Is there any other alternative scientific theory to evolution or does evolution fit the math best or vice versa?
Upvote
0
The Theory of Evolution
- Thread starter Pete Harcoff
- Start date
Aceldama
You may enter up to 25 ch
It seems that evolution fits into biology, geology, genetics and all other scientific studies quite well, no known problems, if there are, please tell.
The only alternative to Darwinian evolution I can think of is Lamarckism(?). Its been seriously falsified though. Can't think of any links for it right now.
The only alternative to Darwinian evolution I can think of is Lamarckism(?). Its been seriously falsified though. Can't think of any links for it right now.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Overall, the theory of evolution best explains what we observe...and because it is based on good science, it can be corrected or added to as we learn more.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Guessing is part of the scientific method, it is called developing a hypothesis.
1. Observe or see X
2. Think of all the different ways X could have come to be (guessing) and choose the one(s) that can be tested
3. Devise tests (this is where supernatural explanations stop being scientific, they cannot be tested)
4. Conduct tests and gather evidence/information designed to falsify the hypothesis
5. If the hypothesis is falsified it is thrown out as as not the explanation for observation X. Move on to another hypothesis
6. If the hypothesis is not falsified, devise and conduct further tests
7. If it is still not falsified, present the hypothesis to others to devise and conduct their own tests
8. Continue process until falsification OR
9. Present information and test results to a bunch of people via publication
10. Listen to criticisms and attempt to answer questions others bring up after reviewing all of the info and conducting their own tests
11. Continue testing and adding further possibility of falsification brought up by questions and criticisms and get others to do so as well
12. Somehwere in there make a prediction (If hypothesis about A is valid then Y should happen or be observed also) develop tests to verify or falsify predictions
Only after a "guess" has been tested by hundreds of independent scientists and every shred of evidence points to the same conclusion can anything become a scientific theory. The best thing is, the process NEVER stops...scientists still scrutinize every theory and try to poke holes in it...heck Einsteins Theory of Relativity is still being tested on a regular basis.
That evolution happened is accepted as fact, the various mechanisms by which it happened, when and where and how are constantly up for further hypotheses and testing and revision and new evidence...it is a process.
Sorry scientists if I oversimplified or missed anything...I am a layman trying to explain to other laymen
1. Observe or see X
2. Think of all the different ways X could have come to be (guessing) and choose the one(s) that can be tested
3. Devise tests (this is where supernatural explanations stop being scientific, they cannot be tested)
4. Conduct tests and gather evidence/information designed to falsify the hypothesis
5. If the hypothesis is falsified it is thrown out as as not the explanation for observation X. Move on to another hypothesis
6. If the hypothesis is not falsified, devise and conduct further tests
7. If it is still not falsified, present the hypothesis to others to devise and conduct their own tests
8. Continue process until falsification OR
9. Present information and test results to a bunch of people via publication
10. Listen to criticisms and attempt to answer questions others bring up after reviewing all of the info and conducting their own tests
11. Continue testing and adding further possibility of falsification brought up by questions and criticisms and get others to do so as well
12. Somehwere in there make a prediction (If hypothesis about A is valid then Y should happen or be observed also) develop tests to verify or falsify predictions
Only after a "guess" has been tested by hundreds of independent scientists and every shred of evidence points to the same conclusion can anything become a scientific theory. The best thing is, the process NEVER stops...scientists still scrutinize every theory and try to poke holes in it...heck Einsteins Theory of Relativity is still being tested on a regular basis.
That evolution happened is accepted as fact, the various mechanisms by which it happened, when and where and how are constantly up for further hypotheses and testing and revision and new evidence...it is a process.
Sorry scientists if I oversimplified or missed anything...I am a layman trying to explain to other laymen
Upvote
0
All the alternative theories have been falsified. Evolution is the only one left standing.
Upvote
0
Today at 12:52 PM LadyShea said this in Post #66
Guessing is part of the scientific method, it is called developing a hypothesis.
1. Observe or see X
2. Think of all the different ways X could have come to be (guessing) and choose the one(s) that can be tested
3. Devise tests (this is where supernatural explanations stop being scientific, they cannot be tested)
You did very well as a layman explaining to other laymen. There are a couple of things I would like to clarify.
