Current Events > Do you consider evolution to be 100% proven fact?

(+) Yeah! (+)

DarkRoast posted...

"My inaccurate straw man-based understanding of evolution is so easy to counter!"

Might want to try and read a book sometime. I pulled literal examples from Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"
---

BillyKidd posted...

DarkRoast posted...

"My inaccurate straw man-based understanding of evolution is so easy to counter!"

Might want to try and read a book sometime. I pulled literal examples from Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"

Origin of Species isn't some kind of unfalsifiable holy textbook. It's like saying all of physics is defined by Newton.

I'm sorry you don't know how DNA, RNA, protein synthesis and mutation works.

DNA wasn't even known in Darwin's day.
---

BillyKidd posted...

DarkRoast posted...

"My inaccurate straw man-based understanding of evolution is so easy to counter!"

Might want to try and read a book sometime. I pulled literal examples from Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"

while completely misrepresenting the concept of evolution as a whole. You might as well have pulled literal examples from this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC7H99-7wxk" data-time="
---

Nothing is a 100% proven fact. Even the most certain things are in the 99.99% region. Even with the most certain-seeming things, there's a tiny chance of something outlandish like everything being a dream/simulation.

Those semantics aside, yes, I consider evolution a near-certainty, since it makes sense and is a cornerstone of all our biological knowledge. When I think about it, I even use it at work sometimes (allergies to plant groups).
---

I'm putting a lot of effort here for the likes of billy kid, so hopefully this is educational for him

you might have seen this image of evolution


this is NOT an accurate depiction of evolution. no biologist today is saying that it is. this is what hominid evolution actually looks like, a family tree:


this is not the first time ever that an inaccurate depiction of a scientific theory has been corrected over time as new evidence emerges.

for example, you might have seen the atomic model we were taught in school


this is not accurate. electrons don't orbit a nucleus the way planets orbit a star. quantum physics have corrected that interpretation of the atomic model a long time ago, just like evolutionary science has corrected darwin's original origin of species.

what actually happens with an atom is something like this:

---

BillyKidd posted...

e coli becoming stronger and/or mutating isn't evolution; end of the day, it's still e coli. Darwin's theory of evolution is that an animal, over time, will change to another animal based on the environment, ie. Velociraptor into a chicken or a black bear into a whale. There has yet to be any proof of this. To call e coli evolution, it would have to become a tadpole, fish, or something other than the bacteria.

Bible belt or homeschooled?
---

Evening_Dragon posted...

BillyKidd posted...

e coli becoming stronger and/or mutating isn't evolution; end of the day, it's still e coli. Darwin's theory of evolution is that an animal, over time, will change to another animal based on the environment, ie. Velociraptor into a chicken or a black bear into a whale. There has yet to be any proof of this. To call e coli evolution, it would have to become a tadpole, fish, or something other than the bacteria.

Bible belt or homeschooled?

probably both
---

Yo, real talk, some of y'all are legit brain dead. You have faulty, diseased, illogical ways of thinking that lead to nonsensical, harmful ways to thinking. And the exact people with that mindset also exhibit the same types of beliefs politically.

You are making trash arguments that were laughable 100 years ago. You hold our society back. You aren't even worthy of the explanations being given in this topic. All of this applies whether you're serious or trolling.
---

When you're so misguided about a subject that not only are you not right, you're not even wrong.
---

---

DarkRoast posted...

Nope.

Jesus I never understood the chiropractor hate, people foam at the mouth and treat you like flat earthers when there is so much more data to support that chiropractors can and have helped people in meaningful ways.
---

there is so much more data to support that chiropractors can and have helped people in meaningful ways.

https://life.spectator.co.uk/articles/the-evidence-shows-that-chiropractors-do-more-harm-than-good/

There's more evidence that Chiropractic does harm than it does good.

http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2013/04/chiropractic-the-more-research-we-do-the-less-reason-there-is-to-believe-it-works/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-credible-placebo-control-for-chiropractic-research/

Initially there was no difference between the three groups. The effect continued in the SMT and placebo groups during follow-up, while it returned to baseline in the usual-care control group. They looked at several secondary outcomes and found some small differences, but they didnt draw any conclusions from that data. They concluded that the effects in both the SMT and the placebo manipulation groups were probably a placebo response.

