Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

The Barbarian · Saturday at 10:54 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
In your scientific world, a "theory" is the law of the land util proven wrong. This is why we average people have a mistrust in your scientific explanations. You spit on alternate theories and ideas that have just as sensible explanation as the scientific one. Remember, it's a big boat, let's try to get along with each other.

Here, you're confusing scientific laws and scientific theories. And competing theories often exist together for considerable periods of time, until one or the other more adequately explains observed phenomena. Thompson's "plum pudding" model of the atom competed with Rutherford's orbital model for quite a while. Both have now been replaced by models that more accurately explained new observation.

No one in science argued that any of them were immutable laws of reality.

Hvizsgyak · 2025-08-10T16:54:04-0500

The Barbarian said:
Here, you're confusing scientific laws and scientific theories. And competing theories often exist together for considerable periods of time, until one or the other more adequately explains observed phenomena. Thompson's "plum pudding" model of the atom competed with Rutherford's orbital model for quite a while. Both have now been replaced by models that more accurately explained new observation.

No one in science argued that any of them were immutable laws of reality.

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.

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.

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

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

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-08-10T17:02:14-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
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.

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.

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

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

Not all hypothesis and ideas deserve their 'fair' share of attention. Some are worthless to science and humanity and were created with an agenda behind it. Actual scientific hypothesis, ideas and theories are ones that have actual scientific evidence that is corroborated over many years by many scientists and by many different disciplines.

But let's throw you a bone here. What other 'theories' should be given their fair share of attention? Please name one.

Hvizsgyak · 2025-08-10T17:03:19-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
So your entire problem is that alternative ideas, that do not have the same evidence and support as actual scientific theories do, aren't given the same credence and air time as actual theories. Am I wrong in that assessment or not?

If there are 100, 000 pieces to a puzzle and I have 10 pieces put together and and in your same but own puzzle you have 25 pieces put together both of our guesses to what the overall picture is is absolutely silly.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-08-10T17:05:21-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
If there are 100, 000 pieces to a puzzle and I have 10 pieces put together and and in your same but own puzzle you have 25 pieces put together both of our guesses to what the overall picture is is absolutely silly.

Please answer the question as it's been put to you: So your entire problem is that alternative ideas, that do not have the same evidence and support as actual scientific theories do, aren't given the same credence and air time as actual theories. Am I wrong in that assessment or not?

Hvizsgyak · 2025-08-10T17:05:24-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Not all hypothesis and ideas deserve their 'fair' share of attention. Some are worthless to science and humanity and were created with an agenda behind it. Actual scientific hypothesis, ideas and theories are ones that have actual scientific evidence that is corroborated over many years by many scientists and by many different disciplines.

But let's throw you a bone here. What other 'theories' should be given their fair share of attention? Please name one.

See my latest post to you. Your answer to the existence of man (evolution) is no closer than some others that science rejects.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-08-10T17:09:52-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
See my latest post to you. Your answer to the existence of man (evolution) is no closer than some others that science rejects.

No, I actually want you to answer the question: What other 'theories' should be given their fair share of attention? Please name one.

And no, actually, the theory of evolution is MUCH closer than many others that science rejects. Because it has actual evidence and workable hypothesis behind it, in both the fields of biology; with the specifics of genetics and molecular biology, ecology, comparative anatomy and embryology, as well as paleontology, archeology, bio-geography and anthropology, specifically paleoanthropology.
In science, it's always the evidence that supports a theory and evolution has a LOT of evidence.

Hvizsgyak · 2025-08-10T17:12:02-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Please answer the question as it's been put to you: So your entire problem is that alternative ideas, that do not have the same evidence and support as actual scientific theories do, aren't given the same credence and air time as actual theories. Am I wrong in that assessment or not?

Oh, those alternate theories are given the airtime and then some hence the crankiness of the scientific community alot of the time. They want all the attention for their answers to problems because they are more scientifically advanced then the alt theorists. And as I said before if science only has 25 pieces to the 100,000 piece puzzle that's nothing to toot one's horn over. When science has 90,000 pieces of the puzzle put together, yes people should pay better attention to sciences theories (not fully figured out but pretty darn close now).

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-08-10T17:16:29-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
Oh, those alternate theories are given the airtime and then some hence the crankiness of the scientific community alot of the time. They want all the attention for their answers to problems because they are more scientifically advanced then the alt theorists. And as I said before if science only has 25 pieces to the 100,000 piece puzzle that's nothing to toot one's horn over. When science has 90,000 pieces of the puzzle put together, yes people should pay better attention to sciences theories (not fully figured out but pretty darn close now).

... 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?

Hvizsgyak · 2025-08-10T17:17:31-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, I actually want you to answer the question: What other 'theories' should be given their fair share of attention? Please name one.

And no, actually, the theory of evolution is MUCH closer than many others that science rejects. Because it has actual evidence and workable hypothesis behind it, in both the fields of biology; with the specifics of genetics and molecular biology, ecology, comparative anatomy and embryology, as well as paleontology, archeology, bio-geography and anthropology, specifically paleoanthropology.
In science, it's always the evidence that supports a theory and evolution has a LOT of evidence.

