/lit/ - Literature

>>19603676
It was intuition which led Darwin, it's blind 'common sense' which leads the masses into believing evolution today.

>>19603676
Metaphysics is falsifiable but yes evolution hasn't been properly defined yet. So while the phenomenon is observable in some format, it's hard to say exactly what it is. You can see how classifications are irregular and it's because evolution isn't properly defined. We don't know what threshholds are or what future evolution can bring. Rn scientists are gathering data until they get enough to develop a proper theory but they either completely forgot or are scamming ppl for more money to do shell counting nonsense.

>fossilized bunnies from the Cambrian
>christcucks were ignorant fucktards near me

Oh wait they always are

>>19603676
We don't even know whether there are actual males and females or just a lot of in-betweens, so yeah Theory of Evolution is definitely putting the cart before the horse.

>>19603676
With a basic understanding of genetics and Darwin's concepts of natural selection, evolution is the most compelling explanation for prehistory. I will concede that it seems unfalsifiable but even if it doesn't work as a scientific theory it still provides an adequate explanation of prehistory. The embryology and fossil evidence are really what convince me but I'd be willing to hear any cases against these pieces of evidence.

>>19603747
Nah, it really doesn't work at all.

>>19603747
Yeah those are not compelling explanations, those are consequentialist evidences. Saying evolution exists because genetics change says nothing about how, why or what from or what to etc that genetics change.

>>19603763
>have mountains of evidence
>'nuh-uh'

Religious thinking in a nutshell

>>19603764
>Saying evolution exists because genetics change says nothing about how, why or what from or what to etc that genetics change
It doesn't but my point is that the fossil evidence and phylogenetic trees are what provide the historical explanation. The how is explained by natural selection, sexual selection, and other random forces.

>>19603764
>Saying evolution exists because genetics change says nothing about how, why or what from or what to etc that genetics change

Survival.

There, that was really hard

>>19603795
I've never had to explain more fully how that's not an explanation.
People have sex and not all offspring exist. So that's not an explanation.
People's genes accept some to be dominant and some to be recessive and that can't be explained by what you said.
The phylogenetic trees "provide historical explanation" is circular because that's definitionally what they are.
Keep in mind I'm not against evolution but it's hardly a falsifiable phenomenon that is pushed. Philosophers of biology still debate this and evolutionary biologists just ignore it and post data waiting for other ppl to coherentize it and clean it up.

>>19603676
>"Evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program"
but we have tested and observed evolution in real time. This whole covid pandemic has been proof of evolution right out in the open lmao or do variants just pop into being?

>>19603807
Not all evolution is based off survival. Many different variations can happen even in a kit and a lot will survive even if there are no strong forces that pick for survival so then you're stuck trying to explain why ostriches have wings instead of claws or why everyone hasn't evolved for intelligence already since that is universally the best.

>>19603818
If we had evolution figured out then we could have made better vaccines from the get-go and prevented the newer variants long before they formed because we would know how they formed.

>>19603830
take an intro to evolution class because youve clearly never read a single thing on evolution. actually retarded i hate this pseud board

>>19603840
Figuring out & mapping future evolution is totally different from knowing that evolution exists. Also what do you think crop breeding is? We’ve been evolving shit through (artificial) selection for tens of thousands of years.

>>19603676
It's 100% falsifiable. It just hasn't been done yet, and possibly never will be.

>>19603841
I've read philosophy of biology books and they specifically deal w this.
Anyways, again, survival is a consequentialist word. By definition everything that comes into existence survived something and is surviving at that time. That doesn't give us anything to test, i.e. it's not... falsifiable. Very good, yes not falsifiable.

>>19603817
>People's genes accept some to be dominant and some to be recessive and that can't be explained by what you said.
brainlet detected

>>19603849
>evolution exists
Well that's not at all what we've been discussing. We are aware a phenomenon happens. What that phenomenon is hasn't been put in falsifiable terms, you see. That is to say we don't really know what this observable phenomenon is and what causes it and what happens in the future because of it. We just see an observable phenomenon.

