[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 489 KB, 656x816, C.Darwin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1154503 No.1154503 [Reply] [Original]

Hi /sci/.

I want to have a discussion on a flaw of the theory of evolution.

The main problem I have with the theory of evolution is that it can /explain everything/.

Examples:

Why are men, on average, taller now than they were a thousand years ago? Because tallness was seen as a genetically favourable trait by females and so a disporportionate amount of children were begotten by taller men rather than smaller ones.

Why do I find some women beautiful and others not? Because those who you find beautiful have genes that are congruous with your desire to produce healthy offspring. Thus, your body provides you with the sensation that they beautiful in order to highten the chance that you will sucessfully mate with them.

Why do you I feel depressed when rejected by a woman? Your body is punishing you for a squandered chance of mating. These undesirable feelings will be remembered and ensure that in subsequent, similar circumstances you will endeavour to not repeat the same mistake.

Why do I have the desire to be finanically successful? Financial success is consistent with a mating and securing the safety of your potential offspring.

Why do I wipe my ass? Because the repulsive smell of fesces that would linger about you otherwise and so would repel potential mates.

Why do I argue with people? You have an unconscious desire to prove yourself a stronger male than your adversaries either in intellectual conflict or in physical conflict, or both; so that you may prove yourself the more desirable mate.

cont...

>> No.1154507
File: 793 KB, 490x769, bonkers.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1154507

Why do I laugh? Laughter is an agressive expression of dismissal and superiority in relation to something or somebody else; by laughing you assert your elevation and confidence and portray yourself as a desirable mate.

Why do I cry? Something happened to you which weakened you and made you a less desirable mate, your body ensures that you associate this experience as a negative one that you may not repeat it.

etc. etc. etc.

All of the above questions have different answers which can be convincing. Why is evolution used above all other theories to explain social phenomena. My guess is that people do it because evolution is a popular theory that has a poweful influence and by using it you appear to have expertise and intellect, thus making you a more desirable mate.

>> No.1154517

Why is 70% of threads on /sci/ about evolution?

>> No.1154521

>>1154503
>I want to have a discussion on a flaw of the theory of evolution.
Well i want to discuss theism. Do you think its right of god to watch every moment of your life even after you are dead. Judging you second guessing you all the time? Sound like a nice North Korean paradise. A virtual police state where even your thoughts are monitored and held against you.

>> No.1154532

Obvious troll is obvious. Continue on your merry ways.

>> No.1154538

>>1154521
I am not a theist. I like the theory, I just don't trust it's ubiquitous power of explanation in all things. Remember that you are the ass that brought up theism; this is /sci/ for fuck sake.
I am raising a serious question on the philosophy of science. How do we know where to apply scientific theories appropriately and how do we know that the theory is the /exclusive/ reason why 'x' occurs?

>> No.1154565
File: 12 KB, 209x215, Don't think so.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1154565

I guess scientists have their own dogmas too, herp derp.

>> No.1154575

The ability of a theory to explain a lot of things is usually considered an advantage, not a flaw.

>> No.1154578

>The main problem I have with the theory of evolution is that it can /explain everything/.

No it can't.

>> No.1154580

>>1154538
The only people that have not accepted evolution are retards. Read this book if you want to come up to speed with the rest of world.
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=
books&qid=1276193082&sr=8-1
If you are asking questions that are not in this. Then you have the wrong subject.

>> No.1154598

Good topic OP. First off, I want to note how silly it is that we can't have an educated discussion regarding challenges to modern scientific theories without invoking theism/creationism/dumbshitism. So let's set the theism aside and try to answer OP's question, which I think can be summed up as "Does evolution's (apparent) universal applicability present a challenge to the theory?"

I think that your question ultimately lies in the principle of falsifiability. This is part of the reason we don't consider Marx's theory of history science: it is not falsifiable because the theory can always be expanded to explain everything.

So now we have a new question: Is falsifiability a necessary prerequisite for a sound scientific theory? I would have to say so, especially after the downfall of induction. Falsifiability has become central to modern scientific hypothesis- and theory-making. If you cannot falsify a theory, then it stands to encompass all; that which cannot be disproven cannot be proven. Thus, it is nothing more than conjecture, no matter how educated.

>> No.1154602

>>1154575
No. Theism can also explain everything.
"because God did it."
"because that's how God wanted it."
etc.

Just because it explains everything doesn't mean it's great. Evolution is a more convincing theory about why many things happen, however I still think that we are getting in-over-our-heads and our infatuation with the theory has lead us to over-apply it or see it as explaining more than it /should/.

>> No.1154610

>>1154503

Evolution doesn't explain everything. It just explains allot of human behaviour.

