What are some scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution?

[seriously disabled]

What are some scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution?

Also, could the theory of evolution be proven wrong one day?

 

I'm not talking about creationism or intelligent design because these theories are not scientific and also they don't make any useful predictions.

 

 

[koti]

What are some scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution?

 

Also, could the theory of evolution be proven wrong one day?

 

I'm not talking about creationism or intelligent design because these theories are not scientific and also they don't make any useful predictions.

 

 

Evolution of species is a fact and cannot be disproven, there is too much evidence pointing to it being right. There can be added aditional information to the fact that species on earth are evolving making the theory of evolution a fuller set of information but there is no possibility to disprove evolution and substitute it with a different, alternative process. Just like General Relativity cannot be disproven, there is just too much experimental evidence prooving it right. There can be additional information added to GR which will make for a fuller view of reality. Just like Newton's laws are not wrong or have not been disprooven by General Relativity, only additional information was added to make for a better, broader view. Edited June 25, 2017 by koti

[bimbo36]

Theory of God ,IMHO i think god was always trying to say something .But if i post something from the holy books , everybody is going to think its stupid even for internet standards

 

So i am not going to post it .

 

I think it fits a nice alternative theory or a way of thinking

Edited June 25, 2017 by bimbo36

[DrKrettin]

Evolution of species is a fact and cannot be disproven, there is too much evidence pointing to it being right. There can be added aditional information to the fact that species on earth are evolving making the theory of evolution a fuller set of information but there is no possibility to disprove evolution and substitute it with a different, alternative process. Just like General Relativity cannot be disproven, there is just too much experimental evidence prooving it right. There can be additional information added to GR which will make for a fuller view of reality. Just like Newton's laws are not wrong or have not been disprooven by General Relativity, only additional information was added to make for a better, broader view.

 

Although I agree with the sentiment, I think the language needs more accuracy.

 

1) Any theory is temporary pending evidence to the contrary. Evolution theory is an extremely good method of explaining what we observe, and so good that it is very unlikely that it will somehow be superseded. This still does not make it a fact.

 

2) Newton's Law's are wrong, in the sense that they do not explain every observable motion (such as the perihelion shift of Mercury). But they are such a good approximation that they are effectively correct under some circumstances. General Relativity is more accurate, and as yet has not been superseded, but it is still not a fact.

[StringJunky]

Evolution ultimately starts from the inherent behaviour of the atoms in the periodic table and subsequent emergent behaviours arise with each level of increasing molecular complexity and interactions between those molecules. 'Evolution', strictly speaking, is actually the change in the frequency of alleles (traits) over time; this makes it an unassailable fact because that actually happens.

[Phi for All]

But if i post something from the holy books , everybody is going to think its stupid even for internet standards

 

!

Moderator Note

Or simply against the rules on this particular science discussion forum. This is a Biology thread, dealing with the natural world.

[Moontanman]

The mechanism for evolution could change or be updated but the process is factual...

[Delta1212]

All of the evidence we have in the fields of biology, genetics, medicine, botany, zoology, paleontology, environmental science, anatomy, etc, etc, etc point towards evolution being correct, and the majority of our knowledge across pretty much all life sciences only makes sense in the context of evolutionary theory.

 

The question is, at this stage, a bit like asking an astrophysicist if there are any scientific models of the universe where the Earth does not orbit the Sun.

 

There are lots of models, and there are variances in details and unknown areas open to be expanded upon, but though there are a huge variety of models that compete in the details and some models are developed to challenge prevailing theories and explore alternative avenues, none of them fails to include that aspect as a basic part of it because no one has found a way to develop a model without it that makes any sense at all in light of the total body of present evidence.

Theory of God ,IMHO i think god was always trying to say something .But if i post something from the holy books , everybody is going to think its stupid even for internet standards

 

So i am not going to post it .

 

I think it fits a nice alternative theory or a way of thinking

 

 

Not going to down vote you, because I don't think you actually said anything that is wrong, per se. However, the OP asked for alternative scientific theories to evolution. You have prevented an alternative theory/way of thinking, but it is not a scientific one.

 

You are free to debate whether science gets at the real truth of the matter, but you can't reclassify things that are not science as science just because you believe them to be true and science is popularly seen by many people as a way of getting at the truth. Science places specific requirements on the types of evidence and explanatory power that must be provided by any models or theories about the world, and at present God doesn't meet the requirements to be a scientific theory.

 

That doesn't mean it is a false perspective, necessarily, but it does mean that it isn't a scientific one, and so doesn't actually answer the question that was asked.

[Strange]

What are some scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution?

 

 

Well, there was the Lamarckian theory, which was scientific because it was falsifiable by looking at the evidence. And, in the end, it was falsified. I am not aware of any others.

 

 

Also, could the theory of evolution be proven wrong one day?