>>19603852
thisis what happens when you read science ‘philosophy’ (LOL) without having any basis in science. everybody /lit/ loser who isnt a life sciences major is basically ngmi

>>19603857
Genes vary in dominance and recessivity.
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Dominant

>>19603817
We can observe genes change in real time. We don't even need to need why or how they change because those mechanisms are not necessary to explain evolution. The core is that genes change over time (this phenomenon can be observed), fossils indicate that different species used to roam the earth, those species share characteristics with modern species living in similar areas, natural selection points to species being selected for their environments and evolving over time. It's just the mostly likely explanation, it doesn't have to be infallible.
>People have sex and not all offspring exist. So that's not an explanation.
>People's genes accept some to be dominant and some to be recessive and that can't be explained by what you said.
These points have nothing to do with my post

>>19603874
you don't even understand what "dominant" means

>>19603857
not that guy but we learned that in biology class in 9th or 10th grade
t.romanian

>>19603860
It's pretty academically accepted. This is why it's still called a theory of evolution. Ig you dk what a theory is or means. If you weren't so assmad then you could hold a real convo and get rid of your reddit propaganda. You can cry on my shoulder if you want.

>>19603881
if you think my objection was with the factual existence of dominant and non-dominant alleles then you're a brainlet too

>>19603676
>"Evolution is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program"
>
>K. Popper
Popper is an absolute MORON who doesn't understand science AT ALL and is only held in any esteem by other MORONS who don't know anything be it science or philosophy.

What's more evolution is testable, observable, and demonstrable because there are organisms that reproduce fast and rapidly. We LITERALLY watch and control bacteria evolving in real time. Evolution has been PROVEN.

You are STUPID.

>>19603879
It's a gene w 2 variations one is dominant and other is recessive. Dominant is inherited but makes it active.

>>19603877
I really dk how to explain this because this is really obvious so you're probably trying to defend a political point.

The op is: evolution is unfalsifiable
You said: it kinda is because x, y, z etc
I explained that those cannot account for why, how or even what which are all necessary for it to be spoken about to make it falsifiable.
Per pr, you cannot predict it or test it. You can just observe it. So it is just a theory still.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

>>19603676
This is like saying there's no way to prove 1 is followed by 2, 3, 4 5 etc

>>19603905
>evolution is testable, observable, and demonstrable
>explains that it is observable
The definition of falsifiability does not have to do w observance as schizos observe dragons living in their walls. It has to be qualified by variables so it's predictive and testable.

>>19603676
>K. Popper
stopped reading there

>>19603924
I didn't say it was ONLY observable you'll note there are 2 other adjectives there, you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension, your reply is 100% irrelevant.

>>19603917
That's not at all what it's like saying but some aspects of those aren't proper either. Clock arithmetic has number value "follow" in a circle while cantor has it "follow" in a line.

God amateur hour here guys.

>>19603916
So we agree, I'm not claiming that evolution is fact, I'm just claiming that it is a likely explanation for fossils and genetic prehistory. In my first point I never claimed it was falsifiable, I just provided evidence that generally points to it being a likely explanation. The how and why were accounted for through the mechanisms for evolution. Evolution is simply the idea that species change over time. There is nothing remotely political about my posts.

>>19603905
>We LITERALLY watch and control bacteria evolving in real time. Evolution has been PROVEN.
basically
you have to be moron to think evolution isn't true while lining up to get your vaccines

>>19603936
You can watch and control bacteria but that doesn't explain what causes evolution. You cannot in any sense predict what bacteria will evolve into so the controlling is miniscule at best and observation has little to do, in a rufimentary sense, w falsificationism.

>>19603943
No, if you actually understand numbers or evolution you'll see 2 implies 1 the same way each increment of the fossil record implies another, each necessitates the other.

>>19603916
dominance isn't inherited; there is nothing inherent to an allele which makes it dominant
crack open a middle school bio textbook, and stop phoneposting while you're at it

>>19603953
Evolution isn't an explanatory fact until you define evolution. That's what makes it falsifiable rather than ethereal. So you can't say "evolution accounts for x" because there's no such thing as "evolution" until you define it properly.

>>19603956
>You can watch and control bacteria but that doesn't explain what causes evolution.
Evolution isn't caused, it is a process not an end.

>>19603956
>You cannot in any sense predict what bacteria will evolve
This is just patently untrue, we manipulate bacterial evolution all the time for medical science and research.

>>19603958
This is embarrassing anon.

>>19603959
I don't need to. You're seething about not knowing something dead obvious and are now playing damage control because your pestilent pride needs to be stroked. Evolution is unfalsifiable until it's properly defined. That's a basic fact everyone accepts and, again, that's why it's called a theory still.

>>19603956
>You cannot in any sense predict what bacteria will evolve
damn you are dumb as fuck

>>19603965
What is the process?

