/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11050526

334KiB, 608x762, Four_Horsemen.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Limits to science and logical positivism

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 20:14:10 2019 No.11050526 View Reply Original Report

>How did the world start?
Big Bang.
>Why did the Big Bang happen?
We don't know but we have theories.
>Can you reproduce it?
No.

>How did life begin?
Evolution.
>What started evolution?
We don't know but we have theories.
>Can you reproduce it?
No.

>What is consciousness?
Neural activity in the brain.
>What causes consciousness?
We don't know but we have theories.
>Can you reproduce it?
No.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 20:16:51 No.11050532 Report

Quoted By: >>11050536 >>11050540 >>11050569

Evolution has been observed in microbes, or at least very rudimentary forms of it. Evolution is more of a broad term for generic mutations over time, leading to natural selection via statistical likelihood that you will survive to pass on your genes. Mutation has been observed, genes have been observed, natural selection has been observed. That's my counter to your proposal. What do you think would change your mind about evolution?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 20:18:06 No.11050536 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050532
Genetic*

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 20:18:34 No.11050540 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050532
Way to misunderstand OP

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 8d6.jpg, 48KiB, 645x729

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 20:23:16 No.11050556 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
>What started evolution?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 20:26:24 No.11050569 Report

Quoted By: >>11051868 >>11052746

>>11050532
What about the other ones?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 20:30:03 No.11050580 Report

Quoted By: >>11050624 >>11051868

>>11050526
>How did this thread start?
A faggot.
>What causes faggotry?
We don't know but we have theories.
>Can you reproduce it?
Yes, OP is always a faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 20:45:42 No.11050624 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050580
Based

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 21:02:41 No.11050672 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
... therefore: GOD

that's what you wanted to hear, amiright?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 21:37:05 No.11050754 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
>Evolution.
>What started evolution?
We don't know but we have theories.
>Can you reproduce it?
>No.
we have literally seen bacteria evolve

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 21:40:46 No.11050766 Report

Quoted By: >>11051868 >>11053545

>>11050526
>>How did the world start?
Bazinga
>>Why did the Big Bang happen?
Incels
>>Can you reproduce it?
Please God no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 21:45:30 No.11050779 Report

Quoted By: >>11050784 >>11051868

Why are brainlets so afraid of the idea that we don't know everything yet? When that's exactly the entire point of science.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 21:46:53 No.11050784 Report

Quoted By: >>11050810

>>11050779
cause they're desperate to convince themselves they know better and figured everything out by believing in the kike on a stick

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 21:59:20 No.11050810 Report

Quoted By: >>11050811

>>11050784
>kike
why the antisemitism though?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 22:00:20 No.11050811 Report

Quoted By: >>11050867

>>11050810
"kike on a stick" is a common 4chan phrase. I'm not a nazi jew hater but you can't deny their nepotism is disgusting

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 22:22:51 No.11050867 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050811

oyyyy veyyyy its liek anuddah shoah were 6 million billion trillion chosens died

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1545442558484.jpg, 101KiB, 785x731

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 23:32:41 No.11051048 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
>NOOOOOO!!!!
>DON'T THINK ABOUT THE GREAT COSMIC MYSTERY!!!
>IT'S UNSOLVABLE!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 23:40:02 No.11051069 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
You came to /sci/ thinking you were smart. But you're not. You aren't even smart enough to realize that by asking the questions you ask (and answering them yourself) that you reveal your own level of stupidity and lack of education/information. What a dumbass!

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 23:42:02 No.11051076 Report

Quoted By: >>11051082

>>11050526
So what’s the point of this thread?
We don’t know everything. Wow.
And?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Oct 2019 23:42:41 No.11051082 Report

Quoted By:

>>11051076
must mean old sky man real

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 00:04:37 No.11051133 Report

Quoted By: >>11052448

>>11050526
Of course there are limits to science. That is because there are limits to human consciousness/understand. But I honestly think you should start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 00:05:03 No.11051134 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
>>How did life begin?
>Evolution.
>>What started evolution?
Kek and Kekker

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 00:13:36 No.11051158 Report

Quoted By: >>11051205

>>11050526
Any human activity has limits, what's your point.
Only religion has certainty, fuck off back to >>>/x/ with that.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO dennett.jpg, 605KiB, 750x1011

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 00:14:57 No.11051167 Report