I don't actually see any problem with this. If you wanted to explain why a car functions the war it does you would start with the reason it was designed that way. Humans may not have designers we were shaped by evolution in specific directions because that allowed us to procreate more successfully.

Also the fact that we do allot of what we do to impress other people isn't a new idea.

>> No.1154611

You have a problem with the theory because it explains everything.

I'm leaving this one fro someone else.

>> No.1154618

>>1154598
Thank you, and yes I agree. It ultimately comes down to the problem of falsification.
However how do we falsify evolution. Look at the above answers to the proposed question, how do we go about falsifying them/how would we prove them false?

>> No.1154620

>>1154602
Surely because we have evolved to be the way we are, then evolution can explain almost everything about why we are the way we are. I wouldn't call that over applying.

>> No.1154625

>>1154618
Find a precambrian bunny.

>> No.1154635

>>1154598
Having argued the necessity of falsifiability, we must now turn to the more specific question, "Is evolution falsifiable." To determine whether evolution is falsifiable or not, we have to at first determine what the basic hypothesis of the theory of evolution is. I think most will agree with me when I state that it is, "The genotypic composition of populations change with environmental pressures based on survival and reproduction (such as natural selection, population drift, the bottleneck effect, etc)."

So the simple answer is that, if you can falsify this statement, then evolution is falsifiable. Presumably, if we were to observe a case in which environmental forces changed dramatically and the genotypic composition of a population did not change in the expected manner, then the basic principle of evolution would be falsified.

>> No.1154637

>>1154602
People are always looking for ways to justify their preconceptions. Evolution is an easy tool for people (rarely actual biologists) to say that their view is not only correct but an intrinsic part of human nature. The militarist will insist that it is human nature to fight wars, the racist will insist that it is human nature to treat other ethnic groups with hostility, and so on and so forth. Best just to ignore them, it's not only bad science but also bad logic.

>> No.1154639

>>1154610
Certainly, "everything" was hyperbole.

My problem is that people might be falling into the trap of over-induction when it comes to evolution.
" 'x' can be explained by evolution "
" Therefore 'x' occurs because of said explanation "

As you can see in the OP I have explained each and every one of those questions using evolution. I can do it for a great deal more. The fact is that I am definitely over-inferring on most of them at the very least.

>> No.1154657

>>1154635
Now we have to turn to the questions raised by your numerous examples. Because we can falsify evolution, we can hold it as a reasonable scientific theory (bolstered, of course, by its bountiful number of confirmed hypotheses). But the questions you have raised bring another question: where exist the limits of evolution?

To this, I reply that the limits of evolution exist whenever reproduction through the passing down of genetic information no longer occurs. In this case, evolution does not apply to non-living entities. The theory of evolution is powerless to explain how a rock formed, how it is that the earth became covered in water, or how the universe formed. Life is the limit of evolution, and thus the theory has not fallen to the failure of being "universally applicable."

>> No.1154658

>>1154503

Taking a ride on the troll's back for a real question.

What caused some apes to go trough the process of evolution and become human while the rest are still apes?

Just wondering. I don't know shit about evolution so bear with me.

>> No.1154661

>The main problem I have with the theory of evolution is that it can /explain everything/.
It doesn't

>All of the above questions have different answers which can be convincing.
Because they range from different subjects, from philosophy (which has nothing to do with evolution) to biology (which does).

Evolution through the means for natural selection does provide a basic understanding for human society, but that branches out into several fields (anthropology, sociology, psychology, paleontology, etc.).

>> No.1154663

>>1154620
>Surely because we have evolved to be the way we are, then evolution can explain almost everything about why we are the way we are. I wouldn't call that over applying.

I disagree. Our political, economic and cultural enviornmnents have shaped individuals and collectives just as much as evolution. The problem with evolution when it comes to humans is that we don't bother with the crude step of adapting to our enviornments through random mutation; we use our genius to adapt our environments to ourselves-- essentially skipping the "purpose" of evolution.
How our parents treat us when we are children also affects us. It is the conflict of nature vs nurture.

>> No.1154669

>>1154503

Troll or you really don't know a whole lot about evolution.

Either way...

>> No.1154670

You are describing sexual selection, not evolution

>> No.1154680

>>1154658
Adaptation to their environment.

>while the rest are still apes
so are we

>> No.1154684

>>1154658
I'm pretty sure you're trolling as well but, if you aren't, knowledge should never be denied to those willing to seek it out.

Apes did not stay apes while others became humans. The modern apes that you see (chimps, gorillas, orangutans, etc.) are all species that branched off from a common ancestor. At some point, these species has the same common ancestor as the modern-day human. When we say that "humans came from monkeys," it is actually a very misleading statement. We actually mean that a common ancestor succumbed to different environmental pressures, allowing them to split into two or more evolutionary branches. Humans are on one branch while modern monkeys are on another. Of course, these branches themselves spread out and will give birth to new branches.