You can manipulate bacteria to try to get some traits to develop but there is no complete theory of evolution yet. Hell there's no real definition.

>>19603969
I'm sorry you aren't intelligent enough to understand the things you want to seem knowledgeable about, lucky for you smarter and more capable people manage the world and enable your harmless self. Don't hurt yourself with that 'embarrassment'!

always hilarious to see the anti-science schizos get completely btfo in every thread every time

keep up the good work everyone

>>19603976
You can know certain aspects which can affect bacteria in procreation but you cannot predict bacteria evolution in a 1+1=2 manner because there is no theory of evolution.

>>19603963
Like I said Evolution is just the idea that populations of species change over time. Nobody is debating this.

>>19603984
I mean you're all butthurt about a basic fact popper said and invented then applied to evolution among other things. He invented it, y'all still use his word and criteria. His use is derived from the words y'all use.

>>19603997
Yes that means nothing. What is change, how, why.
Keep in mind physics has less theories because the formulas and words are well defined in math to a larger degree so that they can be predictive and testable. We can predict and test e = mc squared. You cannot predict evolution in a testable manner because it's an ethereal word w no definition. This is basic philosophy of biology.

>>19603969
dominance can only be defined with respect to the gene's effects upon the whole organism
let me give you an example
>allele W codes for a certain protein which causes the destruction of melanoblast stem cells, leading to white coat and congenital deafness
>allele w codes for a slightly different protein which doesn't interfere with melanoblasts, leading to normal coat colour and no congenital deafness
>one copy of W is enough to cause the complete death of all melanoblasts in the developing embryo
so W is DOMINANT over w; but this isn't a feature of the gene itself—there isn't direct competition between W and w; the proteins created from W don't suppress the proteins created from w
getting back to the point: not a counterexample and clearly demonstrates you know fuck all about genetics

>>19603976
/thread

When do species converge in evolution? When do they divurge? We do not know.
Saying you can see it is patrick, "they hit him in the head w two coconuts"-tier observation.
https://www.newsweek.com/crabs-evolved-five-times-carcinization-scientists-dont-know-why-1638921

>>19603977
I mean, wtf do you expect?
A single cell undergoing mitosis contains more information than an entire city trying to expand. The entire cellular microtubulure must coordinate its action otherwise the cell is going to burst open, and the way it does it is absolutely insane. The entire structure is in a constant state of intercommunication based on chemical compound it sends across its surface, and it is the flow of those individual units that tells what stage it is in and when to initiate the separation.
The degree of complexity reached at the cellular and genetic level is absolutely fucking insane.
Yes, evolution is an incomplete theory. That's pretty fucking obvious from the simple fact that it didn't include exaptation from the beginning.

>>19604011
I didn't say it was a feature of the gene which is why I said it differed even in kit.

Anyways nice job literally showing exactly what I said that you are just trying to stroke your pestilent ego because you got assmad at not knowing something. Nobody needs your explanation when you haven't understood anything yet, even Popper's or my point.

>>19604007
>what is change, how, why
do you need everything explained to you? You don't need a complete explanation for a simple conceptual definition. If I told you that a lute was a medieval stringed instrument would you need me to tell you what a string is or how to play?

>>19604016
A species is a man-made categorization based on certain similarities that we've deemed important enough to use as a basis for data organization.

>>19604023
The point is we don't need to observe everything to say what is happening as that's impossible anyways. We find a core trait which is predictive of something and we find a causal explanation of that trait and then we have an actual scientific explanation.

>>19604029
you haven't made a cogent point; you've listed things that have no clear relation with the thing you are asserting while clearly implying with the way you've presented them that you don't actually understand how they work

>>19604033
For science yes insofar as it can be testable and not a theory which is the topic of op.

>>19604034
Lol yeah so that would then be restating the problem alluded to in op (or by Popper).

>>19603676
>>19603850
Speciation has been shown, which means evolution is true, but that doesn't mean natural selection entirely describe the trajectory of evolution. The selection mechanisms are just provisional explanations.

>>19604016
Vectorization.
Selective pressure creates an "evolutive landscape" that is best thought off in 3d. The "valleys" of such a landscape are essentially functional mode or organization that are more likely to occur because of the evolutionary path you took before.

>>19603676
Daily reminder that evolution has been reproduced in laboratory both for unicellular and larger beings.
Daily reminder that evolution and it's consequences have been observed in the while over and over.
Daily reminder that the Theory of Evolution has had numerous changes made to it since the publication of The Origin of Species.

