What could possibly replace Darwinian Evolution?

[Razgovory]

Something I had been thinking about lately.  What could possibly replace Darwinian Evolution?  I'm not talking about something silly like creationism, or something philosophical like Intelligent Design, but an actual scientific theory.  Critics of Darwin like to point out that Evolution is only a "theory".  While it seems clear a lot of the people who say things like this don't seem to understand what "theory" means in a scientific context, they do have a point, albeit a small one.  All scientific theories are subject to change, refinement and occasionally total overthrow.  However, Darwinian Evolution has extremely strong ground to stand on.  Sure Darwin had some problems to work out early on, and there are of course still holes in our understanding of natural science, but these holes if they are ever filled will almost certainly be done so in the context of Darwinian Evolution.  Darwin's theory is like a foundation and wooden frame of a house and each new fossil or species discovered is like a brick that fits in to the previous bricks placed in and supporting any new bricks.  The result has been a remarkably sturdy house (consider how many other scientific disciplines have seen huge shifts since Darwin first published a century and half ago).


Still, it is a theory and can be overturned, but is there a serious scientific theory waiting the in the wings to replace it?  I honestly can't think of anything.

[Neil]

Modern evolutionary synthesis?

[Viking]

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Only a theory? It seems Raz requires some more remedial education. The fact that Raz keeps using "Darwinian" as an adjective just suggests to me something about where he is getting his facts and interpretations. Biologists only use the word "Darwinian" when discussing the history of biology. When referring to what they do today they call it "biology".

Neils suggestion of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis IS what today is called Darwinism by the Raz'es of the world and sometimes "The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis" by some historians of science. It combines the theory of evolution by natural selection with genetics. Darwin didn't understand how inheritance of traits happened (even though Gregor Mendel was a contempory of his) and thought that traits were an average of the traits of the parents rather than a copy of the trait of one of the parents.

As for replacing evolution. Evolution existed before Darwin thought it lacked a sufficient explanation so it wasn't accepted. Evolution existed after the initial proposal of the insufficient theory of evolution due to it's understanding of inheritance cancelled out the rest of the theory and it continued to exist when genetics filled in the last piece of the puzzle of evolution. Biological forms change over time, that is evolution. It happens, it is fact. The present explanation for how evolution happens has been so rigorously tested and is so completely supported by every test and virtually every fact known about the universe that to change to a different explanation which wouldn't also be called evolution (or "Darwinian evil-ution" by Raz and his ilk) would mean the proving virtually everything in science wrong.

[Razgovory]

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Only a theory? It seems Raz requires some more remedial education.

I'm working on exactly what your point is.

[Brazen]

Like gravity. That's a theory too.

[Viking]

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Only a theory? It seems Raz requires some more remedial education.

I'm working on exactly what your point is.

This is a good place to start.

http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/evolution-fact.pdf

[Viking]

Like gravity. That's a theory too.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think we should be so quick to discount the alien experiment origin theory.

[Razgovory]

   Okay, since Viking is only interested in insulting me and attributing ideas to me that I was not propagating, perhaps he could leave this thread alone.

[Viking]

I don't think we should be so quick to discount the alien experiment origin theory.

Dawkins specifically didn't discount Directed Pan Spermia (which is the scientific name for that hypothesis). This would also have no effect on modern biology since it explains abiogenesis (the origin of life). Evolution deals with the diversity of life since it's origin.

[Viking]

  Okay, since Viking is only interested in insulting me and attributing ideas to me that I was not propagating, perhaps he could leave this thread alone.

Fair enough on the insulting you bit. But if you are actually serious about learning more

http://http://www.talkorigins.org/

is the best place to get questions about evolution and it's place within science answered.

[Brazen]

What about later alien intervention via the monolith?

[garbon]

  Okay, since Viking is only interested in insulting me and attributing ideas to me that I was not propagating, perhaps he could leave this thread alone.

It's Viking and you decided to discuss one "his topics".

[Razgovory]

  Okay, since Viking is only interested in insulting me and attributing ideas to me that I was not propagating, perhaps he could leave this thread alone.

Fair enough on the insulting you bit. But if you are actually serious about learning more

http://http://www.talkorigins.org/

is the best place to get questions about evolution and it's place within science answered.

See, I wasn't actually attacking evolution.  In fact, I was doing the opposite.  I was pointing out that it's an extremely strong theory ( I didn't disagree with Mr. Gould's essay at all).  What I was saying is that since it's a scientific theory it isn't immutable, there is always a possibly that it can be altered or overthrown.  But due to the strength of the theory and data that backs it up I can't imagine a logical or scientific idea that could replace it and still be supported by all the data we have.  I wondered if it was even possible to come up with alternative.

I'm not sure exactly how you took that as anti-evolution.  I used the phrase Darwinian Evolution to distinguish from other early Evolutionary theories like Lamarckian Evolution.

[Viking]

Seriously, you asked me to leave this thread alone, I agreed to do so. They you take the opportunity to post at me. Do you want me to leave this thread alone or do you want me to say what I really think?