Evolution is not a scientific theory - problem of falsifiability (Catch 22)

[Anonymous No.12267277]

"Evolution is not a scientific theory but a metaphysical research program." Popper

Evolution is no different than historiosophy or mythology, its activity is always from present to past (=constant revisionism), not from present to future (=predicting) like a good scientific theory.

>next evolutionary step
>but scientific communits made a concensus
>by the years 2001 well live on Mars
>by the year 2070 well use cubes of trash as money

discuss.

also who called out the scientific cult the best - Feyerabend, Lakatos, Popper or Kuhn? Is this cultish worship of science continuation of positivism or some offshot of humanism&progressivism ala Fukuyama?

[Anonymous No.12267288]

Feyerabend was the best and you are being disingenuous with that quote as Popper came to accept evolution as falsifiable.

With that said, Anglos should be roped on the streets.

[Anonymous No.12267289]

>

[Anonymous No.12267291]

Karl Popper was trash.

[Anonymous No.12267298]

>>12267288
>Feyerabend was the best and you are being disingenuous with that quote as Popper came to accept evolution as falsifiable.

Feyerabend was the realest of them all. That Popper quote is a secondary reference by a creationists, so not directly from Popper but 100% in line with his position about irrefutability.

Popper did cucked out in the end and made a kind of retraction to keep his prestigious position.

>>12267291
>Karl Popper was trash.

why? his philosophy of science was solid.

[Anonymous No.12267339]

>>12267277
Popper is the reason we use falsification and care about not verificating our theories just because they can be. Not all ideas of philosophers are used or prove to be as useful in science. Those thinkers all contributed to scientific thinking and changed a lot in practice. Their science is the traditional way and I would say it is positivism because at that time science wasnt as infected by postmodernist ideas. Of course humanity must make everything extreme so they take ideas of these thinkers as justification for their idealogical or relative thinking and apply it to science and change its whole meaning. Not everyone can understand philosophy even if they understand the statements, see feminist theory of science or other shit from frankfurt school ideas applied to science, mostly social sciences.

[Anonymous No.12267758]

there are a lot of those anglo theories that are based in semantics, evolution is just one of them, there is that moron Bentham with his utilitarianism, later also Singer, ultra empiricism of Locke and Mill.

All of those theories are totally masturbatory, with evolution you can even define what is deformation and what is a "healthy body" since you can claim "next step of evolution" if you get born with more or less than 5 fingers etc.

[Anonymous No.12267779]

>>12267289
Hey Thad.

[Anonymous No.12267788]

>>12267277
>first time you read popper

[Anonymous No.12267811]

>>12267758
While I get the joke (he's a kike), these aren't actually contradictory if you define peacefulness as an element of belief: i.e. There's no reason for Nazis to kill Jews because Jews "don't want to kill gentiles" but because Nazis want to kill Jews it's okay for ZOG to kill Nazis.

I actually totally get what he's saying, it's just ironic because people like Harris tend to go to bat for heinous murderers and the like to uphold a consistent rule of law, but then killing intolerant people rather than re-educating them in a padded room becomes okay because "lol they're Nazis and they maek me feel bad and I am God's chosen so what I say goes."

I fucking hate that kike so much.

[Anonymous No.12267825]

>>12267277
>I-its not like I'm some booty blasted christfag or anything
>I'm just seriously concerned about these word games from before we were able to sequence genes
Absolutely pathetic

[Anonymous No.12267827]

>>12267811
>There's no reason for Nazis to kill Jews because Jews "don't want to kill gentiles" but because Nazis want to kill Jews it's okay for ZOG to kill Nazis.

that doesnt make any sense as a principal of ethics. Its just reactionary morals with 0 consistency. Poppers "ethics" was similar - its not a system, just bad rationalization of group power struggle.

[Anonymous No.12267829]

>>12267825
Only reason you say that is because you are obsessed by an evolutionary demon.

I take no insult in your ramblings and give you emapthy every demon obsessed person deserves.

[Anonymous No.12267835]

>>12267825
>thinking NEETs don't understand the memes they are posting
Dude, I hate to tell you this, but the dumbest people I've ever come across on /pol/ have been gainfully employed boomers. The raw amount of man hours you can put into thinking something out as a NEET is sufficient for most of the entry level stuff on /pol/, even if you're borderline retarded.

[Anonymous No.12267841]

>>12267827
>that doesnt make any sense as a principal of ethics.
Of course it does. I don't want to kill you, but if you come at me with a knife I'm obviously going to want you dead or incapacitated. You're operating from a worldview which already sees kikes as transgressors worthy of being killed.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12267861]

THEY ALL WEAK AND SCIENCE STRONK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_BBjPUudN0

>>12267825
also, evolutionary demon posession is often correlated with being a leftist fag that dabbles into pseudoscience so watch out.

>>12267841
>Of course it does. I don't want to kill you, but if you come at me with a knife I'm obviously going to want you dead or incapacitated.

this stands only if you dont categorically oppose genocide which Harris claimed he did.

[Anonymous No.12267862]

>>12267277
my man, the falsifiability criterion for scientific theories has been widely trashed, please read

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12267868]

>>12267862
>the falsifiability criterion for scientific theories has been widely trashed

true, my man Fey called it out. Still doesnt change the fact that evolution is semantics.

[Anonymous No.12267870]

>>12267277
Don't we have enough idiots out there as it is?
I don't think criticizing science is what's needed, it's constantly neglected, overlooked and disregarded.

It sounds like science took away your favorite toy cough religion. Instead of treating it like a cult, go look up science in the dictionary and explain to me how that should be criticized in any way. Science is very humble, look up what Krauss has to say about it.

