Evolution is False; now what?

quote:

---

The publication of On Critical Rates of Phenotype Change by Natural Selection in the November 2004 sent shockwaves through the scientific community, if it's findings where true it did nothing less than prove that one of the most successful and longest standing theories of all time - Evolution - was wrong. Inevitably following it's publication many scientists refused to believe it, many dedicated weeks on end to searching for the flaw but one by one they came to the conclusion there was none. Others took longer to make up their minds but, in the view of most, it was the shock press conference in February 2005 by Dr. Richard Dawkins that finally ended the argument in the public eye. The grim faced professor publicly stated "There can be no more doubt, Evolution is false - my life's work has been a sham. The only consolation I can draw is that this event has shown conclusively that Evolution was indeed science as it could be falsified." He went on to announce that he would be withdrawing all his books from sale with immediate effect.

---

The above is, of course, fiction but let us assume that the above did happen. What would this mean for Creationism? Can it step up to the plate and provide an explanation for the variety, diversity and nature of life on earth?

What forum ?

Sorry, forgot that. Is It Science? I imagine.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

a.) First, a new finding that would challenge TOE would have to be tested by a seperate group or groups to verify findings.b.) Second, the question is if such data required a new theory all together, or simply a modification of TOE. (which has been revised numerous times in the 150 years since its been around)c.) Wouldn't mean squat for creationism, since creationism is psuedoscience with no scientific backing. If it was a legitimate alternative, it would have been seriously disccussed and considered as such already. It has never met the qualitifictions, nor properly explained teh numerous amounts of evidence discovered. (Which do support TOE.)

I suspect that we will hear a lot of "we told you so" and codemnation of all scientific disciplines by fundies. Then, I suspect that we will see fundies walking around naked and refusing to use any technology whatsoever, since all of those things came from science.

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

With the TOE gone, then we'd probably fall back to square one (well, maybe one and half). It's the place we were at for many centuries. This square being some sort of creation as an answer to our questions about life's diversity. Luckily for us, we still have a valid method for exploring and theorizing about such diversity.The main question in my mind is: "Would the Creationists now divert their energy to use the scientific method to learn about a creation since they no longer have to attack the TOE?" I've personally never seen the matter of origins as a win or lose battle, so Creationism doesn't "win by default." They would have a tremendous amount of work to do to make any Theory of Creation the heir to the Theory of Evolution.Are there any pieces of Evolution left? Or does it totally get wiped out? I know it's just hypothetical but it's still hard to believe EVERYTHING about the theory would vanish.thanx
PM1K

Obviously all the facts aren't changed, and they still need to be explained. And here's the thing I don't think Creationism has either the capability or the desire to fill the gap which would be left by the absence of evolution. It seems to me that there are no Creationist answers to questions such as:Why are there so many kinds of Beetle?
Why are 'gestalt' style colonies nearly always found in certain groups of insects?
Why are animals distributed in the ways they are?
Why do some animals carefully nuture their young and others leave them to fend for themselves?It also seems to me that there are no creationist attempts to answer these sorts of questions. With the ability to take pot shots at evolution removed from them, what is left for creationism? Can it bring anything to our understanding of the world?

Though an interesting topic, this overlooks some additional consequences of the ToE being falsified. The entire thoery of heredity would also be false i.e. you do not pass your genes to your offspring as the descent with modification relies on the passing on of DNA (which is mutable) to offspring thus allowing for allele frequencies to vary within populations. It would also falsify broad portions of molecular biology i.e. that mutations in DNA actually occur or are significant. Also that specific mutation in a disease gene has anything to do with that disease and so on. The foundations of evolution stand on evidence on so much molecular evidence is is both hard to envision your scenario or its the unintended consequences.But like the profound impact prions had on biology, i.e. the idea that a protein alone could be a transmissibly infectious element without any nucleic acids involved, scientists would try to find the best explanation for the data and the hypothesis that best reconciled the data would become a theory. This of course would not happen over night...though the protein only hypothesis of prion infection became pervasive amazingly quickly....and on far shakier foundations than the ToE.

I'm with Darwin Storm on this one; I think you're missing an important point. The main reason why many scientists think creationism is not really an explanation is not that there's a better alternative, or that there isn't a God, but that there's very little scientific support for creationism. It fails to answer a lot of questions. So if evolution would be incorrect, that alone would not make the case for creationism stronger. Instead scientists would look for other theories or explanations that are consistent with the facts and evidence we now have. Creationism just isn't that explanation.

---

If there is one thing computers will never be able to do, it is to descend from apes -- Piet Grijs

quote:

---

Though an interesting topic, this overlooks some additional consequences of the ToE being falsified. The entire thoery of heredity would also be false i.e. you do not pass your genes to your offspring as the descent with modification relies on the passing on of DNA (which is mutable) to offspring thus allowing for allele frequencies to vary within populations.

---

Falsifying ToE wouldn't necessarily falsify patterns or mechanisms of heredity. In the OP, the fictitious study is talking about insufficient RATES, not insuffecient mechanisms. Therefore, we could keep our theories on heredity while realising that they are inadequate for producing the amount of diversity in certain time frames.Speaking about the topic in general, this would seem to lead us to an outside force creating genetic and phenotypic diversity which could lead anywhere, including Raelianistic alien genome manipulation. I think we can all agree that if evolution false then creationism is a false dichotomy as there are multiple other explanations that do not require supernatural phenomena. Creationists would then have to show that a creation event by a supernatural deity is the most accurate theory available, and the only way to do that is through objective evidence. Much like the swift boat veterans fiasco in current US politics, once they move past this argument they might actually have to start focusing on their own evidenciary support instead of attacking another position.

i am a creationist. We are already at the plate and do very well. However as in old days we are relegated to the "negro league" but this in time will change.
Creationism is a result of the Bible and so that authority makes our case. The insistance in small circles that only the scientific method can determine the origins of things is not what mankind accepts. Evolution is a thorn only because it claims to be science (proven) like the technolgy or any idea that actually works. However origin subjects by defination are not able to employ the scientific method a(unless some special case)and so not science.
Nevertheless we could move forward the origin of specis to the realm of science by the method with the present baggage removed. Speciation of anything should be duplicated in the labortory. Then prediction can be made about the past (although not testable so not a scientific theory itself.
Rob

What are you talking about? We've observed speciation in a laboratory condition. Read this post by Pinky.

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

quote:

---

Falsifying ToE wouldn't necessarily falsify patterns or mechanisms of heredity. In the OP, the fictitious study is talking about insufficient RATES, not insuffecient mechanisms. Therefore, we could keep our theories on heredity while realising that they are inadequate for producing the amount of diversity in certain time frames.

---

However, evolution as both changes in allele frequency over time and common descent rely on the same hereditary mechanism as the fact that you are the genetic descendant of your parents. Falsify the ToE and there is no reason to accept that you are related to your parents. One would have to postulate a non-genetic mechanism for the similarity of each and every species that does not rely on the passing of DNA from parent to offspring i.e. that species branch by a non hereditary means and that for whatever reason, the DNA changes subsequent appear to reflect common descent.

creationist protocol #31 - whenever starting a new conversation, debate or thread start all over with your arguments so that evilutionists have to present evidence all over again. This gives you lots of practice in dodging the evidence and learning the tricks of the trade.heh.This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 09:13 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}