#3 needs some expansion. It depends on how the "supernatural" is introduced. For instance, saying "God did it" isn't scientific. You have to say how God did it. And, of course, the how is a material method that can be tested. This is how Flood geology and YEC are scientific theories. Mentioning God doesn't automatically remove a theory from science. As Kitcher says "EVEN POSTULATING AN UNOBSERVED CREATOR NEED BE NO MORE UNSCIENTIFIC THAN POSTULATING UNOBSERVABLE PARTICLES. [emphasis mine] What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation." Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science, the Case against Creationism, 1982, page 125.
4. Conduct tests and gather evidence/information designed to falsify the hypothesis
5. If the hypothesis is falsified it is thrown out as as not the explanation for observation X. Move on to another hypothesis
6. If the hypothesis is not falsified, devise and conduct further tests
7. If it is still not falsified, present the hypothesis to others to devise and conduct their own tests
8. Continue process until falsification OR
9. Present information and test results to a bunch of people via publication
What actually happens here is that you are attempting to falsify all the explanations. What should happen is that you do succeed in falsifying all the hypotheses except one. This is the function of the controls to your experiment.
10. Listen to criticisms and attempt to answer questions others bring up after reviewing all of the info and conducting their own tests
What the critics will usually come up with are hypotheses that you have not adequately falsified and therefore your favored hypothesis still has rivals.
12. Somehwere in there make a prediction (If hypothesis about A is valid then Y should happen or be observed also) develop tests to verify or falsify predictions
Prediction comes in at the very beginning. Predictions are the observational consequences if the hypothesis is true.
Only after a "guess" has been tested by hundreds of independent scientists and every shred of evidence points to the same conclusion can anything become a scientific theory.
I know this is the popular idea, but reality is a little different. There is a huge gray area between hypotheses and theories, but this view that a hypothesis "grows up" to be a theory is not correct. Both hypotheses and theories are statements about the physical universe. Hypotheses are usually more limited statements while theories are broader statements that incorporate supported hypotheses.
For instance, a hypothesis is that basic Fibroblast Growth Factor is a mitogen for smooth muscle cells. A theory would be that bFGF is a mitogen for all mesenchymal cells (of which smooth muscle cells are just one type). The theory would incorporate the supported hypothesis that bFGF is a mitogen for smooth muscle cells.
Is this clear?
That evolution happened is accepted as fact, the various mechanisms by which it happened, when and where and how are constantly up for further hypotheses and testing and revision and new evidence...it is a process.
I would say evolution is accepted as (provisionally) fact. As you say, it is constantly being tested and someday it is possible that a new theory would supplant it.
However, once theories are falsified, they are gone for good. Creationism is a falsified theory.
Guessing is part of the scientific method, it is called developing a hypothesis.
1. Observe or see X
2. Think of all the different ways X could have come to be (guessing) and choose the one(s) that can be tested
3. Devise tests (this is where supernatural explanations stop being scientific, they cannot be tested)
You did very well as a layman explaining to other laymen. There are a couple of things I would like to clarify.
#3 needs some expansion. It depends on how the "supernatural" is introduced. For instance, saying "God did it" isn't scientific. You have to say how God did it. And, of course, the how is a material method that can be tested. This is how Flood geology and YEC are scientific theories. Mentioning God doesn't automatically remove a theory from science. As Kitcher says "EVEN POSTULATING AN UNOBSERVED CREATOR NEED BE NO MORE UNSCIENTIFIC THAN POSTULATING UNOBSERVABLE PARTICLES. [emphasis mine] What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation." Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science, the Case against Creationism, 1982, page 125.
4. Conduct tests and gather evidence/information designed to falsify the hypothesis
5. If the hypothesis is falsified it is thrown out as as not the explanation for observation X. Move on to another hypothesis
6. If the hypothesis is not falsified, devise and conduct further tests
7. If it is still not falsified, present the hypothesis to others to devise and conduct their own tests
8. Continue process until falsification OR
9. Present information and test results to a bunch of people via publication
What actually happens here is that you are attempting to falsify all the explanations. What should happen is that you do succeed in falsifying all the hypotheses except one. This is the function of the controls to your experiment.
10. Listen to criticisms and attempt to answer questions others bring up after reviewing all of the info and conducting their own tests
What the critics will usually come up with are hypotheses that you have not adequately falsified and therefore your favored hypothesis still has rivals.