Also you shouldn't larp about having read that book if you didn't.

>>19604038
I literally said they differ by kit. Any basic inference rule would explain that it has nothing to do w the gene itself which was my point to begin with.

>>19604052
>evolution only treats with individual genes in isolation
brainlet confirmed

>>19604050
>more likely
These aren't explanations. I could eat everytime a person in a remote village wiggles their toe. That doesn't mean that that's causative or even really relevant.

>>19604051
Evolution has not been reproduced. It has been somewhat controlled and observed. It has not been fully controlled and so is not predictive or testable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

Damn. I didn't realize Popper was that much of a retard. It's a bit sad.

>>19604059
That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said looking at gene variation is NOT a good variable for making evolution predictive or testable as it's too consequential. That's my whole point which you would know if you weren't so assblasted.

>>19604073
This is not evolution as it doesn't account for evolution but a specific part which isn't entirely predictive of evolution.

Do they not teach y'all what y'all are saying in uni?

>>19604069
>Evolution has not been reproduced. It has been somewhat controlled and observed. It has not been fully controlled and so is not predictive or testable.
The claim that natural selection can effect organisms to become more adapted to a change in the environment has been absolutely tested. You're just a retard with a sunday church school level of education spewing shit you don't understand.

The most obvious example anyone could cite is antibiotic resistant bacteria, but there's countless other ones that show how evolution is the best explanation we have for the observed phenomena. Individual aspects of the theory of evolution have been tested over and over, so it'd be really helpful if you at least point out to what part of it exactly you think doesn't hold. The fact that natural selection produces changes and adaptations has been observed both in the wild as well as in laboratory.

>>19603764
>what are mutations

>>19604073
>>19604078
An example is in sheep or dog breeding. Yes we can try to control variables by breed or parent and even *observe* it (which y'all seem to have some fetish over observation) but that doesn't wam-bam thank-you-ma'am a whole scientific theory of evolution.

>>19604088
>why did it mutate
>because it mutated
Brilliant

>>19604084
Read >>19604094

>>19604078
You have a very poor understanding of how scientific research works.
The very fact that genetic drift has been included into the theory of evolution (it wasn't mentioned in the Origin of Species) is because observations didn't coincide with the original form of that theory.
The most obvious mark of a scientifically illiterate retard is when they point to the basic mechanics of scientific work as some kind of evidence that science doesn't work. No shit theories evolve. No shit new tests are needed.
I'd be really sad to find out you have a college degree and still manage to be this stupid and illiterate in scientific matters..

>>19604076
your point is incorrect

>>19604094
Breeding is not natural selection, it's artificial selection. It takes aspects that humans consider to be good and amplifies them. It's a good parallel but it's not the same.
Someone up there cited the coronavirus and it's actually a pretty decent example. I'm not surprised the church school retard didn't respond to it.

>>19604069
The previous evolutionary "choices" taken restrict the ones you can take, making some more likely to happen than others. At some very early point in evolutionary history something figured out the trick to maintaining a higher mutational cellular rate across local regions through the presence of the right chemicals. As far as I know, every living beings with eyes do this for their ocular organs, which is a large reason of why genetic eye defect are amongst the most common ones.
Point is, this means our entire being is in a trajectory that has been set by "choices" that were made millions if not billions of years ago.
And since all living organism on Earth inherits from the same primogenitor, we all more or less share the early parts of that history. Going back to crab probably simply is an easy answer for organisms to come up with given our very early history.

>>19604101
It's not that it evolved it's that there is none which can be variabilized and tested yet to account for all of evolution.
Look at chemical resonance. We can account for that w a variable of stableness which we can point to and see.
We can do this for gravity or light.
It has not been done for evolution yet so saying "they evolve" is quite different from physics or math where they sre falsifiable and then deprecated ny another falsifiable theory.

>>19604104
You fucking said it you dumbass. Here >>19604059

>>19604106
Yes that's sorta my point but applying it to natural selection is worse because we have few ideas of what to control for and none are predictive and testable yet. So the coronavirus is the same bit. Nobody predicted what omicron would be just that it can mutate.

>>19604100
This post is doubly funny.
It's funny because the comic actually is a refutation of a lot of useless philosophy, and there are various philosophers that argued precisely those things, in more flowery prose.
It's also funny because the person that posted this doesn't realize they are the retarded know it all teenager talking about evolution like they know anything.

>>19603676
The real quote is "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories".
Another Popper quote: "I see in modern Darwinism the most successful explanation of the relevant facts".
In other words, you are retarded.

