Customer Discussions > Science forum

Are there SCIENTIFIC disagreements with evolution theory?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 860 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 28, 2012 7:35:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 1, 2012 12:57:44 PM PDT
Frango says:
In his free ebook Aging by Design, Theodore Goldsmith explicitly attacks creationism and intelligent design but simultaneously disagrees with some aspects of evolution theory.
Aging by Design: How New Thinking on Aging Will Change Your Life
He further cites a series of evidence and logic-based scientific papers published since 1882 that disagree with Darwin's theory in some way. My question is: Are there currently other people who explicitly disclaim a belief in creationism and intelligent design but simultaneously disagree with some aspect of evolution theory? Is there, in effect, more than one scientific evolution theory?
Edited for clarity:
The book says that scientists agree that evolution happened and that current species are descended from earlier species. The disagreements concern details of the evolution process and the book describes three variations of the "evolutionary mechanics theory" that specifies how the evolution process works:
-Survival of the fittest (Darwin)
-Survival of the fittest only applies to young organisms (Medawar, et al)
-Survival of the fittest can trade off against a benefit to groups or other wider benefit (apparently many modern theorists)
I understand there are constant flame wars between the science and religious factions that may make an inquiry like this impossible but one way of discerning between a scientific position and a religious position is to ask if the responder specifically rejects creationism and intelligent design. Among those who do, what is your thinking regarding the three evolutionary concepts? Are there still more scientific evolution concepts that differ from Darwin's ideas?

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 7:40:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Dec 16, 2012 7:21:17 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 8:17:49 AM PDT
John McClain says:
"Creationism it says life began with divine intervention.
Does Peer Reviwed Science have ANY credible alternative to Creationism?"

Science 101: In order to need an alternative, your explanation must first qualify as an explanation by being evidenced. As yours is not, you can kindly be dismissed.

By the way, why did you never answer that one question? You just kept running away from it, lol. I'm telling you right now that I saw Elvis last night, so that means it's true, right?

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 8:28:14 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2012 8:32:29 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 8:29:47 AM PDT
John McClain says:
"Here it is: God He initiated life."

Back to Science 101 we go. Well, you certainly got an explanation, now where's your evidence?

By the way, why did you never answer that one question? You just kept running away from it, lol. I'm telling you right now that I saw Elvis last night, so that means it's true, right?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 8:41:37 AM PDT
Frango: The short answers to your questions are: Yes, there are lots of disagreements among scientists about certain aspects of evolutionary theory; and no, there is only one basic theory of evolution, which is still remarkably similar to the way Darwin proposed it 150 years ago. I hope Christine Janis, who is our most authoritative poster on evolution, will fill in some of the blanks I left.

Posted on Sep 28, 2012 8:41:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2012 11:35:13 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 9:15:37 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hiding from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work. Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

Yes, Christopher, you're still wrong. Being a creationist, you will always be wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 9:28:45 AM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
there may well always be scientific debates about "some aspect" of evolution. gene transfer, evo-devo, re-evaluations of the "bush of life", stuff like that.

but i think it's safe to say that there's no scientific debate about whether evolution *happens*. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 9:39:52 AM PDT
John McClain says:
Back to Science 101 we go. Well, you certainly got an explanation, now where's your evidence?

By the way, why did you never answer that one question? You just kept running away from it, lol. I'm telling you right now that I saw Elvis last night, so that means it's true, right?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 11:06:59 AM PDT
Re OP question: No. ALL such disagreements are based on religious precepts.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 3:59:18 PM PDT
noman says:
" Is there, in effect, more than one scientific evolution theory?"

**No.
Arguments/research about specific *mechanisms* but not about Theory of Evolution itself.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 10:07:30 PM PDT
the darweenies and chemists have never shown tht life can start witthout God

until they do that
all thier bloviation about evolution is so much hot air

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 10:08:36 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2012 10:46:36 PM PDT
Why is it that the totalitarian theocrats of Cretinism never quote Matthew 6:5?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 6:14:00 AM PDT
Not even worth giving you a *no*, Christopher.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 6:17:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 29, 2012 6:24:17 AM PDT
giddeeup: the darweenies and chemists have never shown tht life can start witthout God until they do that all thier bloviation about evolution is so much hot air

So multitasking is beyond you, horse? Most people are able to separate the concepts of (abio)genesis (or Creation if you prefer) and what happens (evolution) afterwards. Why can't you?

Every time you try to pretend otherwise is wasted effort on your part.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 10:53:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 29, 2012 12:42:13 PM PDT
Uh-oh -- I'm good at the anatomy and paleontology, but not particularly at evolutionary theory.

Still, taking a quick look at the book on Amazon, it doesn't seem to be saying anything specific about evolutionary theory. The author is arguing against some of the evolutionary *explanations* that various people have made to explain aging. Often such explanations are not testable, so don't even qualify as scientific hypotheses, although they may be interesting and potentially of value.

I don't know what exactly the author tackles in his book, but here's an analogous argument. People have argued that menopause (seen only among human females) has an evolutionary advantage -- the "grandmother hypothesis": with our long life spans, and the long time it takes to raise a child, it might be the case that females would pass on more of their genes if they stopped having babies when they got near the end of their lifespan. If you have a child at (say) the age of 70, and are unlikely to live past 80, then that child may not survive and your genetic investment will be lost. If, however, you stop reproducing and instead help your daughter(s) to raise their children, then your actions later in life are actually more likely to insure the survival of your genetic contributions.

I think this is a fair hypothesis, although it's not really testable, as there is no other species with a comparable life history to compare us with. However, if we discovered some other reason, quite unrelated to genetic investment, that was a better explanation for menopause, then the evolutionary explanation might have to be abandoned. Would this do anything to the "theory of evolution"? No, nothing at all.

This may make people think "well, evolutionary theory is so flexible that it can explain everything". But note how I said above that the grandmother hypothesis was a nice idea but not strictly a testable, scientific one. Many other evolutionary hypotheses *can* be tested against the diversity of life on earth. (For example: does the elongation of the metapodials (bones of the hands and feet) in quadrupedal mammals aid in fast and/or sustained running?: There is a perfect correlate with this anatomical change and running speed that occurred convergently a dozen times or more --- thus the hypothesis can be tested and verified [or, at least, repeatedly not falsified, which amounts to more or less the same thing].)

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 12:13:54 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 12:14:41 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 1:07:42 PM PDT
That's not logic. Instead, it is profoundly stupid.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 2:35:49 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jan 25, 2013 8:36:47 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 2:53:38 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"without creation there can be no evolution
nothing to evolve

with creation
you dont need evolution cause it was all preplanned

logic seems to elude you"

Aw, horsie, you wouldn't recognize _logic_ if it walked up and kissed you on the mouth.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 3:17:16 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 29, 2012 3:17:47 PM PDT
as long as you dont try it
i can handle what logic does
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 35 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  53
Total posts:  860
Initial post:  Sep 28, 2012
Latest post:  Oct 19, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions