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.
Modern evolutionary synthesis?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
QuoteWell, 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.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 07:50:43 AM
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)
QuoteWell, 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.
Like gravity. That's a theory too.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2013, 08:04:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 07:50:43 AM
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)
QuoteWell, 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
Quote from: Brazen on August 08, 2013, 08:12:06 AM
Like gravity. That's a theory too.
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3578245120/h60139467/)
I don't think we should be so quick to discount the alien experiment origin theory.
:mellow: 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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 08, 2013, 08:24:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2013, 08:28:34 AM
:mellow: 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.
What about later alien intervention via the monolith?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicturespoilers.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F04%2F2001-a-space-odyssey-ape-monolith.jpg&hash=6564663bfd7b096a1d09d7db33f7576328d916dc)
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2013, 08:28:34 AM
:mellow: 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". :(
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 08:31:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2013, 08:28:34 AM
:mellow: 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/ (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.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2013, 08:48:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 08:31:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2013, 08:28:34 AM
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?
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 08:37:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2013, 08:28:34 AM
:mellow: 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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 08, 2013, 09:20:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2013, 08:37:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2013, 08:28:34 AM
:mellow: 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? :unsure:
Viking is weird.
Quote from: The Brain on August 08, 2013, 09:37:25 AM
Viking is weird.
Westernized, Educated, Intelligent, Rich and Democratic?
Witchy, esoteric, inscrutable, recondite, diabolical.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 08, 2013, 10:07:12 AM
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.
Quote from: Brazen on August 08, 2013, 08:34:33 AM
What about later alien intervention via the monolith?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpicturespoilers.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F04%2F2001-a-space-odyssey-ape-monolith.jpg&hash=6564663bfd7b096a1d09d7db33f7576328d916dc)
:worthy:
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 09:16:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2013, 08:48:20 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 08, 2013, 07:45:35 AM
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.
The central concept of pressures leading to selection isn't likely to go anywhere, since it's a logical feature of any dynamic system.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 08, 2013, 12:47:37 PM
The central concept of pressures leading to selection isn't likely to go anywhere, since it's a logical feature of any dynamic system.
:yes:
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 08, 2013, 12:47:37 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2013, 01:09:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 08, 2013, 12:47:37 PM
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.
There's nothing about any of those three premises that is a logical necessity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2013, 01:21:42 PM
There's nothing about any of those three premises that is a logical necessity.
The premises are not logical necessities, they can be wrong and if they are proven wrong everything we know about reality is wrong. You are absolutely correct about that. However given these premises evolution is a necessary consequence.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 01:37:11 PM
everything we know about reality is wrong.
that's a bit of an exaggeration.
I don't think all the laws of physics, for example, hand on whether there is biological inheritance of properties or random mutation.
Similarly re 2 we know that asexual reproduction is possible. One could conceive of a world where only asexual reproduction occurs. Indeed, one could easily conceive of a universe that has no life whatsoever and yet all the other laws of science would still hold.
What's with the sex stuff?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2013, 01:44:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 01:37:11 PM
everything we know about reality is wrong.
that's a bit of an exaggeration.
I don't think all the laws of physics, for example, hand on whether there is biological inheritance of properties or random mutation.
Similarly re 2 we know that asexual reproduction is possible. One could conceive of a world where only asexual reproduction occurs. Indeed, one could easily conceive of a universe that has no life whatsoever and yet all the other laws of science would still hold.
Think of this as analogy. There is a fact, this fact is "4". Now there are two ways of reaching this fact. You can either count, "1", "2", "3", "4" or you can do math "4 = 2 + 8
1/3". If you somehow find out that you counted wrong then "2 + 8
1/3 =/= 4" At that point it turns out that what you think you know about addition or cube roots or both isn't true.
The reason evolution is such a good theory is that it has been confirmed by virtually every other branch of science at some point and in some way. If it had NOT been true then most if not all of these other branches of science should have disconfirmed it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2013, 01:44:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 01:37:11 PM
everything we know about reality is wrong.
that's a bit of an exaggeration.
I don't think all the laws of physics, for example, hand on whether there is biological inheritance of properties or random mutation.
I think you'd find chemistry and therefore physics would have to be different if we were not to have heritable traits. But I'm not concerned with heritability, I was talking about natural selection.
QuoteSimilarly re 2 we know that asexual reproduction is possible. One could conceive of a world where only asexual reproduction occurs. Indeed, one could easily conceive of a universe that has no life whatsoever and yet all the other laws of science would still hold.
