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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

View attachment 303589

Yes, that's in the Christians Only section. This part of the forum is open to Christians and non-Christians alike.

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Yes, that's in the Christians Only section. This part of the forum is open to Christians and non-Christians alike.

ok well using your logic if you're able to quote Darwins theory of evolution to support your claims on how creation was made WHY CAN'T I QUOTE SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIMS

 

[SeventhFisherofMen]

Yes, that's in the Christians Only section. This part of the forum is open to Christians and non-Christians alike.

Honestly man (or woman) I'm tired sorry if this got heated. At the end of the day is it a salvation issue how things got made? Does it really matter whos right? Isnt the most important thing that God loves us and wants us to show others that love?

 

[Bradskii]

Rofl bro this is a Christian forum and you're telling me not to use scripture here? Laughable

You can. But it won't be relevant in a thread that's looking for scientific (and not theological) answers.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

Isn't this OP an example of someone saying in essence "by definition your view is wrong -- so if you claim my view is not correct then what is the correct one?"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

ok well using your logic if you're able to quote Darwins theory of evolution to support your claims on how creation was made WHY CAN'T I QUOTE SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIMS

If you can't tell the difference then I can't help you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Isn't this OP and example of someone saying in essence "by definition your view is wrong -- so if you claim my view is not correct then what is the correct one?"

And why is that a problem? All of the people who claim that macroevolution is wrong claim they have something to replace it.

 

[BobRyan]

And why is that a problem? All of the people who claim that macroevolution is wrong claim they have something to replace it.

I agree everyone has an opinion - but if you start with "your opinion is wrong by definition so if you think my POV is wrong what is your other solution?" it looks like a circular argument where one simply starts by assuming one of the salient points in their own position as the basis for dialogue.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree everyone has an opinion - but if you start with "your opinion is wrong by definition so if you think my POV is wrong what is your other solution?" it looks like a circular argument where one simply starts by assuming one of the salient points in their own position as the basis for dialogue.

Where do I start by saying the opposing opinion is wrong right from the off?

 

[BobRyan]

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?

Isn't this OP an example of someone saying in essence "by definition your view is wrong -- so if you claim my view is not correct then what is the correct one?"

Where do I start by saying the opposing opinion is wrong right from the off?

hmmm --- let me think about that one for a second.

You can't just say 'creationism' or Creation because they're unscientific and incorrect too, so what replaces macroevolution?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

hmmm --- let me think about that one for a second.

No, that's not what I meant at all. You replace science with science not pseudoscience or religion. Also notice in the OP, that's not the question. The question is in the first paragraph:

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?

 

[BobRyan]

ok well using your logic if you're able to quote Darwins theory of evolution to support your claims on how creation was made WHY CAN'T I QUOTE SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIMS

You would be claiming that a being not from Earth ... .did something.

In the current furor over UAP and evidence that it is or is not something that originated on Earth - the argument is sometimes made that "we have no scientifically confirmed evidence that it is extraterrestrial".

Think about that one for a second. It means that it IS in the realm of science to "discover" or "observe" that something could not possibly have originated here.

 

[BobRyan]

Also notice in the OP, that's not the question. The question is in the first paragraph:

fine -- and so what is it "we can't say" again?

You can't just say 'creationism' or Creation because they're unscientific and incorrect too, so what replaces macroevolution?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

fine -- and so what is it "we can't say" again?

There's a term used for putting a... oh man, I'm even stuck on remembering what the term is. Provision? Proviso? It's been a long day at work and I need to head to bed soon for an early shift.

 

[driewerf]

Isn't this OP an example of someone saying in essence "by definition your view is wrong -- so if you claim my view is not correct then what is the correct one?"



hmmm --- let me think about that one for a second.

Yes, creationism is wrong.
But not by definition, as you put it. It is shown wrong after extensive observation that it fails at explaining anything passed the most superficial observation.
It fails because it need special pleading at every turn.
It fails, because in the end it explains everything and hence nothing.
That is why it is wrong.

Not "by definition".

 

[Gene2memE]

[Macro]evolution** is an explanation for the observed biodiversity on earth and the observed history of life on earth (via the fossil and genetic records, and things like biogeography).

If macroevolution is incorrect, then what replaces it will be another scientific theory that has better explanatory power concerning the observed facts about present biodiversity and the history of life on earth.

"Explanatory power", means a bunch of different things in this context. The theory needs to: account for the body of facts available as evidence; be testable by observation and experimentation (ie be falsifiable); make as few assumptions as possible; be used to form accurate and precise predictions; offer explanations of causal relationships (among other things).

At the moment, there are no candidate explanations that offer better explanatory power than [macro]evolution.

Creationism fails the explanatory power test on multiple levels (as does Intelligent Design - because it's just creationism with a veneer of scientific respectability).

What could happen is that the present understanding of [macro]evolution is broadened or adjusted to accommodate new mechanisms (such as happened when genetics and DNA were discovered. For instance, there are those that argue that horizontal gene transfer is much more important than is given credit, and there are others that argue for epigenetics to be give greater importance, and for stronger emphasis on multilevel selection and molecular genetics.

**Well, more specifically the Modern Modified Evolutionary Synthesis is the current, best scientific explanation.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, creationism is wrong.

Any time an atheist posts "creationism is wrong" - I am happy things are working the way they are supposed to work. I would be very surprised if the atheists were posting the opposite of that.

My point was that the OP does not say "I think creationism is wrong" -- which would be no surprise to anyone.. but rather ..

Warden_of_the_Storm said: ↑
You can't just say 'creationism' or Creation because they're unscientific and incorrect too, so what replaces macroevolution?

 

[pitabread]

To possibly expand on what the OP is getting at with "unscientific and incorrect" characterization of creationism, is that creationism is usually limited to little more than "Goddidit".

Insofar as explanatory power for observed biological diversity, "Goddidit" doesn't offer any and consequently isn't going to replace something like common descent. We first need something with equivalent explanatory power, because otherwise there is no reason to replace common descent.

Now if creationists believe they have something that can offer that explanatory power, they should bring what they have to the table. Let's see it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let's say we found a genetic block in the DNA of all species. Something that prevents genetic change beyond certain limits, thus establishing what we could call "kinds". This would effectively kill macroevolution. But we would have nothing to replace it. We're certainly not going to put together a theory that involves the supernatural.

So although a great deal of evolution theory would remain, macroevolution and the overall Theory of Evolution (all living things sharing common ancestors) would have to be thrown out with nothing replacing it, at least for the time being.

Seems to me that example only kills the supposed mechanism of macroevolution; it doesn't change the vast quantity of evidence supporting common ancestry, speciation, etc.

 

[tas8831]

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

Parents giving me money. The reality-based conclusion. Same sort of conclusion I drew after reading the bible.

I mean, was that supposed to be some sort of insightful, gotcha comment?
Because it wasn't.