>>19603676
Sure it is. Show me evidence of a pre-cambrian rabbit. Show me that genes don't code for attributes or aren't heritable.

>>19604109
I don't know if you're the anon who accepts that evolution is improperly unvariabilized and is unfalsifiable but nothing you've said disagrees w me on that point.
Yes we can observe it, yes we can try to make predictions and some may statistically happen but that doesn't explain the causal nature of evolution in more foundational terms.

>>19604123
You do understand that there are systems so complex that although their behavior is causal, they are essentially random to us, right? Climate, stock market prices, etc? Mutations are random much in the same sense as those things are. Most of the mutations of omicron happened in the S protein, with most of the other proteins being conserved, and this is entirely congruent with the theory of evolution.
The S protein forms the spike that it uses to infect things, it's part of the most used vaccines right now and it's also part of what the body uses the most to generate defenses. Lo and behold that mutations occur less frequently in other proteins like the ORF ones, that are non structural and don't participate directly in the contact between virus and cell.

Scientists did correctly predict that mutations would likely occur more in the S protein exactly because of this evolution inspired argument, and things happened exactly like that. You can't know exactly which aminoacid is gonna change at which time much in the same way you can't know the exact temperature tomorrow or the price of bitcoin in 33 minutes from now. Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself a bit more.

>>19604125
It's not a refutation of philosophers it's a refutation of materialist yt scientist population which thinks that's philosophy.

https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-do-we-mean-facts

>>19603840
you can't know the future. You don't know which factors will exert selective pressure, too many factors, too much variability, etc, etc

>>19604131
What is inherited?

>>19604145
We can apply this to physics tho. We know when an object will fall to the ground given air resistance and gravity strength (of falling object and the biggest astronomical object that attracts it).
You saying you dk definitionally makes it a theory.

>>19604154
We can in physics account for gravity and we don't need to be in the future. This is very, very basic stuff.

If evolution is correct how come humans are still disliking life? Billions of years passed, that means in a science term a billion year of random event chances have occured to let us be so evolved that we are always satisfied with this planet we are the planet's kings. Explain faggots

>>19604156
>We can apply this to physics tho. We know when an object will fall to the ground given air resistance and gravity strength (of falling object and the biggest astronomical object that attracts it).
No, you can't. You can approximate it up to a certain limited precision, just like you can make evolutionary predictions up to a certain limited precision, and the precision of these approximations goes down when more complex elements must be taken into consideration.

>>19604156
You don't know when an atom will emit a photon through spontaneous emission. Yet this is still part of quantum mechanics theory.
You don't know the exact position of every molecule in a gas, but you can operate with their average behavior. Yet this is still parts of statistical mechanics theory.
You don't know the exact evolution of chaotic systems, yet chaos theory is still called a theory.
There are plenty of things that are essentially random and/or actually random as far as we understand. You're really just very very lost and out of your depth here.

>>19604162
Evolution is not about being happy, it's about passing genes forward. Give this a good long think.
Also I doubt you're beyond highschool, and you need to be 18 or older to post here.

>>19604167
We don't have epistemic certainty but we can say w physics where it will end up in definition of beginning and end in newtonian physics. There may be quantum elements but that doesn't disturb the fact that the defined object will be in a certain place and time predictively by the law of gravity and that we have causal explanations for it.
You're nowhere near this in the *theory* of evolution.

>>19604100
https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/mhccbiology112/chapter/how-mutations-occur/

>>19604179
Yes, you caught the word.
>Yet this is still part of quantum mechanics *theory*
Quantum mechanics is not entirely predictive and neither is string theory. You can falsify parts of it but you can't falsify either of those yet as they haven't been variabilized yet.

>>19604192
You just found out that modelling a biological system is harder than modelling a single hydrogen atom. Congratulations, you retard. The nomenclature of "theory" and "hypothesis" predates the existence of modern physics.

>>19604197
>can
A mutation is definitionally not a causal explanation. It is a consequential word.

>>19604206
Biology is the least mathematicized of the big three sciences so I don't think you can say that it's harder. Once the foundations of physics and chemistry are set we can figure out biology a bit more predictively.