>> No.1154686

>>1154507
>Why is evolution used above all other theories to explain social phenomena

Sociologists call it biological determinism. People (especially Americans) like it because it's something beyond their control, yet justifies social realities.

Though you have over-simplified many things...

>> No.1154687

>>1154620
>Life is the limit of evolution, and thus the theory has not fallen to the failure of being "universally applicable."

Yes, but all of my above statements pertain to life in some fashion. How do we falsify that 'x' when 'x' refers to a phenomeon that occurs relating to living entities? I have a hard time that evolution explains exactly why a laugh and cry, even though I can give myself really powerful explanations that do essentially give me an answer.

>> No.1154696

>It just explains allot of human behaviour.

Evolutionary physchology is bullshit. Also, it's "a lot"

>> No.1154704

>>1154658
>What caused some apes to go trough the process of evolution and become human while the rest are still apes?

This is, I'm afraid, quite a bad question. Firstly, humans are still apes. Secondly, all apes have 'gone through the process of evolution', but the other apes evolved in a different direction (if you compare a human, a chimpanzee and a gorrila there is more in common between the former two than the latter two). The non-human apes evolved differently due to different environmental conditions. I'm not an expert on the subject but I've heard it had something to do with early human ancestors moving from the rainforest to the plains.

>> No.1154706

>>1154670
>>1154670
The first one is evolution. I can give you more like: "why does my neighbour have a louder laugh than me? Because he inherited it from a lineage which saw loud laughter as genetically advantegous." etc. But, it doesn't make much of a difference to my criticism.
You're just being needlessly pedantic.

>> No.1154712

Evolution can't explain everything.

For example, it can't explain radiation or why some metals become superconductors when cooled down.

But it's only natural that it can explain most human behavior since human being animals are driven by instincts formed via evolutionary process.

>> No.1154716

>>1154687
Laughing and crying are biological reactions that apply to living organisms, particularly humans. It's within the limits, so evolution applies. No problem. Just because an theory explains a broad range of experimental data (one of the invaluable criteria for sound scientific theories) does not make it a problem. If the theory explained ALL experimental data in the history of forever (or at least made an attempt to), THEN we would have cause for reconsideration. But when we talk about the limits of a theory, they need not be overly confining. They only have to be limits than make it clear that the theory does not apply to everything. There is no problem in the soundness of the theory of evolution brought about by your question.

However, if you would like to discuss the philosophical, sociological, and psychological unrest brought about by the applicability of the theory to human life, I would completely understand how that could be a "problem." But that's not really a topic for /sci/.

>> No.1154717

>>1154637
This anon is correct. Sociobiology, eugenics, functionalism.

>> No.1154727

>>1154639
I'm so proud /sci/- A proper scientific debate, about evolution of all things, that hasn't digressed into Religion vs Science yet. Bravo.

On the actual subject of debate, I agree with OP. It is very convenient to use evolution to explain absolutely everything. However, I disagree with falsifiability being a necessary prerequisite of a good scientific theory. As a mathematician, I know that things CAN be proved that are always 100% true- Pythagoras' theorem, for example, can never be falsified when applied in the correct way. I think the problem lies in application of a theory- realising when it is relative as an explaination, and to what degree it explains the situation

>> No.1154728

>>1154684

Basically, I just needed a reaffirmation I kind of deduced that must be it lol.

>> No.1154738

>>1154706
The laughing part is bullshit. And laughing is not just used as aggression btw. The volume of the laugh is not evolutionary nor genetic.

>> No.1154744

>>1154658

Hmmm you'd be best getting a decent book for this question rather than asking on the net. Quick answer is the environment and random mutation.

Evolution is just change over time. Nothing 'caused' our early ancestor to evolve... random mutations occurred naturally over time.

Some of these mutations allowed those organisms to survive better and have more children in the environment (the place) they lived than those without that mutation. This process repeats it's self over and over again until different species form.

Humans are not actually 'more' evolved than Chimpanzee's.

>> No.1154746

>>1154637

Another fagoot who doesn't know what evolution is.

Serously, dipshits, sage.

>> No.1154753

>>1154716
>But that's not really a topic for /sci/.

Why not? Despite what most think, psychology and sociology use scientific methods and quantitative analysis in much of their work.

>> No.1154754

>>1154744
>Humans are not actually 'more' evolved than Chimpanzee's.

Or, indeed, pondweed or bacteria. The idea that things evolve up and down a chain with humanity sitting on a throne at the top is probably the number one misconception about evolution.

