6 ms·
Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how lif
by RK 13y ago
Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point.
Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve.
I think you mean that the "theory of evolution via natural selection" is the best model we have to explain the observed phenomena of evolution. Analogous to the Newtownian theory of gravity explaining the mechanics of observed terrestrial and celestial gravity. Gravity and evolution are simply there, how they occur requires a theoretical explanation.
- dismiss21x 13y agoI wouldn't say it's observed; no one has observed billions of years of evolution. That's why there is debate. Please don't compare to the observation of gravity; it's not even comparable.
- meric 13y agoI think it is comparable. We do have the fossil record, after all.
- ThomPete 13y agoThat does not allow you to conclude that evolution is true the way that you can conclude gravity is true/factual.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 13y agoNobody has observed gravity either, only its effects.
- ThomPete 13y agoNobody observed the effect of evolution.
- toasterlovin 13y agoEvolution is observable.
- jonhinson 13y agoEvolution is simply the change in allele frequency in populations of organisms over time. This is most certainly observable.
- ThomPete 13y agoThat is by not metrics what evolution simply is.
- mikeash 13y agoThe present-day biosphere is an effect, as is the fossil record and DNA relations between species.
- ThomPete 13y agoThat does not prove evolution the way gravity is proven.
- mikeash 13y agoHow so? Evolution is just change in populations over time with common descent, and that's pretty well demonstrated through the things I mentioned, about the same as gravity is demonstrated by things falling. What's different?
- dismiss21x 13y agoI've never seen it demonstrated definitively through the fossil record. There are a lot of assumptions and best-guesses leading back to common ancestors.
- ThomPete 13y agoperhaps yes and no. Gravity is a force you can measure, make experiments with and validate. You can use the scientific method to invalidate gravity. You can't do that with evolution and therefore you can't compare the theory of gravity with the theory of evolution the way I see it. But I might be wrong.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Rexxar 13y agoThis experiments show the evolution of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics in laboratory : http://v6.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=24goih4&s=6 http://v6.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=24goih4&s=6
- 001sky 13y agoIt is not (self evidently) true that evolution correctly models the origin of adaptations.[1] That is, the menu-creation ex ante selection is a "black box" model, and that is at best problematic, from a logical/mathematical/and "scientific" perspective. The randomness hypothesis is almost surely wrong here (as the mechanism of menu selction). [1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a2 http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq....
- jonathansizz 13y agoThe "theory of evolution via natural selection" is itself another (very common) misconception about evolution. Don't equate evolution with natural selection; they are far from synonymous. In fact, we have good reason to think that most evolution is non-adaptive.