4 ms·

> Changing into new species is just a longer time frame of more an more adaptations Strictly speaking, this is a theory, however reasonable. We know from hist

> Changing into new species is just a longer time frame of more an more adaptations Strictly speaking, this is a theory, however reasonable. We know from history that life can be surprising, hence, from a truth point of view, it's better to be careful, avoid rushing to conclusions, especially if this implies closing all other doors.

LegibleCrimson3 2y ago
Strictly speaking, plate tectonics is a theory as well. I get quite tired of people claiming something as a theory as if it casts doubt on it. Evolution is known and accepted by biologists to be an undeniable fact by all but the most fringe. Even the vast majority of Christian biologists accept this.
- mbivert 2y ago
  The problem is, conflating theories (beliefs really) with truth is one of the things reproached to past religious people. There's no shame in saying: "we don't know for sure, but this is reasonable so far". If we don't, then we're sowing the seeds for discord for when our theories will need to be updated. And it's reasonable to think that they will, as, so far, most (all?) scientific theories has evolved. IIRC, Darwin's views on evolution require patching e.g. to take into consideration chaotic incidents affecting mortality/genes propagation (e.g. asteroids, epidemics). Maybe if that theory keeps accumulating patches, it'll end up very different from where it started!
  - LegibleCrimson3 2y ago
    The details, yes, but denying the fact that all life as we know it has evolved into what it is now from something markedly different is not at all reasonable. I'm not claiming that the entire body of accepted mechanisms and details about evolution are 100% accurate. I'm claiming that something being a theory is not reasonable grounds to disbelieve it entirely. There is no reasonable disbelief in evolution.
    - mbivert 2y ago
      > There is no reasonable disbelief in evolution. Again, as I've said, it's a reasonable theory. Using the word "theory" isn't about casting doubt, it's purely about intellectual honesty, at least as far as I'm concerned. The way it's taught is often in an absolute way. The way science is taught in general is in an absolute way. That's because humans struggle immensely with nuance. Typical traditional Eastern views transcend this creationism/evolution duality for example; one more door to explore.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bena 2y ago
  Gravity is mostly theories. We cannot actually prove what it is or why it exists. We know how it affects things, but that’s about it.
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Strictly speaking, Gravity is a Theory.
- mbivert 2y ago
  Yes, that's kinda my point: Aristotle's physics worked well until it failed. Newton's worked well until it failed. General relativity works well, but some people look for where it might fail, so as to help reconcile it with QM. Theories need to be considered for what they are, theories, and not dogmatically, for science to move forward. Evolution is a theory, and in its current form, already distant from Darwin's. It's particularly amusing to have this discussion in the context of evolution, given that we have observed theories to systematically (AFAIK) evolve. Why can't we extrapolate about the evolution of the theory of evolution then?
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    When you are a scientist talking to a scientist, yes that is all correct. I think the reactions here are because a lot of creationist(others), will say things like "that is only a theory", thus "it was god, duh, I just owned you libtard".
  - nickpsecurity 2y ago
    “Theories need to be considered for what they are, theories, and not dogmatically, for science to move forward.” “Why can’t we extrapolate about the evolution of the theory of evolution then?” The first quote answers the second. The dogma usually blocks even questioning of evolution in research venues, liberal communities, etc. If one opens with evidence, they’re usually countered with dogma using argument from authority or mockery as if dissent equals stupidity. Also, major opponents are hitting it right at the roots which might make the other points moot until the roots are defended or improved. For these reasons, we usually can’t make it that far even if we’d be willing to do it. Also, I don’t know the modern versions in that much depth compared to an actual biologist. We’d probably need qualified skeptics in here for accuracy on our own side if we got that deep. :)
    - 2y ago

LegibleCrimson3 2y ago

Strictly speaking, plate tectonics is a theory as well. I get quite tired of people claiming something as a theory as if it casts doubt on it. Evolution is known and accepted by biologists to be an undeniable fact by all but the most fringe. Even the vast majority of Christian biologists accept this.

mbivert 2y ago
The problem is, conflating theories (beliefs really) with truth is one of the things reproached to past religious people. There's no shame in saying: "we don't know for sure, but this is reasonable so far". If we don't, then we're sowing the seeds for discord for when our theories will need to be updated. And it's reasonable to think that they will, as, so far, most (all?) scientific theories has evolved. IIRC, Darwin's views on evolution require patching e.g. to take into consideration chaotic incidents affecting mortality/genes propagation (e.g. asteroids, epidemics). Maybe if that theory keeps accumulating patches, it'll end up very different from where it started!
- LegibleCrimson3 2y ago
  The details, yes, but denying the fact that all life as we know it has evolved into what it is now from something markedly different is not at all reasonable. I'm not claiming that the entire body of accepted mechanisms and details about evolution are 100% accurate. I'm claiming that something being a theory is not reasonable grounds to disbelieve it entirely. There is no reasonable disbelief in evolution.
  - mbivert 2y ago
    > There is no reasonable disbelief in evolution. Again, as I've said, it's a reasonable theory. Using the word "theory" isn't about casting doubt, it's purely about intellectual honesty, at least as far as I'm concerned. The way it's taught is often in an absolute way. The way science is taught in general is in an absolute way. That's because humans struggle immensely with nuance. Typical traditional Eastern views transcend this creationism/evolution duality for example; one more door to explore.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bena 2y ago
Gravity is mostly theories. We cannot actually prove what it is or why it exists. We know how it affects things, but that’s about it.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

Strictly speaking, Gravity is a Theory.

mbivert 2y ago
Yes, that's kinda my point: Aristotle's physics worked well until it failed. Newton's worked well until it failed. General relativity works well, but some people look for where it might fail, so as to help reconcile it with QM. Theories need to be considered for what they are, theories, and not dogmatically, for science to move forward. Evolution is a theory, and in its current form, already distant from Darwin's. It's particularly amusing to have this discussion in the context of evolution, given that we have observed theories to systematically (AFAIK) evolve. Why can't we extrapolate about the evolution of the theory of evolution then?
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  When you are a scientist talking to a scientist, yes that is all correct. I think the reactions here are because a lot of creationist(others), will say things like "that is only a theory", thus "it was god, duh, I just owned you libtard".
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  “Theories need to be considered for what they are, theories, and not dogmatically, for science to move forward.” “Why can’t we extrapolate about the evolution of the theory of evolution then?” The first quote answers the second. The dogma usually blocks even questioning of evolution in research venues, liberal communities, etc. If one opens with evidence, they’re usually countered with dogma using argument from authority or mockery as if dissent equals stupidity. Also, major opponents are hitting it right at the roots which might make the other points moot until the roots are defended or improved. For these reasons, we usually can’t make it that far even if we’d be willing to do it. Also, I don’t know the modern versions in that much depth compared to an actual biologist. We’d probably need qualified skeptics in here for accuracy on our own side if we got that deep. :)
  - 2y ago