/sci/ - Science & Math

Is there a scientific theory of evolution?
If so, what books do I need to read so that I am able to formulate predictions based on the theory that have the potential to be tested and falsify the theory?
If it's a scientific theory, it must be able to generate falsifiable predictions, yes? So how do I do it? What are the laws of evolution that will allow me to generate predictions?

>>12163138
You are not ugly, retard. You are the most beautiful person that could have been created from the past. EVERY SINGLE ONE of your ancestor was chosen over other mates. You are a culmination of millenia of choosing the prettiest human. You may be mixed but you are objectively the evolutionary winner. Now all you gotta do is make yourself desireable for others. Work out, get dough, get pussy. no self wallow. i believe in you, 小retard! 信じている (あなたを信頼しています)

>>12163557
>You have no definition of freewill is what you're saying
I can give you plenty of definitions for free will. Ability to choose. Ability to influence the future. The ability to consciously decide what one is going to do. All of these are possible definitions. However, I don't think they are necessary as it's intuitively clear to most people what is meant by free will.
>Yeah it is based around your perception but when you remove your frontal lobe your risk processing will disapear and now your perception of what is or isn't dangerous is completely different than before.
How is that at all relevant to the existence of free will? I don't see the connection.
>Other example would be panthom pain, take the diaphragm and its innervating nerve the phrenic. Your brain will interpret any pain on the diaphragm as pain in the upperchest. Clearest example of one's self perception being flawed from its core.
I've already admitted multiple times that our perception can be flawed. That's why I said it's reasonable to trust ones perception only when there are no good reasons to the contrary. In the case of such a pain, there is a good reason to doubt one's perception. Therefore when one is aware of these reasons, it would not be rational to trust one's perception.
>Your example about quantum mechanics is just blatantly false because such an event can never happen
Why not? The experiment seems completely feasible and similar to the experiments performed many times before by professional physicists.
>>12163565
>It seems that the universe evolves through time non deterministically
The universe does not seem to be deterministic, yes.
>we're all along for the ride
In a way, yes. But there's no reason to believe that we don't have control over a large part of that ride. Actually, all the evidence seems to point to the contrary. And as far as I can see that is consistent with physics not being able to give a deterministic complete description of reality.

>unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics
What kind of problem is this?
Can it be formalized to be a well-defined mathematical problem? If so, where could I find the mathematical statement of the problem?
If not, how will we know if we find a solution?

>>12158926
Understandable. Have a nice day.