Hacker News Reader

Comment by mavili | Hacker News Reader

Evolution is a theory and is not observable at all. It is all based on a huge assumption (we THINK that is how things happened).

The wide-spread acceptance of evolution in the west is because of lack of another explanation of how life must have come into existence when you cannot bring yourself to give any possibility to a supernatural creator. The same people who would fume when you mention a god will very happily accept an assumption when the word "science" is attached to it.

Just because we can observe mutations doesn't in any way prove evolution in a macro level that results in speciation. Yet it's treated as fact by so many without even knowing enough about it. An average person's acceptance of evolution is no different to a religious person's acceptance of a creator, no matter how much you'd like to think otherwise.

View on HN

Sorry, but this falls into the category of "not even wrong". Writing "evolution is just a theory" implies that you have a foundational misunderstanding of terminology that means it's not worth engaging with the rest of your comment until that is cleared up. You may want to start here:

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

A summary from that page:

> A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses"

Your comment tells me you have preached this a few times that you've memorised it. I say this because you added "just" when I actually didn't have that in my comment. Read again. "Evolution is a theory and not observable" is not the same as "evolution is JUST a theory". Theory, scientific theory, whatever, it's not fact, is it? The "scientific" community have been so desperate about labelling it as fact that they've redefined what a scientific theory means and are trying to pretend that it's actually a fact, completely disregarding observability and repeatability of the hypothesis.

You 'believe' in evolution, I believe in a supernatural creator. We're both believers.

That's just not how any of this works. You need to start from scratch and at the very least learn basic terminology before making broad sweeping claims. Saying "Theory, scientific theory, whatever, it's not fact, is it?" means you lack a basic understanding of the topic.

So much delusion, so much effort to make things sound complex and sophisticated to justify your beliefs. A fact is something like the sun existing, giving out heat.. etc. A theory or scientific theory isn't that, is it? So what if there is difference between the terminologies, not that I'm ignorant of the difference but in this context it doesn't matter because neither is fact.

It’s a scientific theory, which is a bit more than a theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

I also am uncomfortable with some aspects of macro evolution and see some hand waving. But it is the best explanation we have, by some measure.

> the best explanatipn we have

Exactly my point. So in absence of a better explanation we will just acceptance SOMETHING to give us some comfort so we can distance ourselves from religious people. Doesn't matter that our BEST explanation may not be true

>”our BEST explanation may not be true”

This one is tough, because the validity and utility of scientific theories / models is not based on a simple true/false dichotomy. The Standard Model of physics can describe phenomenon to an astounding level of accuracy, but it still has plenty of unsolved problems.

I don’t think some new model of physics will come along and radically upend it, but if there is a new model that is more accurate, then that new model will supersede it.

For instance, special relativity did not falsify Newtonian mechanics and we still use the latter all the time in the scientific and engineering world.

Your argument is that "Unlike religion, science doesn't believe in absolutism or omniscience" and that's a bad thing?

If I thought the religious argument was better, I would accept it.

I have to be satisfied with the best until something else comes along that is better :)

Like plate tectonics or helicobacter pylori.

But, as Faraday apparently said: “I hold my theories on the tips of my fingers, so that the merest breath of fact will blow them away”. Some people don’t. Dogma.

We were able to show the evolutionary behavior on the microscopic scale. And there were multiple experiments doing it so far - your statement on the lack of observability is false.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_...

>>Evolution is a theory and is not observable at all.

Citation needed...

Well, as "scientists" always claim, the onus is on proponents of the theory to show me observable evidence, not me on the lack of it.

You won’t believe it anyway. I can point to SNP mutations leading to macro-scale changes right now - achondroplasia. It’s not worth trying to convince you the obvious implication that concentrating many of these changes in a separate breeding population eventually results in speciation because at this point anybody in denial of evolution is doing so simply on the basis of faith

Incorrect. You're making an affirmative claim "X can't happen" in spite of mound of evidence to the contrary. You need to explain why you refute say, the origin of species specifically. This is how scientific criticism/refutation actually works, by pointing out specific issues in the reasoning or methods, not by saying "You're wrong".

Let's start with that: Why was Darwin wrong? Take as long as you'd like

Here, if we're going to keep going like this please do me a favor and read here: https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies. You'll at least be better prepared to deal with the counter-trolling you encounter on message boards.

> Evolution is a theory and is not observable at all

Evolution makes many testable predictions. As a process, it is slow—but it has many observable consequences.

Don't get me wrong, the notion of evolution makes sense; small changes leading to bigger changes long-term. but just because the logic makes sense doesn't mean that is what happened.

Before anyone downvotes, remember Darwin himself was terrified by the lack of proof that microevolution led to macroevolution. As were his associates.

That's... not relevant? We've discovered quite a bit about how the world works in the last century and a half since then. For example, we've discovered that people trying to propagate a concept of "micro" vs "macro" evolution are simply parroting an anti-intellectual rejection of fact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com