Quoted By: >>11051868 >>11051944 >>11051966

>Dennett

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 00:27:17 No.11051205 Report

Quoted By:

>>11051158
>only religion has certainty

False certainty

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 01:30:40 No.11051365 Report

Quoted By: >>11051373 >>11051387

>>11050526
Great post. Saddens me to see scientific explanations reach the same level of superficial repetition that religion previously held the award for. My primary criticism of the modern, mainstream scientific narrative concerns the nature of information itself. Namely, that the information we know of cannot be spoken of without the channels in which it exists to be spoken of simultaneously. For example, everything you see with your eyes is visual data - the combination of light entering the eye and the brain subsequently interpreting it into an image (though the contradiction in that narrative is how the brain, itself an object of vision, could therefore be said to exist within the process of vision itself, given the circularity invoked). Everything you have ever seen and will ever see is visual. The sky, the sun, the stars, the trees, the oceans, and so forth. If you ever speak of any entity, you're speaking of the mediums it was known to you through: speaking of something visual, like the sun, you're speaking of a) vision, the medium of any visual b) the sun, the object of vision and c) consciousness, the container of all information.

How, then, do scientists simultaneously speak about astronomical statistics and of evolutionary ones, when the former data is contained within the latter? How could the eye be claimed to have "evolved", while the stars and sun which the eye has shown to us simultaneously claimed to exist before said eye itself existed? Similarly, time itself has only been known through consciousness, and therefore anytime the past is spoken of, be it 4 seconds ago or 14 billion years ago, you're merely taking the data of your present experience, and extrapolating it backwards. Consciousness would therefore still be implicated, in that equation. Speaking about the universe, 14 billion years ago? You're speaking about yourself, 14 billion years ago. Speaking about the stars and the sun a few billion years ago? Same thing, but with the eye. (1/2)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 01:37:09 No.11051373 Report

Quoted By: >>11051377

>>11051365
m8 yer avin a manic epi phone up yer shrink right quick

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 01:38:22 No.11051377 Report

Quoted By:

>>11051373
BASED

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1200px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution. (...).png, 391KiB, 1200x1675

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 01:42:03 No.11051381 Report

Quoted By: >>11051736 >>11052628 >>11053120

>>11050526
I've attached a diagram showing a speculative trajectory for the evolution of the eye. The fundamental problem I find with it is that in the first diagram, it uses VISUAL information to showcase the origin of visual information. It would be the equivalent of a person using sound to describe the origin of sound. It does not make sense. If you're using visual data to display the origin of visual data, you've already beat yourself to your punch - you were supposed to depict the origin of the type of information you're depicting, which must necessarily be of a different format than the information you depict it with.

I firmly believe that vision is eternal, and the eye has always existed. We have spirit bodies, which NDE's and astral travel reports document, which also have visual, aural, and other types of sensory apparatus. The sun you see in the sky, is inseparable from your very eye. By that I don't mean it disappears when you don't look up at it, but that reality is like a simulation or a video game - everyone's individual screen happens to be the same as that very environment itself. In a videogame, you don't separate your own perspective from the world it shows - you recognize that they are one. The environment and the camera displaying it are the same thing. This is true of actual reality also. The external environment you view is yourself, and you are yourself that.

That's not to say I'm a theist or that I deny evolution - I merely deny the narrative we've presently been taught, involving a universe which was strictly "naturalistic" for billions of years before living species entered it and evolved enough to be able to experience it, and is now experienced by them in the form evolution brought to them. It simply doesn't make sense to me - we ourselves can only speak of the universe in the terms which we ourselves contain, therefore everything we know of the universe is inextricably connected to ourselves. (2/2)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 01:46:00 No.11051387 Report

Quoted By:

>>11051365
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLstJH23p7k

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO mZSZ31l.png, 23KiB, 800x800

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 03:38:00 No.11051623 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
science is inherently limited because it's based on induction instead of deduction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 04:25:38 No.11051736 Report

Quoted By: >>11052400

>>11051381
This might be the stupidest post I’ve read in the past day, or maybe the funniest troll post.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 05:11:27 No.11051824 Report

Quoted By: >>11051868 >>11052471

>>11050526
>>How did the world start?
>Big Bang.
No. The universe started with a hyper-rapid expansion quaintly called the "Big Bang." The world started as an aggregation of material in concert with the formation of the solar system as a whole.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 05:25:18 No.11051851 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
Life didn’t begin through evolution you mong