>"not from present to future (=predicting) like a good scientific theory."
Look up experimental evolution. Also, if evidence was found which discredited evolution, it would be pursued to the fullest extent until evolution was either disproven entirely or otherwise. Science has no bias or allegiances.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12267877]

>>12267870
>Don't we have enough idiots out there as it is?
>I don't think criticizing science is what's needed, it's constantly neglected, overlooked and disregarded.
>It sounds like science took away your favorite toy cough religion. Instead of treating it like a cult, go look up science in the dictionary and explain to me how that should be criticized in any way. Science is very humble, look up what Krauss has to say about it.
>Science has no bias or allegiances.

Science is...overrated.

[Anonymous No.12267916]

>>12267861
>this stands only if you dont categorically oppose genocide which Harris claimed he did.
No, he qualifies that statement by claiming there is no reason to kill peaceful people. Speech acts and meditations are not necessarily peaceful actions and have never been regarded as such, otherwise you couldn't arrest an Islamic terrorist prior to his carrying out the crime.

A Nazi planning Holocaust 2.0 (which is predictably the target of Harris' ire) is not a peaceful person, so killing him wouldn't really be aggressive under this paradigm. Of course, like I said, the irony and contradiction is that the rationalists will fall over themselves to apologize for black nationalist terrorism, Islamic terrorism, faggots raping kids, etc. It's only because Nazis threaten (((God's chosen))) that they are considered unworthy of redemption, and that's where you see a guy like Harris reveal his true colors, not as an Anglo-rationalist, but as a kike.

[Anonymous No.12267933]

>>12267339
id argue that philosophers like popper had little or no influence on what scientists do practically.

>evolution is semantics.

and evolution isnt semantics

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268027]

>>12267916
>he qualifies that statement by claiming there is no reason to kill peaceful people.

but that is where the circular semantics Ive mentioned comes into place. What are peacefull people? Are Jews peacefull to Palestinians or whites? Are Nazis peacefull to Austrians? Are Muslims peacefull to their own believers?

>>12267933
>and evolution isnt semantics

then tell me NOW what are the vestigial parts of the human body and what new parts will humans gain? Or can you speak about it only once it happens?

[Anonymous No.12268074]

>>12268027
>then tell me NOW what are the vestigial parts of the human body and what new parts will humans gain? Or can you speak about it only once it happens?

what is this statement trying to show exactly?

how does this make something semantics?

[Anonymous No.12268088]

>>12268027
I don't think evolution hinges on definitions of vestigial

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268089]

>>12268074
>what is this statement trying to show exactly?
>how does this make something semantics?

semantics posing as scientific theory doesnt have the ability to predict.

[Anonymous No.12268136]

>>12268089
What do you mean by semantics though? Does it make a theory untrue if the theory has limited predictive power?
Was einsteins ideas in general relativity untrue before he came up withthe mathematical framework.

But can't we predict things in evolution e.g. in the field of genetics?

[Anonymous No.12268137]

>he isnt able to balance his belief in God with his knowledge of science
If God created the universe, then evolution is just yet another fascinating part of His machinations to create something as beautiful as life on Earth

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268154]

>>12268136
>But can't we predict things in evolution e.g. in the field of genetics?

you can predict in genetics since its legitimate unlike with the evolutionary myth. simple.

>>12268137
>If God created the universe, then evolution is just yet another fascinating part of His machinations to create something as beautiful as life on Earth

piss of with this dishonest mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous No.12268167]

>>12268027
>but that is where the circular semantics Ive mentioned comes into place. What are peacefull people? Are Jews peacefull to Palestinians or whites? Are Nazis peacefull to Austrians? Are Muslims peacefull to their own believers?
That isn't circular reasoning, you're just trying to suggest that kikes deserve to get ovened without actually saying it. ZOG exists. Little Jewish children aren't part of it, and ovening them is unambiguously aggressive. If we sussed it out, we would find that Harris' view is probably hypocritical, but it isn't contradictory, I was right the first time and you were wrong, stop wasting everyone's time.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268175]

>>12268167
>That isn't circular reasoning, you're just trying to suggest that kikes deserve to get ovened without actually saying it.

but it is - you cant define what is the category of "peacefull people".

[Anonymous No.12268228]

>>12268175
>but it is - you cant define what is the category of "peacefull people".
People who don't kill people without provocation. Now because you're a kike in spirit you're going to pretend that you don't know what provocation means, and then once I define that for you you will pretend some element of that definition is outside of your vocabulary. You're thriving on exactly the sort of linguistic ambiguity that kikes do when they try to undermine the constitution. If you weren't a mutt, you would understand the English sentiment, but you are, so you either don't or pretend like you don't to justify your faggot larping.

[Anonymous No.12268248]

>>12268154
>mental gymnastics
How is this mental gymnastics?
If God is the creator of the universe, then He was the creator of all the systems and machinations of the universe within the universe. Therefore, all the the sciences are parts of His creation and we are just discovering them for ourselves.
Or what, am I to believe that the entirety of scientific progress is being pulled from our asses, and that my 8th grade science class where we looked at cells with a microscope was a Satanic deception? Fuck outta here.
There is nothing that stops you from believing in God and evolution

[Anonymous No.12268251]

>>12267277
We can literally observe evolution occurring in the lab via the use of bacterial cultures, you insipid dolt.

