Wotan: Evolution is certainly science-adjacent! There's a guy at Michigan State that's been tracking bacterial 'evolution' for a few decades, and he's certainly observed adaptation. Of course, I observe that every time I lift weights.
Science is supposed to be about using *controlled* experiments to discern truth from superstition. Unfort…
Wotan: Evolution is certainly science-adjacent! There's a guy at Michigan State that's been tracking bacterial 'evolution' for a few decades, and he's certainly observed adaptation. Of course, I observe that every time I lift weights.
Science is supposed to be about using *controlled* experiments to discern truth from superstition. Unfortunately, we can't do such experiments, and the closest we've come -- dogs -- hasn't lead to Gorgons or Minotaurs.
Well... evolution does *seem* to satisfy Occam's Razor more completely than competing theories -- that is, until one looks at the statistics of dna strands or the complexity of systems... then it actually seems *worse* than the completely non-scientific 'God Hypothesis'
If you are referring to Richard Lenski, then yes. That is one of innumerable examples. You lifting weights would only be an adaptation in the Lamarckian paradigm.
Science does involve the performance of controlled experiments, as much as it involves the observation of the natural world. As for dogs, I would observe that variation over brief generational intervals of time tends to be conservative in an evolutionary sense. There ought to be no reason for Gorgons or Minotaurs to develop from dog genetics, barring environmental conditions which advantage them.
I know not what you are describing by "statistics of DNA strands" or the "complexity of systems", but since, dissimilarly to the "God Hypothesis", evolution has been observed occurring in nature, in everything from peppered moths to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, I would adjudge it capably verified by over 150 years of science.
I should also lastly point out, ShiYen, that scientific verification of hypotheses is not necessarily experimental. Consultations of the fossil record and genetic material for a truly staggering proportion of our modern extant species have revealed perfect consistency with evolution.
Wotan: Well-written comment. Thank you. And: I was being glib with the 'working-out' comment.
I come from a 'hard' physics/engineering background -- hard meaning rigorous, and not, necessarily, difficult. For every result I've ever published... I could bring you into the lab and show you its reproduction to within statistical validity until you got too bored to keep watching.
Now, because of 'coronavirus', I was forced to look into how non-phys/eng disciplines approach their own subjects. And I was... bemused. It's an obvious point, but something that I had never thought about: I can run 1 million experiments a *day*... But doctors need six months to run *one* experiment. So the collection of statistics will always be incredibly suspect for doctors.
I think the crux of our discussion is:
>> scientific verification of hypotheses is not necessarily experimental
I would claim that it *is* experimental -- but that 'merely' puts us on two 'epistemic' planes. Unfortunately, the inability of physics to link 'epistemology' with reality (or 'ontology') is, probably, the advent of the extreme relativism of our society.
Sadly, the internet is a horrific medium for rational conversation. Were we to spend an evening in a French bar, we'd probably emerge with a better understanding of where each of us is coming from. You know, as long as we turned of(f) our cell-phones.
Wotan: Evolution is certainly science-adjacent! There's a guy at Michigan State that's been tracking bacterial 'evolution' for a few decades, and he's certainly observed adaptation. Of course, I observe that every time I lift weights.
Science is supposed to be about using *controlled* experiments to discern truth from superstition. Unfortunately, we can't do such experiments, and the closest we've come -- dogs -- hasn't lead to Gorgons or Minotaurs.
Well... evolution does *seem* to satisfy Occam's Razor more completely than competing theories -- that is, until one looks at the statistics of dna strands or the complexity of systems... then it actually seems *worse* than the completely non-scientific 'God Hypothesis'
ShiYen
If you are referring to Richard Lenski, then yes. That is one of innumerable examples. You lifting weights would only be an adaptation in the Lamarckian paradigm.
Science does involve the performance of controlled experiments, as much as it involves the observation of the natural world. As for dogs, I would observe that variation over brief generational intervals of time tends to be conservative in an evolutionary sense. There ought to be no reason for Gorgons or Minotaurs to develop from dog genetics, barring environmental conditions which advantage them.
I know not what you are describing by "statistics of DNA strands" or the "complexity of systems", but since, dissimilarly to the "God Hypothesis", evolution has been observed occurring in nature, in everything from peppered moths to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, I would adjudge it capably verified by over 150 years of science.
I should also lastly point out, ShiYen, that scientific verification of hypotheses is not necessarily experimental. Consultations of the fossil record and genetic material for a truly staggering proportion of our modern extant species have revealed perfect consistency with evolution.
Wotan: Well-written comment. Thank you. And: I was being glib with the 'working-out' comment.
I come from a 'hard' physics/engineering background -- hard meaning rigorous, and not, necessarily, difficult. For every result I've ever published... I could bring you into the lab and show you its reproduction to within statistical validity until you got too bored to keep watching.
Now, because of 'coronavirus', I was forced to look into how non-phys/eng disciplines approach their own subjects. And I was... bemused. It's an obvious point, but something that I had never thought about: I can run 1 million experiments a *day*... But doctors need six months to run *one* experiment. So the collection of statistics will always be incredibly suspect for doctors.
I think the crux of our discussion is:
>> scientific verification of hypotheses is not necessarily experimental
I would claim that it *is* experimental -- but that 'merely' puts us on two 'epistemic' planes. Unfortunately, the inability of physics to link 'epistemology' with reality (or 'ontology') is, probably, the advent of the extreme relativism of our society.
Sadly, the internet is a horrific medium for rational conversation. Were we to spend an evening in a French bar, we'd probably emerge with a better understanding of where each of us is coming from. You know, as long as we turned of(f) our cell-phones.
ShiYen