If macroevolution is incorrect, then what replaces it? (Please read OP before commenting)

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is the assumption of the OP:

• If someone claims that the solution to a problem is incorrect, then they are obliged to offer a new solution to the problem.

That's false. Everyone knows it's false. The OP is based on a fallacy.

When it comes to talking about evolutionary theory, a key stone in biological science, you kind of are obliged to offer a new solution to the problem.

Now if you're just going to say that my OP is based on a fallacy as you see it, I am going to have a moderator involved and ask them to remove you from the thread because I am getting annoyed.

 

[jacknife]

This is the assumption of the OP:

• If someone claims that the solution to a problem is incorrect, then they are obliged to offer a new solution to the problem.

That's false. Everyone knows it's false. The OP is based on a fallacy.

Evolution isn't a solution to a problem it's an observation of a phenomenon if you disagree with it. Perhaps you could offer a different observation.
EDIT explination would have been a better word choice there i'm sorry.

 

[zippy2006]

Evolution isn't a solution to a problem it's an observation of a phenomenon if you disagree with it. Perhaps you could offer a different observation.
EDIT explination would have been a better word choice there i'm sorry.

This is the same fallacy. Just take my statement above and replace "problem" with "explanation" (or 'interpretation'). There's no difference here.

----------------

When it comes to talking about evolutionary theory, a key stone in biological science, you kind of are obliged to offer a new solution to the problem.

No, you're not. It doesn't matter what we're talking about. It could be the greatest thing since sliced bread. If it's wrong I can say it's wrong without offering an alternative. Naysayers and skeptics have no obligation to produce something better.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, you're not. It doesn't matter what we're talking about. It could be the greatest thing since sliced bread. If it's wrong I can say it's wrong without offering an alternative.

Yes, you do have to offer an alternative because you can't just say it's wrong, especially when you're talking about science.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, you do have to offer an alternative because you can't just say it's wrong, especially when you're talking about science.

Answered here and here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Answered here and here.

What happened to the theory of spontaneous generation?

 

[jacknife]

This is the same fallacy. Just take my statement above and replace "problem" with "explanation" (or 'interpretation'). There's no difference here.

----------------



No, you're not. It doesn't matter what we're talking about. It could be the greatest thing since sliced bread. If it's wrong I can say it's wrong without offering an alternative. Naysayers and skeptics have no obligation to produce something better.

How do you figure? Could you imagine if someone said that's not thier interpretation and then when asked about it just shrugged thier shoulders?

 

[Yttrium]

Yes, you do have to offer an alternative because you can't just say it's wrong, especially when you're talking about science.

I've been thinking about this, and let me propose a test case.

Let's say we found a genetic block in the DNA of all species. Something that prevents genetic change beyond certain limits, thus establishing what we could call "kinds". This would effectively kill macroevolution. But we would have nothing to replace it. We're certainly not going to put together a theory that involves the supernatural.

So although a great deal of evolution theory would remain, macroevolution and the overall Theory of Evolution (all living things sharing common ancestors) would have to be thrown out with nothing replacing it, at least for the time being.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I've been thinking about this, and let me propose a test case.

Let's say we found a genetic block in the DNA of all species. Something that prevents genetic change beyond certain limits, thus establishing what we could call "kinds". This would effectively kill macroevolution. But we would have nothing to replace it. We're certainly not going to put together a theory that involves the supernatural.

So although a great deal of evolution theory would remain, macroevolution and the overall Theory of Evolution (all living things sharing common ancestors) would have to be thrown out with nothing replacing it, at least for the time being.

That answer I can accept, but something will have to replace the theory that was shown to be wrong. That's what I'm getting at. It it takes a week, a month, a year, a decade, a century, something would replace macroevolution and the theory of evolution (by extension).

 

[zippy2006]

How do you figure? Could you imagine if someone said that's not thier interpretation and then when asked about it just shrugged thier shoulders?

Hmm? But they don't say, "That's not my interpretation." They say, "Your interpretation is wrong because of x, y, z."

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

After going through the many, many, many pages of @pitabread's thread: Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution, and seeing the comments from a certain poster on this forum about micro and macroevolution, I do have to ask this question to the people who say that macroevolution is false or incorrect or just wrong, while microevolution is scientifically correct: what replaces macroevolution if it is wrong?

You can't just say 'creationism' or Creation because they're unscientific and incorrect too, so what replaces macroevolution?

"After seeing that the opinion of macroevolution is wrong, what replaces it? oh and you can't say creationism because I don't like it I mean it's not scientific" bahahahahahahahaha @Warden_of_the_Storm I get it that @HARK! saying the toothfairy probably offended you a bit but he doesn't have to prove that macroevolution is wrong he's just answering a ridiculous question with a ridiculous answer.

True science is the study of God's creation, and you cannot use the study of the created to disprove what the Creator said was done to create His creation, ie creationism. The whole idea behind evolution in itself is wrong, did you know Darwin stayed up late at the idea of the eye and how complex it is? it couldnt have evolved it had to have been created.

