Alternative To Evolution?

[evenflow1121]

Individuals that used his theory in order to further their own points of views whether they believed it or not. On the one hand you have religious fanatics and on the other hand non believers that inaccurately used his theory of natural selection to further their own cause. Darwin died an agnostic and he died believing in an original being, one that could never be interpreted by man because this being was too complicated for man's imagination.

 

[Loki]

A few quick comments I should toss out:

1) There are alternative explanations to evolutionary theory, but they lack both the parsimony and the empirical evidence that provides support for evolution. In addition, many of these alternative explanations have not been subjected to peer review (proponents of Intelligent Design, for example, do not publish in any peer-reviewed scientific journals).

2) I do not believe the standard neo-Darwinian model of evolution actually claims to explain "how life began" or the "origin of life". It focuses moreso on gradual speciation mechanisms that began after the emergence of single-celled organisms.

3) Strictly speaking, nothing can be absolutely proven in science. This is why the scientific method allows for continual self-correction and genuine progress in our understanding of things (it rejects the concept of ultimate or absolute "truths"). However, evolutionary theory is widely supported by the existing evidence.

4) It should be understood that the term theory means a very different thing in science than it does to the average person. In this particular context, a theory refers to a time-tested hypothesis that has amassed a large body of supporting evidence. In much the same way, cell theory (the proposition that all living organisms are composed of cells and that cells are created from other cells) is also "just a theory".

5) What some call "macroevolution" has been demonstrated in laboratory environments. Specifically, I am referring mostly to certain species of bacterium, but there are other examples. Please go to www.talkorigins.org for detailed explanations.

6) The question of how long significant evolutionary changes take is currently the subject of research and debate in the sciences today. Gould's "punctuated evolution" hypothesis (which posits that several forms of "macroevolution" took place over relatively short stretches of time) began looking into this stuff in the 1970's, and the current post-Darwinian explanations (which began in the 1980's) are providing us with some interesting research and data. Apparently, in some cases, "macroevolution" can take place within the course of single generation of organisms. See A Discussion of Evolutionary Theory for more details.

7) As to the scientific validity of religion, that depends entirely on what you mean by both "science" and "religion" (read Wilber's The Marriage of Sense and Soul: Integrating Science and Religion for an indepth discussion of this topic). I would assume you are referring specifically to the claims of Biblical mythology, which by and large have been refuted by empirical investigation.

Laterz. :asian:

I was going to write something thorough and thought-provoking, but then I read heretic888's post and decided it'd be wiser to praise him and raise my post count. Kudos heretic888!

 

[arnisador]

Is there an alternative to evolution or is evolution the only scientific explanation for how life began? Can we really say it has been proven yet? After all it is just a theory

Yup...like gravity, heat, relativity, quantum mechanics, and so on. To say that something is a theory is a strong statement in science, not a weak one. What Eisntein meant by theory is not what Colombo meant by it.

There are no other extant scientific theories. Older ones like Lamarckian evolution have fallen from favor.

That doesn't mean another scientific explanation couldn't come along in the future--just that there isn't one now.

 

[Marginal]

Really? Well it seems like all your posts are akin to those of a radical liberal, no offense, that's my opinion. Well at least your not as bad as rmcrobertson in being radical, which is good.

Your labels wouldn't be so off if you didn't condiser your commonly right wing stances as "moderate".

The reason why I would never make a thread titles "Alternative To Gravity" because not as many people dispute gravity as they do evolution. Although there is a possibility all these people that dispute evolution are ID believers, but I doubt it. No one disputes the theories cosmology (well most), and many of the claims disputes Christo-ID.

Doesn't really explain an interesting TV show I watched a couple of years back which featured a sequence where God tossed a science teacher off to heck since he taught science.

Billy innocently enough asked the mean ol' science teacher about how the formation of the solar system proved intelligent design. "Since everything was 'just so', doesnt' thsi prove that God made the planets?"

The science teacher said it didn't really do that one way or another.

Billy, shocked that his mother had lied to him went home and beat her.
Billy then descended into a life of alcholism and wife beating. Oh yeah, and he shunned the church from the on too as they were also stocked with liars.

God banished the science teacher to an eternal struggle against extremeism to protect the apparently heaven ensconced Billy and Billy's mother. ('Cause Billy seemed like such a swell guy.)

 

[someguy]

I'd like to propose an alternative to Gravity... Intelegent falling.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Proof positive that gravity is wrong man.

 

[heretic888]

Again this thread is to discuss alternative scientific theories to the origin of life, not religion.

Personally, I don't like the term "religion" used in the context that it is here. I think "metaphysics" would be a closer approximation to what Michael is trying to say here.

As such, the only alternative views to evolutionary models that I have personally ever heard presented are metaphysical models. Metaphysics does not fall under the purview of the scientific process.

And no this thread is not just limited to how life arose from macro-molecules, discuss this more on a broader explanation of life.

Then you need to clarify what it is you're looking for here.