>> No.1154755

>>1154727
Pythagorean Theorem: a^2 + b^2 = c^2. Isn't it true that the theory would be falsified if a^2 + b^2 came up in experimental data to be something other than c^2?

>> No.1154756

>>1154712
Read the thread, I have already admitted that it was hyperbole. And no, I don't think humans have developed by "evolutionary processes" alone. Political, economic and artistic processes have been a part of our development for millennia.

>> No.1154763

>>1154744

I don't know what you mean by random mutation so I'm pretty much going to seem pretty retarded but are you saying that a percentage of the species get a random mutation which then genetically transfers to the offspring while others get a random mutation which is cancerous and die?

>> No.1154766

>>1154755
Yes, that would be the case, but we have proven (hence the term "theorem" instead of "theory") that this will never happen.

>> No.1154767

>>1154746
I didn't state anything about evolution in my post, so it's amazing you've come to the conclusion I don't know what it is.

>> No.1154769

>>1154753
Ah, yes, you are correct. I suppose it would be appropriate for /sci/. Although my background is in philosophy, which most lovers of science seem to treat with hostility, even though science, psychology, sociology, and philosophy are intimately linked.

>> No.1154770

>>1154727

The diffenrence is that in mathematics a theorem usually states exactly when it applies
(ie assume this and that, that means this)

Pytagoras as stated here, does not apply to a triangle on a sphere. but doesnt try to either

>> No.1154771

>>1154746
Not that anon, but I believe either you misunderstand, or it is you who does not understand evolution.

Evolution explains genetic changes. Nothing else.

>> No.1154765

>>1154756
notice how I said *most*

there is nothing to argue about really

>> No.1154772

Play SPORE....

Evolution makes so much more sense after you play this game.

>> No.1154782

>>1154769
I'm a sociology MA student, so I get a bit defensive at the whole "social science is not science".

>> No.1154785

>>1154755
Any difference would come from inaccurate drawing/measuring/manufacturing equipment. a^2+b^2=c^2 is true for all (perfect) right angled triangles. That none exist in reality is not the theorems fault.

>> No.1154788

>>1154767

>Evolution is an easy tool for people to say that their view is not only correct but an intrinsic part of human nature...

I'm surprised you can figure out how to post with you level of mental incapability.

>> No.1154790

>>1154766
Wait, so you're saying that there are ways (outside of repeatedly confirming empirical observation/experimental data) to prove, without any doubt, that a^2 + b^2 = c^2? What are these ways?

Note: I'm someone who isn't particularly familiar with theoretical mathematics, who is expressing legitimate interest. Not a troll.

>> No.1154794

>>1154738
Of course the laughing part is bullshit. We can both see that. Just as we can that others are bullshitting when they use evolution to justify eugenics. That doesn't change the fact that it IS a /plausible explanation/ even if it's not a necessarily correct one.
Some people do have naturally fuller or louder laughs though. Have you never met someone who had a strange laugh that they couldn't help?

>> No.1154803

>>1154782
Understandable. And I get a bit defensive when philosophy gets left out altogether. But I suppose we could turn back to the previous discussion: what are the sociological implications of the applicability of the theory of evolution to humans and human populations?

>> No.1154804

>>1154770
That was my point- it when a theory/theorem should be *applied* that is the issue. Not the theory itself

>> No.1154807

>>1154794
You have not defined the term "plausible explanation." Thus, you have left the realm of science and entered the realm of mere opinion.

>> No.1154811

>>1154503

actually i wipe my ass so i don't get a squashy feeling when i'm walking back to my room ...but i get your point

>> No.1154814
File: 17 KB, 500x375, 500px-Pythagorean_proof_(1).svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1154814

>>1154790
Well, yes, that's kind of the point of mathematics. Here's a common valid (albeit informal) proof.

>> No.1154816

>>1154788
You've missed the point twice now, let's see if you manage a third.

I didn't say anything about evolution itself. The post was about how people use evolution, as a concept, to justify their opinions. There was no room in my post for you to judge that I misunderstood evolution as a scientific concept because I never said anything about evolution in the scientific sense, only how people use evolution to justify their arguments.

>> No.1154817

>>1154763

That's actually a very good way of looking at it.

Most mutations that occur either offer no advantage to the organism or are detrimental to it's survival. Very rarely though a mutation will occur that offers the organism a better an advantage. This means that it will have a better chance of surviving and procreating.

The thing you need to remember though is that these changes are very small. We're not talking about mutant xmen super powers, we're talking about being a little bit taller or having better night vision than every one else.

Also a big part of what defines biological success is 'sexual selection' a organism doesn't just have more children because it lives longer it will also do so because it is more attractive (prettier/sexier) than it's rivals.

