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

151–160 of 172 posts

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#151

Post by eeperson »

tensor wrote: post #142
eeperson wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is arbitrary. Believing that there is no creator to the universe is also arbitrary. That is because, science, as it currently stands, has nothing to say about the matter. Picking/not picking any religion is a matter of philosophy, not science.

Talking about creation is one thing, but these religions bring a whole host of other things into play as well that you cannot ignore. There is no evidence for any of the rest of it, no evidence of interference by gods, no evidence of any real communications either. So saying you think the universe was created by [a conscious entity?] a god is entirely different than saying that you believe in a particular religion an…

I agree that for many people belief in a particular religion can bring in a bunch of associated dogma that is at odds with science. My point is that it doesn't have to. Dismissing all religions just because some people do feel that way is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not every christian is a young earth creationist.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#152

Post by mikeash »

dismiss21x wrote: post #141
mikeash wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Evolution is just change in populations over time with common descent, and that's pretty well demonstrated through the things I mentioned, about the same as gravity is demonstrated by things falling. What's different?

I've never seen it demonstrated definitively through the fossil record. There are a lot of assumptions and best-guesses leading back to common ancestors.

I've never seen gravity demonstrated definitively either. Sure, they say that there's this force that makes stuff fall, but I've seen plenty of things go up instead of down when released.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#153

Post by Houshalter »

eeperson wrote: post #150
Houshalter wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a result, either answer is equally valid/invalid. I posted a similar comment above, but this completely misunderstands probability theory. If you can't prove something 100% true or 0% true there is still an inbetween more than "equally valid or invald." Something could have a 0.00001% chance of being true or a 99% chance of being true. In the space of all possible explanations, the chance of religion being the co…

Wait, how does probability factor in to this. What is meaning of a 30% valid argument in this context? If you can't prove something, it doesn't mean that the answer is probabilistic. I'm not interested in if any particular religion makes sense or doesn't make sense to you. My point is that the the debate over different religions is at its core a philosophical argument not a scientific one. A point you confirmed by ma…

Probability applies to everything. I'm not going to buy stock in some company just because I can't "prove" it won't go up by 5,000% tomorrow. The scientific method is just a special case of probabilistic reasoning where you try to get so much evidence that your probability estimate is very very close to 100% or 0% (but it's still never completely certain. The evidence could have been faked or just a coincidence, or there could be a better theory out there that also explains the evidence, etc.)

All beliefs are just probability estimates of how certain you are that they are true. If you are very certain of something then you must have a high probability estimate that it is true. If you aren't certain then it must be lower. If you say "I'm 90% sure this will happen." Then you should expect to be right about 90% of the time you say that.

If what I'm saying isn't intuitively obvious or if you just want to learn more, read this: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/

In any case the idea that religion isn't disprovable is completely false: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i8/religions_claim_to_be_nondisprova...

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#154

Post by kansface »

maaku wrote: post #147
kansface wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly any afterlife would necessarily be non physical, no? Alternatively, I would be delighted if you gave proof otherwise. At any rate, I'm not arguing for mind dualism nor will I attempt to answer any of the questions you posed. I argue that it is completely pointless to speculate in any way about something which exists outside of the bounds of knowledge (science). I was merely agreeing with the assertion of th…

In the entirety of the human endeavor, everywhere we have looked the simplest explanation which explains all of the evidence has turned out to be correct. This Occamian world view has never failed us. Not once. So yes, it would be quite a leap of faith to assume that there is some spiritual existence where our minds reside and which happens to line up perfectly with events in this this causal world. Doesn't mean it's…

The reason is because the entire history of the world can not be used for evidence for an afterlife that exists outside of the world. No knowledge or intuition (from this world) can be applied to something that exists outside of it.

>It's like positing epicycles for the motions of the planets.

The two are not at all related, unless one of us claims the hand of god or some other metaphysical force is moving the planets. Such a claim would not be testable and the same caveats would apply to it, too.

Your intuition could be correct, but how would we verify it? We have no experience with the afterlife. It is impossible to test this knowledge in any way (apart from dying but then communicating the results are the problem).

The only thing we can do is acknowledge the fact that we can not say anything sensible one way or the other.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#155

Post by b_emery »

benched wrote: post #78
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…

As I see it, the basic flaw in the materialist worldview is this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/ It is also what leaves the door open for more transcendent views. Eastern religions, in particular, are founded on the basic idea that your everyday experience is illusory. You dismiss religious beliefs as based on "essentially nothing". In fact, the basis of religious belief in the most general se…

Late to the party, but I wanted to say, thanks for the interesting comment.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#156

Post by b_emery »

akiselev wrote: post #111
eeperson wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 structu…

This I think it the best comment in the (what I found to be very interesting and fruitful) discussion. I'll be thinking more about what I see as an inherent conflict between science and religion, but thanks.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#157

Post by Rexxar »

ThomPete wrote: post #40
RK wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolution is not true. It's not false either and any discussion about it being that is missing the point. Evolution is the best model we have to explain how life and species interact and evolve. I think you mean that the " theory of evolution via natural selection" is the best model we have to explain the observed phenomena of evolution. Analogous to the Newtownian theory of gravity explaining the mechanics of observ…

perhaps yes and no. Gravity is a force you can measure, make experiments with and validate. You can use the scientific method to invalidate gravity. You can't do that with evolution and therefore you can't compare the theory of gravity with the theory of evolution the way I see it. But I might be wrong.

This experiments show the evolution of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics in laboratory :

http://v6.tinypic.com/player.swf?file=24goih4&s=6

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#158

Post by dismiss21x »

mikeash wrote: post #152
dismiss21x wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen it demonstrated definitively through the fossil record. There are a lot of assumptions and best-guesses leading back to common ancestors.

I've never seen gravity demonstrated definitively either. Sure, they say that there's this force that makes stuff fall, but I've seen plenty of things go up instead of down when released.

That is farcical. If something is thrown in the air, you can demonstrate the force of Newton's constant, thereby definitively demonstrating gravity. Actually calculating the gravitational constant with precision is the only difficulty there. Nothing about this is assumed. Which back to the point, is nothing like the assumptions of hereditary lines in the so-called "fossil record".

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#159

Post by mikeash »

dismiss21x wrote: post #158
mikeash wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen gravity demonstrated definitively either. Sure, they say that there's this force that makes stuff fall, but I've seen plenty of things go up instead of down when released.

That is farcical. If something is thrown in the air, you can demonstrate the force of Newton's constant, thereby definitively demonstrating gravity. Actually calculating the gravitational constant with precision is the only difficulty there. Nothing about this is assumed. Which back to the point, is nothing like the assumptions of hereditary lines in the so-called "fossil record".

I've had a party balloon on my ceiling for the past month. Clearly there are some holes in this "gravity" theory of yours.

Re: Misconceptions about evolution

#160

Post by eeperson »

Houshalter wrote: post #153
eeperson wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, how does probability factor in to this. What is meaning of a 30% valid argument in this context? If you can't prove something, it doesn't mean that the answer is probabilistic. I'm not interested in if any particular religion makes sense or doesn't make sense to you. My point is that the the debate over different religions is at its core a philosophical argument not a scientific one. A point you confirmed by ma…

Probability applies to everything. I'm not going to buy stock in some company just because I can't "prove" it won't go up by 5,000% tomorrow. The scientific method is just a special case of probabilistic reasoning where you try to get so much evidence that your probability estimate is very very close to 100% or 0% (but it's still never completely certain. The evidence could have been faked or just a coincidence, or t…

I understand that statistics are an important tool in 'proving' things scientifically. The problem is, you're making a philosophical argument against religion not a scientific one. Probabilistic solutions don't sense for philosophical questions. For example, what is the probability that P=NP?

The lesswrong article you linked to does not disprove religion. You certainly can disprove dogmatic ideas that have surrounded various religions, but that is not the same thing as disproving religion.

For example, what if I said I believed that the universe was created by a conscious creator? This is clearly a religious statement, but as far as I can tell there is no way this statement can be addressed scientifically.

Post reply on HN