>>19604214
Sorry wannabe scientists. This is /lit/. You have to know your foundations, basic philosophy and most importantly... read. Yes, very very good... READ. Yes

>>19604160
It's not even comparable lol. Let's say you want to predict new covid variations. You'd need to know every intrinsic characteristic of the virus and every extrinsic characteristic that affects it. Intrinsic characteristics are easy, you can get them in a lab, structure, multiplication rate, etc. Extrinsic characteristics would be about human subjects, but humans present different age, sex, ethnic group, weight, genetic polymorphisms, fitness level, differences in immune systems, etc, etc. THEN other environmental factors could play a role too like climate, general hygiene (subject level and community level), rate of cantagion. It's too much shit which isn't even figured out yet.

>>19604234
Ah forgot photo.

>>19604250
Oh and it's not even human subjects only, since animals can get it too.

>>19604250
No you don't. We don't need to know the nature of a wiffle ball or even an anvil. We just look at three variables. Wind resistance, gravity of object and pulling object. That's it. That's my point. Evolution hasn't done this yet. It's still stuck in statistical land trying to informally account for as many variables as possible until it can find the right variable.

>>19604263
sorry, you actually need knowledge to talk about biology

>>19604280
CHNOPS hoe.

>>19604253
Whoops, here's the real one.

>>19603737
the trannys have arrived

>>19604339
This makes nobels look terrible. The point of nobels w the first bit is to highlight the achievement that goes w it. Feynmann is nowhere near these even on the same side. Popularization is ass.

Anyways,
Even the possible can be senseless. I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy. It has revolutionized fundamental concepts, e.g., about space and time (relativity), about causality (quantum theory), and about substance and matter (atomistics).
-max born

It seems that one of the fundamental features of nature is that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, to understand it you need a very high standard of mathematics … One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God He is a very high order mathematician, and that He used very advanced mathematics in building the universe
-dirac (this is pro positivism by augustus comte)

In any sense you need Aristotle, Comte etc to develop the metaphysical standsrds of science so it can be studied. Science, as it is now, isn't the default and either way Popper introduced a helpful term called falsifiability which is used fruitfully today.

>>19604389
> thinks Feynman was just some le pop science man
Pls kys.

>>19604366
How many of them are in the room with you now?

>>19604397
He's not the inventor of qm, gr or anything of the same level as a lot of those others. He may have been smart but you need to dive into philosophy to make deeper developments in a field.

>>19604400
72 hopefully b

>>19603886
>This is why it's still called a theory of evolution
retarded

>>19604389
>>19604404
>He may have been smart but you need to dive into philosophy to make deeper developments in a field.
Feynman's contributions to Quantum Electrodynamics and how we think about Quantum Field Theory in general are about as important as Schrödinger's work.
It's funny that you didn't complain about Weinberg, I assume that's because you don't actually know about anything about his work.
>Even the possible can be senseless. I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy. It has revolutionized fundamental concepts, e.g., about space and time (relativity), about causality (quantum theory), and about substance and matter (atomistics).
>It seems that one of the fundamental features of nature is that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, to understand it you need a very high standard of mathematics … One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God He is a very high order mathematician, and that He used very advanced mathematics in building the universe
Those don't contradict the quotes in the image. If anything, Born is saying that philosophers should study more physics instead of the other way around, as it has actually advanced something. And Dirac was just describing the then-current state of things (the "great beauty and power" part is not actually true at the present time, as the whole thing is quite ugly).

>>19604478
I looked up weinmann and so I had to caveat the feynman bit but I think I forgot to.

In any sense the subject is about usefulness of philosophy. You were supposed to contradict that, which you did, but if you're admitting that your star scientists allowed philosophy in manners then the contradiction doesn't work.

Now ofc you solely dealt w the biographical point and not the foundational point which says a lot about you. Go back to plebbit/twitter/yt or wherever the hell you came from. We dc about biographies or liberal individualist bs here as fundamentals for our subjects.

>>19603676
this thread made me realize every single second i spent on this board with you fucking dickbrains is time i'll never get back. thank you OP. god bless

>>19603785
Who said anything about religion? Not him but the very fact that you categorize him as religious just shows your own religious thinking on the subject.

>>19603877
Yes but this presupposes that the causal nature of the environmental action on genes is itself the entire meaningless and directionless reaction. And that the aggragate of these isolated unintelligent ractions is then framed into a large scale pattern with human projection providing meaning, reason and values such as smarter, fitter, complex etc... The problem with this level of reductionism is that it doesn't take into account the over 100 years of advancement in science and philosophy that render Darwins antiquated obeservations a great start but limited. This reductionist view also cannot explain variables outside our know models that produce these highly improbable paths life on earth takes. From the cambrian explosion to simple things like producing and entirley new viable species without destrying the initial animals at the early stages of differentiation in the womb. The odds that chance happenings are coming together unintelligibly and mindlessly, through antiquated models that we have "figured out", to produce the kinds of abilities and experiences we posses are very slim.

