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

[pitabread]

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.

It does matter in this case, because common descent (phylogenetics) has real-world application in applied biology.

There are significant implications if it turned out common descent was false.

 

[HARK!]

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.

That was a serious question; but it was mixed with a touch of humor, in flow with the conversation. I'll respect you wishes to abstain from any lightheartedness; if being playful offends you.

Let's try this one:

Why not Creationism?

 

[pitabread]

Why not Creationism?

Which version?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

Except that my assumption isn't unscientific. All scientific theories are replaceable by another if they are found to be false, and evolution is no different.

If macroevolution is found to be false, then something has to be replace it.

 

[HARK!]

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

See: Post #22

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That was a serious question; but it was mixed with a touch of humor, in flow with the conversation. I'll respect you wishes to abstain from any lightheartedness; if being playful offends you.

Let's try this one:

Why not Creationism?

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

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

 

[zippy2006]

Except that my assumption isn't unscientific. All scientific theories are replaceable by another if they are found to be false, and evolution is no different.

Of course they are replaceable, but that doesn't mean they need to be replaced before they are falsified. The answer to your question is, "Admitted ignorance." It is perfectly possible to just admit that you don't know. Indeed, that is a much better initial way to proceed after a theory is falsified than to concoct newfangled explanations.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course they are replaceable, but that doesn't mean they need to be replaced before they are falsified. The answer to your question is, "Admitted ignorance." It is perfectly possible to just admit that you don't know. Indeed, that is a much better initial way to proceed after a theory is falsified than to concoct newfangled explanations.

I'm talking about AFTER they've been falsified. IF macroevolution is incorrect, falsified, then what replaces it?

You're arguing an issue that only you yourself are focused on.

 

[pitabread]

See: Post #22

And I responded to that, "Which version [of creationism]"?

Because there are numerous versions of creationism with different and often contradictory ideas.

The second question is how does creationism differ from biological evolution in terms of what we actually see in biology?

 

[HARK!]

Except that my assumption isn't unscientific. All scientific theories are replaceable by another if they are found to be false, and evolution is no different.

If macroevolution is found to be false, then something has to be replace it.

This makes the assumption that all can be known. Assumptions aren't science.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm talking about AFTER they've been falsified. IF macroevolution is incorrect, falsified, then what replaces it?

You're arguing an issue that only you yourself are focused on.

You are laboring under the false and unscientific assumption that a falsified theory needs to be replaced. I will leave you to your labor.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This makes the assumption that all can be known. Assumptions aren't science.

What are you going on about? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[HARK!]

And I responded to that, "Which version [of creationism]"?

Because there are numerous versions of creationism with different and often contradictory ideas.

I haven't studied them all. Which one would you recommend?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are laboring under the false and unscientific assumption that a falsified theory needs to be replaced. I will leave you to your labor.

Why shouldn't a falsified theory be replaced with something better?

 

[pitabread]

I haven't studied them all. Which one would you recommend?

I have no recommendation in that respect. I'd leave that you to you, since you suggested it.

 

[zippy2006]

Why shouldn't a falsified theory be replaced with something better?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be replaced. I am saying that it doesn't need to be.

Your OP is claiming that if someone wants to say that macroevolution is incorrect then they have to proffer an alternative explanation. That's not true. "Nothing" is a perfectly good and scientific answer to your question. You seem to disagree with this.

 

[HARK!]

Why shouldn't a falsified theory be replaced with something better?

You seem to be of the understanding that dismissing a theory as false, is dependent on it being replaced.

Science isn't like the purchase of a new home being contingent of the sale of the old home.

We dismiss that which is false; and if another hypothesis comes along; we test it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be replaced. I am saying that it doesn't need to be.

Your OP is claiming that if someone wants to say that macroevolution is incorrect then they have to proffer an alternative explanation. That's not true. "Nothing" is a perfectly good and scientific answer to your question. You seem to disagree with this.

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

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.

 

[pitabread]

You seem to be of the understanding that dismissing a theory as false, is dependent on it being replaced.

In the context of something that literally underpins an entire field of science (biology), it is dependent on that.

Of course even this is besides the point, since macrovolution (e.g. common descent) has not been falsified. If anything, it's been continuously strengthened by accumulation of evidence over time.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You seem to be of the understanding that dismissing a theory as false, is dependent on it being replaced.

Science isn't like the purchase of a new home being contingent of the sale of the old home.

We dismiss that which is false; and if another hypothesis comes along; we test it.

Wow, thank you for telling me something that I already know.

And no, I am not of the understanding dismissing a theory as false is dependent on it being replaced. It is a fact that falsified scientific are replaced with better ones.