Darwin's Theory Challenged

[fasternyou929]

Interesting article. Sorry if it's a repost, didn't see anything with a quick search:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/180103?gt1=43002

[AquaPython]

[smileyman]

Science creates theories from hypothesis' tested by research. Problem lies when the Hypothesis is tested with speculation rather than concrete, replicable, and verifiable results.

Darwins theory has never undergone anything more than a intellectual testing since you can't very well wait around thousands or millions of years to actually see and replicate what it says evolution can do.

Therefore a certain amount of his theory is based on faith and belief that is unprovable with our present means of research. Faith and belief are constantly criticized by science as baloney. Yet many of their important theories require some manner of bridging the gap between actual research and the original hypothesis...

Any one else want to offer an opinion?

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by smileyman

Any one else want to offer an opinion?

I'm sure *someone* will be along shortly...

[fatbuckRTO]

Inheritance of "experience traits" is nothing new, at any rate. See domesticated silver foxes, among others.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by fatbuckRTO

I'm sure *someone* will be along shortly...

I don't have one on this one, it's scientists doing what they should be doing to make theory = fact.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by smileyman

Science creates theories from hypothesis' tested by research. Problem lies when the Hypothesis is tested with speculation rather than concrete, replicable, and verifiable results.

Darwins theory has never undergone anything more than a intellectual testing since you can't very well wait around thousands or millions of years to actually see and replicate what it says evolution can do.

Therefore a certain amount of his theory is based on faith and belief that is unprovable with our present means of research. Faith and belief are constantly criticized by science as baloney. Yet many of their important theories require some manner of bridging the gap between actual research and the original hypothesis...

Any one else want to offer an opinion?

Sure, I'll weigh in. Darwin's theory was actually 'natural selection', rather than 'evolution.' When we talk about things like water fleas having protective shell modifications, because their parent experienced an attack, we get into natural selection, recessive genetic traits, and a whole bunch of other stuff. It doesn't necessarily debunk natural selection or evolution, in as much as it actually supports it. The species has developed a defensive mechanism that isn't used, unless it is needed.

As far as the concept of natural selection is concerned, I agree that it's difficult to wait around for a couple of thousand years in order to prove it. We don't have to, in order to obtain supporting evidence since we have something that points to it's validity, and it's something as old as civilization; UNnatural selection, aka "animal husbandry."

For thousands of years, farmers have selected for specific traits in animals via selective breeding. Take sheep, for example. Domestically bred sheep tend to have very short legs, whereas wild sheep don't. This was not always the case and short legs are far from a survival trait. Imagine a modern lamb trying to out run a wolf. Growl growl, bah bah, CHOMP. Sheep today tend to have short legs precisely because they've been bred for it. It's a hell of a lot easier to chase and catch one that can only run at half your speed, so a flock is relatively easy to handle.

Presumably similar selective breeding, caused by proven survival traits, would have the same effect as forced selective breeding. Proof? No. Significant evidence? Yes.

[smileyman]

Valid point Papa! The genetics involved lend itself quickly to hypothesis of natural selection and all methods we have to play with confirm it.

You also bring up a very good issue on how natural selection (or unnatural) is not equivalent to evolution. Laymen get the two confused often and it is hard to grasp the difference between the traits passed down thru several generations of a species and one species becoming a different species all together...

[Rsv1000R]

So, because hormones during pregnancy cause developmental differences that's suppose to makes Darwin wrong? I wonder how many of those rocket scientist realize that hormones switch on and off sequences of DNA?

Originally Posted by smileyman

Science creates theories from hypothesis' tested by research. Problem lies when the Hypothesis is tested with speculation rather than concrete, replicable, and verifiable results.

Darwins theory has never undergone anything more than a intellectual testing since you can't very well wait around thousands or millions of years to actually see and replicate what it says evolution can do.

Therefore a certain amount of his theory is based on faith and belief that is unprovable with our present means of research. Faith and belief are constantly criticized by science as baloney. Yet many of their important theories require some manner of bridging the gap between actual research and the original hypothesis...

Any one else want to offer an opinion?

Sure, I'll jump in. I'm sure you've heard of superbugs, right? Where do you think they come from? While we can't wait around for thousands of years, we can do experimentation with species that reproduce thousands of times per week or year. And while I don't follow the latest in biology, I've not heard any of these scientists complaining that Darwin was wrong, and they would as it would be just about the biggest thing to happen in Biology, since Darwin. I have heard about the various dna sequencing of difference species and how it's helping identify the relationship between species. BTW did you know that T-Rex is most closely related to the Chicken?

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Darwin's theory was actually 'natural selection', rather than 'evolution.'

Very good point, Darwinism has two different meanings to whoever you talk to today, for religious it's more of a slur that envelopes all evolutionists and atheists, while in the scientific community it is just what you said 'natural selection' and it is just something that helps support evolution.