alternate theory to evolution?

So apperantly some people don't believe in evolution. So I'd like to know what the alternate scientific theory is. Did everything just appear out of nowhere fully formed? How did this happen?

All I ever see is people saying fossils dating is wrong or that cars don't evolve and that somehow makes evolution wrong. But they never talk about their alternate theory or the evidence for it.

God did it

So apperantly some people don't believe in evolution. So I'd like to know what the alternate scientific theory is. Did everything just appear out of nowhere fully formed? How did this happen?

All I ever see is people saying fossils dating is wrong or that cars don't evolve and that somehow makes evolution wrong. But they never talk about their alternate theory or the evidence for it.

First of all just because evolution could be shown to be wrong doesn't mean you Must have a substitute.. that's not how science should work.

"Even though we know it's wrong, we should still teach these untrue statements because we have nothing else to indoctrinate the kids with"



Personally, and this is just a belief so please don't go off asking for empirical proof or anything alike- I think god modeled alot of the creatures outside of the universe, much like how a video game designer models the characters in the game in a different plane than where the actual game takes place. Once the creature is all designed and bugs tested out, it is then placed into the world to be set free and do as it pleases.

Maybe God just zapped them into reality or maybe he had some cool animation of a bunch of matter coming together to form the creature, who knows.

My main reasoning behind this is the Cambrian explosion which shows evidence directly against Darwinians evolution because All the major phylas showed up at once with no predecessors and have since been going extinct and the 'tree of life' in real life is actually in reverse to what's shown in textbooks.

God did it

I respect your beliefs but how do you throw all hope in an invisible man that watches our every move, and will send you to HELL (but he will still love you). Just seems like a joke to me.

Aliens...

God did it

But how did God do it. There was a process. Was it just poof?

But how did God do it. There was a process. Was it just poof?

A very simple answer to an extremely complicated question is- we just don't know, and probably won't know for a very long time.

You can't ask how God did it because we really don't know and will only know if God tells us. I believe God hasn't told us because it truly isn't all that important. Maybe one day God will, but until then it's all speculation.

If you wish to hear a way I believe it may have happened, refer to my earlier post. Other than that it's anyone's guess as to how it was done.

First of all just because evolution could be shown to be wrong doesn't mean you Must have a substitute.. that's not how science should work.

"Even though we know it's wrong, we should still teach these untrue statements because we have nothing else to indoctrinate the kids with"



Personally, and this is just a belief so please don't go off asking for empirical proof or anything alike- I think god modeled alot of the creatures outside of the universe, much like how a video game designer models the characters in the game in a different plane than where the actual game takes place. Once the creature is all designed and bugs tested out, it is then placed into the world to be set free and do as it pleases.

Maybe God just zapped them into reality or maybe he had some cool animation of a bunch of matter coming together to form the creature, who knows.

My main reasoning behind this is the Cambrian explosion which shows evidence directly against Darwinians evolution because All the major phylas showed up at once with no predecessors and have since been going extinct and the 'tree of life' in real life is actually in reverse to what's shown in textbooks.

No all the phylas did not show up all at once, what is your source for this?

Sounds like something directly out of creationist book, and is not one bit scientifically valid.

My main reasoning behind this is the Cambrian explosion which shows evidence directly against Darwinians evolution because All the major phylas showed up at once with no predecessors and have since been going extinct and the 'tree of life' in real life is actually in reverse to what's shown in textbooks.

We know now that the precambrian explosion wasn't what we first thought. There's a thread here on it here, but read the first and second postings for the full picture.

http://forum.grassci...-explosion.html

There's no evidence at all that the 'tree of life' is in reverse.

MelT

My answer was intended to be sardonic.

My answer was intended to be sardonic.

I was a little surprised that nobody saw that you were being tongue in cheek...

MelT

I thought i'd made my values and beliefs quite brazenly obvious!

First of all just because evolution could be shown to be wrong doesn't mean you Must have a substitute.. that's not how science should work.

"Even though we know it's wrong, we should still teach these untrue statements because we have nothing else to indoctrinate the kids with"



Personally, and this is just a belief so please don't go off asking for empirical proof or anything alike- I think god *thump thump thump thump thump thump.....

ya,uhhuh...sure thing skippy...<swill finger in circle next to head>


God had sat around over the week end drinking beer, eating nachos and bbq, with a huge helping of chili and eggs....monday came around and he went off to the office, had a bit of gas on the way and let loose with a huge fart...this is commonly referred to now as 'the big bang' and that was the start of the universe as we know it...

glad some still know what science is.

Edited by cball, 29 May 2012 - 10:24 AM.

ya,uhhuh...sure thing skippy...<swill finger in circle next to head>




glad some still know what science is.

Heh, i like the part where he exclaims that science doesn't work on falsification; and that if there is a possible alternative to a theory which has a potentiality to be wrong, we should not/don't explore it. It's almost too ironic how polar the reality of science is to that statement!

double post-

No all the phylas did not show up all at once, what is your source for this?

Sounds like something directly out of creationist book, and is not one bit scientifically valid.

Have you ever heard of Stephen J Gould? A very prominent evolutiontists who he himself claims-

"the Cambrian phylum count was larger, maybe much larger, than the contemporary count. No new phyla have appeared, and many have gone. That count, in turn, is a reasonable measure of disparity. So Cambrian disparity was considerably larger than current disparity. The history of animal life is not a history of gradually increasing differentiation. It is a history of exuberant initial proliferation followed by much loss; perhaps sudden loss."

All major phylas came into being during the Cambrian explosion. As Gould himself says, diversity increased, but disparity has decreased. For example sea lillies lived ~570mya in the Cambrian period, today there are 5,000 species said to be extinct while only 80 species survived. Another example are the nautiloids, of 17,000 species that have once existed, less than 10 live on today.

Over and over we are shown a greater diversity of these certain kinds existing in the past and just a few remaining today. The tree of life is more accurate flipped upside down for there was greater disparity during the Cambrian as there is today, which is the complete opposite of what evolution claims.

How is this possible that the very first lifeforms were just as complex as modern life, greater major differences and have since narrowed in variety?

Again, this greatly agrees with creations story of created kinds giving offspring only after their own kind with slight variation and goes completely against what evolution claims. The hard fact of the fossil record speaks for itself....

One major problem with this debate is getting the creationist to understand what a scientific theory is, as well as have the more science minded differentiate their use of the word belief from people who think origins have a metaphysical/theistic beginning.

Meaning, theories (in the scientific community) carry more weight than a simple fact... theories are comprised of many facts, the theory is just an end result of data collection, observation, peer review, and some projection based on prior history among other things.

Also, belief... the standard theistic belief is based on faith without evidence, whereas non theistic belief would be more like me believing I have a cup of coffee in front of me, as I can see it and manipulate it. I believe I will have another sip.

Have you ever heard of Stephen J Gould? A very prominent evolutiontists who he himself claims-

"the Cambrian phylum count was larger, maybe much larger, than the contemporary count. No new phyla have appeared, and many have gone. That count, in turn, is a reasonable measure of disparity. So Cambrian disparity was considerably larger than current disparity. The history of animal life is not a history of gradually increasing differentiation. It is a history of exuberant initial proliferation followed by much loss; perhaps sudden loss."

All major phylas came into being during the Cambrian explosion. As Gould himself says, diversity increased, but disparity has decreased. For example sea lillies lived ~570mya in the Cambrian period, today there are 5,000 species said to be extinct while only 80 species survived. Another example are the nautiloids, of 17,000 species that have once existed, less than 10 live on today.

Over and over we are shown a greater diversity of these certain kinds existing in the past and just a few remaining today. The tree of life is more accurate flipped upside down for there was greater disparity during the Cambrian as there is today, which is the complete opposite of what evolution claims.

How is this possible that the very first lifeforms were just as complex as modern life, greater major differences and have since narrowed in variety?

Again, this greatly agrees with creations story of created kinds giving offspring only after their own kind with slight variation and goes completely against what evolution claims. The hard fact of the fossil record speaks for itself....

You have some basic misunderstandings about what evolution is and does. It has no direction or aim, and should not be expected to lead either to a greater or lesser number of species. It isn't about creating diversity, better or more.

You seem surprised that there are less kinds of animals now than in our distant past, but why? Take a look at the world today, we are currently going through a mass extinction of all forms of life. It isn't the first time and it wont be the last. Gould seems confused about the sudden loss of life after the cambrian explosion, postulating a 'sudden loss' that he can't account for, when science has long known that the cambrian explosion of life was immediately followed by the 'Great Dying'.

"...
The Permian–Triassic (P–Tr) extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying,[2] was an extinction event that occurred 252.28 Ma (million years) ago,[3] forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods, as well as the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras. It was the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species[4] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.[5] It is the only known mass extinction of insects.[6][7] Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct. Because so much biodiversity was lost, the recovery of life on Earth took significantly longer than after any other extinction event,[4] possibly up to 10 million years.[8] This event has been described as the "mother of all mass extinctions."[9]
Researchers have variously suggested that there were from one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction.[5][10][11][12] There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was likely due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include large or multiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, coal/gas fires and explosions from the Siberian Traps,[13] and sudden release of methane clathrate from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.[14]..."



SJ Gould said what he did because he wanted to prove his own theory that the 'aim' of evolution was greater diversity, but he was wrong.



