/lit/ - Literature

every scientific theory functions in a way it can be disproven if certain facts or theory come out.
Meanwhile, evolution, while being the current paradigm, seems entirely unfalsifiable (Poppers prerequisite for scientific theory). like the test for real witch - If she dies she is probably a witch, if she survives she isnt.

Example 1: if it survives its more adapted (ergo superior), if it doesnt its less adapted (ergo inferior). That kind of logic should also apply to human races so if whitey dies, he actually wasnt the masterrace, if he survives he actually is. This is mythology and circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning.

Example 2: "useless human body parts". Appendix and wisdom teeth are considered an evolutionary relic...until few years ago when appendix was discovered to be very usefull (before that they were even removing perfectly healthy uninflamed appendixes from humans because "it served no purpuse") for keeping gut bacteria. Wisdom teeth? Idk I still have them.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm

What is very interesting here, that despite the wrong prediction, you can still spin it as "evolution made the appendix", there is no factual scenario that falsifies evolution. ITS UNFALSIFIABLE. In the end theory of evolution doesnt predict anything like a good sci theory should, but explains things backwards.

Riddle me this, is homosexuality:

1. Maladaptive/unfit (in survial of the FITest) because it doesnt lead to more offspring

or

2. Adaptive, because in the pantheic spirit of the world ADAPTS to so called oberpopulation of the Earth.

Im confused, can Science help?

>>20648884
>This is mythology and circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning.
It's not circular reasoning it tautological like saying bachelors are unmarried men. It has to be true by definition. Survival of the fittest is like saying survival of those who survive. Would you call that circular reasoning? In that case every scientific theory is circular reasoning. Why is a charged particle charged? Because it's a charged particle. And you've already been told what the falsifiable parts of evolution are namely inheritance, mutation, and genes effecting phenotype and you've agreed that those are empirically verified.

>>20648902
3. You're a giant homo in denial

>>20648902
The vast majority of bees and ants are born sterile. Your simple minded idea of what is evolutionary beneficial doesn't apply to reality

>>20648917
>It's not circular reasoning it tautological like saying bachelors are unmarried men

my qestion was - is that empirical scientific reasoning or just mastrubatory semantics?

>Would you call that circular reasoning? In that case every scientific theory is circular reasoning.

this simply doesnt follow.

>Why is a charged particle charged? Because it's a charged particle.

its charged because it had a surplus or loss of electrons you you happy selfsatisfied twat.

>>20648929
so homos are maldaptive just like sterile bees? what are you a christian evolutionary homophobe?!!!

>>20648859
Philosophy copes and seethes at science because 99% of philosophy is wishful thinking that gets demolished

>>20648902
Homosexuality = raped as a kid + other non genetic reasons like high estrogen in the womb and the fraternal order effect
Science will unironically cure homosexuality. Meanwhile religion is riddled with gay pedos

>>20648962
>this simply doesnt follow.
Yes it does I just gave an example. Fitness is defined as survival and reproductive success. Survival of the fittest is the same as saying survival of those who survive just like saying a charged particle is charged because it's a charged particle. Your arguing that using a definition is circular reasoning which is insane.
>its charged because it had a surplus or loss of electrons
I'm talking about electrons. A charged particle(electron) is charged because it is a charged particle.
>so homos are maldaptive just like sterile bees?
Sterile bees aren't maladaptive just like how non-cancerous cells aren't maladaptive even though they restrain their reproduction.

>>20648987
>Science will unironically cure homosexuality.

what is there to cure? Its an adaptation to overpopulation. Can you SCIENTIFICALLY prove otherwise?

>>20648990
>Survival of the fittest is the same as saying survival of those who survive just like saying a charged particle is charged because it's a charged particle. Your arguing that using a definition is circular reasoning which is insane.

peak circulal insanity! Chargesd particle is charge because of a different number of electrons, you can call it NeilDegrassParticle if you want its totally irrelevant.

>I'm talking about electrons. A charged particle(electron) is charged because it is a charged particle.

brilliant.

>Sterile bees aren't maladaptive

who is more "fit", sterile or non sterile bees?

what defines science?

>>20649098
>>I'm talking about electrons. A charged particle(electron) is charged because it is a charged particle.
>brilliant.
Kant talks about this with analytic truths like a bachelor is an unmarried man. Why is a bachelor unmarried? Because a bachelor is an unmarried man. I've seen some stupid shit on /lit/ but you've gone lower than I thought was possible. You think definitions are circular reasoning.

>>20649098
>who is more "fit", sterile or non sterile bees?
The sterile bees since a hive filled with non-sterile bees wouldn't function. Almost all bees are drone and drones are sterile.

