7 ms·

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

by 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.
        User23 3y ago
        The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is not uniquely determined by the fossil record. The fossil record is at least as consistent with other macroevolutionary theories and with non-macroevolutionary theories too. Look at it this way, the existence of gravitational experimental data doesn’t determine Newtonian gravity to be correct. And biology is a considerably more tricky subject than mechanics. I think we can all agree that physics is farther along than biology. But I bet you’d have no problem telling me at least one major open problem with General Relativity. Can you bring yourself to tell me even one major open problem with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? If not is that a psychological deficiency on your part, or is that theory somehow uniquely flawless? As for consensus, it’s as irrelevant to reality as computer simulations. Historically speaking the vast majority of human consensuses on anything, including science, have been wrong almost all of the time. The overwhelming arrogance to believe that we’re now fundamentally different is stultifying.
- blagie 3y ago
  I will push back here. The fossil record shows change over time. There are several theories consistent with the facts: (1) Evolution by natural selection (2) Evolution guided by God (3) God created the world 5000 years ago, but didn't want to leave evidence to leave open the question of faith There are many others. You will find some more reasonable than others, and for others, it's the reverse. A big part of what I'd like my son to develop is empathy: being able to step into the mind of others, and understand what they think. Even if "they're wrong" and we're fighting "them." If he were growing up in Ukraine, I'd like him to be able to understand the Russian soldiers' mindset. That fits into Sun Tzu / Understand Your Enemy. In the scientific process I learned in high school, we have hypotheses confirmed with experiments (the current process adds things like preregistration and replication). For things which only happened in the past, we can't follow this process; it's fundamentally extrapolation. Yes, we can observe and simulate evolution right now, but unless we invent a time machine, we can't know -- in a scientific sense -- that's what led to where we are today over millions of years. That's the whole micro-/macro-evolution debate. Getting back to Sun Tzu, without understanding the intellectual basis, it's impossible for you to have a meaningful conversation with a well-educated young earth creationist. In a debate, they WILL win. You might be right, but your arguments won't be. In a discussion, you'll look like an idiot. Stepping up a level, politics will become more polarizing because your side will be painted as idiots to them, and vice-versa. That's what I don't want for my child.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

by User23 3y ago

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.
        User23 3y ago
        The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is not uniquely determined by the fossil record. The fossil record is at least as consistent with other macroevolutionary theories and with non-macroevolutionary theories too. Look at it this way, the existence of gravitational experimental data doesn’t determine Newtonian gravity to be correct. And biology is a considerably more tricky subject than mechanics. I think we can all agree that physics is farther along than biology. But I bet you’d have no problem telling me at least one major open problem with General Relativity. Can you bring yourself to tell me even one major open problem with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? If not is that a psychological deficiency on your part, or is that theory somehow uniquely flawless? As for consensus, it’s as irrelevant to reality as computer simulations. Historically speaking the vast majority of human consensuses on anything, including science, have been wrong almost all of the time. The overwhelming arrogance to believe that we’re now fundamentally different is stultifying.
blagie 3y ago
I will push back here. The fossil record shows change over time. There are several theories consistent with the facts: (1) Evolution by natural selection (2) Evolution guided by God (3) God created the world 5000 years ago, but didn't want to leave evidence to leave open the question of faith There are many others. You will find some more reasonable than others, and for others, it's the reverse. A big part of what I'd like my son to develop is empathy: being able to step into the mind of others, and understand what they think. Even if "they're wrong" and we're fighting "them." If he were growing up in Ukraine, I'd like him to be able to understand the Russian soldiers' mindset. That fits into Sun Tzu / Understand Your Enemy. In the scientific process I learned in high school, we have hypotheses confirmed with experiments (the current process adds things like preregistration and replication). For things which only happened in the past, we can't follow this process; it's fundamentally extrapolation. Yes, we can observe and simulate evolution right now, but unless we invent a time machine, we can't know -- in a scientific sense -- that's what led to where we are today over millions of years. That's the whole micro-/macro-evolution debate. Getting back to Sun Tzu, without understanding the intellectual basis, it's impossible for you to have a meaningful conversation with a well-educated young earth creationist. In a debate, they WILL win. You might be right, but your arguments won't be. In a discussion, you'll look like an idiot. Stepping up a level, politics will become more polarizing because your side will be painted as idiots to them, and vice-versa. That's what I don't want for my child.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]