But what did you expect from a field created by a magnet healer who was given the secret of Chiropractic from a dead physician's spirit during a seance?
---

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

Numerous controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results.[4] Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[4] A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[10]

Sad!
---

You can find many many cases where people were in severe pain, sought chiropractic treatment and then had the pain decrease or go away entirely. That is evidence.
---

joe40001 posted...

You can find many many cases where people were in severe pain, sought chiropractic treatment and then had the pain decrease or go away entirely. That is evidence.

The only evidence is randomized clinical controlled trials, which Chiropractic routinely fails.

If testimonials are evidence, Crystal Healing is effective.
---

Do people who deny evolution accept the validity of ancestry/parentage tests?

---

DarkRoast posted...

joe40001 posted...

You can find many many cases where people were in severe pain, sought chiropractic treatment and then had the pain decrease or go away entirely. That is evidence.

The only evidence is randomized clinical controlled trials, which Chiropractic routinely fails.

If testimonials are evidence, Crystal Healing is effective.

First of all that's not true, evidence is evidence.

Secondly if a placebo effect causes a consistent and repeatable reduction in pain, and the reduction in pain is the goal than the thing is effective.

But those blindspots in your awareness don't even matter because there is plenty of scientific evidence to support chirpractic care:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3716373/

Time also consulted a doctor about this:
https://time.com/4282617/chiropractor-lower-back-pain/

It's ironic, but people who treat chiropractors as having 0 effectiveness fall at that spike on the low end of the dunning-kruger curve.
---

DarkRoast posted...

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

Numerous controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results.[4] Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[4] A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[10]

Sad!

Yeah, the main argument in favor of chiropracty that I've heard (though anecdotal) was from my father when he had a back injury like 30something years ago and apparently the main reason it helped was more along the lines of physical therapy (pool exercise) and less to do with actual manipulation, though that would have played a part, but really it seems like the field as a whole is more just about movement, weight and pressure than anything else, which makes it something that really anyone can do provided they know how to... not hurt/injure people further...

like I literally just less than a minute ago cracked my own neck using the same technique a chiropractor would use only I didn't have to pay myself a bunch of money for it >_>
---

i am more a fan of smbc's name for the dunning-kreuger effect:

mount stupid
---

joe40001 posted...

DarkRoast posted...

joe40001 posted...

You can find many many cases where people were in severe pain, sought chiropractic treatment and then had the pain decrease or go away entirely. That is evidence.

The only evidence is randomized clinical controlled trials, which Chiropractic routinely fails.

If testimonials are evidence, Crystal Healing is effective.

First of all that's not true, evidence is evidence.

Secondly if a placebo effect causes a consistent and repeatable reduction in pain, and the reduction in pain is the goal than the thing is effective.

But those blindspots in your awareness don't even matter because there is plenty of scientific evidence to support chirpractic care:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3716373/

Time also consulted a doctor about this:
https://time.com/4282617/chiropractor-lower-back-pain/

It's ironic, but people who treat chiropractors as having 0 effectiveness fall at that spike on the low end of the dunning-kruger curve.

Look at the three authors of that article you posted.
In the "Journal of Evidence-Based Alternative Medicine"

It also wasn't a study, but I'm sure you actually read that article

And their summary is damning with false praise

Evidence-based practice has made significant inroads into the chiropractic profession

Basically implying that chiropractic didn't operate under evidence-based practice until recently

And, funnily enough, your Time article is even more skeptical

While the strongest evidence in support of chiropractic involves the treatment of back pain, Schneider says theres also evidence for neck pain and some types of non-migraine headaches. Still, his profession is not without controversy, he says. The controversy comes in when chiropractors make claims about treating non-musculoskeletal conditionsclaims he says have little to no basis in science.