 

Well, any scientific theory can, in principle, be proven wrong. That is the nature of science. But it would be very surprising for a theory with such an overwhelming weight of evidence to be found wrong. (Actually, very few theories are ever proved wrong. I can only think of phlogiston, and the steady state universe.)

 

Note that evolution by natural selection relies on three things:

 

1. There is diversity in a population. This is an observed fact.

 

2. These differences are inheritable. Also an observed fact.

 

3. That the differences result in different reproductive success. Also an observed fact.

 

As such, it is hard to imagine how natural selection could not work as it does.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Religious post split to here. It's against the rules to post supernatural explanations in mainstream science sections. We have specific sections for a reason.

 

Responses to this note or to non-mainstream tangents will be Trashed.

[koti]

 

Although I agree with the sentiment, I think the language needs more accuracy.

 

1) Any theory is temporary pending evidence to the contrary. Evolution theory is an extremely good method of explaining what we observe, and so good that it is very unlikely that it will somehow be superseded. This still does not make it a fact.

 

2) Newton's Law's are wrong, in the sense that they do not explain every observable motion (such as the perihelion shift of Mercury). But they are such a good approximation that they are effectively correct under some circumstances. General Relativity is more accurate, and as yet has not been superseded, but it is still not a fact.

DrKrettin, thank you for putting rigor into my argument, I sure can use it. I agree that Im operating too frivorously with the word "fact" and this can get me into trouble (and it actually does in some cases)

I would like to adress one of your statements:

"Newtons laws are wrong because they do not explain every observable motion"

I disagree with this statement, imo you cannot put an equal sign between those two. If something is not complete it doesnt mean its wrong. I know you will probably say its semantics but I think that to say something is wrong we better have strong argumentation for it.

Edited June 25, 2017 by koti

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Phi made it clear that there was to be no religious talk in any way in a science thread. Split off to the trash. Unacceptable behaviour.

 

[DrKrettin]

DrKrettin, thank you for putting rigor into my argument, I sure can use it. I agree that Im operating too frivorously with the word "fact" and this can get me into trouble (and it actually does in some cases)

I would like to adress one of your statements:

"Newtons laws are wrong because they do not explain every observable motion"

I disagree with this statement, imo you cannot put an equal sign between those two. If something is not complete it doesnt mean its wrong. I know you will probably say its semantics but I think that to say something is wrong we better have strong argumentation for it.

 

OK, yes, it was only a reaction to your assertion that "Just like Newton's laws are not wrong ". I did later say they were right in some circumstances. Ultimately, right or wrong is not the way to look it. They are a veery good approximation, and GR is better.

[beecee]

The theory of evolution is as close to being a fact as one could hope for.

But just as the BB is incomplete in that it tells us how spacetime/universe evolved rather then started, so to is evolution incomplete in that it tells us how life evolved on Earth, rather then how life started.

My preferred question is along the lines of "is there any real scientific alternative to the theory of Abiogenesis?"

Edited June 25, 2017 by beecee

[koti]

Ultimately, right or wrong is not the way to look it. They are a veery good approximation, and GR is better.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Agreed.

[John Cuthber]

Another way to look at the question would be, "if evolution isn't happening, what's stopping it?".

We might, in principle, be wrong about the details, but the general idea seems almost inescapable (given a few reasonable assumptions).

[beecee]

DrKrettin, thank you for putting rigor into my argument, I sure can use it. I agree that Im operating too frivorously with the word "fact" and this can get me into trouble (and it actually does in some cases)

I would like to adress one of your statements:

"Newtons laws are wrong because they do not explain every observable motion"

I disagree with this statement, imo you cannot put an equal sign between those two. If something is not complete it doesnt mean its wrong. I know you will probably say its semantics but I think that to say something is wrong we better have strong argumentation for it.

While I have no real argument with DrKrettin, my own views do align with your own more closely.

I see Newton's gravity model, as simply less accurate then Einstein's GR: We could use GR instead of Newton's model, for all calculations here on Earth, and for all space endeavours, and get far more accurate answers, but we don't.

We don't because Newton gives us answers that are totally adequate for the job.

A carpenter for example, uses a measuring tape to construct a window frame and window...he gets a precise fit adequate for the job in hand......he has no need to use a micrometer or vernier caliper to achieve the far more accurate results that they would give.

 

Likewise an Astronomer once told me that any future QGT or BB extension theory, would most like encompass the BB.

Again, though I do understand what DrKrettin is saying.

[Moontanman]

The theory of evolution is as close to being a fact as one could hope for.

But just as the BB is incomplete in that it tells us how spacetime/universe evolved rather then started, so to is evolution incomplete in that it tells us how life evolved on Earth, rather then how life started.

My preferred question is along the lines of "is there any real scientific alternative to the theory of Abiogenesis?"

 

 

Yes there is, panspermia is one and no it doesn't just push the problem to another planet. At one time, for about 700 million years the entire universe was at the right temp for life to start. Gives a whole new meaning to the idea of a warm puddle..

