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

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

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.

It hasn't been falsified, one person has insisted on a very simplistic equation that describes at best a very small part of the general situation and in long terms at best describes a specific scenario of ending exactly where we are now, but this is irrelevant as evolution does not require any specific endpoint and thus the math presented is irrelevant.

 

[zippy2006]

It's not a hard question where someone HAS to replace it. It is an IF question for a reason.

But you asked, "If macroevolution is incorrect...," not, "If macroevolution needs to be replaced..." The fact that it is incorrect does not entail that it needs to be replaced.

I just don't accept 'nothing' as an answer because the people on this forum who claim that macroevolution is wrong are the same people who think they know why it should be wrong.

I think what you are trying to say is that, insofar as we are making an inference to the best explanation, macroevolution is a better explanatory candidate than creationism. "Supposing we have to pick an explanation, which is the best?" That's a different question than simple verification of whether a theory is true or false. Scientists might accept a theory that limps or is inadequate on the basis of practical utility, where there is no better option.

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

It hasn't been falsified, one person has insisted on a very simplistic equation that describes at best a very small part of the general situation and in long terms at best describes a specific scenario of ending exactly where we are now, but this is irrelevant as evolution does not require any specific endpoint and thus the math presented is irrelevant.

This whole thread is based on the presupposition that it has been falsified. Hence, "If it is incorrect, then [insert thread here]."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But you asked, "If macroevolution is incorrect...," not, "If macroevolution needs to be replaced..." The fact that it is incorrect does not entail that it needs to be replaced.

But if something is to be replaced, then that means that, by simple logic, there is something better. And yes, if something is incorrect then it does need to be replaced, if possible, that too is simple logic.

 

[HARK!]

I don't see it as being playful, I see it as being deliberately obtuse and trolling.

Another unfounded assumption.

As for Creationism: Creationism isn't a scientific theory, nor even a scientific hypothesis. It's religion, nothing more, nothing less.

Science Proves Creation

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Another unfounded assumption.

An inference based on your posting style. I can't read your mind so I can't tell the intent behind what you post.

Science Proves Creation

A link to a thread you yourself made that is just arguments from incredulity. No.

 

[zippy2006]

But if something is to be replaced, then that means that, by simple logic, there is something better.

Yes, but the question at hand is whether it needs to be replaced. That a theory is false does not mean that it needs to be replaced.

And yes, if something is incorrect then it does need to be replaced, if possible, that too is simple logic.

No, incorrect things do not necessarily need to be replaced. There are entire disciplines that have been abandoned, and which are no longer considered scientific (astrology, phrenology, numerology, etc.).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, but the question at hand is whether it needs to be replaced. That a theory is false does not mean that it needs to be replaced.



No, incorrect things do not necessarily need to be replaced. There are entire disciplines that have been abandoned, and which are no longer considered scientific (astrology, phrenology, numerology, etc.).

I'll be honest now, I don't care. You're arguing specifics on a very simple thing that is written in simple English in black and white.
If you aren't going to make an attempt to answer the OP, then please just leave.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

But you asked, "If macroevolution is incorrect...," not, "If macroevolution needs to be replaced..." The fact that it is incorrect does not entail that it needs to be replaced.



I think what you are trying to say is that, insofar as we are making an inference to the best explanation, macroevolution is a better explanatory candidate than creationism. "Supposing we have to pick an explanation, which is the best?" That's a different question than simple verification of whether a theory is true or false. Scientists might accept a theory that limps or is inadequate on the basis of practical utility, where there is no better option.

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



This whole thread is based on the presupposition that it has been falsified. Hence, "If it is incorrect, then [insert thread here]."

It is also a science forum, and you are right, science will accept a theory that "limps" along such as Newtonian mechanics in the case of Mercury transits, but by the same token, nothing is not a viable answer.

 

[pitabread]

No, incorrect things do not necessarily need to be replaced. There are entire disciplines that have been abandoned, and which are no longer considered scientific (astrology, phrenology, numerology, etc.).

Phrenology has arguably been replaced by other disciplines that actually can predict traits (e.g. genetics, neurology, etc).

I'm not aware of astrology and numerology ever being considered scientific?

 

[HARK!]

A link to a thread you yourself made that is just arguments from incredulity. No.

Overall I accept the Laws of Physics as a basic understanding of the nature of our universe.I can respect your position, if you reject them; as they don't fully explain that nature.

 

[zippy2006]

I'll be honest now, I don't care. You're arguing specifics on a very simple thing that is written in simple English in black and white.
If you aren't going to make an attempt to answer the OP, then please just leave.

Your OP is based on a logical fallacy:

You are laboring under the false and unscientific assumption that a falsified theory needs to be replaced.

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

Phrenology has arguably been replaced by other disciplines that actually can predict traits (e.g. genetics).

I'm not aware of astrology and numerology ever being considered scientific?

At one time they were considered scientific. That is, cultures once viewed them as providing reliable predictions, etc.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Overall I accept the Laws of Physics as a basic understanding of the nature of our universe. You can can respect your position, if you reject them; as they don't fully explain that nature.

It's still arguments from incredulity on your part. I saw nothing to say that creation is scientific.
Creationism is just religion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your OP is based on a logical fallacy:

What happened to spontaneous generation theory?

 

[HARK!]

It's still arguments from incredulity on your part. I saw nothing to say that creation is scientific.
Creationism is just religion.

It appears that you didn't comprehend the presentation.

I'll explain it to you, should I decide to create another thread on that subject.

 

[pitabread]

At one time they were considered scientific. That is, cultures once viewed them as providing reliable predictions, etc.

I'm not sure how that qualifies them as being considered scientific though?

There are lots of examples of mysticism being used to predict things, but they have never been considered scientific.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It appears that you didn't comprehend the presentation.

I'll explain it to you, should I decide to create another thread on that subject.

Oh no, I comprehended it fine. And I do not agree with it at all. It is just an argument from incredulity on your part.
Creationism isn't scientific. It is religion, plain and simple.

 

[pitabread]

Creationism isn't scientific. It is religion, plain and simple.

Just to play devil's advocate, let's say that there was something to creationism (insofar as replacing evolution).

What would that look like?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Just to play devil's advocate, let's say that there was something to creationism (insofar as replacing evolution).

What would that look like?

I believe that you are asking the wrong person for the answer to that question.

 

[pitabread]

I believe that you are asking the wrong person for the answer to that question.

I'm just suggesting that for the purpose of continuing the thread, perhaps we should see how these ideas play out rather than shutting them down at the get-go.

(And don't get me wrong, I do agree that creationism isn't in any way scientific. But sometimes getting to that conclusion with others requires first exploring it.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm just suggesting that for the purpose of continuing the thread, perhaps we should see how these ideas play out rather than shutting them down at the get-go.

(And don't get me wrong, I do agree that creationism isn't in any way scientific. But sometimes getting to that conclusion with others requires first exploring it.)

Entirely fair and valid.