What could possibly replace Darwinian Evolution?

[CountDeMoney]

  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".

Somebody should figure out a way to introduce deep sea drilling and Catholic doctrine into the mix as well.

[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".

Somebody should figure out a way to introduce deep sea drilling and Catholic doctrine into the mix as well.

Reach deep into my oil well and feel my holy water?

[The Brain]

Viking is weird.

[Viking]

Viking is weird.

Westernized, Educated, Intelligent, Rich and Democratic?

[Eddie Teach]

Witchy, esoteric, inscrutable, recondite, diabolical.

[Viking]

Witchy, esoteric, inscrutable, recondite, diabolical.

You know me better, I am certainly not Witchy, esoteric or diabolical. Inscrutability lies in the eyes of the beholder and I don't know what recondite means.

[lustindarkness]

What about later alien intervention via the monolith?

[Razgovory]

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?

If you can be constructive, then by all means post.  If you want to ascribe to me things I never said, and go of on strange tangents, then no.

[fhdz]

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.

There have been and will continue to be numerous refinements to the theory of evolution, but I don't see anything overthrowing it completely - that would stand in contrast to all the evidence in its favor, which would be highly unscientific.

[Ideologue]

The central concept of pressures leading to selection isn't likely to go anywhere, since it's a logical feature of any dynamic system.

[fhdz]

The central concept of pressures leading to selection isn't likely to go anywhere, since it's a logical feature of any dynamic system.

[The Brain]

Maybe there will be a new paradigm? Evolution in its present form is very white male. When we get ethnic women scientists they may discover a different truth.

[The Minsky Moment]

The central concept of pressures leading to selection isn't likely to go anywhere, since it's a logical feature of any dynamic system.

It's not a logical feature, it is an empirical one.  And what makes evolution so robust as a theory of biology is not its inherent logic but its ability to explain the empirical evidence. 

[Viking]

The central concept of pressures leading to selection isn't likely to go anywhere, since it's a logical feature of any dynamic system.

It's not a logical feature, it is an empirical one.  And what makes evolution so robust as a theory of biology is not its inherent logic but its ability to explain the empirical evidence.

Do note that virtually all the logical deductions about evolution are axiomatic. When you have the very idea of

1 - inheritance of properties
2 - interaction with the world affecting likelihood of reproduction
3 - random mutation

the theory of evolution is virtually axiomatic with these premises. To get to a new paradigm here you need to strike down one of these premises with facts and then you will need to change the rest of science because it basically confirms all three of these premises.

[The Minsky Moment]

There's nothing about any of those three premises that is a logical necessity.