[beecee]

 

My preferred question is along the lines of "is there any real scientific alternative to the theory of Abiogenesis?"

 

 

 

Yes there is, panspermia is one and no it doesn't just push the problem to another planet. At one time, for about 700 million years the entire universe was at the right temp for life to start. Gives a whole new meaning to the idea of a warm puddle..

While I am fond of the Panspermia idea re how life got started on Earth, It doesn't invalidate the only scientific answer to how life in the universe got started, that is, Abiogenesis.

Panspermia imo, goes hand in glove with Abiogenesis.

Edited June 25, 2017 by beecee

[StringJunky]

 

 

 

 

Yes there is, panspermia is one and no it doesn't just push the problem to another planet. At one time, for about 700 million years the entire universe was at the right temp for life to start. Gives a whole new meaning to the idea of a warm puddle..

Panspermia is about origin and abiogenesis is about the process; whether it occurred here or elsewhere, it is still abiogenesis.

Edited June 25, 2017 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

 

Panspermia is about origin and abiogenesis is about the process; whether it occurred here or elsewhere, it is still abiogenesis.

 

The idea is that it had a far larger chance of happening then and was spread all over the universe. Most panspermia would limit that to life originating on another planet, but I do agree few people look at it that way...

 

I should have been more specific about that, I apologise, I was trying to get across the idea that panspermia can mean something other than life being spread from another planet where it would've had to originate as well...

Edited June 26, 2017 by Moontanman

[koti]

Panspermia combined with abiogenesis sounds like a plausable scenario. But then again anything does when compared to theistic ideas about the origin of life.

 

As for the thread title, heres some tangible (short time frame) evidence for the process of evolution being an empiricaly observable phenomena:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

Edited June 26, 2017 by koti

[Moontanman]

Panspermia combined with abiogenesis sounds like a plausable scenario. But then again anything does when compared to theistic ideas about the origin of life.

 

As for the thread title, heres some tangible (short time frame) evidence for the process of evolution being an empiricaly observable phenomena:

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

 

 

Personally I think life is inevitable, Thomas Gold suggested in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere" that life probably arises in every planetary system on every planet as a consequence of the chemical processes involved in planetary accretion. On some planets the conditions that allow life persist even to this day. He proposed that Earth, Mars, most of the major ice moons and even kuiper belt type objects probably had life under the surface.

[Sensei]

What are some scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution?

No.

 

Also, could the theory of evolution be proven wrong one day?

No.

 

You can make your own small version of evolution.

Take couple dozen of gray pigeons. Let them have offspring. From offspring pick the one with more white color, than the rest. Let them have offspring again. Repeat.

After several generations, you will make completely white pigeons, starting with just gray one.

If white pigeon will be released free here, he/she will be easily visible, and caught and eaten by predators, disallowing this branch of genes to spread further in the next generations.

But if the same white pigeon will be released on f.e. the north arctic circle, he/she will be able to survive, because will be harder to be visible by predators in snow.

 

 

If group of pigeons would fly by them self to the north, after couple generations, such natural selection would happen spontaneously, without human intervention (like in the above thought experiment).

Becoming white would be adaptation to different environment, where being white is promoted by being able to survive.

 

 

I'm not talking about creationism or intelligent design because these theories are not scientific and also they don't make any useful predictions.

 

Literal creationism like in vision promoted by people who made "creationist park" in USA,

where dinosaurs are showed to live together with early humans in caves, and claiming that it happened just a few thousands years ago, is promotion of lie. Making fools from people.

 

IMHO children should be learning quantum physics in primary school, and at worse case, in high school. Learn radioactive decay with the all details. Learn how to calculate exponential decay with provided by teacher half-lives and mean-lives. And then further to creation of radioactive Carbon C-14, and how it affects living organisms (damages DNA/RNA/cells), and calculation of age of living organism remains or archaeological artifacts (in 50k years range because of half-life of C-14 is just 5730 years).

Exercise for true XXI century school: give students rock, and their aim is to calculate age of rock using radioactive isotope of Rubidium-87..

Edited June 26, 2017 by Sensei

[Bender]

IMHO children should be learning quantum physics in primary school, and at worse case, in high school. Learn radioactive decay with the all details. Learn how to calculate exponential decay with provided by teacher half-lives and mean-lives. And then further to creation of radioactive Carbon C-14, and how it affects living organisms (damages DNA/RNA/cells), and calculation of age of living organism remains or archaeological artifacts (in 50k years range because of half-life of C-14 is just 5730 years).

Exercise for true XXI century school: give students rock, and their aim is to calculate age of rock using radioactive isotope of Rubidium-87..

I completely agree with this, primary school children will has less trouble accepting the rudimentary concepts of quantum physics and relativity. Once those concepts are part of their worldview, they will have less trouble building on them when the mathematics becomes available to them.