Alternative To Evolution?

[Kane]

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, or so the title says "Theory of Evolution". But hasn't evolution already been proven possible from even one family to another (not just subspecies evolving or species evolving) with bacteria and fruit flies considering their generations are much shorter and easier to study. How many generations does it take for a bacteria or fruit fly to evolve into a different species, and have if they have evolved this far have they ever evolved into different families of bacteria?

Or has evolution ever been really proven or is it just a theory right now? If it is just a theory does it have any more scientific validity than religion? What do you think?

Are there any other scientific theories or answer better than evolution or is evolution the only theory or answer we have to explain the origin of life?

 

[michaeledward]

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, or so the title says "Theory of Evolution". But hasn't evolution already been proven possible from even one family to another (not just subspecies evolving or species evolving) with bacteria and fruit flies considering their generations are much shorter and easier to study. How many generations does it take for a bacteria or fruit fly to evolve into a different species, and have if they have evolved this far have they ever evolved into different families of bacteria?

Or has evolution ever been really proven or is it just a theory right now? If it is just a theory does it have any more scientific validity than religion? What do you think?

Are there any other scientific theories or answer better than evolution or is evolution the only theory or answer we have to explain the origin of life?

Hey Kane ...

Gravity is just a theory, too.

What is your fundamentalist religion version of this theory? Why does **** stay where we put it, usually? Why doesn't it float around? After all, Gravity is just a theory? What does the bible say about that?

And, aren't you getting a little tired of hearing about these things called, random mutation and natural selection, without understanding thing one (or thing two) about them? Why don't you go to the library, and find a book authored by someone other than King James to find out what they are.

And, what the hell, if we are throwing out 'Evolution', what do you propose we do with the sciences of archeeology, astrophysics, botony, paleontology, biogeography and zoolology? All of these need to be thrown out, along with evolution ... because they are interdependent.

So, come on ... don't ask question ... offer up your theory. What do we do with all of these 'unproven' areas of study .... I' mean, they are just theories, right?

 

[Flatlander]

If it is just a theory does it have any more scientific validity than religion? What do you think?

Well, the theory of evolution has observable evidence to support its validity.

I'm not sure that "evolution", per se, has ever been credited with the origin of life, rather, the evolution of life forms. The ongoing process of evolution doesn't really answer the question of how life began.

 

[heretic888]

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:

 

[Christopher Umbs]

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:

Ah.. a fellow Wilberite!

Chris

 

[heretic888]

Ah.. a fellow Wilberite!

:supcool:

 

[Kane]

Hey Kane ...

Gravity is just a theory, too.

What is your fundamentalist religion version of this theory? Why does **** stay where we put it, usually? Why doesn't it float around? After all, Gravity is just a theory? What does the bible say about that?

And, aren't you getting a little tired of hearing about these things called, random mutation and natural selection, without understanding thing one (or thing two) about them? Why don't you go to the library, and find a book authored by someone other than King James to find out what they are.

And, what the hell, if we are throwing out 'Evolution', what do you propose we do with the sciences of archeeology, astrophysics, botony, paleontology, biogeography and zoolology? All of these need to be thrown out, along with evolution ... because they are interdependent.

So, come on ... don't ask question ... offer up your theory. What do we do with all of these 'unproven' areas of study .... I' mean, they are just theories, right?

Dude calm yourself down. This thread has nothing to do with evolution vs religion; I don't know where you are getting the idea otherwise.

This thread is only to discuss alternative theories of how life arose, and whether they are better explanation than evolution (that can be tested via scientific method). So please keep off religion, 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.

 

[Kane]

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:

So basicly evolution is the best theory we have now for explaining how life arose, right? At least one that is more testable than other theories. What are some other good theories on how life arose?

 

[michaeledward]

So please keep off religion, 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.

If that were true, you wouldn't even have started this thread.

 

[heretic888]

Dude calm yourself down. This thread has nothing to do with evolution vs religion; I don't know where you are getting the idea otherwise.

It could be because part of your first post was:

Or has evolution ever been really proven or is it just a theory right now? If it is just a theory does it have any more scientific validity than religion? What do you think?

This thread is only to discuss alternative theories of how life arose, and whether they are better explanation than evolution (that can be tested via scientific method).

Once again, neo-Darwinism does not claim to explain "how life arose" (i.e., how the first single-called organisms emerged). It merely attempts to explain the process of speciation that began after living organisms had emerged.

After all, "random genetic variation" makes very little sense if there's no genes around to diversify. Cells have genes, minerals and water do not.

So please keep off religion, 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.

That seems unlikely, given that you constantly describe evolutionary theory as explaining the "origin of life" and as being "just a theory".

 

[heretic888]

So basicly evolution is the best theory we have now for explaining how life arose, right?

Once again, neo-Darwinian evolution does not attempt to explain how life first began. Some alternative evolutionary theories might perhaps border on explaining this, but traditional neo-Darwinism does not.

At least one that is more testable than other theories. What are some other good theories on how life arose?

