Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Ophiolite]

You've confused evolution with abiogenesis, stated that evolution is random and that theories can be proved. You've also proposed a theological position as an alternative to a scientific theory.

I'm not sure that you're in the right thread.

Or century.

(My embolding.)

 

[sjastro]

I assume you mean to evolutionary theory. There's Lamarckism. It was seriously considered as late as the 1950s in the Soviet Union. By that time, pretty much every scientist knew it was wrong, but a crackpot charlatan got the attention of a aging and confused authoritarian leader, and suddenly, it was the official doctrine, in spite of real scientists pointing out that it was hooey.

Don't know why I thought of this just now...
View attachment 368359

A stark illustration of evolution, note the similarities and RFK Jr's reaction when his request for a banana was rejected.

 

[AV1611VET]

What other 'theories' should be given their fair share of attention? Please name one.

Saltationism

 

[Bradskii]

​

A stark illustration of evolution, note the similarities and RFK Jr's reaction when his request for a banana was rejected.

Have those two ever been seen in the same room together? I think not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Now don't take this the wrong way but scientists are sounding alot like politicians anymore. If one can't convince the crowd using this terminology use different terminology (preferable words created by other scientists.

This was oddly in response to a sequence of increasingly useful models of atoms from the early 20th century. Your response makes no sense.

In the real world, we have answer A or answer B or answer C for very tough problems. They may all work to some extent or another. The person gets to pick which one they like they best for them. They don't have like in science, answer A stroke 01 section 1 subcatagory a as part of the answer and answer C stroke 05 section 2 subcatagory 20 is part of the first answer as well.

Firstly, science *is* the description of "the real world".
Second, very tough problems often don't have simple answers, in science or the rest of the "real world".

Nowadays, if someone's scientific theory is not liked by others in the scientific community that scientist is tarred and feathered

Nonsense!

- remember Clovis First and "there is a hot plasma field at the very end of the known solar system". Let all theories have their fair share of attention until proven (beyond a shadow of a doubt) by a definite and final answer.

I do remember "Clovis First" and it was on the way out when I learned of it in the mid 90s. The evidence is clear that people entered the Americas thousands of years before the Clovis culture formed.

What do you mean by "the hot plasma field" at the "end of the known solar system"? There is the Heliopause, a "hot" plasma phenomenon where the solar wind collides with the ISM. Then there is the bubble of hot plasma from a series of old supernovae that the solar system is embedded in.

All we want is scientist to be humble in presenting their theories and stop spitting on the alternate theories.

I will continue to spit on non-scientific "theories" masquerading as science like "intelligent design" and "electric universe".

 

[sjastro]

Have those two ever been seen in the same room together? I think not.

If the chimp was vaccinated highly unlikely as RFK Jr would be worried he would catch autism.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Saltationism

I.
DIDN'T.
ASK YOU.

 

[AV1611VET]

I.
DIDN'T.
ASK YOU.

Should I have raised my hand first?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Should I have raised my hand first?

Or maybe, you don't answer questions that aren't directed at you in any way shape or form. Is that too hard?

 

[The Barbarian]

Saltationism

For a long time, saltationism was a challenge to Darwinian theory. Darwin's associate, Huxley suggested that Darwin unnecessarily rejected rapid evoltionary change. Into the 1950s, Goldschmidt, with his "hopeful monster" theory, challenged Darwinism. Ultimately, the evidence tilted things toward gradualism.

Then, Eldridge and Gould, considering Mayr's observation that aberrant species tended to be found in isolated environments, proposed punctuated equilibrium. Small populations in new environments, they wrote, will evolve rapidly (in geologic terms) until they are fitted to the environment, and enter a much longer period of stasis where little evolution occurs.

The theory is generally accepted by scientists. While Darwin did point out that a fitted population would evolve very little, he never accepted the idea of rapid change, citing Leibniz "natura non facit saltus."

Punctuated equilibrium got a boost from the observation of lizards moved to an Adriatic island, which have evolved rapidly with extensive changes, including the evolution of a new digestive organ. In just a few decades, they evolved remarkably quickly.

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

The changes should take millions of years-but these creatures are doing it in mere decades.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[AV1611VET]

Punctuated equilibrium got a boost from the observation of lizards moved to an Adriatic island, which have evolved rapidly with extensive changes, including the evolution of a new digestive organ. In just a few decades, they evolved remarkably quickly.

Then too there's biological structuralism.

I have a feeling Darwinian evolution isn't the only kid on the block.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

... Okay, so your statement of "They want all the attention for their answers to problems because they are more scientifically advanced then the alt theorists." is... I really cannot parse what you're trying to say. Are you upset that, because scientists and the scientific community actually knows what they're doing and knows how to study evidence and draw conclusions from that while many alternative theories cannot (and that is a fact by the way)? Are you upset that scientists actually do their job they're trained and have studied their lives to do and they get upset when some crank trying to push a non-scientific theory comes along and tries to pretend they're even in the same league?