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1925_kurt_gödel.png, 204KiB, 397x514

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 05:36:06 No.11051868 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050569
legal reasons and lack of proper equipment.
>>11050580
TIP KEK
>>11050766
based
>>11050779
They are hysterical. They think a perfect and satisfying answer must be simple and accessible.
>>11051167
actually kind of based
>>11051824
proof?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 06:31:01 No.11051944 Report

Quoted By:

>>11051167
>Anon sets up his own flawed argument and then refutes it
>passes this off as logic

I-is this the true power of free will brainlets?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 06:48:09 No.11051966 Report

Quoted By:

>>11051167
That greentext is rly stoopid

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 12:52:22 No.11052400 Report

Quoted By:

>>11051736
Please refute it then, anon. I'm certainly not trolling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 12:54:47 No.11052403 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
evolution is true a priori anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 13:22:59 No.11052442 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
>>What started evolution?
it has allways been going on.
>>Can you reproduce it?
yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 13:28:19 No.11052448 Report

Quoted By:

>>11051133
there are not even due to limits of human understanding but by limits of resources and time for testing

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ego freud.jpg, 47KiB, 750x616

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 13:31:56 No.11052452 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
the universe has infinite space on it, so its infinite.
it didnt start with a big bang, the point is that it didnt start infinity has no start to it just other forms

besides: mass cannot be destroyed or created only transformed
here you have the answer, nothing ever "began" beginnings dont exist only transformation

big bangs could happen tho various supernovas can happen at once and all adds fuel to the explosion which grows bigger and bigger in a chain reaction. but it can never cover all of space infinity, anything fits out in space.

This is why i stopped believing in theories. Its contradictory to the scientific method.

on consciousness they are correct.
what causes conciousness I would just say nutrition. seriously dont eat, dont drink water and you are gonna fucking lose it probably forever. the physic reductionists and externalists are right and beat philosocucks to shreds when it comes to the le "philosophy of mind"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 13:41:13 No.11052471 Report

Quoted By: >>11052723 >>11053084

>>11051824
no
the word universe implies all of space, all of matter, everything
recite me the law of the conservation of energy/mass
so far nothing has proven that law incorrect. creators (or destroyers) dont exist.

the big bang theory is wrong. space doesnt has to expand either as if it came about from an starting point. what was outside that point then?
'anti-space"? of course not, none of that scifi shit. even if you somehow have an "Starting Point" outside the point there is space, and space always has matter on it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 14:10:32 No.11052519 Report

Quoted By: >>11052743

>>11050526
add this nigger to the theoretical physic memers too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM_HPAXwJFw

all they do is parrot bullshit for hype media click bait. this is how science makes money this days.

Stephen Hawkings was a big offender too im glad he is dead. Nowhere near the legacy of Einstein which actually used the scientific method.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 14:14:27 No.11052525 Report

Quoted By: >>11052558

>>11050526
>hurr durr muh reproducibility, muh falsifiability, muh experiments

Your daily reminder that observation and post-diction are just as valid tools of science as prediction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 14:14:42 No.11052526 Report

Quoted By: >>11052558

>>11050526
Evolution has been observed in multiple types of large organisms such as birds and lizard, theres also concrete evidence of it genetically.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 14:20:29 No.11052534 Report

Quoted By: >>11052558

>>11050526
You don't have to reproduce evolution, it "re"produces its self

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 14:31:41 No.11052558 Report

Quoted By: >>11053075 >>11053086

>>11052526
>>11052534
evolution is not a theory anymore. it confirmed itself in the fashion of the scientific method. nutrition and reproduction define evolution. You can apply Physical Reductionism to evolution and it makes sense. Besides its observable, sensuous Darwing realized the families of generations of domestic ducks had heavier and stronger legs than their wings unlike wild ducks which are lighter on their feet and heavier on their wings.

>>11052525
that doesnt means they are true and most of these are unironically sci fi bullshit fuck modern theorists. its the worst that has happened to science besides medieval Christianity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 15:03:23 No.11052616 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
>>How did the world start?
>Big Bang.

I mean, I already knew you weren't going to have anything meaningful or accurate to say, but I have to appreciate you coming out and admitting it in your first three lines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 15:07:56 No.11052628 Report

Quoted By: >>11052632 >>11052687 >>11052690

>>11051381
You can use the same type of information to prove something about the information.