[Anonymous No.12268259]

>>12268154
So how do you think God created species? Like Harry Potter with a wand? Like most Christians and the Catholic Church I believe he used evolution, much like he used the big bang to create the universe

[Anonymous No.12268261]

>>12267277
Evolutionary biology continuously makes predictions that hold true. The theory is more than a hundred years old at this point and its effects have been well observed since then. The idea that it only looks at the past is wrong. "Evolution" and more specifically evolution by natural selection fulfills all criteria of a scientific theory.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268283]

>>12268228
>People who don't kill people without provocation.

what an interesting statement.
You know the story about the frog and the scorpio? Did the scorpio killed the frog "because it was his nature" or was he "provoked by his nature"?

Just admit that Harris is doing semantics bollocks and that is it.

>>12268248
>Therefore, all the the sciences are parts of His creation and we are just discovering them for ourselves.

just recently it was "scientifically proven" that homosexuality and transgenderism is legitimate. Also, humans and their creation are imperfect, dwell on that for a second (unless you are a humanists and believe in "undiscovered human potential" and all that woke new age stuff).

>>12268251
>We can literally observe evolution occurring in the lab via the use of bacterial cultures, you insipid dolt.

eschericia coli exp was a FLOP.

>>12268261
>Evolutionary biology continuously makes predictions that hold true.

they claimed up until a year ago that human appendix and wisdom teeth is vestigial.

[Anonymous No.12268294]

>>12268283
>Also, humans and their creation are imperfect, dwell on that for a second
Wow, exactly as detailed and explained in Catholic theology for the last two thousand years. But, oh, your one of those retard atheists who doesn't understand what he's saying doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.12268297]

>>12268283
>eschericia coli exp was a FLOP.
Pure fabrication.
https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2009/time-in-a-bottle-scientists-watch-evolution-unfold-over-40000-generations/

[Anonymous No.12268308]

>>12268283
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/
retard

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268342]

>>12268294
Im waiting for mental gymnastics youll use to prove that God allows homos and transexuals (since its scientifically proven and therefore God-approved)

>>12268297
>https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2009/time-in-a-bottle-scientists-watch-evolution-unfold-over-40000-generations/
>>12268308
>https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

so what were the predictions and what new species evolved? Or is it another case as presenting natural selection as sufficient proof of evolution as they did with esch coli?

[Anonymous No.12268358]

>>12268154
But genetics is a part of evolution right? its part of that framework. What you say is like arguing classical mechanics or classical thermodynamics is bullshit because of special relativity or statistical mechanics.

[Anonymous No.12268361]

>>12268283
>what an interesting statement. You know the story about the frog and the scorpio? Did the scorpio killed the frog "because it was his nature" or was he "provoked by his nature"?
Ah, yes, it's not provocation to kill a Jewish child because it was in the nature of that Jewish child to act like a kike. How wonderful that some faggot half-kraut could imply this for us without actually saying it because he's a fucking moon-worshiping coward. Harris rarely says anything cogent, and I am disinclined to believe that there are thoughts one ought to be destroyed for, but holy shit does the stubborn idiocy of mongrelized krauts make that difficult to believe.


>Just admit that Harris is doing semantics bollocks and that is it.
You're a rat, a moon-worshiping shadow-lover, less than vermin, less than a kike - a coward, and your ancestors should be ashamed.

[Anonymous No.12268362]

>>12268283
>because Buzzfeed and Slate ran articles headlining that biased NGO-funded studies 'scientifically proved homosexuality' this means the last hundred years of evolutionary research is bullshit
Oh yeah, it was "scientifically proven" that you're full of shit, guess I dont have to listen to you :^)

[Anonymous No.12268377]

>>12268342
>since its scientifically proven and therefore God-approved
Not how this works at all dumbo. Why would God approve of everything that humans do? And how have you derived this from what has been said?
I say you again you don't know what it is you are saying doesn't exist. You are out of your depth and making yourself look foolish. You thought this gay/trans thing would give you a zinger, but sadly not.

[Anonymous No.12268406]

>>12267277
Popper never understood science. Science isn't just about "falsifying" and not even "theorizing" per se and it can't be codified into human language or necessarily even a formal language... it's a practical human activity that is constitutive of the species being of man. The human species has always been practising scientists. The division between science and other modes of investigation and understanding is mostly exemplified by its results not any methodological standard that can be clearly explicated.
That's not to say Feyerabend was right... not just any activity can be historically understood to be scientific outside its historical context. That's why Lysenko was absoultly based and redpilled and the Catholic church did notting wrong to demand Galileo clarify himself... real science always presupposes potential physical combat.

[Anonymous No.12268416]

>>12268283
wasnt there a year when a year ago aether was a plausible hypothesis?

[Anonymous No.12268452]

evolution is real but misunderstood and yeah a lot of how people talk about it is metaphysical like it has a direction

[Anonymous No.12268462]

>>12268089
What do you mean by semantics?

>>12268406
>is mostly exemplified by its results
how?

>>12268406
>That's why Lysenko was absoultly based and redpilled and the Catholic church did notting wrong to demand Galileo clarify himself... real science always presupposes potential physical combat
can you clarify what you meant by these example?

[Anonymous No.12268464]

>>12268283
>they claimed up until a year ago that human appendix and wisdom teeth is vestigial.
How is them being wrong discrediting the theory? An organ being useless is not really something you would predict according to the theory. You would expect it to have some utility actually.

The most basic prediction of evolution is that species change over time and the most basic prediction of evolution by natural selection is that species change over time by spreading beneficial traits and getting rid of negative traits by natural selective features like sexual and predatory selection.

Example: Peppered moth, which changed its color from white to black in areas of Britain with heavy pollution. Exactly what you would expect. A species adapts to a changed environment.