Yes, and natural selection would still occur within a lifeless universe. You could conceive of a universe where the laws of physics are completely different, yet natural selection would still occur in it, if it were capable of change.
QuoteIf it had NOT been true then most if not all of these other branches of science should have disconfirmed it
QuoteYes, and natural selection would still occur within a lifeless universe. You could conceive of a universe where the laws of physics are completely different, yet natural selection would still occur in it, if it were capable of change.
If Viking is right then Ide is wrong unless physics is one of the branches of science that would not be disconfirmed if the theory of evolution is wrong - in which case JR was right all along...
Quote from: Ideologue on August 08, 2013, 02:08:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2013, 01:44:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 01:37:11 PM
everything we know about reality is wrong.
that's a bit of an exaggeration.
I don't think all the laws of physics, for example, hand on whether there is biological inheritance of properties or random mutation.
I think you'd find chemistry and therefore physics would have to be different if we were not to have heritable traits. But I'm not concerned with heritability, I was talking about natural selection.
Just to add a bit here. DNA is a molecule and the copying of that molecule is a chemical process. And to be blunt, chemistry is the physics of molecules and atoms. Biological inheritance is dependent on the fidelity in the copying process of the dna molecule, the properties that are inherited are dependent on the folding properties of the amino acids that the dna molecule acts as a coding catalyst in a different chemical process and mutation is caused in almost every case by the interference of other chemical processes in the dna copy process.
There is a lot of science going on with inheritance and genetics.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 08, 2013, 02:08:53 PM
QuoteSimilarly re 2 we know that asexual reproduction is possible. One could conceive of a world where only asexual reproduction occurs. Indeed, one could easily conceive of a universe that has no life whatsoever and yet all the other laws of science would still hold.
Yes, and natural selection would still occur within a lifeless universe. You could conceive of a universe where the laws of physics are completely different, yet natural selection would still occur in it, if it were capable of change.
Indeed bacteria almost always operate with a-sexual reproduction and yet they still have species. It's a process where bacteria steal dna from other bacteria and add it to their own. It's a fascinating process where lateral genetic transfer happens in a stable system of a-sexual reproduction. In multicellular life a-sexual reproduction does happen but is rarely successful or long lasting. One of the largest a-sexual reproducers out there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_whiptail) today is the lesbian lizard, but only really exists, like ligers or mules, as a hybrid of two other species which normally wouldn't be able to reproduce but can.
I think we are talking past each other. The existence of DNA and how it actually works in the world is a matter of empirical fact. Our scientific understanding of those facts is the result of drawing conclusions based on extensive observation and empirical investigation. Not as ideologue suggested by conceiving of logical features inherent in any conceivable dynamic system. If the logic were that compelling, Aristotle would have derived the entire theory of genetics, evolution and postulated the existence of DNA. Which of course he did not - Aristotlean science instead is kind of cautionary tale of how even the most rigorous application of logic, where insufficiently aided by accurate and replicable empirical observation, can lead to faulty results.
The danger in appealing to inherent logic is that it eliminates the one of the crticial things that makes scientific inquiry distinctive and the thing on which in significant part its claim to some special epestimic prioity rests.
actually if Aristotle had know of mutation, inheritance and selection then in addition to the observed similarity of living things, yes, he too would have gotten to evolution. How do I know this? Because that's all that Darwin had.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 04:54:52 PM
actually if Aristotle had know of mutation, inheritance and selection then in addition to the observed similarity of living things, yes, he too would have gotten to evolution. How do I know this? Because that's all that Darwin had.
Didnt Darwin go on some voyage or other on some boat to you know, check things out a bit?
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 04:56:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 04:54:52 PM
actually if Aristotle had know of mutation, inheritance and selection then in addition to the observed similarity of living things, yes, he too would have gotten to evolution. How do I know this? Because that's all that Darwin had.
Didnt Darwin go on some voyage or other on some boat to you know, check things out a bit?
A bit overblown that.. The voyage gave him lots of data, yes, and if aristotle had had that data then yes he would have had the same conclusion. You see Darwin already belonged to a society that knew about evolution beforehand. Thats the great myth, that he came up with an idea nobody else had thought of before and that idea was evolution. Darwin's great idea was natural selection, not evolution.
Aristotle was the guy who came up with the great chain of being which was the the actual first step in discovering evolution. He already knew that all life was of the same kind and related. Aristotle didn't know about mutation or selection, but he did know about inheritance and similarity. If aristotle had been a pigeon fancier like darwin we would have had a theory of evolution in the 4th century bc. Aristotle not only invented the ideas of species and genus he also knew that man was an animal, an evolved animal which had climbed the great chain of being.
