Other theorys besides Evolution

[TheKingOfImmortality]

Are there any other scientifc ideas on how life began besides Evolution?


I for one deeply belive it is Evolution but I was wondering if there were any other scientifc ideas on what it could of bin. If so, what are they?


And before you say anything, No, I not talking about what the world religons say. I am refering to somthing more invloed with science.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The theory of evolution isn't about life's origin, it's about life's development after life appeared.

What you are referring to is abiogenesis, which is not a theory unto itself but rather a field of research encompassing various hypotheses about life's origins.

So yes, there are multiple hypotheses regarding the origin of life which are still being hashed out.

 

[Patashu]

Here: (Note that evolution is the only one with evidence backing it. These are just alternate hypotheses.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Lamarckism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

I'm assuming you're referring to the origin of species, and not the origin of life. If the latter I'll have to hunt a bit harder, since our knowledge of abiogenetic processes is still a bit fuzzy.

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

Evolution isn't an origin theory in the sense you are implying. Evolution deals with the origins of species, Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life. However, if you want alternative theories to Evolution, that have been published and peer reviewed among Scientists, Natural Genetic Engineering is the only one I know of. Although, I do believe it fails greatly at being a theory because it operates on unknown mechanisms in terms of inheritable traits.

 

[Vene]

Here: (Note that evolution is the only one with evidence backing it. These are just alternate hypotheses.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Lamarckism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

I'm assuming you're referring to the origin of species, and not the origin of life. If the latter I'll have to hunt a bit harder, since our knowledge of abiogenetic processes is still a bit fuzzy.

Only one of these is currently regarded as having any scientific accuracy and that is theistic evolution, only because it doesn't violate the ideas presented in the Theory of Evolution (secular, not atheist). It merely states that God was in charge of it.

 

[Patashu]

Only one of these is currently regarded as having any scientific accuracy and that is theistic evolution, only because it doesn't violate the ideas presented in the Theory of Evolution (secular, not atheist). It merely states that God was in charge of it.

Theistic evolution is unscientific because it violates parsimony (when two theories predict exactly the same thing, the one proposing fewer entities is better). If it were to propose different predictions then it might have merit.

 

[Vene]

Theistic evolution is unscientific because it violates parsimony (when two theories predict exactly the same thing, the one proposing fewer entities is better). If it were to propose different predictions then it might have merit.

But it is the most accurate of the list there. That's all I going for. I understand the mechanics of Occam's Razor.

 

[Patashu]

But it is the most accurate of the list there. That's all I going for. I understand the mechanics of Occam's Razor.

Sure, but it's not really an alternative to ToE either. It's entirely redundant until it proposes something ToE does not. I just threw it in there just in case.

 

[necroforest]

Spontaneous Generation

 

[Cassandra]

Sure, but it's not really an alternative to ToE either. It's entirely redundant until it proposes something ToE does not. I just threw it in there just in case.

You're right, it's not an alternative. It's the same thing. We just believe there is some force or entity outside the understanding of science that either kickstarted evolution and/or guides it.

EDIT: Forget to address the OP. Not that it needs repeating, but the ToE has nothing to do with the origin of life.

 

[truth above all else]

Are there any other scientifc ideas on how life began besides Evolution?


I for one deeply belive it is Evolution but I was wondering if there were any other scientifc ideas on what it could of bin. If so, what are they?


And before you say anything, No, I not talking about what the world religons say. I am refering to somthing more invloed with science.

The science associated with the subject of ultimate origins has gone nowhere in particular, hence it must remain at arms length from the evolutionary establishment till a half reasonable bridging theory becomes available.Science can only observe the present
and draw inferences about the remote past by assuming uniformity over time of processes and laws.Evolutionary theorists therefore assume that the process that designed life in the beginning is essentially the same process of small scale variation that is observed in the living world today There may be little evidence to support that assumption, but without it a science of origins would be hopelessly inadequate

 

[paul123]

Are there any other scientifc ideas on how life began besides Evolution?


I for one deeply belive it is Evolution but I was wondering if there were any other scientifc ideas on what it could of bin. If so, what are they?


And before you say anything, No, I not talking about what the world religons say. I am refering to somthing more invloed with science.

Before life there was no life. There was existance, but no life. This is true for the Christian veiw. It is also true if you believe the big bang. Unless life existed in the first nano seconds of time while the entire universe existed in a basketball size ball, there was a time when there was no life.

Evolution does not explain how life came about. Rather it explains how life came to be how it is now, after it appeared (however I hold the beleif that it didn't just appear).