This has also been confirmed in experiments, with examples being John Endler's guppy skin pattern experiment and various experiments on Anolis oculatus Anole lizard populations which were separated and each population evolved differently according to their environment.

Also obviously you can easily confirm evolution by natural selection and genetics in laboratory environments with bacteria and viruses. But I assume you are some kind of creationist who thinks tests on bacteria don't translate to more complex live forms.

[Anonymous No.12268480]

>>12267835
While the gen x and boomer posters are unbearably stupid the Millenial and Zoomer NEET’s are more often than not nigger tier and some of the most vapid and easily misled people ive ever spoken to. Actual normie 102 iq subhuman chattel are sometimes more easily dealt with than NEET faggots on /fit/ and this board who obsess over exactly what the idiot frog meme is proposing

[Anonymous No.12268497]

>>12268464
>species change over time by spreading beneficial traits and getting rid of negative traits by natural selective features like sexual and predatory selection.

>big tits are beneficial, we like them because they look healthy
>women still have small tits

[Anonymous No.12268504]

>>12268462
>how?
Scientific activity results in qualitative transformations in the external material environment, not just internal understandings, which was not possible beforehand... mere theory, or just any "properly" formulated falsifiable statement, isn't science if it doesn't transform reality.

[Anonymous No.12268520]

>>12267277
You're trying to win against the left-liberalism of today with the conservatism that was obliterated decades ago. You think your greatest rhetorical weapon is material that was obliterated by the likes of Bill Maher.

This is the wrong strategy. Stop it.

[Anonymous No.12268534]

>>12268462
>can you clarify what you meant by these example?
Someones got to take on the responsibility of maintaining a reality and that means violence can't be ruled out as illegitimate, it's just a part of the process.

[Anonymous No.12268595]

>>12268504
what exactly do you mean by transform reality. this is vague.

>>12268497
>naive

>>12268534
Well the violence thing is weird but i dont know if feyerabend is saying all activity is science, just that science has no rulebook. desu what you say isnt restricted to science. any kind of belief system manages its "reality" in its community and changes over time. just like science.

[Anonymous No.12268601]

>>12268497
Our distant ancestors had no big round tits at all. So your example is kind of silly and self-defeating. Permanent breasts evolved together with our upright walk. The best hypothesis so far is that they evolved because our eyes are higher up and need a sexual signal closer to them than the buttocks which serve as primary sexual signifier in other primates. Big round breast signify sexual health. And as studies show men prefer women with round firm breasts over women with very small breasts or big, but loose saggy breasts.

Studies actually show that average breast size in the population is increasing over time, but that can be mostly attributed to changes in diet. Such studies only exist for the last 50 years or so. Evolutionary changes in species with long reproductive cycles (like humans) usually happen over very long periods of time unless rapid changes in environment happen (i.e. very strong selective pressure). If you want proper data on this, then wait a few thousand years at least. Or be lucky to find a lot of mummified female corpses from 10 thousand years ago with breast tissue intact.

[Anonymous No.12268690]

>>12268595
Any human activity that results in forms of physical movement or changes in the arrangement of stuff out there and such which simply was not possible beforehand is scientific, it's justified to be called so by its results. The manner in which this plays out doesn't really matter and any "theory" involved beforehand or afterwards isn't what is actually the substance of science.
Feyerabend essiently is saying community doesn't really matter to try to go beyond Kuhns whole notion of "paradigms" to legitimize all individual research. Science always occurs within a community, the conservative moment is necessary and unavoidable... the radical form of liberalism he wants isn't possible because humans live in societies and are social which means violence isn't an external issue to scientific research.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268715]

>>12268358
>But genetics is a part of evolution right? its part of that framework.

what is sufficient VS necessery proof.

>>12268361
take a chill pill dude.

>>12268362
>because Buzzfeed and Slate ran articles headlining that biased NGO-funded studies 'scientifically proved homosexuality' this means the last hundred years of evolutionary research is bullshit

its literally the "scientific consesus" on the issue you dimwit

>>12268377
>Not how this works at all dumbo. Why would God approve of everything that humans do?

Correct. which makes your mental spiel about evolution and God funny from the start.

>>12268462
>What do you mean by semantics?

You only ask that since you are obsessed by an evolutionary demon. There.

>>12268601
>Our distant ancestors had no big round tits at all. So your example is kind of silly and self-defeating. Permanent breasts evolved together with our upright walk. The best hypothesis so far is that they evolved because our eyes are higher up and need a sexual signal closer to them than the buttocks which serve as primary sexual signifier in other primates. Big round breast signify sexual health. And as studies show men prefer women with round firm breasts over women with very small breasts or big, but loose saggy breasts.

MYTHOLOGY.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268722]

>>12268464
>An organ being useless is not really something you would predict according to the theory.

why not? Current medicine can claim what is "healthy " and what is "unhealthy", so you cant claim what is vestigial? that means I cant test and possible refute your claims. Congrats, your "theory" is irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.12268737]

>>12268722
You could show me an organ that is entirely useless and not shrinking/disappearing over time. I.e. an organ that is less beneficial to have than not to have that does not get selected against. It's rather easy to refute.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268753]

>>12268737
>You could show me an organ that is entirely useless and not shrinking/disappearing over time. I.e. an organ that is less beneficial to have than not to have that does not get selected against.

There is no such an organ.

[Anonymous No.12268762]

>>12268753
The eyes of many blind cave dwellers

[Anonymous No.12268763]

>>12268753
Yes, if there were such an organ than evolution by natural selection would be wrong.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268768]

>>12268762
>The eyes of many blind cave dwellers

maybe GOD created them that way as a joke. Why havent they lost eyes completly?

