Evolution - is it Challengable?

[Vexer]

Seems to me that Darwin-type bio-evolutionary theory has no (scientific) theoretical opponents. None. Never has had.

 

That makes it pretty unusual, if not unique.

 

(I can only think of our concept of ‘time’ as an equally large and mostly unchallenged set of ideas - though, I have read ‘the End of Time’ (Balfour). (And one day, I’ll understand it)).

 

Which makes me suspicious.

 

It seems to me that the most scientifically interesting thing that could happen, would be if ‘Evolution’ was challenged.

 

Be brave: where would I start looking, if I were interested in challenging Evolution? Where are the anomalies? What doesn’t quite make sense about the theory(s)? Where are the chinks?

 

It’d really be something, if there aren’t any. Unique, even. Wouldn’t that be… odd?

 

 

(I only wish I didn’t feel I have to say this, but: I’m not a crypto-Creationist looking for ammo. I’m an atheist who thinks that Evolution is the single Biggest idea, ever. I’m not interested in creationist replies of any kind. Especially those dressed up as Science. I would like people who know what they’re talking about to tell me things I haven’t heard before).

 

(I can only hope for the best, even though I suspect the politics of this are impossible).

 

I’m a big-picture guy, and Evolution is the biggest (human) picture there is. Let’s challenge it. Be brave.

[iNow]

It's been challenged since it's generation ~150 years ago, and has not only survived those challenges, but become stronger by them.

 

I suppose I don't understand the thrust of your point. It's not as if some guys wrote a book and said god wrote it and this book said "let evolution be true."

 

A guy came up with an idea which has made testable predictions, and every challenge we could think of for a century and half has failed to overturn it.

 

Again, you don't seem yet to understand the history of what's been done in the field, and I'm somewhat curious about what's your point?

[Mr Skeptic]

All scientific theories are by definition falsifiable. They can always be challenged, but only by a better theory.

[Vexer]

You suppose correctly. But seeing that you're curious:

 

Which "(scientific) theoretical opponents" do you refer too?

 

I thought it was obvious I didn't mean opponents to the theory(s), but - opponent theories. Name one?

 

 

I'm guessing you're defensively knee-jerking. Read what I wrote, again.

 

 

Mr Skeptic: Thanks for that. Now have a go at replying to my OP.

 

(I knew this was going to be like this...).

[D H]

I thought it was obvious I didn't mean opponents to the theory(s), but - opponent theories. Name one?

 

Evolution.

 

We do not teach the theory of evolution as conceived by Darwin because Darwin didn't know about genetics or DNA. His theories have been supplanted by better ones. To think that evolution as conceived by Darwin is the be-all and end-all of biology is akin to thinking that the Bohr model of the atom is the be-all and end-all of modern physics. To the contrary! It is only the starting point. The Bohr model of the atom has been falsified and replaced by theories that better explain how the atom truly behaves. Similarly, Darwinian evolution has been supplanted by the modern synthesis, genetics, and molecular biology. In short, modern evolution.

[Vexer]

His theories have been supplanted by better ones

 

Which is why I carefully said: “Darwin-type”. Of course.

 

 

To think that evolution as conceived by Darwin is the be-all…

 

I didn’t suggest that.

 

Now, address my OP.

[iNow]

Challenge it how? You sure are being unecessarily abrasive for a guy with only 7 posts under his belt...

[Daecon]

His theories have been supplanted by better ones

 

Which is why I carefully said: “Darwin-type”. Of course.

 

 

To think that evolution as conceived by Darwin is the be-all…

 

I didn’t suggest that.

 

Now, address my OP.

 

It would appear D H already has. What, exactly, are you looking for? Perhaps you should make your expected answer a little clearer.

[Vexer]

'Transdecimal',

 

It would appear D H already has. We’ll have to disagree about that. That was completely off-topic. As has every other post been so far.

 

I’d be interested if you could indicate any specific part, of any post, that has addressed my OP. Can you?

 

 

Perhaps you should make your expected answer a little clearer.

 

I’ve made it as simple and clear as I can. Read, what, I said.

 

 

(I’ll not respond to off-topic posts for a while)

 

 

is; repetition really needed?

 

“where would I start looking, if I were interested in challenging Evolution? Where are the anomalies? What doesn’t quite make sense about the theory(s)? Where are the chinks?”

 

Be brave.

[iNow]

Lol. I dunno, chief. How about wikipedia?

 

You are being very vague, sir.

[D H]

You are being very vague, sir.

And abrasive and abusive.

 

Evolution has been and continues to be challenged. Every PhD candidate in the biological sciences has to contribute something new to the body of science, after all. However, because evolution does such an amazing job at explaining the evidence and because evolution has a well-defined mechanism that explains why it occurs, the challenges are in the details rather than a wholesale replacement.

 

There's nothing unique at all in this. Revolutions in science are few and far between. The last major upheaval in the biological sciences was the discovery of DNA. This turned biology upside down and provided the "missing link" in the theory of evolution: a mechanism. Newton developed the basic concepts of physics over 300 years ago. There have been but two major revolutions in physics since then, both in the early part of the twentieth century. Chemistry followed in the footsteps of physics. Changes in physics and chemistry are now incremental, just as they are in biology.

[Vexer]

You dunno. I’d be interested if you could indicate any specific part, of any post, that has addressed my OP. Can you?

[Daecon]

“where would I start looking, if I were interested in challenging Evolution? Where are the anomalies? What doesn’t quite make sense about the theory(s)? Where are the chinks?”

 

Be brave.

If you're seriously interested in challenging evolution, then you'd need to have an expert knowledge of what you would challenge it with. What theory is better than the current theory of evolution?

 

If you can get degrees in biological sciences, molecular biology and genetics, then that should help you understand things better.

