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

[driewerf]

@HARK! and @zippy2006 ,
If macroevolution turns out to be false then that will leave the scientific community (and actually humanity as a whole) with a whole bunch of unanswered questions, like

• where do we come from
• how to explain the pattern we see in the fossil record
• how to explain the geographical distribution of plants and animals
• how to explain the pattern in differences and similarities we see in the genomes of related species

and many more.
Now, there is nothing more challenging for a scientist than an unanswered question. Rest assured, the day the ToE would be disproved a lot of scientists will dance the polonaise and then double down on the work for searching a better explanation.
So Warden of the Storm's question is valid: by what will it be replaced?
Because, replaced it will be.

 

[HARK!]

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.

If this is true; then you should be able to easily point out the incredulity of the presentation. Making a blanket bare assertion does not serve that function.

 

[HARK!]

@HARK! and @zippy2006 ,
If macroevolution turns out to be false then that will leave the scientific community (and actually humanity as a whole) with a whole bunch of unanswered questions, like

• where do we come from

The link in post #44 leaves us with that question.

 

[pitabread]

The link in post #44 leaves us with that question.

That thread doesn't seem to deal with biology though?

 

[zippy2006]

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.

Do you think everything that is considered scientific today will be considered scientific in 3,000 years?

@HARK! and @zippy2006 ,
If macroevolution turns out to be false then that will leave the scientific community (and actually humanity as a whole) with a whole bunch of unanswered questions, like

• where do we come from
• how to explain the pattern we see in the fossil record
• how to explain the geographical distribution of plants and animals
• how to explain the pattern in differences and similarities we see in the genomes of related species

and many more.
Now, there is nothing more challenging for a scientist than an unanswered question. Rest assured, the day the ToE would be disproved a lot of scientists will dance the polonaise and then double down on the work for searching a better explanation.
So Warden of the Storm's question is valid: by what will it be replaced?
Because, replaced it will be.

If it is disproved then scientists will look for a new explanation, but the people who disprove it don't need to be the ones who find a new explanation, and they certainly don't need to have an explanation on hand before arguing that macroevolution is false.

Generally in science falsification is not incentivized in an isolated sense. Usually falsification is more a byproduct of a superseding theory. But there are exceptions, and Evolution is certainly one of them. There is a lot of widespread (religious) motivation to falsify Evolution per se, without any reference to a superseding theory. "Creationism" doesn't really exist on the same explanatory level as macroevolution does, so I'm not sure it could be said that it is being offered as an alternative. If it is disproved then many of the issues that macroevolution addressed would be happily left in the lull by Creationists.

Lots of people want to falsify macroevolution, and they don't care about finding a replacement. If they succeed then other scientists will come up with a replacement, but in that case the falsification and the replacement would only be loosely connected--probably not even carried out by the same people.

 

[HARK!]

That thread doesn't seem to deal with biology though?

However, it still leaves us with that question; and matter is the foundation of all biology.

 

[pitabread]

However, it still leaves us with that question; and matter is the foundation of all biology.

I don't buy into reductionist forms of arguments.

If we want to figure out where people came from, that is a question of biology, not a question of the origin of the universe.

 

[HARK!]

I don't buy into reductionist forms of arguments.

If we want to figure out where people came from, that is a question of biology, not a question of the origin of the universe.

People came from the Universe. That was easy.

 

[driewerf]

The link in post #44 leaves us with that question.

I have read the OP and didn't find single term that can be related to biology: not organism, plant, animal, fungi, bacteria etc. Not DNA, protein, cell, epithelial tissue etc.
If you believe that the thread you link to somehow explains where we come from, then I had expect some references to Australopithecus, to the Neanderthals, other fossils. If you believe that the thread you link to somehow explains where we come from, then you'll have to explain it. Explain it slowly, step by step, with many details, because as it is stated there, I don't see it.

 

[pitabread]

People came from the Universe. That was easy.

Which is explained via the process of evolution.

So I guess there's no need to replace macroevolution after all.

 

[HARK!]

I have read the OP and didn't find single term that can be related to biology: not organism, plant, animal, fungi, bacteria etc. Not DNA, protein, cell, epithelial tissue etc.
If you believe that the thread you link to somehow explains where we come from, then I had expect some references to Australopithecus, to the Neanderthals, other fossils. If you believe that the thread you link to somehow explains where we come from, then you'll have to explain it. Explain it slowly, step by step, with many details, because as it is stated there, I don't see it.

I presented that link in response to the assertion that creationism isn't scientific.

 

[pitabread]

Do you think everything that is considered scientific today will be considered scientific in 3,000 years?

That's not my point. My point is that mysticism was never considered scientific to begin with.

 

[driewerf]

n.m.
i might have misread.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If it is disproved then scientists will look for a new explanation, but the people who disprove it don't need to be the ones who find a new explanation, and they certainly don't need to have an explanation on hand before arguing that macroevolution is false.

Yeah, they kind of do. If you say something is wrong, you need to say why it is wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If this is true; then you should be able to easily point out the incredulity of the presentation. Making a blanket bare assertion does not serve that function.

I don't really need to since your threads stands for itself. Also, to do so is derailing this thread, so I'm not going to do that.

 

[HARK!]

I don't really need to since your threads stands for itself. Also, to do so is derailing this thread, so I'm not going to do that.

It's probably best to not make claims that you can't back up; but you're free to do that if you wish.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's probably best to not make claims that you can't back up; but you're free to do that if you wish.

Since you linked to your own post and have not made a single attempt to try and address the OP, going off on tangents, then I'm calling it like I see it.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah, they kind of do. If you say something is wrong, you need to say why it is wrong.

Saying why one thing is wrong is different from saying why another thing is right. "Simple logic."

 

[HARK!]

Yeah, they kind of do. If you say something is wrong, you need to say why it is wrong.

Excellent! I have this theory that my garbage man found a expired can of Campbell's Primordial Stew in my neighbor's trash; and that he traveled back in time in his Delorean, to spawn all life.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Saying why one thing is wrong is different from saying why another thing is right. "Simple logic."

Okay, I'll give you that.
I am still right though. If you say that something is wrong, you should be expected to say that another thing is right, either a claim, an assessment or a theory.

Excellent! I have this theory that my garbage man found a expired can of Campbell's Primordial Stew in my neighbor's trash; and that he traveled back in time in his Delorean, to spawn all life.

Prove me wrong.

Now I'm calling it trolling, blatant and clear. Please leave this thread because you clearly have nothing of value to offer or even give.