>>12268763
?

[Anonymous No.12268778]

>>12268768
I told you what you would have to show me to refute "my" theory. But since the theory is correct, no such thing exists. The theory is refutable, but you can't refute it.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268792]

>>12268778
but there is no such organ, God made everything perfectly. Only based on your arrogance inspired by low ammount of aquired knowledge can you claim to have know enough to write of perfectly healthy body parts.

[Anonymous No.12268823]

>>12268792
>God made everything perfectly
False. Only God is perfect, everything which is not God is imperfect to the extent it is not like God

[Anonymous No.12268824]

>>12268792
Some anon already pointed out blind cave dwellers that are ancestors of species that used to have functional eyes, yet their own eyes are dysfunctional due to them being useless in their environment. Another example is the blind mole rat which has tiny eyes that are completely covered by skin.

Your claim about gods existence and intentions on the other hand is not testable.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268841]

>>12268737
>I.e. an organ that is less beneficial to have than not to have that does not get selected against.

and how exactly would you design an experiment to test that hypothesis?

>If we test are ears vestigial, people would claim you hear better with them, but counter argument is that its more aerodynamic.
>If we test the removal of brain tissue you can claim that it lowers IQ, but others can claim its an evolutionary adaptation since it consumes less lactose
>...

I guess you cant, which means I cant even try to refute whatever you claim.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12268851]

>>12268824
>blind cave dwellers that are ancestors of species that used to have functional eyes, yet their own eyes are dysfunctional due to them being useless in their environment. Another example is the blind mole rat which has tiny eyes that are completely covered by skin.

based on CURRENT LEVEL OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE you write them of as useless, 10 years from now you might discover their use, as you did with appendix.

And why dont humans have "leftover" organs?

[Anonymous No.12268945]

>>12268841
>>If we test are ears vestigial, people would claim you hear better with them, but counter argument is that its more aerodynamic.
Okay lets assume ears in baboons are not only useless, but disadvantageous. Take a population of baboons, put them in a natural environment on an island or something and remove the genes that make ears in half of them. Wait a few hundred generations and see whether the earless genes win out over the genetic lines with ears. It's a silly example, but you chose it. If there was no use in ears and they were actually counterproductive then the earless baboons should out-compete the eared baboons.

>>12268851
Appendixes being vestigal wasn't a strong theory, but it was the best explanation we had at that point in time. And as it turns out it wasn't all that wrong. While there is a minor use of the appendix, you we will not notice any negative consequences from not having one since its utility is so minuscule. I always have to go with the best explanation given my current knowledge. And some things I am more sure of than others. I am sure the theory of gravity is mostly correct, things fall down according to the formulas we have developed to describe it. I have similar confidence in the theory of evolution by natural selection. But that doesn't mean I have that much confidence in earlobes being useless. Not all theories are equal. But I still go with the best available one.

>And why dont humans have "leftover" organs?
Pic related. And appendixes might still disappear over time. Just because there is some utility in them, doesn't mean they aren't more harmful than useful statistically.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12269033]

>>12268945
>Wait a few hundred generations and see whether the earless genes win out over the genetic lines with ears.

You would put 2 populations to compete with each other or would let them develop seperatly and later measure the pre-defined variable (what would be the variable)?

>>12268945
>While there is a minor use of the appendix, you we will not notice any negative consequences from not having one since its utility is so minuscule.

Based on current level of knowledge the difference wont be big if both groups stay in civilised areas. It would be more noticable if it was a "survival" situation with lots of diarrheas. However, current claim of small differences in civilised environments should also be taken carefully - gut bacteria is very important and very under-researched so you can claim how important it is only with very small ammount of knowledge.

Its wiser to abstain entirely of claims of leftovers.

[Anonymous No.12269093]

>>12269033
>You would put 2 populations to compete with each other or would let them develop seperatly and later measure the pre-defined variable (what would be the variable)?
You could also do that. But then you would remove cross-individual competition. You can do both though if you have enough funds and time. Though it might also somewhat hard to create two (or three if you do both) identical environments for two separated groups of eared and non-eared baboons, but it should be possible yeah.

>Based on current level of knowledge the difference wont be big if both groups stay in civilised areas. It would be more noticable if it was a "survival" situation with lots of diarrheas. However, current claim of small differences in civilised environments should also be taken carefully - gut bacteria is very important and very under-researched so you can claim how important it is only with very small ammount of knowledge.
Claims about human evolution in the context of modern technology are rather shaky in general, since we are self-aware of our nature and socialization has become such an overwhelming factor in our decision making process. It makes more sense to look at non-human species for experiments about the validity of evolutionary biology. I trust our current scientific understanding of the appendix enough to have it removed if it causes problems, but that doesn't mean I would just remove it for no reason. On the other hand I have enough trust in the theory of evolution by natural selection to bet my life on it repeatedly. Does that illustrate the different levels of confidence?

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12269151]

>>12269093
>You can do both though if you have enough funds and time.

okay, but try working out the specifics, youll see you cant define them and that its impossible to test out weather ears are useless - youre biggest problem again is semantics since its all semantics.

1) Lets say you test competition. By one group dominating the other it would have said nothing about usefulness of the ears, same as putting a group of tigers with a group of humans in the same cage wouldnt mean humans have "too high IQ".

2) seperate environments. what would be the measureable variable? population? that is a tricky one, higher IQ...? You simply cant find a variable that would define something as useless, its all just intellectual arogancy caused by semantics.

