Difference between revisions of "Theories of evolution"
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | [[Image:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|250px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref> See also: [https://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]] | |
| − | + | There are a number of '''theories of evolution'''. In 2000, scientist Simon Conway Morris wrote in the peer reviewed [[science]] journal ''Cell'': "When discussing organic [[evolution]] the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867400816797 |title=Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold |accessdate=2015-08-31 |last=Morris |first=Simon Conway |date=2000-01-07 |work=Cell |publisher=Elsevier |doi=10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81679-7 }}</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | On June 28, 2022, ''[[The Guardian]]'' published an article entitled ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?'' which indicated: "A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of [[natural selection]]."<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution ''Do we need a new theory of evolution?''] by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian, June 28, 2022</ref> | |
| − | + | ==Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis== | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ''See also:'' [[Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | One of the more popular evolutionary paradigms among evolutionary scientists is the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]]. The '''[[modern evolutionary synthesis]]''' is a school of evolutionary thought which incorporates the concepts of natural selection, mutations, and studies in population genetics.<ref>https://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | In 2005, the philosopher of science and [[Atheism|atheist]] Massimo Pigliucci, who is a staunch opponent of [[creationism]], in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi | |
| − | + | wrote in the prestigious science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref>http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ==Theories of evolution employing methodological naturalism == | |
| − | + | Some of the more notable [[naturalism|naturalistic]] theories of the evolution which employ or have employed the concept of [[methodological naturalism]] are the following: | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ===Current naturalistic theories of evolution=== | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Modern evolutionary synthesis]] which incorporates the concept of [[phyletic gradualism]] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Punctuated equilibrium]] (Originally incorporated [[saltationism]] but later was declared merely complementary to [[phyletic gradualism]])<ref>Ernst Mayr, 1982a. Speciation and macroevolution. Evolution 36, page 1128</ref><ref>https://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Third way of evolution]] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Lamarckian theory of evolution|Lamarckianism]]<ref> | |
| − | + | *[https://creation.com/epigenetics-and-darwin Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated?] by [[Creation Ministries International]] | |
| − | + | *[https://creation.com/mutations-epigenetics-information Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information] by Creation Ministries International | |
| − | + | </ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Symbiogenesis]]<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *Neutral theory of molecular evolution | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *Nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution | |
| − | + | [[File:goldschmidt.jpg|right|thumb|170px|[[Richard Goldschmidt]]]] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | === Past naturalistic theories of evolution === | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Quantum evolution]]<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory]] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Zoogenesis]] | |
| − | ( | + | |
| − | + | *[[Emication]] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Orthogenesis]]<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Pangenesis]]<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of evolution (The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed).<ref>Russell Grigg, [https://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!]</ref><ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ==Non-naturalistic theories of evolution== | |
| − | + | Below are some non-[[naturalism|naturalistic]] theories of evolution which do not strictly apply the ideology of [[methodological naturalism]]: | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *[[Theistic evolution]] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | *Creative evolution<ref>https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ==Creation science commentary on the various naturalistic theories of evolution== | |
| − | + | The prominent [[creation science|creation scientist]] Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote concerning the various theories of evolution: | |
| − | + | {{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] (and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>}} | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | [[Image:Image014.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Karl Popper]]]] | |
| − | I | + | |
| − | The | + | ==Evolutionary Paradigm - Karl Popper Commentary == |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ''For more information please see:'' [[Falsifiability of evolution]] | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref> | |
| − | + | * http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ | |
| − | + | * http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse stated the following regarding Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | The [[Sweden|Swedish]] cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted | |
| − | + | by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".<ref>[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur]</ref><ref>http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html</ref> | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ==Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity == | |
| − | + | In recent times, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasingly and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0612school-year.asp</ref> | |
| − | + | For example, prominent [[atheism|atheist]] and evolutionist [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed in an interview with journalist [[Bill Moyers]] that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.<ref>https://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html</ref> Yet, there is [[evolution|not any real evidence for the evolutionary paradigm]]. | |
