
One of Darwin's evolution theories finally proved by Cambridge researcher - dnetesn
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-darwin-evolution-theories-cambridge.html
======
bayesian_horse
One problem when discussing species and subspecies is that there is no clear-
cut definition between species, subspecies and "just some genetic diversity".

The best hint is the genetic distance between any two individuals. In general,
that distance is bigger between species than between subspecies. But no clear
thresholds can be applied to the whole tree of life.

Taxonomy is still mostly defined through differences a researcher can see with
his own eyes (or a microscope). Much of taxonomy is in the process of being
redefined through molecular methods, though.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _there is no clear-cut definition between species_

It's not clear-cut in all cases. But it's clear cut bilaterally. Two organisms
are in the same species if they can successfully reproduce, _i.e._ produce an
offspring that can itself produce offspring. If they can't, they're in
different species. (Multilateral fuzziness arises if A can reproduce with B,
and B with C, but A not with C.)

~~~
phkahler
So why are different ethnicities of humans not considered sub-species?

They developed in different geographic regions with barriers, the can
interbreed successfully, and they have different appearances, not just in skin
color, but in things like facial features. And yet the article specifically
states that humans don't have subspecies.

~~~
HelloNurse
Because subspecies are a particularly arbitrary taxonomical division. Some of
the pragmatic reasons are that human "ethnicities" are very fuzzy because
people travel around, that they are only an average of arbitrary large groups
of related people, and that people tend to look meaningfully similar only to
their closest relatives, and only partially.

------
ausbah
I wonder what adopting the idea of subspecies to evolutionary algorithms would
look like, and if any benefits would be encountered.

~~~
Der_Einzige
It's been done before. Check out "cooperative coevolution"

------
smoyer
My key take-away - humans have no sub-species but it can be beneficial to the
species as a whole. Let's get to work people!

(or perhaps we just haven't formed divisions in the human population yet?)

~~~
kuprel
I found an interesting genetic distance matrix on Wikipedia

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AGenetic_similarities_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3AGenetic_similarities_between_51_worldwide_human_populations_%28Euclidean_genetic_distance_using_289%2C160_SNPs%29.png)

~~~
tabtab
It generally divides along continental lines, which is mostly as expected.
It's harder for genes to cross continents.

------
ggggtez
It seems like everyone commenting on this article lost their gosh-darn minds.

Can I helpfully remind folks to try to have productive discussions instead of
quibbling about the definition of "proven", and outright vitriol?

~~~
mplanchard
Vitriol is never justifiable for this sort of thing, I agree. I do think
calling out the unscientific use of the word “proven” or “proved” is
reasonable on a forum where so many people have at least some scientific
training.

I studied and taught biology and chemistry in grad school in the south. Lots
of people don’t “believe” in evolution and will base some of that on the fact
that the theory isn’t “proven”, without understanding the rigor that proof
implies in a scientific context.

Usage like we see in the article is problematic. What if this finding were
disproven later? What does that teach people who don’t know any better about
the nature of proof?

------
throwaway4787
This may be the appropriate thread to remind people that Darwin was far from
the be-all and end-all of evolutionary biology and much of what he said turned
out to be actually mistaken. This isn't so much of an attack on him as a
celebration that we've come a long way since the 19th century. Also, you
should be suspicious of any argument involving non-geneticists invoking Darwin
to justify such and such social outcome - actual modern-day geneticists don't
invoke Darwin for much of the same reason actual modern-day physicists don't
invoke Democritus.

~~~
msla
I think Darwin was closer to Newton than Democritus in terms of knowing what
the Hell he was talking about.

But, yes, your point stands: Evolutionary biology has moved on, and people who
try to poke holes in a 19th Century version in order to discredit the whole
field are misinformed and, likely, doing it with a partisan, rather than an
academic, intent.

------
normalnorm
Scientific theories are not "proven", that is not how science works. All
theories are always and forever open to falsification. The scientific attitude
is one of eternal doubt. "Proof" is something that only exists in the realm of
pure math.

~~~
BaronSamedi
I think the reality is more subtle than this. Is, for example, the discovery
of DNA going to be falsified? I don't think so. Is the notion that living
organisms evolve going to be falsified? Again, I doubt it. The case of Newton
and Einstein is relevant here. Einstein didn't "falsify" Newton but rather
enriched our understanding of physics. A better model seems to be that
scientific theories fit into a spectrum of certainty: a very few that are
certain up to the highly speculative. That scientists need to be open-minded
and maintain a level of skepticism is necessary, however, the extreme
skepticism you appear to be suggesting is not warranted.

~~~
vikramkr
Dna could be falsified. It's incredibly low chance but it could. Just like the
discovery of the bacteria that causes influenza was falsified once it became
clear it's a virus. Just like the so called central dogma of DNA->RNA->protein
turned out to be not so central or not so dogmatic.

And Einstein definitely falsified Newton with the famous experiment with the
eclipse and with more correctly showing Mercury's orbit, both of which
contradicted fundamentally with Newton. Newton is an extraordinary
breakthrough, and still useful as a model, but our understanding is no longer
Newtonian. And, finding a way to enrich our understanding of physics even
further means finding ways to falsify parts of einstein and quantum mechanics
to provide the foundation for an even deeper understanding.

~~~
tossAsimov
I think he's trying to make a point similar to the one made by Asimov:
[https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.ht...](https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm)

~~~
raverbashing
Completely agree. I think people are too hung up on the "falsifiability" term
and don't look at the bigger picture

As your link puts nicely: "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they
were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But
if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking
the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

~~~
vikramkr
We're not saying they're equally falsifiable though. We have p values and
sigmas and statistics to deal with different levels of wrongness and
likeliness of being wrong. Nobody's saying that DNA and a bacteria causing
influenza are equally likely to be wrong or equally wrong or something. The
problem is saying that dna's existence is not falsifiable. That is an
incorrect statement. That's all that's being pointed out.

------
jovial_cavalier
Shut up. This is on the intellectual level of a middle schooler. This is not
an interesting conversation. You are only hurting your own side. Shut up.

If I were Laura Van Holstein, I would be embarrassed of this article,
especially with that headline.

Anyone who claims to have "proven" something of this nature, or to have
"settled" the discussion, needs to not be taken seriously.