>I trust our current scientific understanding of the appendix enough to have it removed if it causes problems, but that doesn't mean I would just remove it for no reason.

few years ago you should have removed it for "no reason" since it could have "only get inflamed", which would be a terrible idea, so what action can you even do based on evolution right now? I dont see any, its entirely decorative and mythological knowledge.

[Anonymous No.12269217]

>>12268690
but your definition of science is limiting. not all advances in physics or biology allow us to change the environment. its not coherent and is inclusive of inventing etc that we wouldnt call science. like the invention of thr wheel.

>>12268690
>Feyerabend essiently is saying community doesn't really matter to try to go beyond Kuhns whole notion of "paradigms" to legitimize all individual research. Science always occurs within a community, the conservative moment is necessary and unavoidable... the radical form of liberalism he wants isn't possible because humans live in societies and are social which means violence isn't an external issue to scientific research
not sure what youre trying to say

>>12268715
>You only ask that since you are obsessed by an evolutionary demon. There
and you avoid answers


>>12268715
>what is sufficient VS necessery proof.
whats that got to do anything? answer me. does genetics not make predictions under a framework of evolution and natural selections?

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12269220]

>>12269093
sorry for double post, but what action (other than outlook on life/religion) is inspired by evolution? I dont see you or scientific community doing anything differently if paradigm of evolution wasnt there.

[Anonymous No.12269312]

>>12267933
Your argument is ignorant then. Before Popper scientists were logical positivits who believed that scientific hypothesis as: there is at least one white swan, was enough to have general theory that all swans are white and they also believed that logic is the means of science.

You are saying something about semantics while before Popper logical positivism was all about semantics. You are showing you never read it or don't know what you are talking about. Popper said that theories that are not falsifiable are not scientific and he had problems with probability because in his model of science they cant be falsified.

Why are you arguying about evolution is beyond me, like one stupid example means his entire philosphy is meaningless. If he is not that great then explain why he is viewed in high regard in science, probable the most notorious philospher in physical science there is. His hypothetico deductive model is used in experiments where you rule out hypotheses.

[Anonymous No.12269351]

>>12269151
In the context of evolutionary biology when I say "useful" I mean specifically, it helps you survive better and spreading your genes. I don't mean "useful" in the subjective sense of my ears being useful to me because I like to listen to music. And yes that always implies a certain environment. Ears are useful to a baboon in its regular environment. If baboons were made to live in caves with no light, then their eyes might be "useless" in that environment and according to evolution by natural selection we would expect these organs to deteriorate genetically over time since there is no selective pressure for having good eyes. Similarly we would expect their other senses to improve over time. This you could also test for.

>few years ago you should have removed it for "no reason" since it could have "only get inflamed", which would be a terrible idea, so what action can you even do based on evolution right now? I dont see any, its entirely decorative and mythological knowledge.
It would be a terrible idea because surgery comes with its own dangers unrelated to the appendix. But assuming surgery was absolutely safe, then it would not be that big of a deal.

>but what action (other than outlook on life/religion) is inspired by evolution? I dont see you or scientific community doing anything differently if paradigm of evolution wasnt there.
Basically all of modern medicine is completely reliant on evolutionary biology. Also evolutionary processes are found outside of biology, so studying them is beneficial in other fields as well.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12269424]

>>12269351
>I mean specifically, it helps you survive better and spreading your genes. I don't mean "useful" in the subjective sense of my ears being useful to me because I like to listen to music.

but this isnt a good dictinction. Listenting to music can help you control overwhelming stress thus prolong your life etc. You can argue anything with evolution.

>But assuming surgery was absolutely safe, then it would not be that big of a deal.

you would only found out later that would be a big of a deal since you acted on false knowledge.

>Also evolutionary processes are found outside of biology, so studying them is beneficial in other fields as well.

totally disagree, fields like evolutionary psychology are total psychobabble.

Okay, I have a puzzle for your, based on evolution what do you expect will happen to IQ of humans in the next years and how would you explain it?

[Anonymous No.12269506]

>>12269424
>but this isnt a good dictinction. Listenting to music can help you control overwhelming stress thus prolong your life etc. You can argue anything with evolution.
You can test that as well.

>you would only found out later that would be a big of a deal since you acted on false knowledge.
Like I said it's also not a big deal by current knowledge. And I am very doubtful that it will turn out to be super important in future. In fact that is the reason why it took so long to find out it has any use at all. A more obvious utility would have been easier to spot. We have been removing appendixes for a while now and the people without appendixes are generally as fine as people with appendixes. It takes large sample sizes of people to even notice a difference that is directly tied to not having an appendix.

>totally disagree, fields like evolutionary psychology are total psychobabble.
I am not well versed in that field so I won't bother defending it. But evolutionary processes have been of great use in computer science and applications based on artificial selection such as animal husbandry and agriculture. Also economics to some degree, but that is again out of my field of knowledge.

>Okay, I have a puzzle for your, based on evolution what do you expect will happen to IQ of humans in the next years and how would you explain it?
Like I said before:
Claims about human evolution in the context of modern technology are rather shaky in general, since we are self-aware of our nature and socialization has become such an overwhelming factor in our decision making process. It makes more sense to look at non-human species for experiments about the validity of evolutionary biology.

And as I also said:
Evolutionary changes in species with long reproductive cycles (like humans) usually happen over very long periods

[Anonymous No.12269520]

>>12267277
>le popper, kuhn, feyerabend, lakatos meme

Read Bachelard you faggot.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12269547]

>>12269506
>You can test that as well.

and results prove that music lowers stress so you cant really claim earlobes have not use by your own logic.

