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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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?

 

[HARK!]

When you found out that what you were told about the Tooth Fairy was incorrect; what did you replace it with?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When you found out that what you were told about the Tooth Fairy was incorrect; what did you replace it with?

That's not answering my question. I'm not even going to call that an attempt at being honest in wanting to discuss the topic.

 

[HARK!]

That's not answering my question. I'm not even going to call that an attempt at being honest in wanting to discuss the topic.

It does answer your question. When I come to the conclusion that what someone told me was false; I don't feel the need to replace that falsehood with anything, but the simple truth that it is false.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It does answer your question. When I come to the conclusion that what someone told me was false; I don't feel the need to replace that falsehood with anything, but the simple truth that it is false.

Except that no-one has shown macroevolution, or even evolution itself, to be false. Just saying it's false does not make it false.

 

[HARK!]

Except that no-one has shown macroevolution, or even evolution itself, to be false. Just saying it's false does not make it false.

Apparently you aren't familiar with how logical arguments work.

The onus of proof falls on the person who makes the positive assertion.

The math doesn't seem to work.

Just saying that it true, doesn't make it true.

Can you prove it to be true, despite the fact that the math doesn't work?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Apparently you aren't familiar with how logical arguments work.

The onus of proof falls on the person who makes the positive assertion.

The math doesn't seem to work.

Just saying that it true, doesn't make it true.

Can you prove it to be true, despite the fact that the math doesn't work?

No, that's really not how logical arguments work. Or even arguments work. You make the claim, you present the evidence.

Show me that the math doesn't work. I've seen another poster make the exact claim that the math doesn't work and they gave nothing in reply except repeating that the math doesn't work.

You say it's wrong. Then show us.

 

[pitabread]

When you found out that what you were told about the Tooth Fairy was incorrect; what did you replace it with?

Insofar as an explanation for how the money got under the pillow? Easy, parents.

 

[HARK!]

No, that's really not how logical arguments work. Or even arguments work. You make the claim, you present the evidence.

Show me that the math doesn't work. I've seen another poster make the exact claim that the math doesn't work and they gave nothing in reply except repeating that the math doesn't work.

You say it's wrong. Then show us.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

If macroevolution is true; prove it.

If the math works; prove it.

 

[pitabread]

It does answer your question. When I come to the conclusion that what someone told me was false; I don't feel the need to replace that falsehood with anything, but the simple truth that it is false.

In the context of modern biology, "macroevolution" (e.g. common descent) has real-world application.

I've long asked that in lieu of said applications, what are the alternatives?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

If macroevolution is true; prove it.

If the math works; prove it.

Except the burden of proof is on you when you say that it's not correct. You have a negative claim, so you need to prove the negative. You even linked to it.

 

[HARK!]

Insofar as an explanation for how the money got under the pillow? Easy, parents.

I didn't see my parents put money under my pillow. Can you prove that they did? Can you prove that it took both of them? Can you prove that it wasn't an angel who left money under my pillow? Let's see the irrefutable evidence.

I suspect that it was one of my parents who put money under my pillow; but that calls for certain assumptions which aren't scientific.

 

[pitabread]

I didn't see my parents put money under my pillow. Can you prove that they did? Can you prove that it took both of them? Can you prove that it wasn't an angel who left money under my pillow? Let's see the irrefutable evidence.

I suspect that it was one of my parents who put money under my pillow; but that calls for certain assumptions which aren't scientific.

This is a testable claim though.

For example, you could set up a nightvision camera or other methods to capture evidence of nighttime activity (e.g. flour on the floor for footprints). You could count the loose change that your parents have the night before, and compare it to what was received in the morning. And so on.

This is kind of a silly example, but it does drive home the point that certain claims can be put to the test and then on the basis of evidence, a conclusion can be drawn. Which incidentally is exactly why common descent is a conclusion of the biological sciences.

 

[HARK!]

No, that's really not how logical arguments work. Or even arguments work. You make the claim, you present the evidence.

Show me that the math doesn't work. I've seen another poster make the exact claim that the math doesn't work and they gave nothing in reply except repeating that the math doesn't work.

You say it's wrong. Then show us.

You're shifting the burden of proof. Prove that macroevolution is is mathematically possible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're shifting the burden of proof. Prove that macroevolution is is mathematically possible.

I don't have to because that's not what this thread is about. Neither is you saying it's impossible, actually.

The OP question is: if macroevolution is incorrect, then what replaces it?

 

[pitabread]

Prove that macroevolution is is mathematically possible.

This is a red herring.

In biology, macroevolution is typically defined as evolution about the species level (e.g. speciation). We have directly observed examples of speciation in both lab and nature. In that context, asking to to prove that it's "mathematically possible" doesn't make sense.

It's like asking to prove that bumblebee flight is "mathematically possible", when we can literally observe them flying.

But as the OP says, this isn't about proving that macroevolution is true. This is about providing a viable alternative. If macroevolution is false, what do we replace it with?

 

[HARK!]

If macroevolution is false, what do we replace it with?

The Tooth Fairy?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The Tooth Fairy?

Are you going to make an attempt to be serious, because if not, then I will have to respectfully ask you to leave this thread.

 

[pitabread]

The Tooth Fairy?

So how does one apply the Tooth Fairy in the field of comparative genomics with respect to functional gene annotation?

 

[zippy2006]

The OP question is: if macroevolution is incorrect, then what replaces it?

Hark is right. Your assumption is unscientific. If a theory is falsified then it must be discarded. It doesn't matter at all whether there is an available alternative.

A real scientist would, upon discovering that macroevolution is false, discard it and reply to your question, "Nothing." Or maybe he would have a suggestion about how to unify the data that macroevolution attempts to unify. But there is no scientific onus on him to do so. In science, falsification of a theory does not presuppose replacement of that theory.