The only testable and falsifiable theories that you are looking for are different models of organic evolution. They all accept evolution of some kind as a given (so to speak), but explain it using different mechanisms.

There are a lot of different explanations out there --- neo-Lamarckian inheritance mechanisms, self-organizing complexity hierarchies, morphogentic fields and morphic resonance, genetic hybridization models, directional feedback loops, and so on --- but, not one of them rejects the existence of evolutionary change.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[qizmoduis]

So basicly evolution is the best theory we have now for explaining how life arose, right? At least one that is more testable than other theories. What are some other good theories on how life arose?

No. The current "Theory of Evolution" is the best scientific model that explains how evolution happened. The TOE does not address the beginnings of life itself, but rather attempts to address the mechanisms (note the plural) that effected the evolution that is observed in the fossil record. You need to be careful not to confuse the terms. Evolution <> TOE <> how life arose.

 

[heretic888]

No. The current "Theory of Evolution" is the best scientific model that explains how evolution happened. The TOE does not address the beginnings of life itself, but rather attempts to address the mechanisms (note the plural) that effected the evolution that is observed in the fossil record. You need to be careful not to confuse the terms. Evolution <> TOE <> how life arose.

:asian:

 

[Kane]

If that were true, you wouldn't even have started this thread.

What? Are you that much of a radical to assume anything conflicting evolution is religious talk? Again this thread is to discuss alternative scientific theories to the origin of life, not religion.

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

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)?

 

[MisterMike]

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

centripetal force and centrifugal force, action-reaction force pair associated with circular motion. According to Newton's first law of motion, a moving body travels along a straight path with constant speed (i.e., has constant velocity) unless it is acted on by an outside force. For circular motion to occur there must be a constant force acting on a body, pushing it toward the center of the circular path. This force is the centripetal (“center-seeking”) force. For a planet orbiting the sun, the force is gravitational; for an object twirled on a string, the force is mechanical; for an electron orbiting an atom, it is electrical. The magnitude F of the centripetal force is equal to the mass m of the body times its velocity squared v 2 divided by the radius r of its path: F=mv2/r. According to Newton's third law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The centripetal force, the action, is balanced by a reaction force, the centrifugal (“center-fleeing”) force. The two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The centrifugal force does not act on the body in motion; the only force acting on the body in motion is the centripetal force. The centrifugal force acts on the source of the centripetal force to displace it radially from the center of the path. Thus, in twirling a mass on a string, the centripetal force transmitted by the string pulls in on the mass to keep it in its circular path, while the centrifugal force transmitted by the string pulls outward on its point of attachment at the center of the path. The centrifugal force is often mistakenly thought to cause a body to fly out of its circular path when it is released; rather, it is the removal of the centripetal force that allows the body to travel in a straight line as required by Newton's first law. If there were in fact a force acting to force the body out of its circular path, its path when released would not be the straight tangential course that is always observed.

This is still simpler than the "Theory" of evolution. Those snooty scientists still fight over that one.

 

[michaeledward]

What? Are you that much of a radical to assume anything conflicting evolution is religious talk? Again this thread is to discuss alternative scientific theories to the origin of life, not religion.

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

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)?

Radical is not a term I use to describe myself, or my opinions.

As has been pointed out, Darwin's text was the 'Origin of Species'. No where in his ideas did he discuss the rise of life (as I understand it).

Someone who does not think the 'Theory of Evolution' and the 'Theory of Gravity' are of equally settled science should be loath to claim superior knowledge on the subject.

 

[Kane]

Radical is not a term I use to describe myself, or my opinions.

As has been pointed out, Darwin's text was the 'Origin of Species'. No where in his ideas did he discuss the rise of life (as I understand it).

Someone who does not think the 'Theory of Evolution' and the 'Theory of Gravity' are of equally settled science should be loath to claim superior knowledge on the subject.

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.

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.

 

[michaeledward]

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.

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.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I do believe that 'radical' and 'liberal' are very different items, and quite possibly mutually exclusive.

The 'origin of species' and the 'rise of life', I believe, are just as different as 'radical' and 'liberal'. Darwin believed in a diety. Most scientists today are also believers in a higher power. There is nothing in Darwin's theory of evolution that precludes a belief in God, or gods.

I think that you are assuming that those who are opposed to the theory of evolution are numerous. They certainly are vocal. 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.

In order to accept Intelligent Design, one must disregard all of the other tenets of science and fields of science, not just evolution.

As to what actually spurred the start of life ... choose your poison ... A supreme diety, aliens, or electromagnetic and chemical chance. None of these items is connected to the 'Origin of Species' or the 'Theory of Evolution'.

 

[evenflow1121]

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.

Evolution tries to explain how a species adapts and survives to a changing world. There is good evidence out there to back it up. It is not a principle yet as you stated it is a theory, but I am sure it will one day become a principle at least in part anyway.

 

[michaeledward]

The assumption that 'athiesm' is behind, or part of the Theory of Evolution is erroneous. Belief in a supreme spiritual being is beyond the scope of Darwin.

I am wondering what 'fanatics' you are referring to in your comments.