Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher

#41

Post by omar_a1 »

vikramkr wrote: post #33
vharuck wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody is really running an RNA sequencing experiment to evaluate the impacts of a drug on the rna transcriptome with falsification in mind (even if in a sense the null of "nothing changes" is what you're trying to falsify"). Psychologically it's just seen as some exploration to see what happens. Isn't this, along with and maybe encouraging p-hacking, a major cause of the non-reproducability crisis? Scientists hunti…

It likely is, but this is also an outgrowth of the "explorer" sort of mindset where people juts see themselves as diving into the unknown to see what they find. It's not malicious, but it could contribute to p hacking for sure

The explorer mindset is how scientists discovered penicillin, x-rays, and vulcanized rubber. Science isn't as cut and dry as the scientific method suggests.

I'd say to the extent that this behavior contributes to the reproducibility crisis, it has more to do with not backing that exploration with rigorous experimentation.

But more to the point, I'd argue that the lack of funding and publish-or-perish atmosphere has more to do with it. Academics don't necessarily publish because the results are noteworthy, but because they have to, regardless of the robustness of their methodology.

Re: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher

#42

Post by msla »

vikramkr wrote: post #18
BaronSamedi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the reality is more subtle than this. Is, for example, the discovery of DNA going to be falsified? I don't think so. Is the notion that living organisms evolve going to be falsified? Again, I doubt it. The case of Newton and Einstein is relevant here. Einstein didn't "falsify" Newton but rather enriched our understanding of physics. A better model seems to be that scientific theories fit into a spectrum of ce…

Dna could be falsified. It's incredibly low chance but it could. Just like the discovery of the bacteria that causes influenza was falsified once it became clear it's a virus. Just like the so called central dogma of DNA->RNA->protein turned out to be not so central or not so dogmatic. And Einstein definitely falsified Newton with the famous experiment with the eclipse and with more correctly showing Mercury's orbit,…

The existence of DNA will never be falsified. The experiments which discovered DNA happened. New experiments don't make old experiments un-happen. Similarly, the fact DNA->RNA->protein is how it works at least some of the time isn't going to become false.

Re: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher

#43

Post by phkahler »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30
bayesian_horse wrote: post #23

One problem when discussing species and subspecies is that there is no clear-cut definition between species, subspecies and "just some genetic diversity". The best hint is the genetic distance between any two individuals. In general, that distance is bigger between species than between subspecies. But no clear thresholds can be applied to the whole tree of life. Taxonomy is still mostly defined through differences a…

> there is no clear-cut definition between species It's not clear-cut in all cases. But it's clear cut bilaterally. Two organisms are in the same species if they can successfully reproduce, i.e. produce an offspring that can itself produce offspring. If they can't, they're in different species. (Multilateral fuzziness arises if A can reproduce with B, and B with C, but A not with C.)

So why are different ethnicities of humans not considered sub-species?

They developed in different geographic regions with barriers, the can interbreed successfully, and they have different appearances, not just in skin color, but in things like facial features. And yet the article specifically states that humans don't have subspecies.

Re: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher

#44

Post by abtinf »

normalnorm wrote: post #5

Scientific theories are not "proven", that is not how science works. All theories are always and forever open to falsification. The scientific attitude is one of eternal doubt. "Proof" is something that only exists in the realm of pure math.

Can Popper be falsified?

Re: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher

#45

Post by msla »

throwaway4787 wrote: post #8

This may be the appropriate thread to remind people that Darwin was far from the be-all and end-all of evolutionary biology and much of what he said turned out to be actually mistaken. This isn't so much of an attack on him as a celebration that we've come a long way since the 19th century. Also, you should be suspicious of any argument involving non-geneticists invoking Darwin to justify such and such social outcome…

I think Darwin was closer to Newton than Democritus in terms of knowing what the Hell he was talking about.

But, yes, your point stands: Evolutionary biology has moved on, and people who try to poke holes in a 19th Century version in order to discredit the whole field are misinformed and, likely, doing it with a partisan, rather than an academic, intent.