 

[Patashu]

Before life there was no life. There was existance, but no life. This is true for the Christian veiw. It is also true if you believe the big bang. Unless life existed in the first nano seconds of time while the entire universe existed in a basketball size ball, there was a time when there was no life.

Evolution does not explain how life came about. Rather it explains how life came to be how it is now, after it appeared (however I hold the beleif that it didn't just appear).

No one holds the belief that it just appeared. The entire purpose of research into abiogenesis is to discover a viable path by which simple organic molecules can (eventually) become a basic form of life, through gradual steps. At no point is life poofed into existence.

 

[RaveyDavey]

Are there any other scientifc ideas on how life began besides Evolution?


I for one deeply belive it is Evolution but I was wondering if there were any other scientifc ideas on what it could of bin. If so, what are they?


And before you say anything, No, I not talking about what the world religons say. I am refering to somthing more invloed with science.

King... I will assume you are talking about alternatives to evolution rather than abiogenesis. (Since previous posts have answered that)

Do remember that Evolution has two parts to it:

The "Fact": That there are observed changes in populations of organisms over time.

The "Theory": The scientific explanation of how those changes came about.

The factual part is observable and undeniable.

The current accepted theory for the development and past changes of present-day species is Darwinian "Natural Selection": favourable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms.

BUT evolution can be driven by other means too - eg sexual selection, artificial selection (ie in a lab) etc and perhaps theistic selection!!

Theistic Evolutionists can claim that past speciation has been driven by God, but the evidence for this is no different to what would be seen if it was driven by Natural Selection. However the majority of Scientists accept Natural Selection as the truth, partially due to Occam's Razor, but mainly because a Natural reason allows the assumption that the driving forces are operating in a predictable manner and so allows us to test the theory by predicting an outcome that should be the result. And through these experiments' successes they have repeatably shown that Natural Selection is the correct driving theory.

A process operated by a god is not predictable - and if we were to assume and observe that the process was (as we do) then clearly the contolling influence isn't particulary godly!

 

[gamespotter10]

Are there any other scientifc ideas on how life began besides Evolution?


I for one deeply belive it is Evolution but I was wondering if there were any other scientifc ideas on what it could of bin. If so, what are they?


And before you say anything, No, I not talking about what the world religons say. I am refering to somthing more invloed with science.

evolution does NOT deal with where life came from.

while a creationist would say that destroys evolutionary theory, in actuality, it has no bearing whatsoever on the theory of evolution because it still has overwhelming, and I mean OVERWHELMING evidence supporting it

 

[RichardT]

because it still has overwhelming, and I mean OVERWHELMING evidence supporting it

I'll have to go through all possible scenarios, I'm pretty sure that if a rabbit was found in Precambrian layer it would not falsify evolution (erosions, faults, etc...). I'm sure that FB, thaumaturgy, or baggins will tell me that there would have to be a lot of evidence for this occurrence if we were to find a rabbit in Precambrian stratum. I'll be waiting for their opinions on this. I've never taken a geology course, but I'm really interested.

 

[Patashu]

I'll have to go through all possible scenarios, I'm pretty sure that if a rabbit was found in Precambrian layer it would not falsify evolution (erosions, faults, etc...). I'm sure that FB, thaumaturgy, or baggins will tell me that there would have to be a lot of evidence for this occurrence if we were to find a rabbit in Precambrian stratum. I'll be waiting for their opinions on this. I've never taken a geology course, but I'm really interested.

Actually, you know, at this point the ToE can't be falsified unless a theory with more predictive and explanatory power is put forward, as it's already been shown to have major scientific worth.

Instead of searching for that precambrian rabbit, how about refining creationism/creation science/id theories to the point where they explain nature even better than the ToE does?

 

[gamespotter10]

if there weren't theories besides evolution, it would be so much easier debating with creationists

 

[RichardT]

Actually, you know, at this point the ToE can't be falsified unless a theory with more predictive and explanatory power is put forward, as it's already been shown to have major scientific worth.

Instead of searching for that precambrian rabbit, how about refining creationism/creation science/id theories to the point where they explain nature even better than the ToE does?

Falsifiability is good science. Can you explain how evolution was originally potentially falsifiable, and what findings would have overthrown evolution when it was first developed?

 

[gamespotter10]

Falsifiability is good science. Can you explain how evolution was originally potentially falsifiable, and what findings would have overthrown evolution when it was first developed?

evolution is falsifiable. a static fossil record would falsify it, chinbras (mermaids, contours), a mechanism that prevents mutations from accumulating, a truly irreducibly complex system