[Vexer]

What theory is better than the current theory of evolution?

 

That's what I'm asking, you.

 

I'll say if for a fifth time: That's what I'm asking, you.

 

That's what I'm asking, you.

 

(sigh)

[iNow]

Yep. A troll.

[Daecon]

What theory is better than the current theory of evolution?

 

That's what I'm asking, you.

 

Then the answer to that would be: There isn't one.

 

If there was a better theory than the current theory that explains the fact of evolution, we would be using that theory instead.

[insane_alien]

There is no singular theory of evolution anymore. Instead there are a whole range of theories dealing with genetics, mutations and selection which is called 'modern synthesis'. Darwins ideas were quite flawed and incomplete, though they were the best at the time.

 

so, to answer our question, darwinian evolution has alread been challenged and it was found wanting and replaced/augmented.

[swansont]

Seems to me that Darwin-type bio-evolutionary theory has no (scientific) theoretical opponents. None. Never has had.

 

Never? Saltation and Lamarckism come to mind. They were, of course, falsified.

[Mr Skeptic]

What theory is better than the current theory of evolution?

 

That's what I'm asking, you.

 

I'll say if for a fifth time: That's what I'm asking, you.

 

That's what I'm asking, you.

 

(sigh)

 

That would be the theory of evolution. You see, each time that they find a better explanation for a certain aspect of the theory, they change the theory but keep the name. Unless it is a ginormous or controversial change, then they would change the name too. There have been a few such suggestions such as "punctuated equilibria" dunno what became of that. In any case, the theory of evolution has been replaced by the theory of evolution (new and improved) a rather large number of times.

[D H]

That would be the theory of evolution.

 

Exactly. But I beat you to it in post #5.

[ParanoiA]

Be brave: where would I start looking, if I were interested in challenging Evolution? Where are the anomalies? What doesn’t quite make sense about the theory(s)? Where are the chinks?

 

I’m a big-picture guy, and Evolution is the biggest (human) picture there is. Let’s challenge it. Be brave.

 

What's this "Be brave" crap? The reason why no one is actually answering your OP is because you're coming off exactly how you claim you're not - a crypto-creationist. "Let's challenge it. Be Brave?" - that's exactly the kind of irrelevant, emotional, traditionalist appeal I would expect from a creationist. As if fear is responsible for the propogation of the theory of evolution. Weird. A scientist would have little reason to throw in such a left field statement like that for seemingly no reason at all.

 

You don't understand scientists very well if you believe that. There's nothing they like better than disagreeing with each other and challenging big ideas.

 

I think you're either a creationist, an anti-evolution anti-science type, or a troll. Otherwise, you wouldn't be using psycho provocative verbiage.

[CDarwin]

Seems to me that Darwin-type bio-evolutionary theory has no (scientific) theoretical opponents. None. Never has had.[/Quote]

 

Bone up on your history of science before you say something like that.

 

When Darwin wrote The Origin it was almost as if everyone said "thank you Mr. Darwin for explaining evolution so beautifully" and then proceeded to disregard everything else he said. Throughout much of the late 19th Century and all the way up the the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s, a majority (or at least a hefty share) of the scientific community rejected natural selection as the major agent of "progressive" (fish to man) evolutionary change, for example.

 

Darwinian evolution had to compete with three major theoretical frameworks of evolution (in addition to a framework of a static nature): transmutationism, Lamarkian transformationalism, and Orthogenetic transformationalism (finalism), all based around what is called a typological or an essentialist way of looking at ecology.

 

To put the three succinctly:

Transmutationism: Species (defined by their key, 'essential,' characters- that's Essentialism) change to other species in single generations as a result of massive mutations (saltations)

 

Lamarckian trasformationalism: Species (same definition) change gradually as a result of persistent environmental influence. Neo-Lamarckianism might well be called the dominant idea in late 19th Century evolutionary thought.

 

Finalism: Species (same definition) change gradually as they approach perfection (man). This is the idea Haekel's Biogenic Law was based on.

 

When modern genetics began to develop, these three theories were found not to fit the data anywhere near as well as Darwin's original notions from 1859. It took a full 60 years of intense challenge and frequent disregard for Darwinism to finally attain orthodoxy.

 

It seems to me that the most scientifically interesting thing that could happen, would be if ‘Evolution’ was challenged.

 

Be brave: where would I start looking, if I were interested in challenging Evolution? Where are the anomalies? What doesn’t quite make sense about the theory(s)? Where are the chinks?

 

It’d really be something, if there aren’t any. Unique, even. Wouldn’t that be… odd?

 

I’m a big-picture guy, and Evolution is the biggest (human) picture there is. Let’s challenge it. Be brave.

 

So what on earth do you think evolutionary biologists sit around doing all day? Twiddling their thumbs? Organizing inquisitions to burn Creationists? I'd like to know.

[iNow]

So what on earth do you think evolutionary biologists sit around doing all day? Twiddling their thumbs? Organizing inquisitions to burn Creationists? I'd like to know.

 

Shhh!! Be quiet, you fool! He'll see the Big Board!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSKkZCxbNdw

[psynapse]

An exception to Darwinian Evolution, could be altruism found in many simple organisms such as the slime mold; where certain amoeboid cells become the germ cells and other equally good cells become the stalk cells and raise the germ cells up off the ground so that the wind may pick up the spores better. AFAIK these sorts of behavior are contradictory to Darwinian evolution because the stalk cells are giving up their chance at propagating their genes so that others may. I am sure there are many more examples but this particular one comes to mind.

[iNow]

Through time, those organisms which acted on behalf of the greater good performed better than those organisms which acted solely on self interest. The logic is clear to me, but I'm not your average bear.