| + | Many atheists quote the "evidence" of fossils to back up their beliefs - but their argument falls down at the obvious flaw that a bunch of rocks and stones cannot provide strong proof for anything. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==See also== | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[Evolution as a secular origins myth]] | ||
| + | *[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]] | ||
| + | *[[Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality]] | ||
| + | *[[Atheism and deception]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==External links== | ||
| + | *[https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf The Century-and-a-half failure in the quest of new genetic information] by [[Jerry Bergman]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | {{reflist|2}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Evolution]] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:59, March 9, 2024
There are a number of theories of evolution. In 2000, scientist Simon Conway Morris wrote in the peer reviewed science journal Cell: "When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: 'It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd."[2]
On June 28, 2022, The Guardian published an article entitled Do we need a new theory of evolution? which indicated: "A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul... Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of natural selection."[3]
Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis
See also: Recent clamor to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis and Theory of evolution and little consensus
One of the more popular evolutionary paradigms among evolutionary scientists is the modern evolutionary synthesis. The modern evolutionary synthesis is a school of evolutionary thought which incorporates the concepts of natural selection, mutations, and studies in population genetics.[4]
In 2005, the philosopher of science and atheist Massimo Pigliucci, who is a staunch opponent of creationism, in a book review for the prestigious science journal Nature, wrote: "The clamour to revise neo-darwinism is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."[5] In July 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi wrote in the prestigious science journal Science: "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."[6]
Theories of evolution employing methodological naturalism
Some of the more notable naturalistic theories of the evolution which employ or have employed the concept of methodological naturalism are the following:
Current naturalistic theories of evolution
- Modern evolutionary synthesis which incorporates the concept of phyletic gradualism
- Punctuated equilibrium (Originally incorporated saltationism but later was declared merely complementary to phyletic gradualism)[7][8]
- Neutral theory of molecular evolution
- Nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution
Past naturalistic theories of evolution
- Charles Darwin's theory of evolution (The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed).[14][15]
Non-naturalistic theories of evolution
Below are some non-naturalistic theories of evolution which do not strictly apply the ideology of methodological naturalism:
- Creative evolution[16]
Creation science commentary on the various naturalistic theories of evolution
The prominent creation scientist Creation scientist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati wrote concerning the various theories of evolution:
| “ | ...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution saltationism (and its relative, punctuated equilibria) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of gradual evolution point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with both: punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all![17] | ” |
Evolutionary Paradigm - Karl Popper Commentary
For more information please see: Falsifiability of evolution
Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,[18] stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."[19] Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse stated the following regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[20]
The Swedish cytogeneticist, Antonio Lima-De-Faria, who has been knighted by the king of Sweden for his scientific achievements, noted that "there has never been a theory of evolution".[21][22]
Inflated claims of evolutionists growing in frequency and intensity
In recent times, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasingly and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.[23] For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.[24] Yet, there is not any real evidence for the evolutionary paradigm. Many atheists quote the "evidence" of fossils to back up their beliefs - but their argument falls down at the obvious flaw that a bunch of rocks and stones cannot provide strong proof for anything.
See also
- Evolution as a secular origins myth
- Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation
- Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality
- Atheism and deception
External links
References
- ↑ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html
- ↑ Morris, Simon Conway (2000-01-07). Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold. Cell. Elsevier. DOI:10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81679-7. Retrieved on 2015-08-31.
- ↑ Do we need a new theory of evolution? by Stephen Buranyi, The Guardian, June 28, 2022
- ↑ https://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days
- ↑ http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi
- ↑ http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi
- ↑ Ernst Mayr, 1982a. Speciation and macroevolution. Evolution 36, page 1128
- ↑ https://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age
- ↑
- Darwin’s Lamarckism vindicated? by Creation Ministries International
- Mutations, epigenetics and the question of information by Creation Ministries International
- ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
- ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
- ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
- ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
- ↑ Russell Grigg, Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!
- ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf
- ↑ https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_19-25.pdf
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp
- ↑
- ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html
- ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html
- ↑ Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry, July 6, 2008, by Suzan Mazur
- ↑ http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-tales-from-altenberg-suzan-mazurs.html
- ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0612school-year.asp
- ↑ https://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html