Thoughts

[blike]

Why is it that various advantages and deficiencies of evolutionary [courtesy of natural selection] theory are not openly debated among the [respectable] scientific community? Debates in other areas of science are not shamefully buried deep within peer-reviewed journals. Instead, they often make headlines of popular science readers such as Scientific American.

 

This errantly leads the general public to believe that evolution by natural selection is, in fact, an all-encompassing, all-agreed upon theory by the scientific community. This is partially true. But partial truths make partial myths. Some of the forefront respectable scientists working in fields that deal with natural selection often express dissatisfaction with the theory. Stephen Gould, co-author of the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" argues that the rapid appearance of new life forms [cambrian explosion] demands a mechanism other than natural selection for its explanation. Gould is not alone in his doubts, there are many other highly respected evolutionary scientists that express dissatisfcation with the current model of natural selection.

 

Don't misunderstand the point of this post. I am not saying anything about the validity of the theory. I'm asking why often times, debates about natural selection are covered up in the jargon of peer-reviewed journals, and are not published for the general public to read. In a time when science hastens to expose fallacies, why not expose the fallacy that natural selection is a perfect theory?

[aman]

That's why I like my Discover Magazine. It doesn't let established ideas get in the way of expressing opinions and arguments and lets the reader decide. Sometimes it's good information being interpreted by an idiot with psuedoscience ideas but the information is still usefull. I need information.

If the straight data were presented on evolutionary research without outrageous claims then it would probably be published in the accepted forums.

Just aman

[Guest Hippokrates]

ok dudes, on behalf of Mr Charles Darwin I take the challenge...

 

tell me one phenomenon out of 3.6 billion years of biology, which must fulfill these two conditions:

* It CANNOT be explained by (neo-)Darwinism

* It CAN be explained by any other (scientific) theory has the answer for!

 

i am looking forward for every single reply.... :cool2:

[blike]

<<* It CANNOT be explained by (neo-)Darwinism

* It CAN be explained by any other (scientific) theory has the answer for! >>

 

Considering there aren't many other scientific (I know of none) alternatives to natural selection, this would be a near impossible task. Various issues with natural selection could be brought up, but they would not fit your criteria; as you require an alternate [scientific] theory to support the data.

 

I'm not arguing against evolution, I'm just asking why a lot of debates don't make it past journals.

[Radical Edward]

It's a theory in which the vast majority of the evidence has been destroyed, and cannot be recreated like it can in physics and chemistry. Both the supporters and the detractors of evolution know this to be the case, and both use the lack of evidence as argument for, and counterargument against.

 

the discovery of life on other (non contaminated) planets would be fascinating.... especially if evolution is clear.

[fafalone]

Natural selection is something the gernal public can understand; other arguments, such as gravity vs. quantum gravity would elicit numerous blank stares from the general public, thus there is limited media coverage beyond the scholarly journals.

 

Also note we can experimently demonstrate natural selection; such as the news article on this site about fish evolving smaller, also an expermnient done with flies where some had wings and others didn't--- there was fly paper in there, so only the wingless ones didn't get stuck and could get to food, therefore after several generations wings were compeltely eliminated from the gene pool.

[Giles]

Because the arguments in question have become so bogged down as to be indigestible to the general public (gould's last work on the subject was 1500 pages of impenetrable prose, which he needed proffessional philosophers to help him write), no one is making exciting new claims, and there haven't been any eye-catching experiments.

 

In any case, gould and his cohorts are not really so far from the strict neo-darwinists. If anything, the press tend to exagerate the contrast (as did gould himself).

[Raider]

Could population variation explosions be explained by extraterrestrial life impacting and introducing a lot of new genetic material? Is this likely enough to consider seriously?

[RED FIRE COW]

do you ask this question because of the wide variety of species in this world?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Raider

Could population variation explosions be explained by extraterrestrial life impacting and introducing a lot of new genetic material? Is this likely enough to consider seriously?

 

 

no

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by blike

This errantly leads the general public to believe that evolution by natural selection is, in fact, an all-encompassing, all-agreed upon theory by the scientific community.

 

This rightly leads the general public to believe that evolution by natural selection is, in fact, an all-encompassing, all-agreed upon theory by the scientific community.

[blike]

This rightly leads the general public to believe that evolution by natural selection is, in fact, an all-encompassing, all-agreed upon theory by the scientific community.

 

Since it is all-encompassing, all-agreed upon, I doubt we shall see any further peer-reviewed articles on any part of evolution, because we already know it all!