>>19604553
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

>>19603676
physics is the only pure science

>>19604504
You called someone a wannabe scientist. Then you posted a retarded image trying to show that you need to actually be a philosopher to do important scientific work. In the hope that people would stop posting that shitty picture and start thinking for themselves, I posted a slightly less stupid picture featuring famous and important physicists that did not hold philosophers (especially "pure" philosophers) in high regard. That's all I wanted, and you have not addressed this particularly well.
I would like to add that you should stop trying to judge who is a scientist and who isn't. You aren't qualified if you think Feynman was some unimportant figure who did not deserve his Nobel prize, and had to look up Steven Weinberg (or Weinmann lmao).

>>19603976
OK. Now selectively brees a chicken into something that isnt a chicken at all.

>>19604575
Cope. The point was about philosophy being important and you've done nothing to show the opposite except 2 butchered quotes which don't explain their biographical side. Either way the biographical position is horrific and bereft. You can try to hold the line w that but you'll fail because I can always go more foundational (as w dirac) and you can't touch it.

Feynman and weinberg aren't great scientists. I wouldn't even say they're good but I just have the whole history of science as my reference point and you, w your biographical position, do not.

>>19603840
>we could have made better vaccines from the get-go and prevented the newer variants long before they formed
But then how would the powers that be use an engineered pandemic as a pretense to restructure the global monetary system and enforce tighter constrictions of control on the populace?

>>19604618
Take your meds schizo we're talking about science not politics. We would be looking for a vaccine of vaccines if you will while you're just mad that some vaccines were recommended by some politicians and not others which you support.

>>19604626
I'm just musing about how naive you are.

>>19604627
Idc about your politics. I can spend millions of years studying it and be nonethewiser to ethics etc. Politics is definitionally just fighting for power. It's why y'all flip-flop so much. You're filling your head w junk.

>>19604636
>y'all
For one, it's best to pay attention when someone's trying to control your life from the top down, but there's no need to get heated over a one-off comment. The point here is that a limited viewpoint naturally narrows your range of thinking on other topics as well. You really need to keep an open mind and entertain "schizo" ramblings if you're interested in the truth of things.

>>19603785
>no mention of religion
>brings it up anyway
Religion lives in the mind of the eternally malding atheist
how sad

>>19604658
No I don't need to pay attention to junk. I have a way to verify value in statements that isn't just pro schizoism or listen every view equally.
Idc at all who is trying to control us. They don't dictate value in a fundamental way and the less capable they are of doing so the more holes that will pop up. I skip the middleman and go to value so I can predict the fallout rather than react to it causatively.

>>19604696
You sound like an arrogant child. Oh well, good luck in your endeavors.

>>19604100
Science is not about why. That´s the role of humanistics lol. Science is about how and mutation is one of those hows. hOW ILLITERATE-

>>19604805
For rational analytic science the why is very necessary but in order for a theory to turn into a fact it must answer why.

>>19603747
>it doesn't work as a scientific theory it still provides an adequate explanation of prehistory

name one testable scientific prediction based on evolution. Its on the level of historiosophy/mythology, nothing to do with scientific method.

>>19603818
>but we have tested and observed evolution in real time. This whole covid pandemic has been proof of evolution right out in the open lmao or do variants just pop into being?

you observed natural selection and you called natural selection evolution. weak.

>>19603850
>It's 100% falsifiable. It just hasn't been done yet, and possibly never will be.

based.

>>19604051
>Daily reminder that evolution has been reproduced in laboratory both for unicellular and larger beings.

longterm e coli exp? Yeah, that ended well...they fished for posthoc hypothesis after it all turned out to be total meh.

>>19604069
>Evolution has not been reproduced. It has been somewhat controlled and observed.

they just demonstrate natural selection and then call it evolution and claim billions on years while presenting what is basically selective breeding as evidence

>>19604896
>wisdom teeth

issue people have with that body part shows how faulty entire evolutionary mythological reasoning is. Why cant evolutionary mythologists sepecify what are vestigial human body parts?

>>19604852
No, a "why" implies a meaning or purpose which is subjective.

