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

Misconceptions about evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 172 posts

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#111

Post by akiselev »

eeperson wrote: post #75
b_emery wrote: post #17

For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…

It sounds like you feel there is an inherent conflict between science and religion (or am I misreading). I see no reason why this needs to be the case. Once you move beyond explanations for things that can make testable predictions, then you are out outside of science you have moved in to philosophy. At that point all explanations that don't contradict what is observed become equally valid/invalid. Take for example t…

Science is far more than "testable predictions" and covers an entire method that we have found to be the best and only way to understand reality with timid certainty. Science itself is basically a subfield of epistemology and it ties together both WHAT we know and WHY we actually know it instead of simply believe it. Science is dedicated to finding out what reality is (as best as mathematics or other abstract structures can describe it at least) and that sets up a class of rigor for certainty which religion can simply not touch. Also, built into science is a feedback loop that constantly reevaluates what it means to be certain and tries to tie that certainty to the real world through engineering, which, again, religion cannot even begin to attempt.

What we call science today is a formalization of what humans have been doing for tens of thousands of years: looking for patterns and relationships in cause and effect. The very act of making the first wheel, paper out of papyrus thousands of years before the lumber industry, or a calendar by looking at the stars is an act of scientific exploration that probes not just the natural world, but how we discover what the natural world really is. Over time that methodology has included into our cultural knowledge things like gravity and horticulture while excluding things like rain dances and homeopathic medicine.

In the end, you either accept the rigor and structure on knowledge and certainty developed by science and the scientific method (which, by the way, created modern civilization as you see it today) or you don't. If you accept it, religion by its very definition (supernatural and all that) conflicts with science. If you don't, then there is a basic difference in core assumptions and there really is no argument.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#112

Post by qwerta »

Udo wrote: post #92
qwerta wrote: post #54

There are two funny things: - Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory. Genetics, biochemistry and ethology are light years beyond Darwin. It is like discussing Copernicus while scientists are working on quantum gravity. - Evolution does not disprove creation and vice versa. God could use evolution as a tool. And God could also create Earth with all those fossils underground just for a joke. :-)

None of these things are funny or true for that matter. > Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory. Evolution as an abstract model is pretty old, but it's not likely to ever be outdated. To this day, it describes accurately what is going on with any kind of adaptive system, not only in biology but also computer science and information theory, and one could make some convincing arguments for physics as well. >…

> Evolution as an abstract model is pretty old, but it's not likely to ever be outdated.

But it is outdated. Survival of the fittest is gross oversimplification and it is holding back more complex theories, which could provide better results. Wanna explain how virus interacts with human body? Forget chemistry, you will have to butcher your theory with terms like 'fittest', 'parasite', 'species' and so on. Otherwise nobody will understand it and nobody will publish it.

Anyway, I do not live in America, I do not even believe in god, I just find this debate ridiculous.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#113

Post by qwerta »

withad wrote: post #94
qwerta wrote: post #54

There are two funny things: - Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory. Genetics, biochemistry and ethology are light years beyond Darwin. It is like discussing Copernicus while scientists are working on quantum gravity. - Evolution does not disprove creation and vice versa. God could use evolution as a tool. And God could also create Earth with all those fossils underground just for a joke. :-)

What do you mean by "outdated"? Scientific theories don't go off with age, they depend on evidence and the scientific evidence continues to point to evolution as the best theory. Modern biology might be more advanced than it was in Darwin's day but nothing's disproved the fundamental ideas. That's like saying that the discovery of the Higgs boson makes the Earth orbiting the Sun obsolete. And as for your second point…

Scientific theories do go off. They should also provide predictions and explanations of unknown events. In modern biology even term 'species' is pretty much outdated. Same way we no longer use Newton equations for space navigation.

BTW: Earth does not orbit around sun. It orbits around center of gravity, which is not even inside Sun.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#114

Post by dllthomas »

toasterlovin wrote: post #109
dllthomas wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billions of years running trillions of experiments in parallel.