For example take the proof that there are an infinite number of integers: a simple proof by contradiction. Assume that there are finitely many numbers so we have the greatest number A. We can add 1 to A to leave the set of finitely many numbers. A+1 is also a number which contradicts our assumption. Therefore there are infinitely many numbers.

We have used numbers to prove a fact about the numbers, all inductive proofs will have this form. And it is perfectly valid, there is no logical rule against this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 15:09:10 No.11052632 Report

Quoted By: >>11052690 >>11052750

>>11052628
> Assume that there are finitely many numbers so we have the greatest number A
Okay
>We can add 1 to A to leave the set of finitely many numbers.
Uh..?
>A+1 is also a number which contradicts our assumption.
But-
>Therefore there are infinitely many numbers.
???

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 3FA5A669-D2D5-40FC-8288-6238DA91 (...).jpg, 48KiB, 850x400

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 15:11:35 No.11052635 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
>can’t explain something?
>magic, invisible, floating faggot in the sky
>floating faggot requires no explanation

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 15:43:57 No.11052687 Report

Quoted By: >>11052761

>>11052628
That's not what I was trying to communicate, anon. I completely understand the nature and necessity of tautological truths, which isn't what I was describing here. My issue with the notion of the eye's evolution, and the postulated diagram for how it happened, is that of visual information being used to display the supposed "origination" of visual information itself. The eye can't see outside of itself - it's own nature is seeing, of course. And anyone who therefore tries to showcase the origination of vision, will be forced to use visual elements to depict it - namely, color and shape. But our aim was showcasing the origination of color and shape, and yet you've already included them in your assertion of how they originated. Observe the first panel. The diagram of the eye's origins, already uses the visual information contained within the eye itself. Color, and shape. So how could that first panel exist, before the eye which it is seen in and contains the contents of to as well? How does color and shape exist before vision does, if both are one?

And secondly, how could anything sensorial somehow precede the instrument it is beheld through? If everything you see is beheld by your eye, then your eye must always be implicated in discussions of said items. If the sun, moon, stars and earth that we observe are observed through the eye, then these entities can't be spoken of without the eye being spoken of too. It would be like speaking of scent prior to the formation of the nose, or taste before a tongue existed. The medium and the data it contains are the same, are they not?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 15:45:07 No.11052690 Report

Quoted By:

>>11052628
Also, I'm not this anon >>11052632. That was someone else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 15:59:43 No.11052723 Report

Quoted By:

>>11052471
big bang works with conservation of energy via inflation.

Space in GR is either flat, compact or hyperbolic, none requiring an “outside”

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 16:07:56 No.11052743 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
>conflating theories and hypothesises
>>11052519
>scientific method spook

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 16:09:49 No.11052746 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050569
Big Bang - Energy cannot be created or destroyed OVER TIME. No time at/before the Big Bang so our observations have not been violated.

Consciousness - Means something different for many people. Often confused with intelligence. Should mean "aware experience."

Never forget that all you are is a bundle of neurons. And even that itself is a concept. All we have are concepts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 16:10:25 No.11052750 Report

Quoted By:

>>11052632
Can you not add 1 to A?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 16:14:09 No.11052757 Report

Quoted By: >>11053012

Energy is not globally conserved in General Relativity. As with most things, the law of conservation of energy is an approximation suited for our everyday experience, but does not apply to universe as a whole.

Then there is cosmic Inflation, which grossly violated global conservation of energy, and there is nothing wrong with this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 16:16:10 No.11052761 Report

Quoted By:

>>11052687
>>11052687
The concept of the eye is not visual information, visual information existed before the eye. Visual information began when God wrote Maxwell's equations which was the very first thing God did on this project. The eye is a tool which allows us to access visual information.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 18:05:13 No.11053012 Report

Quoted By:

>>11052757
retarded and wrong.
the point of inflation is that it’s a theory that maintains conservation of energy at all stages of the universe

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 18:33:55 No.11053075 Report

Quoted By:

>>11052558
I`m still stumped by the absolute retardation of people who don`t know the difference between theory and hypothesis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 18:38:28 No.11053084 Report

Quoted By:

>>11052471
> what was outside that point then?

