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.

  • @freeindv
    link
    011 months ago

    That’s an interesting theory, but I do not believe it to be true

    • @tiny_electron@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      011 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
        link
        011 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
          link
          fedilink
          011 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
            link
            011 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.