12. Somehwere in there make a prediction (If hypothesis about A is valid then Y should happen or be observed also) develop tests to verify or falsify predictions
Prediction comes in at the very beginning. Predictions are the observational consequences if the hypothesis is true.
Only after a "guess" has been tested by hundreds of independent scientists and every shred of evidence points to the same conclusion can anything become a scientific theory.
I know this is the popular idea, but reality is a little different. There is a huge gray area between hypotheses and theories, but this view that a hypothesis "grows up" to be a theory is not correct. Both hypotheses and theories are statements about the physical universe. Hypotheses are usually more limited statements while theories are broader statements that incorporate supported hypotheses.
For instance, a hypothesis is that basic Fibroblast Growth Factor is a mitogen for smooth muscle cells. A theory would be that bFGF is a mitogen for all mesenchymal cells (of which smooth muscle cells are just one type). The theory would incorporate the supported hypothesis that bFGF is a mitogen for smooth muscle cells.
Is this clear?
That evolution happened is accepted as fact, the various mechanisms by which it happened, when and where and how are constantly up for further hypotheses and testing and revision and new evidence...it is a process.
I would say evolution is accepted as (provisionally) fact. As you say, it is constantly being tested and someday it is possible that a new theory would supplant it.
However, once theories are falsified, they are gone for good. Creationism is a falsified theory.
Upvote
0
From Darwin:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Does that answer your question?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
As I noted, Darwin assumed that God zapped life into existence. However, he also speculated how God did that.
There are several competing hypotheses on abiogenesis. The thread "Protocell redux" has one. Lahav's book Biogenesis discusses several others.
Upvote
0
CCWoody, the question on abiogenesis is usually asked by theists in the context of the theism vs atheism argument. Therefore it is questionable whether it is an acceptable question to ask "any Evolutionist". It usually signifies that the person is not discussing evolution, but using abiogenesis as a gap to insert God into and as a debating point in the atheism vs theism discussion.
Your statement also seems to indicate that, despite attempts to show you otherwise, you are equating "Evoutionist" with "atheist".
Upvote
0
I'm afraid the phrase "imperfect reproduction" was unfortunate. It's not possible to have perfect reproduction. Such would require more energy than is available in the entire universe.
The definition of life includes reproduction. For an entity to be "alive" it must do all of the following: metabolize (anabolize and catabolize), grow, respond to stimuli, and reproduce.
Upvote
0
All theories have boundaries. Gravity doesn't explain the cell. Cell theory doesn't explain the motion of planets.
Biological evolution is a theory on how the diversity of life on the planet came to be.
Abiogenesis is the study of how life arose from non-life. It is really a subset of chemistry.
It appears that your professors were imprecise. They used "evolution" in the broad colloquial definition. If you would provide me with their names in a PM, I would like to write them and discuss the situation with them. As the NAS has defined it, evolution is "descent with modification" for short. It does not include abiogenesis.
Upvote
0
Mules are the product of reproduction of two viable species.
Question: can a mule breed with a horse or with a donkey?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Especially in terms of the creationist argument, reproduction is a requirement. Horses can make horses. Donkeys can make donkeys. Together they can make a mule, which is sterile hybrid. But that doesn't negate the general rule of reproduction.
In order to have life in general, that life has to be able to reproduce. That mules are sterile doesn't stop the reproduction of horses and donkeys.
Upvote
0
This gets you into the "Demarcation Problem" or how to tell science from non-science. Philosophers of science have been trying for at least 5 centuries to come up with a criteria to tell what is science and what isn't. They haven't been successful.
However, science requires two things: 1) testing of an idea against the physical universe and 2) the testing to be the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances.
An idea that can't fit those two would fall outside of science.
Thus, the statement "God created" would be an unscientific idea. The idea of transubstantiation would also be unscientific.
That doesn't say anything about whether the ideas are correct or not. It only says they are unscientific.
Upvote
0
"Jack + mule = jule, or donkule
<LI class=txtBody4>Stallion + mule = hule "
<LI class=txtBody4>Seem they can breed back into horses or donkeys. Which is what I asked.
<LI class=txtBody4>http://www.luckythreeranch.com/muletrainer/mulefact.asp
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
