5 ms·

Totally agreed. It strikes me as very similar to traditional myths, or stories that purport to explain how things are. The only difference is that instead of

Totally agreed. It strikes me as very similar to traditional myths, or stories that purport to explain how things are. The only difference is that instead of using gods and supernatural powers, our new myths take into account scientific information like the theory of evolution. So our new myths are more plausible, but just as unsubstantiated.

hcarvalhoalves 12y ago
There's a large difference between a theory and a myth, it doesn't seem logical to make this parallel.
- bethly 12y ago
  Only if the theories are falsifiable, which is not the case in evolutionary biology.
  - haberman 12y ago
    Exactly. It's one thing to show that a theory is plausible. It's another to claim that it is what actually happened. I really object to unverified speculation being passed off as knowledge. It cheapens science as a whole. There are lots of other things we know with far greater certainty.
refurb 12y ago
I agree with your observation. I'm not equating evolution to religion, but it's interesting when you think about it. In the past, if you asked why humans had "x", it was because God designed us that way. If you ask it now, the answer is "because our environment selected for it." Neither answer provides a useful explanation.
- batmansbelt 12y ago
  One can be tested and improved upon, the other can't. Just don't sign me up for a face punching trial.
  - bethly 12y ago
    That wouldn't test for whether we evolved for it. We could, at best, simulate early human societies with various levels of violence and see if one led to large jaws. (Though currently we have insufficient information to model such societies.) Most people grossly underestimate the forces of genetic drift and personal preference on phenotypical evolution. The null hypothesis for any gender-linked trait having evolved should probably be "it made them more attractive to a fertile population of the opposite sex."
  - haberman 12y ago
    Even if you can show experimentally that lots of face punching will lead to stronger jaws, that doesn't prove that it's what happened historically. We could have evolved the same strong jaw for a completely unrelated reason.
- hnriot 12y ago
  There's a world of difference that you're not choosing to notice!! One requires blind faith (and so is completely useless for another other that providing comfort for those that don't want to understand the way nature works, and the other is based on scientific evidence that can be tested.
  - gohrt 12y ago
    "can be tested in a lab" is different from "would take thousands of years of test"
  - refurb 12y ago
    I'm certainly not equating the two, but honestly, if I ask why humans have heavy jaws and person A says "to take punches" and person B says "to chew on meat", I'm left with two reasonable explanations that come from opposite directions. I'm no better off than I was before.
    - Kroem3r 12y ago
      What did you make of the discussion toward the end of the article, where it discusses ensuing lightening of the jaw bone?
      - seorphates 12y ago
        God said: OK, now that they're done bashing each other and I'm no longer at risk of loosing the lot so let's get back to business. But then that gets shattered because, well, because we just bash with drones and chemicals. So I, at least, find myself back at square one... : The planet is dying and you have the capacity to launch 25,000 people in one direction with one hail mary. What do you do? Yeah, we definitely need to get our evolves on. The odds still seem pretty stacked against.
hnriot 12y ago
* So our new myths are more plausible, but just as unsubstantiated. that's blatant bullshit - god myths are in no way more plausible than scientifically testable means. It's not like evolution isn't something that is not still happening, it's perfectly testable. I am sure that citing numerous examples wouldn't change your mind because no amount of scientific evidence will ever change the minds of those that choose not. Faith is a dangerous thing, but thankfully it will be selected against by evolution as we move into an era where our species survival will rely upon science.
- pasquinelli 12y ago
  the new myths are more plausible than the god myths, i believe they're saying.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  You might want to re-read your parent. So our new myths are more plausible [than the old god myths]
- gohrt 12y ago
  > Faith is a dangerous thing, but thankfully it will be selected against by evolution as we move into an era where our species survival will rely upon science. That statement is completely based on faith and a misunderstanding of how evolution works. The species relies upon science, but the benefits of science are not reserved for science-loving minds. A religious Luddit enjoys modern medicine as much as anyone else, and often more, if one looks at family-size measurements.
unabridged 12y ago
Many theories in physics started out the same way as untestable hypotheses. These untestable hypotheses are still important because they are the first step in designing a testing apparatus. We shouldn't end/dismiss educated speculation about evolutionary biology because these ideas will eventually lead to the design of simulations where we can test them out.

