Darwinian Evolution: Theory or Hypothesis?
This came up in the "Romantic Love" topic under Culture, interestingly enough. khalling wrote this:
On Evolution: secondhand, Nathaniel Branden in "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" :
"I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable." (Neil Parrile, Rebirth of Reason, "Ayn Rand and Evolution.")
A scientific theory is not a hypothesis. Evolution is one of THE most well documented, most explanatory scientific theories Man has."
In a brief reply, I pointed to fertile hybrids as disproving the Darwinian Theory. I meant the theory as it is widely accepted today. Darwin's main point about the natural selection of random mutations is correct. It is not the ONLY mechanism for genetic change, however. We now know of EPIGENETICS.
For fertile hybrids, see here:
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/...
and here
http://www.macroevolution.net/animal-hyb...
On epigenetics, read here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigen...
and
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/e...
On Evolution: secondhand, Nathaniel Branden in "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" :
"I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable." (Neil Parrile, Rebirth of Reason, "Ayn Rand and Evolution.")
A scientific theory is not a hypothesis. Evolution is one of THE most well documented, most explanatory scientific theories Man has."
In a brief reply, I pointed to fertile hybrids as disproving the Darwinian Theory. I meant the theory as it is widely accepted today. Darwin's main point about the natural selection of random mutations is correct. It is not the ONLY mechanism for genetic change, however. We now know of EPIGENETICS.
For fertile hybrids, see here:
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/...
and here
http://www.macroevolution.net/animal-hyb...
On epigenetics, read here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigen...
and
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/e...
Modern evolution (descent with modification by means of natural selection), I am told by biologists, is one of the main underpinnings of modern biological thought.
In that other thread, these comments were offered:
Rozar posted a pointer a Cracked article showing evolution in action. However, only one of the examples, about the fish in the Hudson River, actually demonstrated a genetic change caused by the environment. The other examples - similar to the Peppered Moth of London cited by khalling - were population selections by exogenous means - in other words, kill off all the blue ones and the blue ones disappear. However, no one has shown a link between the changes in outward (statistical) appearance and changes to the genetic code.
Moreover, for Darwinian Evolution, they would have to become immiscible, i.e., species that do not (by definition) breed to form fertile offspring. We all know that the mule (horse-donkey) is sterile (supposedly). However, it seems that all bears are bears (at least in North America): polar bears, kodiaks, brown bears, black bears, all are known in the wild to interbreed, even though bears and dogs (likely from a common ancestor 30 million years ago) no longer do. How long such isolation takes is not known.
gblaze brought up several cogent points:"
From what we understand up to now, evolution is purely based on genetics ... but there really is no theory of 'evolution' sure their is some context that things change but truly evolve, from simply lifeforms to more complex lifeforms there has been no evidence of from a genetic point of view. For example the Daphnia pulex, or the water flea has the most genes, about 31,000. We humans have only about 23, 000 genes. Does it mean it is a more complex life form or more advanced?"
We do not have a clear link between genetic evolution and Darwinian evolution.