You don’t understand cosmic inflation cosmology and as such can’t argue against it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 18:40:27 No.11053086 Report

Quoted By: >>11053095 >>11053110

>>11052558
Evolution is a phenomenon, like gravity, not a theory. It has theories OF it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 18:44:11 No.11053095 Report

Quoted By:

>>11053086
not really

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 18:49:15 No.11053110 Report

Quoted By: >>11053117 >>11053136

>>11053086
No, evolution is definitely a theory. The phenomenas here are random mutations and natural selection

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 18:50:51 No.11053112 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050526
>homophobe
>incel
>jew
All three go in the trash. But who's the fourth guy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 18:53:19 No.11053117 Report

Quoted By: >>11053122

>>11053110
natural selection isn’t a physically observable force or substance its a construct from our models that makes useful predictions. try again.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO c23798939d997e3582c64f9f6424f84f (...).jpg, 58KiB, 450x450

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 18:53:35 No.11053120 Report

Quoted By:

>>11051381
I'm liking this high iq bait

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 18:54:27 No.11053122 Report

Quoted By: >>11053149

>>11053117
Phenomena =/= "observable force or substance"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 19:01:30 No.11053136 Report

Quoted By: >>11053144

>>11053110
> No, evolution is definitely a theory

No it isn’t. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory.

>The phenomenas here are random mutations and natural selection

That’s just evolution.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 19:04:44 No.11053144 Report

Quoted By: >>11053159

>>11053136
A theory is a "story" for a lack of a better word, or analogy if you will, that explains phenomenas that we observe. They are never themselves phenomena, they rather fit the phenomena together to explain their unity. This is not hard to understand. A theory within science also needs to be generally accepted by the community

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 19:07:26 No.11053149 Report

Quoted By: >>11053156

>>11053122
The word has no significance if its not referring to a physical object or force, there is no such thing as selection, we observe where selection is happening our models and traces of selection. This is distinct from any other physical theory in science but the vindication of our use of this model is the existence of changes in allele frequency and observable phenotypes. None of the constructs of theoretical evo bio and genetics are real except the molecular and physiological changes themselves. We have no proof without them and because these do exist in vast abundance evolution denial is unacceptable to anyone with a decent sense of intellectual honesty.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 19:12:28 No.11053156 Report

Quoted By: >>11053158 >>11053169

>>11053149
I don't understand your point. You are saying natural selection is not a phenomena because it is ultimately not a physical force or a physical object but emerges from chemistry, yet you are fine with calling evolution which itself depends on other phenomenas, that you don't really call phenomenas, a theory?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 19:13:31 No.11053158 Report

Quoted By:

>>11053156
>that you don't really call phenomenas, a theory*?'
A phenomena*

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 19:13:47 No.11053159 Report

Quoted By:

>>11053144
> A theory is a "story" for a lack of a better word, or analogy if you will, that explains phenomenas that we observe. They are never themselves phenomena, they rather fit the phenomena together to explain their unity.

Theories are models of some aspect of the natural world that possess explanatory and predictive power. Calling evolution a “theory” is nonsensical as it is simply a phenomenon to be explained by theories. Things change over time. Lamarckism and Darwinian evolution were competing hypothesis of evolution, seeking to explain this change over time and its mechanisms. Darwinian evolution superseded Lamarckism, and was itself superseded by the “Modern Synthesis” just as Newtonian gravity was superseded by relativity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 19:19:49 No.11053169 Report

Quoted By: >>11053175

>>11053156
I don’t consider evolution a real physical force since it would be a poor substitute for the laws of physics. Evolutionary theory is the current most accurate explanation for long term changes in large numbers of biological systems, selection is the means by which we can predict where certain kinds of changes will occur based on the suitability of a given phenotype in an environment, mutation has a literal physical correlate in molecular changes within organisms and phenotypes are just abstracts of physiological and morphological changes

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 19:21:15 No.11053175 Report

Quoted By: >>11053387

>>11053169
How would you classify the words then; evolution, natural selection and mutation. Which are phenomena, which are a theory and which are something else

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 21:06:07 No.11053387 Report

Quoted By:

>>11053175
>evolution
theory
>selection
element of model representing the theory
>mutation
physical changes in the genome and also mathematical representation with models of the theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 21:14:50 No.11053399 Report

Quoted By:

>How did life begin?
Abiogenesis
>How did the diversitiy in life appeared?
Evolution

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Oct 2019 22:48:52 No.11053545 Report

Quoted By:

>>11050766
>>>Why did the Big Bang happen?
>Incels

That's absurd, by definition incels don't get any kind of banging, big or small.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches