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

31–40 of 88 posts

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

#31

Post by bregma »

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…

The existence of DNA is an observation: it's data. That DNA is the means by which traits are passed between generations, now that's a theory. It's open to falsification. No matter how many examples you can provide showing the theory to be true, all I need to do is provide a single counterexample to prove it false.

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

#32

Post by kuprel »

smoyer wrote: post #26

My key take-away - humans have no sub-species but it can be beneficial to the species as a whole. Let's get to work people! (or perhaps we just haven't formed divisions in the human population yet?)

I found an interesting genetic distance matrix on Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AGenetic_similarities_...

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

#33

Post by vikramkr »

vharuck wrote: post #25
vikramkr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We discussed popper in some classes I took, the main theme for that for like an explanation yes it needs to be falsifiable, but also sometimes science is just "look I made a thing!" Or "look I found a thing!" And it's less relevant there. The unanimous belief accross different classes in the sciences I took was that yes, when we think about science we look at it from the perspective of falsification, but when we actu…

>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

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

#36

Post by tossAsimov »

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,…

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

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

#37

Post by sago »

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 all animals are in different species to members of their same sex?

I'm joking a little of course. But only to make the point that the definition of species taught in high school is very difficult to pin down. You identified one way. Even more common: not all organisms reproduce sexually. But also: some organisms (protists) perform sexual recombination separately to reproduction. And even for well known higher mammals (which is where the 'offspring must also be fertile' clause comes from), 'fertile' is by no means binary! A sexual definition of species is simple, but rather difficult down in the nitty-gritty.

It is always worth bearing in mind that species is a human classification concept, not a biological reality. It's not surprising that it has very grey edges.

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

#38

Post by detaro »

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.)

That definition fails for various birds. I.e. all kinds of ducks are considered separate species, but can successfully produce hybrids, of which some can breed.

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

#39

Post by msla »

jfengel wrote: post #29
sn41 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I wonder whether Karl Popper is considered very important by philosophers of science. I have had arguments with people who claim that Feyerabend has a better "approach" to science. On the other hand, practicing scientists consider Popper's falsification one of the great unifying themes guiding scientific research. Though perhaps not as well-known, Popper's approach towards falsification of probabilistic clai…

Feyerabend isn't so much a "better approach" as a lack of an approach. He does a good job trying to get past the numerous problems of Popper's work, but in doing so largely just reverses it without adding anything useful. The way I read it, it really dates back to Hume and the problem of induction. Until we have a Final Theory to hand, we never really know anything. That is a statement of epistemology. But science ca…

> Feyerabend is easily read as continuing to conflate the two: "Hey, all knowledge is provisional, so you might as well study astrology." Maybe that's useful from an epistemological standpoint, but it's not helpful for grants committees to think that way.

It isn't helpful for anyone and we have very concrete examples of that to hand: Anti-vaxxers love to point out stuff like Vioxx, but never say a damn thing about all the drugs and therapies which are helpful, do much more good than harm, and which are "proven" to work for all practical intents and purposes. Being unwilling to attack stuff like anti-vaccine nonsense head-on because of some abstract epistemological nonsense kills people. There's no upside to that.

Saying "Nothing is absolutely certain, therefore it is absolutely certain that we know nothing" is bad enough. Actually believing it is dangerous in direct proportion to how much of a hand you have in shaping policy. The bus driver might believe in utter epistemological nihilism, but they'd better not veer into oncoming traffic just the same.

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

#40

Post by LessDmesg »

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.

B-b-but my scientific consensus!!! My 97%!!! Scientific truth is clearly determined by UN/Greenpeace propaganda and mentally disturbed Swedish teenagers! Are you saying you're a climate denier?
Post reply on HN