>>20649124
>*drones
Sorry almost all bees are worker bees and those are sterile. Drones are the fertile makes

>>20649117
>Kant talks about this with analytic truths like a bachelor is an unmarried man. Why is a bachelor unmarried? Because a bachelor is an unmarried man.

yet I can easily empirically falsify that by hypothesis testing, can you propose a method of hypothesis testing on "is X more fit than Y"? Simple science.

>>20649124
>The sterile bees since a hive filled with non-sterile bees wouldn't function.

Im not talking about the hive, on a subgroup level or individually, who is more fit?

>>20649152
>yet I can easily empirically falsify that by hypothesis testing
No you can't. If someone is a bachelor they by definition are unmarried. If they are married they aren't a bachelor.
>can you propose a method of hypothesis testing on "is X more fit than Y"?
Are you retarded? If X survives and reproduces it's fit by definition. If Y doesn't survive and reproduce it's not fit by definition.
>Im not talking about the hive, on a subgroup level or individually, who is more fit?
The individual bee is not the reproductive unit being measured for fitness it's the genes contained in them. Read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. It's the same way the cells in our bodies don't optimize for their own reproductive success and become cancerous.

>>20649186
>If they are married they aren't a bachelor.

are you seriously trying to say that you cant test is one married or not?

>Are you retarded? If X survives and reproduces it's fit by definition. If Y doesn't survive and reproduce it's not fit by definition.

I guess we cant again empirically do anything with that? I guess you are right again.

>The individual bee is not the reproductive unit being measured for fitness it's the genes contained in them. Read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. It's the same way the cells in our bodies don't optimize for their own reproductive success and become cancerous.

Im not reading any of that reddit trash.

>>20649218
>Are you retarded? If X survives and reproduces it's fit by definition.

and yes, it is fit by defition - happy now? but what on earth does that have to do with SCIENCE? How do I empirically test for fitness?

>>20649186
>The individual bee is not the reproductive unit being measured for fitness it's the genes contained in them. Read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. It's the same way the cells in our bodies don't optimize for their own reproductive success and become cancerous.

So its like pantheism then, homos are adapting to overpopulation?

>>20649218
>are you seriously trying to say that you cant test is one married or not?
And you're seriously saying we can't tell if something has reproduced?
>I guess we cant again empirically do anything with that? I guess you are right again.
Again wtf are you talking about. You can definitely determine if something has survived long enough to reproduce.

>>20649226
>How do I empirically test for fitness?
BY FUCKING SEEING IF SOMETHING LIVES LONG ENOUGH AND REPRODUCES. I've said that multiple times and you just keep ignoring it.

>>20649227
>And you're seriously saying we can't tell if something has reproduced?

we can...when you wait until it reproduces.

>You can definitely determine if something has survived long enough to reproduce.

yes, when you wait until it reproduces.

I have a proposition - lets wait 1 billion years to determine which species of today specis will reproduce and survive and then we know which of todays species will reproduces and survive. Should we start the experiment?

>>20649238
>BY FUCKING SEEING IF SOMETHING LIVES LONG ENOUGH AND REPRODUCES. I've said that multiple times and you just keep ignoring it.

I have a proposition - lets wait 1 billion years to determine which species of today specis will reproduce and survive and then we know which of todays species will reproduces and survive. Should we start the experiment?

>>20649227
>>20649238
can you predict the future using wite peepo magic science and tell us NOW what will be the FUTURE of reproduction or can we only WAIT for you to be right again?

>>20649244
>I have a proposition - lets wait 1 billion years to determine which species of today specis will reproduce and survive and then we know which of todays species will reproduces and survive
You're starting to get it. What if we had a partial record of several billion years of reproductive success could we then determine the path of evolution took? You're not going to believe it but there are these things called fossils that are the remains of ancient creatures. Even better the number of fossils of a specific species is related to the population of that species at a certain time since more population is more chances to be fossilized

>>20649256
You've given up on saying evolution isn't falsifiable and have now switched to attacking historical sciences. So I can assume you think geology, astronomy, and archaeology aren't sciences either since we can't create experiments with those either?

>>20649265
so make a fucking empirically falsifiable claim you dishonest weasel! How will humans change, what organs will be lost via vestigiality, what organs will be new?

Ill make it simple 4u - how will IQ change based on evolution?

>>20649271
>You've given up on saying evolution isn't falsifiable and have now switched to attacking historical sciences.

it is unfalfifiable, challenge 4u above!

>>20649280
>so make a fucking empirically falsifiable claim you dishonest weasel!
I've already told you what the empirically falsifiable parts are and you've agreed to them. Inheritance, mutation, genes effecting phenotype, and phenotype effecting reproductive fitness. I would guess the one you would have the most problem with is phenotype effecting reproductive fitness but it's easy to find examples of mutations that kill a creature before it can reproduce. As far predicting out evolution millions of year into the future that's far beyond what we can do now. It's like asking what the weather will be over a certain town 50 years from now. There is no weather forecasting model with anywhere near that temporal accuracy but I hope you don't think weather prediction is unfalsifiable.

>>20649313
>I've already told you what the empirically falsifiable parts are and you've agreed to them. Inheritance, mutation, genes effecting phenotype, and phenotype effecting reproductive fitness.

you havent proposes a testable hypothesis you are just being intellectually dishonest like all team rooting atheists. the things youve mentioned are empirically proved to be correct even if you believe in young earth creationism/odin creation stories/alien abduction creation stories or evolution.

again>>20649280
>How will humans change, what organs will be lost via vestigiality, what organs will be new?
>Ill make it simple 4u - how will IQ change based on evolution?

>>20649352
>you havent proposes a testable hypothesis
1. Do mutations happen?
2. Does offspring inherit mutations?
3. Do mutations effect the capabilities of a creature?
4. Do a creatures differing capabilities effect it's chance of reproduction?
Four empirically verifiable parts of evolution.

>How will humans change, what organs will be lost via vestigiality, what organs will be new?
>Ill make it simple 4u - how will IQ change based on evolution?
Again current biology can't predict out that far. It can make short term predictions about changes in allele frequency in a population just from the average rate of mutation in a certain environment. Or short term changes due to the genetic drift of an isolated population. But nothing on the time scale of hundreds of thousands or millions of years. We can't even predict the local weather 20 years into the future but meteorology is very much a falsifiable science.

>>20649352
>the things youve mentioned are empirically proved to be correct even if you believe in young earth creationism/odin creation stories/alien abduction creation stories or evolution.
I've already responded to this before. Genetics goes against the time scale provided by creationists just in the number of mutations observed in different evolutionary lineages.

>>20649381
>1. Do mutations happen?

yes

>2. Does offspring inherit mutations?

contrary to midwit beliefs - rarely, most mutations are deformities

>3. Do mutations effect the capabilities of a creature?

yes, always in a bad way.

>4. Do a creatures differing capabilities effect it's chance of reproduction?

yes.

>Four empirically verifiable parts of evolution.

of genetics, of basic genetics. Kent Hovind agrees with basic genetic, I do as well. Now stop being a dishonest faggot and make scientific predicitons.

>Again current biology can't predict out that far.

what can you predict? Can you even name vestigial organs and say which methodology you use for testing them or is you UNFALSIFIABLE mythology epistemiologically useless like all pseudoscience?

>>20649389
>Genetics goes against the time scale provided by creationists just in the number of mutations observed in different evolutionary lineages.

Only if you use it an evolutionary paradigm and assume most mutations are heritable which empirical genetics proved to be false. Even longterm e coli proved that mutations dont happen as atheists think, what it proved is that you SELECT from the genepool, no mutations happened there

>>20649398
>contrary to midwit beliefs - rarely, most mutations are deformities
This isn't the case, most mutations are junk that get corrected by various error-checking mechanisms. The ones that slip by are just part of the chromosome's Junk DNA (DNA that, lacking start signals, codes for no gene products and as such just acts as a buffer), which by definition does nothing.

>Only if you use it an evolutionary paradigm and assume most mutations are heritable which empirical genetics proved to be false. Even longterm e coli proved that mutations dont happen as atheists think, what it proved is that you SELECT from the genepool, no mutations happened there
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>20649398
>>3. Do mutations effect the capabilities of a creature?
>yes, always in a bad way.
This is easily disproven. First hit on a random google search.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00816/full

>what can you predict?
Can you not even read the next sentences?
It can make short term predictions about changes in allele frequency in a population just from the average rate of mutation in a certain environment. Or short term changes due to the genetic drift of an isolated population.

>assume most mutations are heritable which empirical genetics proved to be false
No one assumed that. Just that heritable mutations occur which has definitely been empirically proven.
>what it proved is that you SELECT from the genepool, no mutations happened there
Are you really arguing heritable mutations don't happen?

>>20649410
>You have no idea what you're talking about.

but I do, most of your proof is bs, you observe SELECTION IRL and claim it as mutation as you queers did in longterm e coli exp. pic rel

>>20649413
>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00816/full

in article
>Yet, lineages that underwent evolution under mild selection

They just replace the word natural selection with evolution. What a level of intellectual dishonesty, what a bunch of faggotry...have you even read what you linked? is pic rel evolution or SELECTION?