I take sides with a Higher Power started the process not some random chance that in the primordial waters things put themselves together by chance to create an organism. Both may sound crazy but at least through our day to day actions, humans have created some amazing things so having a Higher Power starting life on Earth doesn't sound so far fetched.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-08-10T17:19:51-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
I take sides with a Higher Power started the process not some random chance that in the primordial waters things put themselves together by chance to create an organism. Both may sound crazy but at least through our day to day actions, humans have created some amazing things so having a Higher Power starting life on Earth doesn't sound so far fetched.

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.

The Barbarian · 2025-08-10T17:22:49-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
Now don't take this the wrong way but scientists are sounding alot like politicians anymore.

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

Hvizsgyak said:
In the real world, we have answer A or answer B or answer C for very tough problems.

Kinda like the Thompson model of the atom vs. the Rutherford model.

Hvizsgyak said:
They may all work to some extent or another.

As did both of those models. Over time, as we learned more about atoms, the Rutherford model could explain more than the Thompson model, which was eventually discarded.

Hvizsgyak said:
The person gets to pick which one they like they best for them.

Reality doesn't work that way. You're thinking of engineering, not science.

Hvizsgyak said:
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.

Yep. Never read the scientific literature. Might be worth checking out, if for nothing else, debunking some of the stories someone told you.

NxNW · 2025-08-10T17:23:01-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
Nowadays, if someone's scientific theory is not liked by others in the scientific community that scientist is tarred and feathered - remember Clovis First and "there is a hot plasma field at the very end of the known solar system".

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

Creationism is not a theory.

Hvizsgyak said:
Let all theories have their fair share of attention until proven (beyond a shadow of a doubt) by a definite and final answer.

Theories are never proven beyond a doubt.

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

There are no alternate theories.

NxNW · 2025-08-10T17:24:53-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
I take sides with a Higher Power started the process not some random chance that in the primordial waters things put themselves together by chance to create an organism.

Nobody is claiming such a thing happened.

The Barbarian · 2025-08-10T17:32:34-0500

NxNW said:
There are no alternate theories.

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...

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-08-10T17:37:36-0500

The Barbarian said:
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.

I wouldn't call Stalin 'aged and confused' when it was the 30s. He knew what he was doing when he saw a 'communist way' of doing biology. He was just flat out wrong about it because he accepted the idea of there being a 'communist way' of doing biology.

The Barbarian · 2025-08-10T17:37:54-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
I take sides with a Higher Power started the process not some random chance

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

Hvizsgyak said:
in the primordial waters things put themselves together by chance to create an organism.

Another good example. Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origin of life. Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. Why not go look it up and see? Hint; go to an actual science website. If you can't find one, I'll show you. Let me know.

Hvizsgyak said:
Both may sound crazy but at least through our day to day actions, humans have created some amazing things so having a Higher Power starting life on Earth doesn't sound so far fetched.

Darwin thought so. I think so, too. Our difference, is that I'm O.K with the way He did it.

The Barbarian · 2025-08-10T17:43:19-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I wouldn't call Stalin 'aged and confused' when it was the 30s

In the 50s.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
He knew what he was doing when he saw a 'communist way' of doing biology.

That was Lysenko's notion that genetics and Darwinism were "bourgeoisie programs" contrary to Marxist dialectic. He got Stalin's support in 1947.
In 1948, it was announced that Lysenkoism was "the only correct theory."

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-08-10T17:50:59-0500

The Barbarian said:
In the 50s.

That was Lysenko's notion that genetics and Darwinism were "bourgeoisie programs" contrary to Marxist dialectic. He got Stalin's support in 1947.
In 1948, it was announced that Lysenkoism was "the only correct theory."

From the wikipage:

Support from Joseph Stalin increased Lysenko's popularity. In 1935, Lysenko compared his opponents in biology to the peasants who still resisted the Soviet government's collectivization strategy, saying that by opponents of his theories were opponents of Marxism. Stalin was in the audience for this speech, and was the first to stand and applaud, calling out "Bravo, Comrade Lysenko. Bravo."[26] Stalin personally made encouraging edits to a speech by Lysenko, despite the dictator's skepticism toward Lysenko's assertion that all science is class-orientated.[27] The official support emboldened Lysenko and gave him and Prezent free rein to slander any geneticists who still spoke out against him. After Lysenko became head of the Soviet Academy of Agricultural Sciences, classical genetics began to be called "fascist science"[28] and many of Lysenkoism's opponents, such as his former mentor Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, were imprisoned or executed, although not on Lysenko's personal orders.[29][22]

It's all got to start somewhere. Not saying you're wrong at all, because you are right about Lysenkosim getting it's official state support in the late 40s, but it started in the 30s.

And yes, to anyone else, this is INCREDIBLY off-topic, but OP's doing nothing with the thread, so... hey-ho.

Bradskii · 2025-08-10T19:13:15-0500

Hvizsgyak said:
I take sides with a Higher Power...

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.

Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Similar threads