hcarvalhoalves 12y ago

There's a large difference between a theory and a myth, it doesn't seem logical to make this parallel.

bethly 12y ago
Only if the theories are falsifiable, which is not the case in evolutionary biology.
- haberman 12y ago
  Exactly. It's one thing to show that a theory is plausible. It's another to claim that it is what actually happened. I really object to unverified speculation being passed off as knowledge. It cheapens science as a whole. There are lots of other things we know with far greater certainty.

refurb 12y ago

I agree with your observation. I'm not equating evolution to religion, but it's interesting when you think about it. In the past, if you asked why humans had "x", it was because God designed us that way. If you ask it now, the answer is "because our environment selected for it." Neither answer provides a useful explanation.

batmansbelt 12y ago
One can be tested and improved upon, the other can't. Just don't sign me up for a face punching trial.
- bethly 12y ago
  That wouldn't test for whether we evolved for it. We could, at best, simulate early human societies with various levels of violence and see if one led to large jaws. (Though currently we have insufficient information to model such societies.) Most people grossly underestimate the forces of genetic drift and personal preference on phenotypical evolution. The null hypothesis for any gender-linked trait having evolved should probably be "it made them more attractive to a fertile population of the opposite sex."
- haberman 12y ago
  Even if you can show experimentally that lots of face punching will lead to stronger jaws, that doesn't prove that it's what happened historically. We could have evolved the same strong jaw for a completely unrelated reason.
hnriot 12y ago
There's a world of difference that you're not choosing to notice!! One requires blind faith (and so is completely useless for another other that providing comfort for those that don't want to understand the way nature works, and the other is based on scientific evidence that can be tested.
- gohrt 12y ago
  "can be tested in a lab" is different from "would take thousands of years of test"
- refurb 12y ago
  I'm certainly not equating the two, but honestly, if I ask why humans have heavy jaws and person A says "to take punches" and person B says "to chew on meat", I'm left with two reasonable explanations that come from opposite directions. I'm no better off than I was before.
  - Kroem3r 12y ago
    What did you make of the discussion toward the end of the article, where it discusses ensuing lightening of the jaw bone?
    - seorphates 12y ago
      God said: OK, now that they're done bashing each other and I'm no longer at risk of loosing the lot so let's get back to business. But then that gets shattered because, well, because we just bash with drones and chemicals. So I, at least, find myself back at square one... : The planet is dying and you have the capacity to launch 25,000 people in one direction with one hail mary. What do you do? Yeah, we definitely need to get our evolves on. The odds still seem pretty stacked against.

hnriot 12y ago

* So our new myths are more plausible, but just as unsubstantiated. that's blatant bullshit - god myths are in no way more plausible than scientifically testable means. It's not like evolution isn't something that is not still happening, it's perfectly testable. I am sure that citing numerous examples wouldn't change your mind because no amount of scientific evidence will ever change the minds of those that choose not. Faith is a dangerous thing, but thankfully it will be selected against by evolution as we move into an era where our species survival will rely upon science.

pasquinelli 12y ago
the new myths are more plausible than the god myths, i believe they're saying.
sliverstorm 12y ago
You might want to re-read your parent. So our new myths are more plausible [than the old god myths]
gohrt 12y ago
> Faith is a dangerous thing, but thankfully it will be selected against by evolution as we move into an era where our species survival will rely upon science. That statement is completely based on faith and a misunderstanding of how evolution works. The species relies upon science, but the benefits of science are not reserved for science-loving minds. A religious Luddit enjoys modern medicine as much as anyone else, and often more, if one looks at family-size measurements.

unabridged 12y ago

Many theories in physics started out the same way as untestable hypotheses. These untestable hypotheses are still important because they are the first step in designing a testing apparatus. We shouldn't end/dismiss educated speculation about evolutionary biology because these ideas will eventually lead to the design of simulations where we can test them out.