Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[Guy Threepwood]

I find it extremely annoying when people say they believe in Evolution but can't even identify which theory/hypothesis of evolution they claim to believe and most people have no clue that there are several theories of evolution:

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

So which of those theories of evolution do you believe because some are very different in their ideas of the process and you can't just say you believe in Evolution if you can't identify which theory.

If you do not know what those theories are you can start here and I have no connection to the website:

https://www.classicalconversations....d-many-theories-evolution-and-why-they-matter

True, whichever version people believe, I only believe in one less!

One of the most prominent spinoffs is punctuated equilibrium, which agrees with much of what skeptics have been saying for years, that the gaps in the fossil record are real- that we should take the scientific evidence as it is, rather than invent a theory around what we imagine might be hiding in the gaps.

" ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time" David Raup: Curator and Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago

 

[Midnight Rain]

I find it extremely annoying when people say they believe in Evolution but can't even identify which theory/hypothesis of evolution they claim to believe and most people have no clue that there are several theories of evolution:

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

So which of those theories of evolution do you believe because some are very different in their ideas of the process and you can't just say you believe in Evolution if you can't identify which theory.

If you do not know what those theories are you can start here and I have no connection to the website:

https://www.classicalconversations....d-many-theories-evolution-and-why-they-matter

There are any number of fringe theories and specific specilizations of the study of evolution that conflict. That is fine and to be expected. The general theory of evolution is not debated by serious scientist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ok, calm down.

There is ONE Theory of Evolution but within that theory are explanations/hypothesis for how certain aspects of the Theory work. Some are beyond argument, some are still be discussed and argued about.

Is that good enough for a none expert.

Only by a definition so broad as to have very little meaning anymore.

If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that is really the question. David Raup

By this definition, Genesis also describes evolution.

 

[Valjean]

The ToE does tell how change takes place, Guy..That's what it is -- a description of the various mechanisms of change. The punctuated equilibrium you mentioned is one such mechanism.

The change is "evolution." The Theory of evolution describes the mechanisms involved.

 

[gnostic]

There were no peer reviewed research when Darwin started to promote his theory.

There were no peer review like we have in the 20th century, but there were peer review in the 19th century, limited that it may be. But there was no need for one, because Darwin had worked in a number of universities, after his return from the 1930s voyage around the world on HMS Beagle.

Even before his publication of On The Origin Of Species, in 1859, he had established himself as a geologist and naturalist, that he had many support from those who work with him at the universities and institutions. They were his peers.

And when his works were published, more of peers (outside of the places he worked) accepted his his discoveries.

You are wrong, Dante Writer, his peers did accepted his works and his discoveries.

 

[Dante Writer]

There were no peer review like we have in the 20th century, but there were peer review in the 19th century, limited that it may be. But there was no need for one, because Darwin had worked in a number of universities, after his return from the 1930s voyage around the world on HMS Beagle.

Even before his publication of On The Origin Of Species, in 1859, he had established himself as a geologist and naturalist, that he had many support from those who work with him at the universities and institutions. They were his peers.

And when his works were published, more of peers (outside of the places he worked) accepted his his discoveries.

You are wrong, Dante Writer, his peers did accepted his works and his discoveries.

No I am not wrong. Peers just accepting without going through the rigors we require to validate a theory is not comparable.

You simply moved the goal posts and declared a touchdown lol!

 

[Dante Writer]

There are any number of fringe theories and specific specilizations of the study of evolution that conflict. That is fine and to be expected. The general theory of evolution is not debated by serious scientist.

"The general theory of evolution is not debated by serious scientist."

Here we go again lol!

It is not seriously debated because scientists get their grant funds from government and other sources that want no debate on that theory because it would open a door for creationists.

Much easier to go with the flow and not rock the boat especially when your job and entire career is on the line!

 

[Dante Writer]

The ToE does tell how change takes place, Guy..That's what it is -- a description of the various mechanisms of change. The punctuated equilibrium you mentioned is one such mechanism.

The change is "evolution." The Theory of evolution describes the mechanisms involved.

How about you quote who you are responding to?

 

[gnostic]

Darwin's Natural selection is the chosen textbook theory because it is easier to explain.

No, because there are evidences to support his theory, even to this day, despite the 20th century have discovered other mechanisms for evolution.

Natural Selection have not refuted, but over the decades since Darwin's passing, other scientists have corrected any error that may existed in his time, amdnded and updated, so Natural Selection is still scientific valid and relevant today. That's why Natural Selection is still in biology textbooks and taught in biology classes, along with other evolutionary mechanisms.