Re: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher

#46

Post by pdonis »

normalnorm wrote: post #5

Scientific theories are not "proven", that is not how science works. All theories are always and forever open to falsification. The scientific attitude is one of eternal doubt. "Proof" is something that only exists in the realm of pure math.

> Scientific theories are not "proven"

True, but one should not expect careful use of language from phys.org. They are trying for more clicks, not accuracy.

Re: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher

#47

Post by msla »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30
bayesian_horse wrote: post #23

One problem when discussing species and subspecies is that there is no clear-cut definition between species, subspecies and "just some genetic diversity". The best hint is the genetic distance between any two individuals. In general, that distance is bigger between species than between subspecies. But no clear thresholds can be applied to the whole tree of life. Taxonomy is still mostly defined through differences a…

> there is no clear-cut definition between species It's not clear-cut in all cases. But it's clear cut bilaterally. Two organisms are in the same species if they can successfully reproduce, i.e. produce an offspring that can itself produce offspring. If they can't, they're in different species. (Multilateral fuzziness arises if A can reproduce with B, and B with C, but A not with C.)

> Two organisms are in the same species if they can successfully reproduce, i.e. produce an offspring that can itself produce offspring.

OK, explain European Early Modern Humans and Neanderthals being different species.

Re: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher

#48

Post by raverbashing »

tossAsimov wrote: post #36
vikramkr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dna could be falsified. It's incredibly low chance but it could. Just like the discovery of the bacteria that causes influenza was falsified once it became clear it's a virus. Just like the so called central dogma of DNA->RNA->protein turned out to be not so central or not so dogmatic. And Einstein definitely falsified Newton with the famous experiment with the eclipse and with more correctly showing Mercury's orbit,…

I think he's trying to make a point similar to the one made by Asimov: https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.ht...

Completely agree. I think people are too hung up on the "falsifiability" term and don't look at the bigger picture

As your link puts nicely: "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Re: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher

#49

Post by vikramkr »

omar_a1 wrote: post #41
vikramkr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It likely is, but this is also an outgrowth of the "explorer" sort of mindset where people juts see themselves as diving into the unknown to see what they find. It's not malicious, but it could contribute to p hacking for sure

The explorer mindset is how scientists discovered penicillin, x-rays, and vulcanized rubber. Science isn't as cut and dry as the scientific method suggests. I'd say to the extent that this behavior contributes to the reproducibility crisis, it has more to do with not backing that exploration with rigorous experimentation. But more to the point, I'd argue that the lack of funding and publish-or-perish atmosphere has m…

That's absolutely true as well, and in my reply above I wasn't contesting that, just contemplating what the poster above that mentioned about p hacking, how maybe this mindset makes it easier as a justification? But yeah we should never just discard the importance of exploration for the sake of it, it's how we also got crucial technologies like current PCR tools - some guy just really wanted to see what was up with those Yellowstone bacteria and found all sorts of heat stable compounds. That rigorous follow-up is super important though as you stated

Re: One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher

#50

Post by piokoch »

BaronSamedi wrote: post #14
normalnorm wrote: post #5

Scientific theories are not "proven", that is not how science works. All theories are always and forever open to falsification. The scientific attitude is one of eternal doubt. "Proof" is something that only exists in the realm of pure math.

I think the reality is more subtle than this. Is, for example, the discovery of DNA going to be falsified? I don't think so. Is the notion that living organisms evolve going to be falsified? Again, I doubt it. The case of Newton and Einstein is relevant here. Einstein didn't "falsify" Newton but rather enriched our understanding of physics. A better model seems to be that scientific theories fit into a spectrum of ce…

There is a difference between discovery and theory. Discovery of Americas or Mars cannot be "falsified", they are scientific, objective, observable facts. Theory makes always some assumptions that can be invalid under some conditions - for instance Newtonian mechanics is not valid on quantum size scale or in case of huge masses or near speed of light velocities.
Post reply on HN