>Claims about human evolution in the context of modern technology are rather shaky in general, since we are self-aware of our nature and socialization has become such an overwhelming factor in our decision making process.

stop with the cop out, if they are useless we shouldnt even use evolutionary paradigm in the first place.
So yeah, IQ, you expect it to rise since evolutionary adaptibility? It is dropping in humans. Fency that, we are adapting by lowering our IQ. If it would rise, we would also be adapting. Its a one big meme.

>>12269520
>Read Bachelard you faggot.

redpill me on him gayboi. Does he FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE!????

[Anonymous No.12269675]

>>12269547
>and results prove that music lowers stress so you cant really claim earlobes have not use by your own logic.
You could make a hypothesis that music is good for our survival based on that explanation, which I think is a reasonable hypothesis and then you can test whether it is true or not. Earlobes might also have some use, but I am not aware of any. I would have to look further into earlobes. Are they a vestigial of a feature that our ancestors had or an actual adaption? Do they aid in hearing? Or in the stability of the ear? I would check that first before I would even bother testing. But then again you can do the earlobe, no earlobe test.

Do you understand how scientific theories work? First you come up with a hypothesis that makes sense, then you test that hypothesis repeatedly and you try to disprove it. Then you publish it and other people test it and try to disprove it as well. How much trust we put in a theory depends on how hard we tried to disprove it (and failed to disprove it) and how well it predicts things. Not all theories are equal so to speak.

>stop with the cop out, if they are useless we shouldnt even use evolutionary paradigm in the first place.
Nobody claimed evolution answers every possible question. It has its limits like every useful theory. Still it is incredibly useful. I already mentioned medicine, genetics, etc. etc.

>So yeah, IQ, you expect it to rise since evolutionary adaptibility? It is dropping in humans. Fency that, we are adapting by lowering our IQ. If it would rise, we would also be adapting. Its a one big meme.
No, why would I expect that? The point of evolution by natural selection is that those features improve that lets you spread your genes further. Evolution does not mean "everything improves magically".
It's just you who puts value on something like IQ.

But again, evolution by natural selection in animals with long reproductive cycles like humans take very long time periods. Like hundreds of thousands of years or even millions. The variation in IQ might very well be caused by local factors completely unrelated to natural selection. Also huge environment changing events are currently taking place, like people who were previously geographically separated interbreeding, information technology having huge influences on the human brain and learning processes, radical changes in social norms partially engineered, partially caused by societies growing to never before seen population sizes.
It would be ridiculous to make any prediction about the evolutionary future of humanity, especially in the next ten years or whatever you wanted me to do.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12269703]

>>12269675
>No, why would I expect that? The point of evolution by natural selection is that those features improve that lets you spread your genes further. Evolution does not mean "everything improves magically".

>earlobes can or cannot be vestigial
>IQ can rise or fall

stop with the bullshit. its what I claimed at first - doesnt predict anything but its a semantic exercise.

[Anonymous No.12269713]

>>12269703
Do you think the point of evolution is to predict what is vestigial and what is not?

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12269737]

>>12269713
yes, silly me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn7ha1kSvNA

[Anonymous No.12269767]

>>12267758
Is Ben Stiller the antifa supersoldier hidden in plain sight?

[Anonymous No.12270301]

>>12269767
>ben stiller
That's Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.12270506]

This is what you get when you shit on science all the time /lit/

[Anonymous No.12270763]

>>12269312
>You are saying something about semantics
ive read about logopositivism but not heard semantics used in that context so not sure what you think youre saying. And im sure the swan induction thing is unrelated to logic-p.
Popper had nothing against evolution either.

>theories that are not falsifiable are not scientific
i agree its a good heuristic for making a hypothesis but ultimately find falsificationism is highly limited as a theory of science.

>one stupid example means his entire philosphy is meaningless
never said it was meaningless and im not sure what the example of what youre referring to is but i very much doubt popper has a direct influence on how scientists work. it obviously influences how we think about science but not on how scientists work. and btw most or atleast a huge amount of the great advances in science came along before poppers ideas. Id also say that in large parts of biology, falsification really doesnt work.

and at the end of the day you dont even nees to falsify a theory for it to be overtaken by a better one in the scientific community.

also popper didnt even invent that method you charlatan.

[Anonymous No.12270781]

Evolution doesn't exist. Dinosaur bones are fake. History is a lie. Nothing exists outside my field of vision.

[Anonymous No.12271281]

>>12267277
By contemporary standards, it's not, no. Which is why it's largely discarded. There's no theory of evolution, evolution is a word broadly applied to a multitude of mechanisms in organisms that cause or result in generational change, as well as areas of study relating to them (some of which are quite tentative in their validity). It is not a theory, it is a convenient grouping of results and aspects of many other theories and hypotheses. If you dispute generational change then you dispute the whole of biology without offering a superior alternative, or even a sense of where you would begin, as biology is incoherent without it. It is foundational, self-evident. Actually, it is nigh physically impossible for life, at least for multicellular organisms, to exist without generational incremental changes. Literally just refer to highschool biology to see why. Short of supernatural engineers and technologically advanced aliens (same thing really), which obviously requires leaping assumptions with no basis. Evolution as a word, due to its history, is abused a lot. Just note that it means many different things but in the context of biology it means what I just outlined. With all that said, disputing 'evolution' is meaningless, though you can dispute the category itself and the specific items within it. That would require studying biology (and its history), however.

[Anonymous No.12271305]

have you ever read Devilman? this is what I believe

[Anonymous No.12272563]

>>12267277
Evolutionary theory does have predictive power. Put E. Coli in a Petri dish and fill it with penicillin. 90% of the bacteria die. The remainder survive and their offspring now have immunity to penicillin. This happens all the time in the real world. It can be tested experimentally i.e. it is falsifiable.