The other mechanisms being Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift and Genetic Hitchhiking.

 

[leibowde84]

I find it extremely annoying when people say they believe in Evolution but can't even identify which theory/hypothesis of evolution they claim to believe and most people have no clue that there are several theories of evolution:

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

So which of those theories of evolution do you believe because some are very different in their ideas of the process and you can't just say you believe in Evolution if you can't identify which theory.

If you do not know what those theories are you can start here and I have no connection to the website:

https://www.classicalconversations....d-many-theories-evolution-and-why-they-matter

People who state their belief in "the Scientific Theory of Evolution" are almost certainly referring to evolution by natural selection and random mutation. This being obvious, I fail to see why you would be frustrated by this. Please explain.

 

[Valjean]

How about you quote who you are responding to?

I was responding to the previous post, directly above mine.

 

[leibowde84]

1- Where did I say I was an expert in any of the evolution theories?

2- There were no peer reviewed research when Darwin started to promote his theory.

3- Darwin's Natural selection is the chosen textbook theory because it is easier to explain.

4- Dawkin's and Crick described one scenario where Front Loaded evolution may have been the mechanism on earth.

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Evolution by natural selection is the most likely explanation given the evidence, and until we have peer reviewed scientific studies, a hypothesis is not substantiated. That is exactly how Darwins theory was treated at the time.

 

[gnostic]

The science of evolution is NOT the same as an evolutionary theory!

LOL

 

[gnostic]

No I am not wrong. Peers just accepting without going through the rigors we require to validate a theory is not comparable.

And you being utterly ignorant, because Natural Selection have been peer reviewed, during all the decades after Darwin's death.

Do you think that other biologists haven't tested his theory during that time or today? Are you seriously that ignorant?

 

[metis]

"The general theory of evolution is not debated by serious scientist."

Here we go again lol!
It is not seriously debated because scientists get their grant funds from government and other sources that want no debate on that theory because it would open a door for creationists.

Much easier to go with the flow and not rock the boat especially when your job and entire career is on the line!

That's nothing short of sheer trash and you simply do not get close to understanding how the peer-review process works in the scientific realm and why it was constructed in the first place. All you have done is to cite just another crazy conspiracy theory out of thin air.

Here: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The ToE does tell how change takes place, Guy..That's what it is -- a description of the various mechanisms of change. The punctuated equilibrium you mentioned is one such mechanism.

The change is "evolution." The Theory of evolution describes the mechanisms involved.

As above you could have argued that claim with the recently passed curator of the Field Museum, a very accomplished paleontologist.

 

[leibowde84]

"The general theory of evolution is not debated by serious scientist."

Here we go again lol!

It is not seriously debated because scientists get their grant funds from government and other sources that want no debate on that theory because it would open a door for creationists.

Much easier to go with the flow and not rock the boat especially when your job and entire career is on the line!

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

 

[viole]

"The general theory of evolution is not debated by serious scientist."

Here we go again lol!

It is not seriously debated because scientists get their grant funds from government and other sources that want no debate on that theory because it would open a door for creationists.

Much easier to go with the flow and not rock the boat especially when your job and entire career is on the line!

May I ask how scientists successfully managed to "rock the boat" several times with physics and cosmology, but not with biology?

Are physicists more brave? What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

True, whichever version people believe, I only believe in one less!

One of the most prominent spinoffs is punctuated equilibrium, which agrees with much of what skeptics have been saying for years, that the gaps in the fossil record are real- that we should take the scientific evidence as it is, rather than invent a theory around what we imagine might be hiding in the gaps.

" ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time" David Raup: Curator and Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago

Punctuated equilibrium supporters also support common descent (e.g. we and caterpillars have a common ancestor). Obviously.

Do you fully trust their scientific competence? Or do you artificially select only what your a-priori beliefs need in order to survive?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Midnight Rain]

"The general theory of evolution is not debated by serious scientist."

Here we go again lol!

It is not seriously debated because scientists get their grant funds from government and other sources that want no debate on that theory because it would open a door for creationists.

Much easier to go with the flow and not rock the boat especially when your job and entire career is on the line!

Bring evidence for such a claim. Its not an establishment created super secret science conspiracy.
Evolution is supported by evidence to the level of fact. Specifics on evolution is debated. If you choose not to believe that then there is no further conversation to be had I suppose