What scientists consider to be "life" began with simple single-celled prokaryotic organisms who may or may not have originated on Earth. When you make reference to the "beginning of life" or the "origin of life", this is what most educated people will assume you have in mind.

If you have a different meaning in mind here, then you need to clarify what it is.

I never considered evolution to be at the same level as the theory gravity, but do scientists think this (evolution as valid of a theory as gravity)?

Gravity is probably a bad example, because it is currently being scrutinized by some fields within physics. Time will tell if its veracity as a theory will survive the trial of peer review.

A better example, which I gave before, would be cell theory. Evolution is accepted to be as valid a theory as cell theory. In fact, evolutionary theory is probably better supported than cell theory, in that it has a wealth of empirical evidence from a number of fields (biology, botany, zoology, paleontology, geography, psychology, and so on).

People need to drop this illusion right here and now. The reality of evolution is not seriously debated in peer-reviewed scientific serials. What we are currently seeing on the public arena concerning school curricula involves individuals on the fringes of "science" who do not publish articles or studies for analysis in a peer-reviewed context. As such, they are outside the bounds of "science" as most professionals know it.

The exact mechanisms of evolution are debated by scientists, but its existence is not.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[heretic888]

Gravity is derived from Newton's First "Law". (Yes, scientists can be legislators).

Once again, this results from a confusion of definitions (physical laws are a well-established paradigm within physics) and a general ignorance of how things are actually done in science.

This is still simpler than the "Theory" of evolution.

If you are referring to the traditional neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, then no, its not.

In fact, orthodox evolutionary theory is so amazingly simple that it still bewilders me that a significant portion of the adult population still has no clue what it entails. Its really not that hard:

1) Random variations of traits occur naturally within a species.
2) Those variations that are better suited to survival within a given environmental niche will be passed on, while those that are not will die out.
3) Over time, these incremental changes accumulate and a new species will branch out from the original species.

That is the theory of evolution via natural selection. It is not a complex idea at all. I am still amazed at the number of people that just can't seem to understand it.

Those snooty scientists still fight over that one.

The existence of gravity is currently debated in physics. The existence of evolution is not debated in biology (although its exact mechanisms are).

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I mean how life arose as a whole, discussing the origin of species and the rise to life.

Once again, "life" began with prokaryotic organisms.

Evolution, as most biologists would describe it, started up after their arrival (when genotypic variations and mutations could actually start happening).

The reason why I would never make a thread titles "Alternative To Gravity" because not as many people dispute gravity as they do evolution.

Not to be rude, but its fairly irrelevant what popular opinion about any given scientific theory is. That does not make it any more or less valid in a scientific context.

Although there is a possibility all these people that dispute evolution are ID believers, but I doubt it.

Most (if not all) of the people that dispute evolutionary theory either a) do not understand it, and/or b) have a priori metaphysical beliefs that they feel contradicts with it.

No one disputes the theories cosmology (well most), and many of the claims disputes Christo-ID.

No offense, but I have no idea what you just said here. :idunno:

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

Gravity is derived from Newton's First "Law". (Yes, scientists can be legislators).

Gravity {an apparent physical attraction between bodies of material} exists apart from the scientific axioms and formulae that describe it. The force isn't derived from Newton's First Law.

 

[heretic888]

An honest assessment of Intelligent Design will recognize it as a cover story for Fundamentalist Christianity; a literal acceptance to the reading of Genesis; nothing more.

I am inclined to agree with this assessment. I would also differentiate Intelligent Design from the Argument By Design that Thomas Aquinas presented in the Middle Ages.

In his day, Thomas Aquinas was a natural scientist. He was working with the information he had available at the time, and logically came to the conclusion that a Higher Power must have engineered the structures he observed in nature. It is true, for example, that structures in nature are oriented towards particular physiological functions (which was the basis of Aquinas' teleology).

But, let's be real here. If St. Aquinas were alive today, don't believe for a second he would dispute the existence of evolution. He would most likely give a spiritual interpretation of evolution (which, essentially, is what Darwin and Wallace did) but it would be highly unlikely he would doubt its existence.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Darwin's thesis or theory came really from the survival of the fittest, a lot of the whole atheism behind it came from fanatics that labeled it that way.

Just to clarify, the term "survival of the fittest" was never used by Darwin or Wallace.

It was an invention of the sociological school known as Social Darwinism, and dates to decades after the publication of The Origin of Species.

 

[heretic888]

Individuals that used his theory in order to further their own points of views whether they believed it or not. On the one hand you have religious fanatics and on the other hand non believers that inaccurately used his theory of natural selection to further their own cause.

I would have to agree that many positivists and naturalists used evolutionary theory as a tool to further their own philosophical agendas.

Darwin died an agnostic and he died believing in an original being, one that could never be interpreted by man because this being was too complicated for man's imagination.

Darwin was a deist, and he specifically attributed the process of evolution to the working of God. Wallace was even more vocal on this point, describing evolution as "the mode and manner of Spirit's perfection".

 

[heretic888]

I was going to write something thorough and thought-provoking, but then I read heretic888's post and decided it'd be wiser to praise him and raise my post count. Kudos heretic888!