This is why /litpol/ brainlets without an iota of scientific literacy shouldn't open their mouths about matters they don't understand.

[Anonymous No.12272571]

>>12267277
How did Anglo lit go from Chaucer and Shakespeare to Russell? Is this the power of puritanism?

[Anonymous No.12272575]

>>12272563
even better, send them to /his/, the board designed for this crap

[Anonymous No.12272594]

>>12272563

[Anonymous No.12272605]

>>12267277

You're fighting a losing battle. Everyone here (myself included) is just another test subject in a grand Anglo narrative designed to defend capitalism. No arguments you provide will change anyone's mind. If history teaches us any lesson, it's that the Anglo and his spawned faggotry always win in the end. Read Sword of Gnosis by Needleman to try and re-program yourselves.

[Anonymous No.12272647]

>>12272594
Ordinarily I would take this as a joke but in a thread where the OP conflates evolution with the development of engineering feats (?) and economic systems (???) I can't be sure there isn't someone very, very stupid behind at least some of these posts.

These are not difficult topics to understand. A high schooler has the enough of a knowledge of basic genetics to understand how evolution works. Just spend a couple of hours reading Wikipedia. I know it's hard and scary reading about really small things you can't even see and that take a long time to take place but I believe in you, champ.

Here, I'll give you some pointers
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

[Anonymous No.12272660]

>>12272647

obviously a joke but evolution still aint real nigga

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12273209]

>>12270781
>Evolution doesn't exist. Dinosaur bones are fake. History is a lie. Nothing exists outside my field of vision.

That is EXACTLY what a person with evolutionary demon posession would say.

>>12271281
>generational change

you mean empirically proved and sound concept of "natural selection". I dont have a problem with that, but why pretend that dog breeding via human selection or some other observable natural selection is "evolution"?

>>12272563
>Put E. Coli in a Petri dish and fill it with penicillin. 90% of the bacteria die. The remainder survive and their offspring now have immunity to penicillin. This happens all the time in the real world.

Congrats you proved natural selection! Now make esch coli into an amoeba and you proved evolution.

>>12272647
>A high schooler has the enough of a knowledge of basic genetics to understand how evolution works.

are you that dense? YECreationists confirm genetics, genetics started few millenias before Darwin, Mendel was before Darwin. Genetics would exists regardless of te meme paradigm of evolution. HOW ON EARTH IS GENETICS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF EVOLUTION?

[Anonymous No.12273469]

>>12271281
>It is not a theory, it is a convenient grouping of results and aspects of many other theories and hypotheses
literally semantics

>>12273209
>you mean empirically proved and sound concept of "natural selection". I dont have a problem with that, but why pretend that dog breeding via human selection or some other observable natural selection is "evolution"?
you mean macroevolution but anyway its the same type of inferential leap people make in all sorts of theories thag prove influential such as those in physics. macroevolution is a logical next step and furthermore, genes and the fossil record shows it.

do you think humans came out of africa?

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12273525]

>>12273469
>you mean macroevolution but anyway its the same type of inferential leap people make in all sorts of theories

you have to have additional findings for such a huge extrapolation. If you test IQ of a group, you cant simply say all people around the world have that average IQ, get it?

[Anonymous No.12274274]

>>12270781
This but unironically.

[Anonymous No.12274376]

you don't know what "vestigial" means. it doesn't mean "useless thing which at one point had a use". it's a matter of comparative anatomy.

when you look at a whale's skeleton, you notice that it has these funny little bones that look like mammal legs. then you compare this skeleton with others from earlier in the fossil record, and you discover a sequence of sea dwelling mammals in which these leg bones appear larger the farther back we look.

even if the whale's leg bones serve some hitherto unexplained purpose in the modern whale's anatomy, it still does not change the fact that these bones are a vestige from when its ancestors walked on land.

[Anonymous No.12274406]

>>12267277
Evolution is a myth.
The earth is around 6000 years old.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12274425]

>>12274376
>it doesn't mean "useless thing which at one point had a use".

then what does it mean?

>>12274406
>The earth is around 6000 years old.

THIS

[Anonymous No.12275665]

>>12274425
>then what does it mean?
actually read the rest of the post and you'll see a painstaking explanation of this rather simple concept.

it's a structure that no longer serves the same purpose it served in the bodies of our ancestors.

[Anonymous No.12275694]

>>12275665
>useless thing which at one point had a use
>a structure that no longer serves the same purpose it served in the bodies of our ancestors
Barring the supposed potential new utility of the vestigial, these are very similar ideas, if not identical

[Anonymous No.12275742]

>>12275694
yes, barring the clear distinction between the two, they are nearly identical.

going back to the whale bone example, the leg bones are not vestigal because they serve no purpose (they do have a sexual purpose) but rather vestigal because the structures were originally fully developed hind legs.

[Detector of evolutionary demon(...) No.12275794]

>>12275665
>actually read the rest of the post and you'll see a painstaking explanation of this rather simple concept.

you said the same thing

[Anonymous No.12275826]

>>12275794
you are either ignorant or lazy.

a vestigal structure is not necessarily useless, it has merely changed function.

[Anonymous No.12275827]

All of you guys are fake news. We came from aliens raping chimpanzees because they were bored and horny after landing on our planet. Btw, I see UFOs every 30 mins zooming by in my front yard. :)

[Anonymous No.12276635]

>>12268154
>Dishonest mental gymnastics
Ya fucking blew it you faggot

[Anonymous No.12276705]

this thread is ample proof that /lit/ is the stupidest board
you people really are horrifying