Exactly. The time scale is one of the most important parts to swallowing evolution on an intuitive level.

Well, my point was that it is not just time, but also the massive parallelism. Both combined is just such a phenominally mind-bogglingly large amount of exploration.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#115

Post by Perseids »

eeperson wrote: post #75
b_emery wrote: post #17

For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…

It sounds like you feel there is an inherent conflict between science and religion (or am I misreading). I see no reason why this needs to be the case. Once you move beyond explanations for things that can make testable predictions, then you are out outside of science you have moved in to philosophy. At that point all explanations that don't contradict what is observed become equally valid/invalid. Take for example t…

Yes, but as a scientist I see no reason to believe in some specific unprovable concept over any other. I find Christian believe as arbitrary as Muslim believe as arbitrary as anything else I can come up with. So how could I believe in any of them?

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#116

Post by Perseids »

smrtinsert wrote: post #106
b_emery wrote: post #17

For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. I think scientists are too quick to diffuse the religion vs science arguement. Maybe religious scientist can enlighten me on this. When one bases beliefs on essentially nothing ('gut feelings', apparitions, what…

That's your opinion. There are plenty of people who feel that the concept of an afterlife is a very comforting one and would prefer to have it. Unless you can prove that humanity is better off with statistical significance, please shut up about religion on hacker news! :)

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6524430 . What I would be interested in is to have a religious scientist explain how he can choose to believe (for example in an afterlife) against statistical significance. I for one can't shut down my way of reasoning when it comes to religion, no matter how much I would like to.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#118

Post by dsego »

dabernathy89 wrote: post #13

No matter how it's explained, I still can't wrap my brain around how evolution produces complex systems. How do systems with interdependent processes and parts get produced by a process that seems to proceed stepwise?

The Evolution of the Eye (2010) - Richard Dawkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7E

Also an interesting take on it is that, although complex, a lot of organs and systems are actually designed rather poorly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN74qV7SsjY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#119

Post by Udo »

qwerta wrote: post #112
Udo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these things are funny or true for that matter. > Evolution itself is pretty much outdated theory. Evolution as an abstract model is pretty old, but it's not likely to ever be outdated. To this day, it describes accurately what is going on with any kind of adaptive system, not only in biology but also computer science and information theory, and one could make some convincing arguments for physics as well. >…

> Evolution as an abstract model is pretty old, but it's not likely to ever be outdated. But it is outdated. Survival of the fittest is gross oversimplification and it is holding back more complex theories, which could provide better results. Wanna explain how virus interacts with human body? Forget chemistry, you will have to butcher your theory with terms like 'fittest', 'parasite', 'species' and so on. Otherwise n…

When scientists today talk about evolutionary processes, that's very different from the way "survival of the fittest" is crammed down the public's throat with animal documentaries and the like.

> Forget chemistry, you will have to butcher your theory with terms like 'fittest', 'parasite', 'species' and so on.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Like all fields of knowledge, bio sciences adhere to a certain lingo consensus to express ideas. In some cases, an eventual expansion of the original meaning is inevitable, but if anything I'd actually accuse many science papers of doing the opposite (creating new expressions where none were needed). There is no butchering going on in respect to evolution as a process, though of course there are ongoing conversations about the forces and sub-processes going on in nature. But just because our models aren't complete that doesn't mean we don't have a pretty good idea of what's going on in general. Especially in molecular biology, the theoretical advances and the amount of raw knowledge has been nothing short of staggering in recent years.

> Anyway, I do not live in America, I do not even believe in god, I just find this debate ridiculous.

That makes your original comment all the more puzzling, I guess. Your post sure seemed to have a religious background.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#120

Post by dsego »

I detest evolution. Beings suffering, trapped in limited bodies and minds, forced to kill for survival and plagued with diseases. It's horrible that a person's quality of life relies on the results of a silly genetic lottery. It's a cosmic joke, I tell you.

What have these creatures done wrong to deserve such ridicule?

http://wtfevolution.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN