EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.

    • tiny_electron@sh.itjust.works
      11·
      10 months ago

      Flies are very different than humans, but they are built using the same building blocks and processes.

      It is not belief it is observation: humans are composed of cells that contain chromosomes. Genetic data is mixed with errors during reproduction (both with flies and humans) resulting in different characteristics in the individuals of the next generation (observable with flies and humans)

      Sexual attactiveness of individuals will depend on their genes and their environment (also based on observation), which will impact their number of offspring, effectively selecting some genes and discarding others.

      All of this is based on simple observation and you sée that belief has no place in this line of reasoning.

      Of course there is more to flies and humans than evolution, yet evolution is such a simple process that it applies to both! Nature is truly amazing

        • tiny_electron@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          10 months ago

          Where do you see belief in what I explained? I’m genuinely curious.

          It can’t be the observations as you can make them for yourself, and you cannot find a model that fits the data better with less assumptions as it already fits the data perfectly and has no assumption beyond “organisms make copy of themselves with mutations”

          Then what is it?

          • freeindv@monyet.cc
            11·
            10 months ago

            you cannot find a model that fits the data better with less assumptions as it already fits the data perfectly and has no assumption beyond “organisms make copy of themselves with mutations”

            Why do you believe that?

            • tiny_electron@sh.itjust.works
              11·
              10 months ago

              It is just a logical statement. A theory must maximize data fitting and minimize assumption. You cannot beat a theory that fits all the data with only one assumption.

              Sadly we are not having a debate as I’m giving arguments and you are not willing to criticize them on a core level. I hope other people find this one sided conversation useful.

              • freeindv@monyet.cc
                11·
                10 months ago

                I’m calling you on your fallacy that there is no belief whatsoever in believing in a scientific theory as the correct explanation for data.