>> No.1154820

>>1154790
There are many different mathematical proofs. None of which rely on empirical data- that is the whole point of mathematics. It deals with ideals. My Latex sucks tho so I can't be bothered to type any- google it if you're interested

>> No.1154823

>>1154794
Yes, I have, but I don't blame it on evolution.

I think we are on the same page. The attempt to use evolution to explain every social behavior and phychological phenomenon is misguided and a bastardization of the original theory.

>> No.1154826

>>1154807
Plausible explanation: one that is coherent but not necessarily supported by fact.

>> No.1154836
File: 200 KB, 800x666, evolutionary_biology_bingo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1154836

Wow - OP raises a valid point, and all he gets is shit from you people because you think it is a troll attempt. You even accuse him of being a theist and a moron.
Sad.

Pic related. It's what OP is talking about and shows how ridiculous evolutionary biology can get if you stretch it too far.

>> No.1154841

>>1154823
>I think we are on the same page. The attempt to use evolution to explain every social behavior and phychological phenomenon is misguided and a bastardization of the original theory.

Exactly, it's too popular for it's own good. People are using it wantonly.

>> No.1154843

>>1154814
Ok, thanks a lot for the example. I think I get it now. You mentioned that that's kind of the purpose of mathematics, to prove without experimental data, but would that not be the point at which science and mathematics diverge? Science is wholly dependent on empirical observation while mathematics makes use of proofs and demonstrations that do not exist in the actual world. Because evolution is a scientific theory, it is dependent on empirical data and, thus, must be falsifiable. Would I be correct in saying that mathematics escapes falsifiability because empirical observation is not its foundation?

>> No.1154844

>>1154803
There is a branch of sociology (mostly dead now) that tried to use biology to explain social behaviors. It lead to eugenics, sexism, racism, etc.

>> No.1154846

>>1154503

Hi /sci/.

I want to have a trolling on a trollage of the trolley of trollation.

The main troll'em I troll with the trolley of trollation is that it can /troll everytroll/.

Trollings:

Why are trolls, on trollage, troller now than they were a trolland trolls ago? Because trollness was trolled as a trollally trollable troll by trollales and so a trollate amount of trollin' were trollen by troller trolls rather than trolling trolls.

Why do I troll some trollen trollshl and trollers not? Because trolls who you find trollful have trolls that are trollous with your...

Troll, ok? Just TROLL.

>> No.1154854

OPs post was making a reasonable point but all you fucktards just saw "flaw of the theory of evolution" and went off the handle.

>> No.1154861

>>1154846
You are trolling.
I am making a criticism. I bet you are annoyed by the fact that theists spurn all criticism; hypocrite?

>> No.1154865

>>1154836
That's going on my office door.

Loled at "women like pink things, possibly because of the berries in the forest"

>> No.1154868

>>1154854

There have been allot of decent and thoughtful posts in this thread though amirite?

>> No.1154874

>>1154843
>Would I be correct in saying that mathematics escapes falsifiability because empirical observation is not its foundation?
Yes. Therefore, mathematics is not science.

>> No.1154878

>>1154865

Pink was a mans colour until the early 20th century.

>> No.1154882

>>1154836
I think you've missed the point. We've clearly established that evolution is NOT "applicable to everything." We are now in the process of discussing where its proper limits lie.

In response to your image, there seems to be some disjoint in this thread regarding the difference between a possible explanation and a proper (or true) explanation. The problem in your image is that basically every square deals with a POSSIBLE explanation based on common misunderstandings of the theory itself. I still hold that the theory, if kept within its limits and understood properly, presents no problem. The absurdity of your image stems from either misunderstanding of the theory of failure to apply it within its proper limitations.

Also on limits, I must add that the theory of evolution (and most scientific theories) deal with the question of HOW and not WHY. This is the confusion at the heart of OP's question. The question of WHY is generally not for science to decide. That is a metaphysical and, primarily, philosophical question. Often it branches into theology (or the rejection thereof), and we have already agreed that we will not venture into such realms yet.

>> No.1154891

>>1154843
>You mentioned that that's kind of the purpose of mathematics, to prove without experimental data, but would that not be the point at which science and mathematics diverge?
Exactly right, which is the reason that math is not a science. Hence "Science & Math" as the title of this board.

>Science is wholly dependent on empirical observation while mathematics makes use of proofs and demonstrations that do not exist in the actual world. Because evolution is a scientific theory, it is dependent on empirical data and, thus, must be falsifiable.
Correct.

>Would I be correct in saying that mathematics escapes falsifiability because empirical observation is not its foundation?
Roughly, yes. Nits could be picked about the details, but that would require a very precise definition of falsifiability.

>> No.1154898
File: 30 KB, 452x339, thats_the_joke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1154898

>>1154882
>The absurdity of your image stems from either misunderstanding of the theory of failure to apply it within its proper limitations.

