Do we need a new theory of evolution?

The Guardian ^ | 06/28/2022 | Stephen Buranyi

[TexasKamaAina]

A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology

[Varda]

I prefer science to science fiction.

[TexasGator]

[TexasGator]

“The first “theory” that proves ..”

Theories don’t prove anything!

[Persevero]

Both were created the sixth day. As you no doubt know.

[mmichaels1970]

No, it disproves itself.

Well don't I feel silly.

[TexasGator]

“I’m not the one making unscientific statements here.

And they do not teach stuff like you claim to be discussing in ninth grade.”

Which Holiday Inn did you sleep in?

[Manly Warrior]

Why?

[Dr. Sivana]

Don’t you have any curiosity about how things got to ‘Now’?

Whether I have curiosity or not is not relevant to the question as to whether what happened in the distant past is necessary to be a good biologist.

There is a difference between having a surmisal of what may have happened to the past (in most cases, absolute certainty is not possible) and making that surmisal the keystone of the science itself.

Based on present knowledge of the universe gleaned only from scientific study, we don't really know WHY there is (for instance) gravity, nor exactly how it works. And yet, physics lets us do a great number of things without knowing the why or the history of the cosmos. The assumption from the secularist (the rules of physics are a given, at least since the Big Bang) and the theist (The creator/unmoved mover made it that way) do not interfere with the stuff you can actually do even with the old Newtonian physics.

I cannot think of a discovery in physics that requires a subscription to any ancient cosmological model, nor a biological discovery that required an belief in a particular system of macro-evolution, though such beliefs in both cases may influence researchers approaches to problems.

Disclaimer: "Dr. Sivana" is a fictitious doctor of the Mad Scientist variety. I do not claim to have a PhD or to have higher qualifications in hard sciences.

[Olog-hai]

Rhetorical replies now. What’s your degree in?

[TexasGator]

“Rhetorical replies now. What’s your degree in?”

Degrees. Engineering.

What is your degree in?

[Jamestown1630]

I can’t imagine someone having an avid interest in living, growing ‘things’ without also being interested in how they got that way/why they are that way.

[TexasGator]

“Both were created the sixth day. As you no doubt know.”

You ducked the question.

[TexasGator]

“And they do not teach stuff like you claim to be discussing in ninth grade.”

Not if it is already taught in the 8th grade ...

https://quizizz.com/admin/quiz/5f8b84fb0e7739001bb754f3/scientific-method-11-qstss-9th-grade

[ckilmer]

Cambrian Explosion—400K years to 1 million years

That about mirrors the time it took from the emergence of homo sapiens where ever and where ever...to today.

400 million years from now scientists from another galaxy will return to earth and look at the black mat layer in the rock where man emerged. It will appear as if it came from nothing. ex nihilo.

How does that happen?

Can a full blown galactic civlization emerge from the dust of a planet?

They will conclude that either their understanding of dust is incomplete

Or

Either God, space aliens or both dropped a new creation on earth—as happened at the cambrian explosion.

[Olog-hai]

Chemistry. And wokeness is in my branch of science too, very unhappy to report.

If, as modern biologists claim, evolutionary is their unifying concept, then biology is dead. They are basing their whole discipline upon a man who openly said his unscientific ramblings were based on his “gradually c(oming) to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation”, IOW an ulterior agenda. Your own discipline was forged, and quite immutably so, by strong believers in God.

[TexasGator]

“Darwin started utterly unscientifically, by formulating the hypothesis out of his imagination rather than from what evidence exists/existed “

Totally false! His world travels gathering evidence started in 1831.

He published Origin of Species 18 years later.

[mmichaels1970]

Why?

My apparent feeble and failed attempt to be witty and somewhat paradoxical when confronted with a topic or article that is well above my paygrade.

You'll find a high percentage of my posts will fall into that category.

I should stick to puns.

[Jamestown1630]

I don’t think it necessarily suggests an ‘ulterior motive’ that someone begins to look for other explanations when a previous idea no longer makes sense to him.

(I think Darwin was probably incorrect about a lot of things; but I have never had a problem reconciling the idea of evolutionary processes with belief in a Creator God.)

[TexasGator]

“IOW an ulterior agenda. “

Really? Included in the sixth edition, 1872:

---

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual

[TexasGator]

Darwin on creationism:

“He who believes that each equine [horse] species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication.”