Is any of that wrong?

I had to sleep on this one . Sorry, I don't want to make it sound like the science community doesn't know what they are talking about and that alternate theories put out by non-scientist hold more credibility. People in the scientific fields have helped and informed the world on very crucial matters. It is just that some theories are a slap in the face to average people (and especially religious people). So just like Christians telling you that God created everything in six days is a slap in the face to you so "man first started out as a single celled organism" is a slap in the face to many religious people.

Of course, you are not going to see it that way because "you have the facts". As I said before, you may have 50 pieces to the 100,000 piece puzzle put together but you are "No Jack Kennedy" (the old throw back line from the Dan Quayle vs Lloyd Bentsen Vice Presidential Debate; I know it doesn't make sense here but it just popped into my head and I felt like using it ).

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Guess how I know you haven't read any scientific literature.

Oh, yes I have but not whole books just scientific papers written by third party people because most scientists can speak "common man tongue". I prefer videos though. I can easily sit and listen to a three hour video on the life of the Neanderthals in Europe or a two hour lecture on Homo erectus morphing into Homo florensiensis while living in Southeast Asia.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Okay, that's not an alternative scientific theory, that's a theological position. What you're talking about is not science but religious belief, which is not something science deals with in the slightest because religion is a person's personal belief with many claims that cannot be studied or have evidence for outside of subjective personal claims and claims of the supernatural.

I am curious so I'm going to ask this question once more: What other 'theories' should be given their fair share of attention? Please name one.

That is not only a theological topic, it is a real scientific topic if one has eyes to see it. I'm sure you have heard of the Enuma Elish, the Akkadian creation story. There is information in there that sounds like a grand way to start thinking humans. I don't subscribe to everything that is put forth in the document but it is very reasonable and possible that something similar happened here on Earth. It make better sense than the single cells forming miraculously in primordial soup. This alternate theory may not have nearly as much physical evidence as the scientific one but it is worth pursuing.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

You're confusing hypothesis with theory. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been confirmed with massive amounts of evidence.

Stop with your scientific talk "you're confusing hypothesis with theory". Use "common man" language if you want someone to understand you. In "common man language hypothesis and theory are the exact same - an idea. And one has certain facts to back up their idea. You have an idea and these are the facts used to back it up - period.

So many certain scientist have an idea that humans began as a single celled organism miraculously put together in a primordial soup. Higher Power people have many theories but this is the one I will use and that is that a Higher Power created or manipulated humans (miraculously or by doing something with their genes). Not many facts to go on right now but it is worth pursuing because it makes good sense.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Nobody is claiming such a thing happened.

Ok, now you are either lying or you don't know what you are talking about but what the "common man" gets from listening to alot in the scientific community is humans started out as single celled organisms and over a long long long period of time, we evolved into what we are today. Am I missing something here.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. You've just bought into some creationist fantasy about the theory.

So are you saying that these elements of life were brought together by some force (possibly miraculous and intelligent) and it was planned out by these elements of life that they were going to come together to form a simple single celled organism.

 

[The Barbarian]

Oh, yes I have but not whole books just scientific papers written by third party people because most scientists can speak "common man tongue". I prefer videos though. I can easily sit and listen to a three hour video on the life of the Neanderthals in Europe or a two hour lecture on Homo erectus morphing into Homo florensiensis while living in Southeast Asia.

Science is not done in books. "Third party" won't cut it. If you don't read the primary literature, you've missed it.

 

[River Jordan]

This alternate theory may not have nearly as much physical evidence as the scientific one but it is worth pursuing.

Then the people who believe in it should pursue it! Scientists aren't obligated to spend precious time and resources investigating every single belief that's out there.

Higher Power people have many theories but this is the one I will use and that is that a Higher Power created or manipulated humans (miraculously or by doing something with their genes). Not many facts to go on right now but it is worth pursuing because it makes good sense.

My reply is the same. If you think it's worth pursuing then go pursue it! Show everyone how it's better and go from there.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

You've confused evolution with abiogenesis, stated that evolution is random and that theories can be proved. You've also proposed a theological position as an alternative to a scientific theory.

I'm not sure that you're in the right thread.

I'm always the one who is confused. Maybe it is all you science oriented posters out there who can't calmly express what the heck you are talking about. As I said to one of the other posters, theory and hypothesis are the same in "common man tongue"; they are an idea. Alot of scientists have the idea that man evolved from a single celled organism many many many millions of years ago. You have your facts to back up your idea.

Continue reading my other posts to others about what I believe and how it's not only a theological theory.