Aristotle was already half way there.
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 05:11:12 PM
if aristotle had had that data then yes he would have had the same conclusion.
An odd thing to say given Joan's criticism.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2013, 03:30:33 PM
Not as ideologue suggested by conceiving of logical features inherent in any conceivable dynamic system.
All I was talking about was natural selection, not DNA. The survival of structures that can survive is inherent in any conceivable dynamic system.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 04:56:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 04:54:52 PM
actually if Aristotle had know of mutation, inheritance and selection then in addition to the observed similarity of living things, yes, he too would have gotten to evolution. How do I know this? Because that's all that Darwin had.
Didnt Darwin go on some voyage or other on some boat to you know, check things out a bit?
Indeed
Mutation and inheritance were things he observed, selection was an inference he drew to explain observations.
I am actually very surprised that viking of all people is trying to downplay the significance of observation and empirical inquiry and trying to position the natural sciences as a branch of a priori logic.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 08, 2013, 05:39:02 PM
The survival of structures that can survive is inherent in any conceivable dynamic system.
Clearly not so.
One could conceive of dynamic systems where all things survive but randomly change form, or systems were all things perish and are then reborn. There are all sorts of dynamic systems that could be conceived in the mind that don't work in accordance with natural selection.
Next question: what could possibly replace alchemy?l
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 08, 2013, 05:46:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 08, 2013, 04:56:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 08, 2013, 04:54:52 PM
actually if Aristotle had know of mutation, inheritance and selection then in addition to the observed similarity of living things, yes, he too would have gotten to evolution. How do I know this? Because that's all that Darwin had.
Didnt Darwin go on some voyage or other on some boat to you know, check things out a bit?
Indeed
Mutation and inheritance were things he observed, selection was an inference he drew to explain observations.
I am actually very surprised that viking of all people is trying to downplay the significance of observation and empirical inquiry and trying to position the natural sciences as a branch of a priori logic.
I'm not downplaying the significance of empiricism. I'm saying that given mutation, inheritance and selection then evolution follows. I'm not proposing an alternative scientific method. I'm saying that given these premises evolution is the logical consequence. Before darwin (even by aristotles contemporaries) evolution was observed. The same applies to inheritance, sons look like their fathers and baby horses grow up to be adult horses. Had aristotle had mutation and selection (selection was darwin's contribution) he too could have deduced evolution. The scientific method works backwards, it observes evolution, proposes explanations, uses those explanations to make predictions and then tests the predictions.
Quote from: grumbler on August 09, 2013, 03:47:18 PM
Next question: what could possibly replace alchemy?l
Wait, wait, I've got this one...
It was a short-lived movement to try and build on the successes of alchemists turning lead into gold; they instead attempted to turn lead into drinking water. Final score: Science 1, Alchemists 0.
Quote from: fhdz on August 09, 2013, 04:35:36 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 09, 2013, 03:47:18 PM
Next question: what could possibly replace alchemy?l
Wait, wait, I've got this one...
It was a short-lived movement to try and build on the successes of alchemists turning lead into gold; they instead attempted to turn lead into drinking water. Final score: Science 1, Alchemists 0.
Having done his scientific training under Zosimos of Panopolis Grumbler has you at somewhat of a disadvantage.
Quote from: grumbler on August 09, 2013, 03:47:18 PM
Next question: what could possibly replace alchemy?l
It evolved into chemistry and medicine, and based on current medical and pharmacy, they have figured out how to turn sick people to gold. :(
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 09, 2013, 05:05:01 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 09, 2013, 03:47:18 PM
Next question: what could possibly replace alchemy?l
It evolved into chemistry and medicine, and based on current medical and pharmacy, they have figured out how to turn sick people to gold. :(
Lusti wins.
Quote from: lustindarkness on August 09, 2013, 05:05:01 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 09, 2013, 03:47:18 PM
Next question: what could possibly replace alchemy?l
It evolved into chemistry and medicine, and based on current medical and pharmacy, they have figured out how to turn sick people to gold. :(
This is rather fucking brilliant. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 08, 2013, 08:24:46 AM
I don't think we should be so quick to discount the alien experiment origin theory.
This just another version of creationism.
I see nothing wrong with original creationism to required a modern version.
Lustins rules this thread with an iron fist.
Quote from: Siege on August 09, 2013, 06:55:24 PM
Lustins rules this thread with an iron fist.
I thought he ruled this thread with a rapier wit.