This failure to present a unified front is the biggest problem facing chiropractors today, says Dr. Scott Haldeman, a neurologist and chiropractor who teaches at both UCLA and UC Irvine. You could walk into a chiropractors office and find someone who is a pure back-and-neck-pain guya guy who has embraced the scientific researchor someone who says he can cure all things and provide general wellness, Haldeman explains.

If that isn't a ringing endorsement of the profession, I don't know what is.

And you said it was "by a doctor." I suggest you read again:

I'm a regular contributor at TIME, Medium, Food & Wine, Men's Health, and Vice Media (Tonic). My recent work has also appeared in Playboy, Robb Report, Popular Mechanics, Everyday Health, Sports Illustrated, and elsewhere. Ive received reporting awards from the Society of Professional Journalists and the Maryland, Delaware, and D.C. Press Association. Im always open to new professional opportunities.
---

But let's see what the Cochrane Review has to say, as they're usually the final word on these things:

https://www.cochrane.org/CD005427/BACK_combined-chiropractic-interventions-for-low-back-pain

Authors' conclusions:
Combined chiropractic interventions slightly improved pain and disability in the short-term and pain in the medium-term for acute and subacute LBP. However, there is currently no evidence that supports or refutes that these interventions provide a clinically meaningful difference for pain or disability in people with LBP when compared to other interventions.

Main results:
We included 12 studies involving 2887 participants with LBP. Three studies had low risk of bias. Included studies evaluated a range of chiropractic procedures in a variety of sub-populations of people with LBP.

No trials were located of combined chiropractic interventions compared to no treatment. For acute and subacute LBP, chiropractic interventions improved short- and medium-term pain (SMD -0.25 (95% CI -0.46 to -0.04) and MD -0.89 (95%CI -1.60 to -0.18)) compared to other treatments, but there was no significant difference in long-term pain (MD -0.46 (95% CI -1.18 to 0.26)). Short-term improvement in disability was greater in the chiropractic group compared to other therapies (SMD -0.36 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.02)). However, the effect was small and all studies contributing to these results had high risk of bias. There was no difference in medium- and long-term disability. No difference was demonstrated for combined chiropractic interventions for chronic LBP and for studies that had a mixed population of LBP.

-Golf clap-

Congratulations. Chiropractic is almost as effective as Tylenol.
---

its called a theory for a reason. it may be true but there is not enough evidence to fully support it

Led-Zeppelin posted...

its called a theory for a reason. it may be true but there is not enough evidence to fully support it

That's not what theory means
---

Led-Zeppelin posted...

its called a theory for a reason. it may be true but there is not enough evidence to fully support it

are you serious here?
---

theory (noun)

a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

try harder plz

Led-Zeppelin posted...

theory (noun)

a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

The University of California, Berkley, defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

---

We need to get away from calling it a "scientific fact" and whether or not someone believes it. Evolution is a theory that best describes a recording of observations and is incredibly accurate at predicting what should happen based on the hypotheses derived from the observations.

The reason why you want to make this distinction because you need to be flexible in case things change. For instance, Hamiltonian mechanics is accurate (Force = derivative of momentum with respect to time), but then it falls off when you hit nanoscopic levels. This isn't to say Hamiltonian mechanics isn't correct, but in certain scenarios it doesn't describe the observations of a certain setting so you need to adapt a different theory to explain what's going on.
---

DarkRoast posted...

Led-Zeppelin posted...

its called a theory for a reason. it may be true but there is not enough evidence to fully support it

That's not what theory means

People should know better than to misuse the word in 2019
---

Sad_Face posted...

We need to get away from calling it a "scientific fact" and whether or not someone believes it. Evolution is a theory that best describes a recording of observations and is incredibly accurate at predicting what should happen based on the hypotheses derived from the observations.

The reason why you want to make this distinction because you need to be flexible in case things change. For instance, *Newtonian mechanics is accurate (Force = derivative of momentum with respect to time), but then it falls off when you hit nanoscopic levels. This isn't to say *Newtonian mechanics isn't correct, but in certain scenarios it doesn't describe the observations of a certain setting so you need to adapt a different theory to explain what's going on.

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are pretty much just a bunch of exceptions / edge cases to Newtonian Physics to deal with really small and/or really fast things. Newtonian Physics is still factual for everything within its scope.

---

Newtonian physics basically just explain physics given certain restraints. Relativity and quantum mechanics are theories to broaden the scope and encompass more of reality
---

It's a fact for sure.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Sad_Face posted...

We need to get away from calling it a "scientific fact" and whether or not someone believes it. Evolution is a theory that best describes a recording of observations and is incredibly accurate at predicting what should happen based on the hypotheses derived from the observations.

The reason why you want to make this distinction because you need to be flexible in case things change. For instance, *Newtonian mechanics is accurate (Force = derivative of momentum with respect to time), but then it falls off when you hit nanoscopic levels. This isn't to say *Newtonian mechanics isn't correct, but in certain scenarios it doesn't describe the observations of a certain setting so you need to adapt a different theory to explain what's going on.

Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are pretty much just a bunch of exceptions / edge cases to Newtonian Physics to deal with really small and/or really fast things. Newtonian Physics is still factual for everything within its scope.

No its not factual. Its close, but everything is quantum mechanical and relativistic* and Newtonian physics is the edge case

You are privileging your experience with reality and calling that true reality.

Debate a many worlds theorist. Theyll tell you all that is IS the wave function. Everything else derives out of it (contrary to the strange practice of quantizing classical theories)

*maybe. Again the working theories are approximations.

The only thing preventing evolution from becoming a law of nature is that we havent found life anywhere else in the universe to observe evolution through natural selection. As far as Earth goes, its a fact.
---

While I think evolution is a thing I also understand that there's a fine line between evolution and adaptation.
---

Aw man, good thing FlashofLight is not here right now, or he'll be shit posting for a good measure on this topic.
---

Prestoff posted...

Aw man, good thing FlashofLight is not here right now, or he'll be shit posting for a good measure on this topic.

That guy somehow managed to have the most idiotic take on literally everything.

---

Prestoff posted...

Aw man, good thing FlashofLight is not here right now, or he'll be shit posting for a good measure on this topic.

I only know him from the religion board. Glad I haven't seen him elsewhere.
---

DarthDemented posted...

While I think evolution is a thing I also understand that there's a fine line between evolution and adaptation.

Could you give an example?

Dragonblade01 posted...

DarthDemented posted...

While I think evolution is a thing I also understand that there's a fine line between evolution and adaptation.

Could you give an example?

Evolution has nothing to do with "adaptation" so does it really matter?

He's referring to natural selection.
---

DarkRoast posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

DarthDemented posted...

While I think evolution is a thing I also understand that there's a fine line between evolution and adaptation.

Could you give an example?

Evolution has nothing to do with "adaptation" so does it really matter?

He's referring to natural selection.

I asked the question because I don't like to assume what people mean when they make vague distinctions like that. And obviously I want to know what someone means before I give a proper response.

DarkRoast posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

DarthDemented posted...

While I think evolution is a thing I also understand that there's a fine line between evolution and adaptation.

Could you give an example?

Evolution has nothing to do with "adaptation" so does it really matter?

He's referring to natural selection.

Yep. Adaptation via random mutation is one of the two pillars of natural selection which is the mechanism that allows evolution to occur.
---

the work underlying hybrid sterility is probably the most compelling evidence for macroevolution

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/hybrid-incompatibility-and-speciation-820/
---