>> No.1154903

>>1154891
Take the math shit to another thread...

>> No.1154911

>>1154874
True, but you're missing my original point- if a theory is good enough, it can be used to accurately explain empirical data- just as Pythagoras will generally hold for empirical measurements of right-angled triangles. However, every theory has limits- as someone mentioned Pythagoras does not hold for right angled triangles drawn on a sphere, therefore the error is not in the theory, but in how it is applied.

>> No.1154920

>>1154891
Thanks for the clarification. I had never before thought of science and mathematics as distinct in such a way.

>>1154903
STFU. Establishing the proper boundaries of academic disciplines is often the first step you must take when attempting to answer a question.

>> No.1154934

Is maths not just tautology? i.e. it's necessarily true by definition.

e.g.

1+1=2 is a true statement as according to the definition of each of these symbols 1 and 1 /must/ make 2.

a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is a true statement as according to the definition of all right-angled triangles the sums of the square of the two sides /must/ be equal to the square of the hypotenuse.

Obviously these are useful tautologies that we use to our advantage, but tautologies nonetheless.

>> No.1154940

>>1154911
I am not math-guy, but I agree precisely with what you have said. The problem is not the theory itself, but the way that the theory has been applied. Many of OP's examples create this problem, as they are based on speculation and not empirical data. OP's examples are problematic because they use the theory as a starting point, not the empirical data.

I think that the more important problem raised by OP's first post is "People use the theory of evolution to explain almost everything, without resorting to proper empirical observation."

>> No.1154941

>>1154934
It's based on axioms. /mathshitfest

>> No.1154942

>>1154891
I still disagree with falsifiability being necessary for a scientific theory. Even Einstein's theories of relativity did not disprove Newton's- they just showed the limitations of classical physics.

>> No.1154957

>>1154942
relativitiy is falsifiable


Science (not math) works by generating parsimonious theories that must withstand future attempts at elimination.

>> No.1154959

>>1154942
>Even Einstein's theories of relativity did not disprove Newton's- they just showed the limitations of classical physics
Then how can anything ever be falsified? Couldn't you just always say "well this experiment only showed the limitations of our current theory"? When should you say "okay, so our theory way falsified right now"?

>> No.1154961

>>1154941
Didn't mean to derail the thread with maths, but I still think that I make a good point in >>1154911

>>1154940- the definition of a right angled triangle is a triangle that has a 90 degree angle in it. Last maths comment promise, and I think I just got trolled

>> No.1154968
File: 23 KB, 245x273, Bubbles and Cereals.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1154968

>>1154941
Gödel's second incompleteness problem.

>> No.1154976

>>1154942
Falsifiability doesn't mean that the theory HAS been falsified. Then it would be wrong. It means that a theory must have the POTENTIAL to be falsified. The possibility has to exist that a "not the case" statement could be made and, potentially, observed. Newton's is falsifiable because we can imagine the scenario in which his gravitational equations (too long for me to bother typing out here) could yield answers that do not come out as expected. If it can be falsified, it is falsifiable. It doesn't HAVE to be proven false.

>> No.1154978

I believe OP is misguided, evolution is capable of explaining everything... to do with life... on earth, possibly else where.

this is because evolution is simple. it states if something survives, it survives, if it can create itself efficiently, more will be made, if something is capable to being easily destroyed, it is likely going to be destroyed

tec plates create mountains, magma and pressure makes volcanos, hydrogen and oxygen make water. as soon as something existed that made ITSELF... well, how do YOU think it would naturally play out?

>> No.1154987

>>1154968
very good sir, but we are still are in agreement. Never said the axioms explained everything. :3

>> No.1154998

>>1154978
Wow... I really hope you is trolling. Else I have lost some faith in humanity.

>> No.1155001

>>1154959
Isn't that what science is? If a whole theory was falsified then it wouldn't be valid in any context any more. So having falsifiability of a theory is not necessary- if you completely disproved it, then your theory never explained anything and was therefore never a proper theory in the first place. Science is the improvement and progression of ideas by building on past ones- not by completely discrediting old ideas

>> No.1155005

>>1154998
I thought almost the same thing: "I'm just going to ignore this post. Most of the sentences don't even make sense."

>> No.1155007

>>1154934
We are now venturing into the domain of mathematical logic and proof theory, at the risk of derailing the thread quite a bit further. To avoid that, I'll only give a tl;dr answer:
>Is maths not just tautology? i.e. it's necessarily true by definition.
Very roughly, yes, but the details aren't anywhere near that simple if we delve into the aforementioned domains of mathematical logic and proof theory.