"...One reason for criticism was that Gould appeared to be presenting his ideas as a revolutionary way of understanding evolution, and argued for the importance of mechanisms other than natural selection, mechanisms which he believed had been ignored by many professional evolutionists. As a result, many non-specialists sometimes inferred from his early writings that Darwinian explanations had been proven to be unscientific (which Gould never tried to imply). Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved.[59] Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works.[60]




BTW Who has said that the first forms of life were just as complex as now?

MelT

Edited by MelT, 29 May 2012 - 03:57 PM.

Have you ever heard of Stephen J Gould? A very prominent evolutiontists who he himself claims-

"the Cambrian phylum count was larger, maybe much larger, than the contemporary count. No new phyla have appeared, and many have gone. That count, in turn, is a reasonable measure of disparity. So Cambrian disparity was considerably larger than current disparity. The history of animal life is not a history of gradually increasing differentiation. It is a history of exuberant initial proliferation followed by much loss; perhaps sudden loss."

All major phylas came into being during the Cambrian explosion. As Gould himself says, diversity increased, but disparity has decreased. For example sea lillies lived ~570mya in the Cambrian period, today there are 5,000 species said to be extinct while only 80 species survived. Another example are the nautiloids, of 17,000 species that have once existed, less than 10 live on today.

Over and over we are shown a greater diversity of these certain kinds existing in the past and just a few remaining today. The tree of life is more accurate flipped upside down for there was greater disparity during the Cambrian as there is today, which is the complete opposite of what evolution claims.

How is this possible that the very first lifeforms were just as complex as modern life, greater major differences and have since narrowed in variety?

Again, this greatly agrees with creations story of created kinds giving offspring only after their own kind with slight variation and goes completely against what evolution claims. The hard fact of the fossil record speaks for itself....

Lack of diversity doesn't disprove evolution.
Less species doesn't disprove evolution.
Loss of genetic material doesn't disprove evolution
Loss of species doesn't disprove evolution
Irreducible complexity doesn't disprove evolution
Cars don't disprove evolution
Miscalculating fossils dates doesn't disprove evolution
Miscalculating the age of the earth doesn't disprove evolution
Abiogenesis is a different theory from evolution. Evolution is the theory of common ancestry from a more primitive form. Abiogenesis is the theory that life emmerged sponteniousky from the primordial soup. They are different theories.

It boggles my mind why people argue so hard against evolution. Its been proven in the lab. We have even done it ourselves. Dogs cough cough.

The end all argument is always "we didn't see a single cell evolve into an animal therefore it didn't happen."

And yet, all the evidence said it did. The only piece of evidence that could make the theory any more sound is actually video taping it for millions of years. Aside from that the theory is completely solid and has no holes at all.

There is absolutely no evidence against evolution or in support of any other theory. So why?

Lack of diversity doesn't disprove evolution.
Less species doesn't disprove evolution.
Loss of genetic material doesn't disprove evolution
Loss of species doesn't disprove evolution
Irreducible complexity doesn't disprove evolution
Cars don't disprove evolution
Miscalculating fossils dates doesn't disprove evolution
Miscalculating the age of the earth doesn't disprove evolution
Abiogenesis is a different theory from evolution. Evolution is the theory of common ancestry from a more primitive form. Abiogenesis is the theory that life emmerged sponteniousky from the primordial soup. They are different theories.

Okay so a majority of things that would be evidence against evolution as you stated does not disprove this theory (the very things that work against what evolution claims)

So please explain to me (I've never gotten a real answer from anybody) WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION?

Evolution is the theory of common ancestry from a more primitive form.

So what happens when we're finding creatures just as, if not more complex as the very first lifeforms..?

It boggles my mind why people argue so hard against evolution. Its been proven in the lab. We have even done it ourselves. Dogs cough cough.

The 'evolution' of dogs has reduced genetic variability, it's actually driving themselves to extinction, not ever creating an entire new biological family.. how the hell do you not see a problem with this.?? lol

The end all argument is always "we didn't see a single cell evolve into an animal therefore it didn't happen."

No, therefore it is not science because it is not observed, It's very simple. Remind yourself of the scientific method and try to call macroevolution scientifically proven fact.

And yet, all the evidence said it did. The only piece of evidence that could make the theory any more sound is actually video taping it for millions of years. Aside from that the theory is completely solid and has no holes at all.

HAHHAHAHAHAHAH


Okay then, what did insects evolve from?

There is absolutely no evidence against evolution or in support of any other theory. So why?

Oh harro, looks like we've got a Dawkins eat, chew, spit and repeat type over here. You don't think much for yourself do you? It's alot easier to just repeat what you've been told.

Of course there being a wider variety of creatures at the very beginning and have since declined doesn't say aannything against evolution, huh? lmao Jesus Christ...