors, dig a little bit until you find a fossil and then dig a few more of them. Then, classify those fossils and keep track of where in the geological record you found them. Then try to come up with a plausible explanation of how those fossils ended up there, keeping in consideration their classification and age. Maybe you will find a consistent trend and then hear about people that have been doing exactly that for many years now. They all seem to have reached a consensus around how those fossils ended up there. It's about a little word that begins with E. You'll find that story very interesting.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mythrwy 3y ago
This is not "what terminology I prefer" It's what science is about and how it defines things! Apparently some people are looking at the first sentence and assuming "Evolution Denier!" and this is not the case at all. This is simply an argument for good science and correct terminology when talking about scientific principals! Gravity, and Evolution are theories. That is what they are. They are not facts (scientifically speaking). A fact is something else. This has no relevance to evolution being best fit explanation for biological diversity (which, just to be clear, I agree with 100%) or gravity being best fit explanation for why things fall down at a consistent rate.