If you saw a rolex in the woods would you think "wow nice random happenstance from billions of years" or "this must have been made by someone"? The same goes for something as complex as dna. There are no in-betweens of animals currently or in fossil form there are only adaptations. Thus the term "missing link" the link between man and ape is MISSING

 

[driewerf]

"After seeing that the opinion of macroevolution is wrong, what replaces it? oh and you can't say creationism because I don't like it I mean it's not scientific" bahahahahahahahaha @Warden_of_the_Storm I get it that @HARK! saying the toothfairy probably offended you a bit but he doesn't have to prove that macroevolution is wrong he's just answering a ridiculous question with a ridiculous answer.

True science is the study of God's creation, and you cannot use the study of the created to disprove what the Creator said was done to create His creation, ie creationism. The whole idea behind evolution in itself is wrong, did you know Darwin stayed up late at the idea of the eye and how complex it is? it couldnt have evolved it had to have been created.

If you saw a rolex in the woods would you think "wow nice random happenstance from billions of years" or "this must have been made by someone"? The same goes for something as complex as dna. There are no in-betweens of animals currently or in fossil form there are only adaptations. Thus the term "missing link" the link between man and ape is MISSING

troll? Poe?

 

[NBB]

Almost every part of your body has something in its design that 'considers/shares/takes in acccount' other parts of the body, almost like if someone intelligent made it or something... and then mix up the mind, how evolution could create appreciation for beauty, pondering about life and spiritual needs...

How evolution managed to do that, considering our bodies are more advanced than anything humans can do and evolution is a process so weak as explained by evolutionists compared to what processes humans make, but what humans make produce a lot less expectacular results.

When evolutionist say some creationists go with the 'argument from incredulity' I say i don't believe an ant can't lift a boulder either.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

troll? Poe?

@driewerf
"troll?" no not a troll its a forum post
"poe?" what does poe even mean

 

[Bradskii]

After going through the many, many, many pages of @pitabread's thread: Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution, and seeing the comments from a certain poster on this forum about micro and macroevolution, I do have to ask this question to the people who say that macroevolution is false or incorrect or just wrong, while microevolution is scientifically correct: what replaces macroevolution if it is wrong?

You can't just say 'creationism' or Creation because they're unscientific and incorrect too, so what replaces macroevolution?

There isn't a scientific alternative. I know that. You know that. Everyone who has posted so far knows that. And we all knew it before you started the thread. So I am a little bemused that you asked a question that you knew (and everyone else knew) wouldn't have an answer.

People who reject the evolutionary process haven't studied the process, found the science wanting and then went looking for a better answer. They started with the answer - creationism, in the first place. And then tried to dismantle the evidence that doesn't lead to where they need to go.

It's the very antithesis of the scientific process. So expecting a scientific answer is something of a fool's errand.

 

[DamianWarS]

After going through the many, many, many pages of @pitabread's thread: Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution, and seeing the comments from a certain poster on this forum about micro and macroevolution, I do have to ask this question to the people who say that macroevolution is false or incorrect or just wrong, while microevolution is scientifically correct: what replaces macroevolution if it is wrong?

You can't just say 'creationism' or Creation because they're unscientific and incorrect too, so what replaces macroevolution?

micro vs macro is a false dichotomy where in fact the former may contribute to the latter.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"After seeing that the opinion of macroevolution is wrong, what replaces it? oh and you can't say creationism because I don't like it I mean it's not scientific" bahahahahahahahaha @Warden_of_the_Storm I get it that @HARK! saying the toothfairy probably offended you a bit but he doesn't have to prove that macroevolution is wrong he's just answering a ridiculous question with a ridiculous answer.

True science is the study of God's creation, and you cannot use the study of the created to disprove what the Creator said was done to create His creation, ie creationism. The whole idea behind evolution in itself is wrong, did you know Darwin stayed up late at the idea of the eye and how complex it is? it couldnt have evolved it had to have been created.

If you saw a rolex in the woods would you think "wow nice random happenstance from billions of years" or "this must have been made by someone"? The same goes for something as complex as dna. There are no in-betweens of animals currently or in fossil form there are only adaptations. Thus the term "missing link" the link between man and ape is MISSING

I don't think that you're here to have an honest talk, so I'll kindly ask you to leave the forum.

Your comments about Darwin and the evolution of the eye, a rolex in the woods being similar to DNA and also your claims about missing links are all points that have been refuted practically a thousand times, so I do not consider this post to be anything worthwhile.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There isn't a scientific alternative. I know that. You know that. Everyone who has posted so far knows that. And we all knew it before you started the thread. So I am a little bemused that you asked a question that you knew (and everyone else knew) wouldn't have an answer.

People who reject the evolutionary process haven't studied the process, found the science wanting and then went looking for a better answer. They started with the answer - creationism, in the first place. And then tried to dismantle the evidence that doesn't lead to where they need to go.

It's the very antithesis of the scientific process. So expecting a scientific answer is something of a fool's errand.

When the person making a claim saying that macroevolution is wrong claims to be a scientist, you would expect a scientific answer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

micro vs macro is a false dichotomy where in fact the former may contribute to the latter.

But the thread isn't about micro vs macro.

 

[Bradskii]

...the link between man and ape is MISSING

And there are still monkeys! How does that work?

Thanks for the heads-up on your knowledge of the matter in hand. It's always handy to get that sorted out up front so time and bandwidth aren't wasted later.

Here's some reading material for you: Humans are apes – ‘Great Apes’