>> No.1155019

>>1155001
>not by completely discrediting old ideas
lolno. a lot of theories were completely discredited.
lamarckism, luminiferous ether, phrenology, lysenkoism, etc...

>> No.1155025

>>1155001
>If a whole theory was falsified then it wouldn't be valid in any context any more
>falsified=invalid in any context
What? Why? Who says that?
>if you completely disproved it, then your theory never explained anything and was therefore never a proper theory in the first place
If something never explained anything, why call it a theory?
People should notice that "Hm, your theory of a flying pink mushroom doesn't quite explain gravity, so we'll dismiss that"

>> No.1155026

I dont think everything is to do with being a desireable mate. A lot is to do with general survival.

>> No.1155029

>>1154976
I still don't think that this is a problem with evolution though. I think it is the application of the theory.

And while we're actually having a (semi) decent discussion on evolution; what mediums does evolution act though on modern humans. Survival of the best fitted to the environment no longer really applies thanks to technology.

>> No.1155032

>>1155001
No, falsifiability retains its necessity. If a prediction made by the original theory turns out to be incorrect, we have to evaluate the circumstances under which it was made in order to gain greater understanding of the truth of the world around. For example, Newton's theory was falsified by general relativity. But when we were able to show that the inadequacies in Newton's theory existed because he was assuming that gravity operated at infinite speed, then the theory retains some of its usefulness (like for systems/scenarios where we can allow ourselves to assume that gravity acts instantaneously). Thus, we have a scenario where the falsification of a theory shows us its limits. I can see what you're saying, but it still means that falsifiability is an indispensable part of science. It also means that you can't stop at falsifiability. Once falsified, you must determine WHY the previously sound theory was false and under what conditions.

>> No.1155041

>>1155025
>>whole theory

Not just a specific instance of it, but the whole thing.

>> No.1155052

>>1155005
>>1154998
I'm interested in what you 2 are so critical about. I almost got flustered but I re-read what I wrote and I don't disagree with myself.

evolution relies on VERY SIMPLE rules. nothing complex, it isn't the number of rules that makes life complicated, it is the number of toys it has to play with (matter and energy)

>> No.1155059

>>1155029
Evolution still works through the same mediums in humans today. It's just that the game has been made considerably more complex. Since people live longer, survival and reproduction are no longer the only criteria. We get subtler reasons, like the desire to reproduce, influencing our evolution. It's not that evolution no longer happens, it just happens in a different way than we've ever seen before. Fitness has a very precise definition. It doesn't mean bigger, faster, or stronger. It simply means better suited for the environment. Those still best suited for our modern environment continue to thrive.

>> No.1155064

>>1155052
For me, it's not what you're saying, David. The problem is how you're saying it. You basically agree with us (whether you realize it or not), but you are expressing it so poorly and on such an elementary level that we cannot help but giggle.

>> No.1155072

>>1155041
>Not just a specific instance of it, but the whole thing
So you'd say that newton was not falsified because only a "specific instance" (relativistic speeds) was falsified?
I don't think that's how it works.

>> No.1155077

For anyone interested in human evolution theres a pretty interesting lecture here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE_Oy1eRyVg

>> No.1155080

>>1155032
I see your point now- coming from a maths background I think I misinterpreted the word "falsify". But my point was essentially the same- when a good theory is wrong, it is because it is being applied outside of its limitations.

>> No.1155083

>>1155080
Agreed.

>> No.1155091
File: 8 KB, 300x358, 1257541421001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1155091

Your flaw isn't a flaw at all
It's really simple: IF evolution is right, all and every of your behavior would be explained by evolution, since our behavior necessarily has evolved.

What you say is like asking "isn't it strange that ALL electrons are deflected by a electric field?"
No it isn't. that's exactly what is expected.

>> No.1155099

>>1155080
The thing is: you can't know it's limitations beforehand. Not always, at least.

And every "new theory" has to contain the "old theory" as a special case.

>> No.1155102

>>1155072
No- I am saying that his "whole" theory was not falsified. You can still use his equations to predict the paths of planets etc etc Therefore the theory can still be applied, within its limits.

Anyway, I'm off now. Thanks /sci/ for the first thread I've seen that hasn't got derailed by trolls

>> No.1155108

>>1155064
perhaps it was my belief that the ideas displayed on this anon thread were thoroughly corrupted by hidden agendas and misconceptions and that the very basic concepts are the only incorruptible ideas. The "elementary level" ideas can easy prove that evolution should, in fact, be able to explain why everything in our pathetic lives is the way it is. so you shouldn't pollute the conversation further.

you also never answered my question. fun.

>> No.1155127

>>1155102
Fair enough. But i'd argue that it's still falsified, because what newton tells us isn't what is actually happening. Doesn't mean his theory cannot be applied to anything anymore, though. It still yields correct results within its limitations.

>> No.1155129

>>1155108
Once again, David, it's not what you said but how you said it. I can't even begin to critique the actual content or "ideas" that you're trying to express them, because you are expressing them so poorly. I'm criticizing the way you convey your ideas to others in your writing. I can't even understand what you're trying to say because your sentences are so disjointed and make no sense.

>> No.1155141

> The main problem I have with the theory of evolution is that it can /explain everything/.
I think the problem you have is that *you* are using to to explain everything.

> Why are men, on average, taller now than they were a thousand years ago? Because tallness was seen as a genetically favourable trait...
But this may not be true. Men may be taller simply because of better diets.

> Why do I find some women beautiful and others not? Because those who you find beautiful have genes that...
This needn't be the case at all. There is no evolutionary requirement that an individual fall in line with the species. Many species have evolved traits that are a detriment to the individual, so-called altruistic traits some exhibit (I think some slime mold was a famous example for some time). Explaining your *particular* behavior with evolution is not generally acceptable.

> Why do you I feel depressed when rejected by a woman? Your body is punishing you for a squandered chance of mating.
Nonsense. Monogomy may or may not have a genetic component. That would be a theory in itself. If---*IF*---it had a genetic component, then you would be somewhat justified in appealing to evolution to explain it. But perhaps it would be more illustrative to look and see what scientists do when they appeal to evolution, instead of charging us with your weird examples.

The problem is not with the theory of evolution, but with your application of it as an explanation for all phenomena. Your apparent conception of it makes it as much of a theory as the existence of god, which is really quite poor indeed, so it is no surprise you have a problem with it. I assure, you, though, this is not a problem with evolution, just your unfortunately trite conception of it. (Not trying to be a dick, just state it plainly.)

>> No.1155158

>>1155127
We're both on the same page I think, I agree it has been falsified, just not entirely, as I stated earlier. And I've been banging on about limitations all thread

>> No.1155171

>>1155091
>since our behavior necessarily has evolved.
Wait, really? Are you sure?

>>1155158
Then let's leave it at that.

>> No.1155187

i do not like this theory of evolution being applied to human beings so much. the premise seems to be that everything sensibly wants to survive, and does so the most efficient way possible, thus leaving the weaker aspects of nature to die off, or at least become scarce. but, human beings don't subscribe to this mentality, or not all do at least. we are unnatural for many reasons, often irrational, and so how could this theory apply at any moment we didn't follow the rules of nature?

it is foolish to believe that this theory is universally applicable now because human beings distort the rules of play in everything they involve themselves with.

>> No.1155188

>>1155171
>IF evolution is right [...] our behavior necessarily has evolved.
is it really that hard to read a sentence?

>> No.1155225

>>1155188
No, but why are you ignoring society/sociological reasons as a cause for certain behaviour?
Where's your proof that our genes are the root for our behaviour?

>> No.1155361

Agree with many of the stuff buy I don't agree about the mating stuff. What is it when you don't care much for a mate or partner in life?(Like me) How can this have been passed down if those without partners could not have reproduced?

>> No.1155769

This is probably addressed in the other comments, but actually the main reason we, as a species, are getting taller is increased global nutrition during our early years. It has nothing to do with relative fitness or mate selection.

>> No.1155794

i think you have a bad understanding of evolution. there are other things to life than mating like maybe SURVIVING and being strong to escape from predators and wanting money in order to have things like FOOD. shit why is does everyone take science to the extremities

>> No.1155860

first of all, troll

second,

>Why do you I feel depressed when rejected by a woman?

>you I

>> No.1157011

um ok your examples are all ancredible loaded and flawed.

none of those are acually true pretty much all of those things are heavily due to society, evolution should not be used as the main reason for all of this happening, it is the brain that does all this, while the brain is predetermined by genetics (and evolution) it is also shaped by experience and society (the environment) from every moment after you are born (and before that too dependant on your mothers behaviour)

>> No.1157574

hmmm if you want to discuss flaws in evolution at least use proper examples, you also need to specify what part of evolution, animal behaviour, genetics etc, what your trying to say is essentially, why does evolution explain everything about evolution?

>> No.1157638

Its not reall a flaw in evolution, more a flaw in people using it to answer everythhing... people who dont know much about evolution, although evolution has something to do with it, natural selection, environment, in pre dispositions, the rest is society, social pressures etc.

although society and social pressures are also forms of natural selection

>> No.1157684

Thus, your body provides you with the sensation that they beautiful in order to highten the chance that you will sucessfully mate with them.
>implying the first thing somebody wants when they find somebody else beautiful is have sex with them.

>> No.1157736

Different species of apes in the same environment.