>Just that heritable mutations occur which has definitely been empirically proven.

name one that isnt maldaptive.

>>20649439
>What a level of intellectual dishonesty, what a bunch of faggotry...have you even read what you linked? is pic rel evolution or SELECTION?
Rofl you can't even understand the paper.
>However, various evolution methods exist that utilize different population sizes, selection strengths, and bottlenecks.
Selection refers to the size of the culture, the amount of antibiotic added, and the taking of random small samples to start new populations. Mutations occured that weren't present to begin with it's a common experiment that has been run thousands of times.

>>Just that heritable mutations occur which has definitely been empirically proven.
>name one that isnt maldaptive.
THE FUCKING STUDY THAT YOU RESPONDED TOO. The bacteria evolved antibiotic resistance.

>"I heckin hate science" schizo having a meltdown

>>20649456
>The bacteria evolved antibiotic resistance.

evolved? you mean mutated? why are you so sure that it wasnt selected for? Has lactose tolerance EVOLVED by wite pipo magic or was it just SELECTED for from the genepool? Seems to be you just selected the option you are biased to.

>>20649467
>evolved? you mean mutated?
Again mutations are necessary for evolution. If you have no mutations there is no evolution.
>why are you so sure that it wasnt selected for?
Nigger it was selected for because if it didn't evolve antibiotic resistance it probably died. THE THINGS THAT SURVIVE REPRODUCE.
>SELECTED for from the genepool?
SELECTED for from? Wtf does that mean? Something can be selected for and you're trying to confuse it with selected from. You can select for a trait that doesn't exist in a population like the study did with antibiotic resistance.

>>20649479
>>20649479
>SELECTED for from? Wtf does that mean? Something can be selected for and you're trying to confuse it with selected from. You can select for a trait that doesn't exist in a population like the study did with antibiotic resistance.

No hope.

>>20649488
>No hope.
I'm glad you've admitted you're wrong. While there is no hope of defending the christcuck position on evolution you can look forward to joining the rest of us in the real world.

>>20648859
>Evolution is psuedoscience
That's rich coming from a philosopher.

>>20648859
>What are some other worthwhile philosophers of science and what were their positions?
Walter Russell. Science is a religion nowadays, and it is full of dogma.

So whats the consensus, is evoution a thing or not?

>>20649605
>Walter Russell

guy with the Ezra Pound stache? What is his central idea?

>>20649614
>So whats the consensus, is evoution a thing or not?

I do not think is it a thing, but the theory is correct every single time.

>>20648884
You've never read a book on evolution, so just shut the fuck up about it.

>>20648859
>>20648884
>>20648902
>>20649256
>>20649280
>>20649352
>It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. [Popper, 1981, p. 611]

>This view is perfectly compatible with the analysis of scientific method, and especially of causal explanation given in the preceding section. The situation is simply this: while the theoretical sciences are mainly interested in finding and testing universal laws, the historical sciences take all kinds of universal laws for granted and are mainly interested in finding and testing singular statements. [Popper, 1957, p. 143ff]

https://ncse.ngo/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-about-evolution

>>20649244
based Dirkjan poster

>>20649614
There are few things in this universe we can categorically state to be 100% true. It is an attempt at an explanation based on conjecture from what we have observed.

>>20649381
>1. Do mutations happen?
>2. Does offspring inherit mutations?
>3. Do mutations effect the capabilities of a creature?
>4. Do a creatures differing capabilities effect it's chance of reproduction?
these aren't part of evolution theory itself, they are explanations of how evolution might take place in practice

>>20651222
>It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. [Popper, 1981, p. 611]

reads like someone was holding a gun to his head, poor guy didnt even had the time to explain how these mysterious hypothesis could be tested/falsified. Cant blame him that much, we all cuck out at some point.

>>20651604
>Christkek memepicture

>>20651736
inter-Muslim

>>20649621
>guy with the Ezra Pound stache? What is his central idea?
It is the man on picrel. He had multiple ideas so reducing him to a few topics is not quite ideal for proposing his accomplishments, also had the nickname of "modern Leonardo Da Vinci".
Read his book "the universal one" or "the secret of light" and you'll see for yourself.

>>20649497
Modern genetics started by the investigations of a Catholic priest.

>>20653264
research*

>>20648859
see pic related. none of our axioms or presuppositions capture "reality" or the subject as it is

>>20648884
Fpbp

>>20653264
Papists aren't Christians.

How to prove you have sub 70iq?

Why just come out as an evolution denying young earth creationist