[Radical Edward]

I'd like to see any alternate theory in a peer reviewed journal.

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Radical Edward

I'd like to see any alternate theory in a peer reviewed journal.

 

is there an alternative theory?

[Radical Edward]

quite a few actually......

 

 

in the beginning................

[spuriousmonkey]

sorry....i forgot a word..

 

is there a alternative scientific theory?

[Radical Edward]

you've forgotten another word too: credible... since the likes of the Raelians would consider their theories scientific.

 

and nope. well none that I have seen in a peer reviewed journal anyway.

[Chaos Theory]

Natural selection is fickle. At some point a successful trait can become a species' downfall when there are changes to the environment-and changes are numerous. Sharks for some reason are highly successful. How many other cartilagenous fish are out there? Crocodiles and alligators haven't changed much. Humans have. Are we now at the most successful model? We'll see. Maybe there will be some really bad disaster that only people with a certain trait will survive. Then other changes lead to other traits becominag dominant. Who knows...maybe we'll be very different.

 

It seems to take a huge climate change or huge change to the environment before you see creatures evolving and then becoming successful. Then you see a population explosion as creatures adapt to certain areas.

 

Mass extinction....population explosion of another bunch of creatures. Seems cyclical. I'm sure you'll see a pattern before any population explosion. Any information on that would be appreciated.

[NavajoEverclear]

Chaos theory- do you know a lot about the chaos theory? I totally agree with you because of it. Some people have told me this isn't part of the theory but i know saw it on a site about it, but cant find that site again. Anyway it proposed the concept that seemingly random data is often governed by a complex order.

So i take that as an evidence of the uncertainty of things we'd like to think are solid. There could be unforseen changes at which our complex order fails, without us knowing why, or that ours, or another, not expected to prevail, will survive due to some unseen advantage hidden in the finest complexites of its genome. Sounds a little like trying to use science to put unrational faith in miracles, but still you cant deny it could be true.

[YT2095]

I`de put my money on cockroaches and rats if the sh!t hit the fan for us.

A possible argument against or certainly not in support of "evolution" per se, would be since nature evolves through neccesity for survival, how come our brains are so big? since a best we only use 10% of it. I`ve never heard of nature evolving things with an "eye to the future" before? on a more trivial note, why do men still have nipples? wouldn`t we have "outgrown" the need for them by now?

[Dave]

Definately cockroaches and the like because they can adapt to a new environment very quickly. I saw something about it the other day as a matter of fact, but I can't remember anything about it (which is less than useful).

[YT2095]

they`re even radiation proof to an extent. though I have no idea how they managed to "evolve" that mechanism either?

[Dave]

Hmm, I have to say I've not read about that. Possibly some way of disgarding mutated cells from radiation easily? No idea at all.

[Chaos Theory]

YT2095 said in post #20 :

I`de put my money on cockroaches and rats if the sh!t hit the fan for us.

A possible argument against or certainly not in support of "evolution" per se, would be since nature evolves through neccesity for survival, how come our brains are so big? since a best we only use 10% of it. I`ve never heard of nature evolving things with an "eye to the future" before? on a more trivial note, why do men still have nipples? wouldn`t we have "outgrown" the need for them by now?

 

 

The 10% use of brain crap is a misquote used by homeopaths who will then sell you junk that supposedly lets you access the rest of your brain.

 

Men have nipples because the fetus has no gender until the testosterone kicks in. Females are the default model. Get over it. It's easier that way. You like your nipples, you know it.

 

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

 

Go forth and learn.

[Chaos Theory]

NavajoEverclear said in post #19 :

Chaos theory- do you know a lot about the chaos theory? I totally agree with you because of it. Some people have told me this isn't part of the theory but i know saw it on a site about it, but cant find that site again. Anyway it proposed the concept that seemingly random data is often governed by a complex order.

So i take that as an evidence of the uncertainty of things we'd like to think are solid. There could be unforseen changes at which our complex order fails, without us knowing why, or that ours, or another, not expected to prevail, will survive due to some unseen advantage hidden in the finest complexites of its genome. Sounds a little like trying to use science to put unrational faith in miracles, but still you cant deny it could be true.

 

 

Hey, I like Gai too (minus the spirit-just the theory). Chas theory is more 'cool' though. I believe coincidences are a common occurence too. There are stats you can do to determine the chance of something happening. All interesting.

 

 

or another, not expected to prevail, will survive due to some unseen advantage hidden in the finest complexites of its genome.

Exactly. I like how you put it.