:ultracool :ultracool :ultracool

 

[heretic888]

Yup...like gravity, heat, relativity, quantum mechanics, and so on. To say that something is a theory is a strong statement in science, not a weak one. What Eisntein meant by theory is not what Colombo meant by it.

As I said before, a theory (in this particular context) refers to a time-tested hypothesis that has amassed a large body of supporting evidence. Its as simple as that.

There are no other extant scientific theories. Older ones like Lamarckian evolution have fallen from favor.

Well, Lamarck was also advocating an evolutionary theory as well, so that doesn't really count.

That being said, neo-Lamarckian principles are currently being researched and debated to this day in biology. I cited a few links referencing such discussions in the previous thread on evolutionary theory.

That doesn't mean another scientific explanation couldn't come along in the future--just that there isn't one now.

Bingo.

Laterz.

 

[michaeledward]

So, Kane, are you going to ever get around to arguing in favor of a position different than evolution? Most Fundamentalist Regilious people can't back-up their own position with anything other than 'cuz the bible says so'. Because of this, they attack the positions of science.

Science is susceptible to these attacks because, science does not claim to know anything with certainty, instead it makes claims as to probability; in the past we have observed 'x' repeatedly, we assume in similiar tests in the future we will continue to observe 'x', however, we remain open to the possibility that an observation of 'y' is possible and if observed, we will repostulate our hypothesis.

So, it is time to 'Put Up or Shut Up'. Would you like to propose a hypothesis which you think might better explain the vast different types of plant and animal life that exist on our planet?

you sound as if I am some sort of Bible Thumper who knows nothing about evolution, even though I probably no more about it than you.

To Quote my Favorite Captian ....

Kane, I'm laughing at the superior intellect.
​

I mean how life arose as a whole, discussing the origin of species and the rise to life.

The reason why I would never make a thread titles "Alternative To Gravity" because not as many people dispute gravity as they do evolution. Although there is a possibility all these people that dispute evolution are ID believers, but I doubt it. No one disputes the theories cosmology (well most), and many of the claims disputes Christo-ID.

Oh, and for the record ... there are crackpots everywhere.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

 

[heretic888]

Science is susceptible to these attacks because, science does not claim to know anything with certainty, instead it makes claims as to probability; in the past we have observed 'x' repeatedly, we assume in similiar tests in the future we will continue to observe 'x', however, we remain open to the possibility that an observation of 'y' is possible and if observed, we will repostulate our hypothesis.

Nicely put. :asian:

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

So, Kane, are you going to ever get around to arguing in favor of a position different than evolution? Most Fundamentalist Regilious people can't back-up their own position with anything other than 'cuz the bible says so'. Because of this, they attack the positions of science.

Fundamentalist? The 20th century protestant movement or the attitude of stressing strict/literal adherence to a set of basic principles {mirriam-webster}? Or a sociological definition?

I consider myself a fundamentalist religious person and have no overwhelming need to try to disprove evolution.

I know that your comments are directed towards Kane, but couldn't help intejecting {it must be a genetically hard-wired reaction that afforded some slight advantage of survival to my ancestors, ha, ha.}

 

[Phoenix44]

Evolution doesn't necessarily take eons. You can see a very rapid and simple example of evolution in bacteria with an experiment that would only take a couple of days.

Grow bacteria in a culture medium. Add an antibiotic. Those bacteria which possess a gene for resistance to the antibiotic will proliferate. Those lacking that gene will die out. In a couple of days, all the bacteria growing in the culture will bear the antibiotic resistance gene. In that particular environment, that gene is a powerful evolutionary advantage, and will tend to increase in the population.

 

[heretic888]

Fundamentalist? The 20th century protestant movement or the attitude of stressing strict/literal adherence to a set of basic principles {mirriam-webster}? Or a sociological definition?

I consider myself a fundamentalist religious person and have no overwhelming need to try to disprove evolution.

I think Michael probably means fundamentalist in the limited sense of, "adhering to a rigidly literal interpretation of the Bible". That'd be my guess, anyway.

I know that your comments are directed towards Kane, but couldn't help intejecting {it must be a genetically hard-wired reaction that afforded some slight advantage of survival to my ancestors, ha, ha.}

Or, at the very least, didn't prove to be maladaptive.

 

[heretic888]

Evolution doesn't necessarily take eons. You can see a very rapid and simple example of evolution in bacteria with an experiment that would only take a couple of days.

Grow bacteria in a culture medium. Add an antibiotic. Those bacteria which possess a gene for resistance to the antibiotic will proliferate. Those lacking that gene will die out. In a couple of days, all the bacteria growing in the culture will bear the antibiotic resistance gene. In that particular environment, that gene is a powerful evolutionary advantage, and will tend to increase in the population.

Bravo. :asian:

The really interesting thing, though, is when populations of those wacky bacterium (I'm specifically thinking of some experiments done with E. Coli) adapt in ways that don't appear to be random mutations.

Now, isn't that just wacky?

Laterz.