>>19604852
>For rational analytic science the why is very necessary but in order for a theory to turn into a fact it must answer why.
>>19604805
>Science is not about why. That´s the role of humanistics lol. Science is about how and mutation is one of those hows. hOW ILLITERATE-

both of you are amaterurs, science is about control and if you cant reciprocate, control and PREDICT you basically have nothing. What event or finding has evolution PREDICTED - that can offcourse be empirically falsified.

>>19604919
Just read this >>19604150
It's not a fact if it doesn't answer why within its purview.

>>19604965
Evolution doesn't have a definition so you're speaking of an ethereal object. It's like saying "the science disagrees". There is no single definition of evolution which is why it's a theory.

This image alone single handedly destroys OP and all other religious retards playing dumb in this thread.

>>19605128
Cool now what will covid evolve to and don't say "we dk, we can't know" because in chemistry we have chemical resonance and biology is just a particular part of chemistry CHNOPS, enjoy

>>19603676

>The human form cannot be transcended, its sufficient reason being precisely to express the Absolute, hence the untranscendable; and this cuts short the metaphysically and physically aberrant imaginations of the evolutionists, according to whom this form would be the result of a prolonged elaboration starting from animal forms; an elaboration which is at once arbitrary and unlimited.

>Materialists, even those who consider transformist evolution inexplicable and even contradictory, accept this hypothesis as an indispensable idea, which moreover carries us outside of science and into philosophy, or more exactly into rationalism with its reasonings cut off from the very roots of knowledge; and if the evolutionist idea is indispensable to them, it is because in their minds it replaces the concept of a sudden creation ex nihilo, which to them seems the only other possible solution.

>In reality, the evolutionist hypothesis is unnecessary because the creationist concept is so as well; for the creature appears on earth, not by falling from heaven, but by progressively passing - starting from the archetype - from the subtle to the material world, materialization being brought about within a kind of visible aura quite comparable to the "spheres of light" which, according to many accounts, introduce and terminate celestial apparitions.

What happened to 4chan, why did it turn from people acting like idiots for fun for pseuds arguing about shot they don’t have the brain cells for

>>19603676
The reason that ‘evolution’ is not science is that it doesn’t exist. If we take physicalism as axiomatic as scientists tend to do, it becomes readily apparent that evolution can in theory be eliminated, with every occurrence explicable in purely in terms of physicals interactions. However, the concept of evolution is used because of epistemological difficulties.

>>19603763
How the fuck doesn't it?

>>19603818
Viruses aren't alive.

>>19605529

Arguing about evolution and creationism was more of a 2010 thing, OP, but damn, it was a successful troll.

Of course, if you were serious, then you're horribly misguided. Science can get complicated, but at its most basic, it needs predictions, observations, and falsifiability.

So, what could evolution predict?

It's really quite easy. If all organisms are evolving, then it must branch out like a tree. In other words, all organisms must come from at least 1 common ancestor, maybe more. Our observation supporting this is pretty easy; we can now directly observe the genetic lines between organisms. How could we falsify this? Well, it's pretty easy, just find a set of organisms that don't share any common DNA whatsoever; virtual aliens, if you will, or find an organism that violates the rule of common descent.

As for how evolution became the modern paradigm, that's quite simple. It serves as a useful model for predicting changes and effects related to biology, especially genetics, and it has yet to be disproven. When it is, it will likely give way to a more effective model, but still be used commonly, similarly to how Newton's theory of gravity was "disproved" by Relativity but is still in common use.

>>19603859
It's will to power, anon. Scientists won't find a better explanation than this.

>>19605534
He's right. They aren't. But that doesn't mean they still can't undergo evolution.

>>19604106
Aren't humans part of nature?

>>19605582
That's what's so funny

>>19605128
>man made virus engineered to mutate when exposed to vaccinations
try again

>>19605695
>man made virus
Do we know this for certain and that it isn't something like wildlife that fled the Australian fires spread it? Shit all happened around the same time.

>>19605733
>>19605695
>>19605269
Do you inbred highschool students actually think a bacteria is the same as a virus? Do you understand what that image even is?

>>19605962
I didn't say it was covid. He tried to make a point so I said fine, I challenge your aesthetics with an actual challenge. You can read anon, can't you?

>>19603840
>history is not real because at can't predict the future

>>19604609
How do you think poodles and pug appeared?

You'd think the board that adores Spengler would not find something like evolution to be too far-fetched, but here we are.

>>19605998
>at
*we

>>19605998
A history that says dragons account for political revolutions is an example of an unjustified and unfalsifiable history, yes anon.