Headline in The Guardian wrote wrote:Do we need a new theory of evolution?

Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no

Wortfish wrote:

A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... -evolution

The demise of Neo-Darwinism

“We’re not here to explain the elephant’s trunk, or the camel’s hump. If such explanations could even be possible,” Brian Charlesworth told me. Instead, he said, evolutionary theory should be universal, focusing on the small number of factors that apply to how every living thing develops. “It’s easy to get hung up on ‘you haven’t explained why a particular system works the way it does’. But we don’t need to know,” Deborah told me. It’s not that the exceptions are uninteresting; it’s just that they aren’t all that important.

Wortfish wrote:

“We’re not here to explain the elephant’s trunk, or the camel’s hump. If such explanations could even be possible,” Brian Charlesworth told me. Instead, he said, evolutionary theory should be universal, focusing on the small number of factors that apply to how every living thing develops. “It’s easy to get hung up on ‘you haven’t explained why a particular system works the way it does’. But we don’t need to know,” Deborah told me. It’s not that the exceptions are uninteresting; it’s just that they aren’t all that important.

I think explaining how distinct complex traits emerge is central to the credibility of evolutionary theory.

Wortfish wrote:

“We’re not here to explain the elephant’s trunk, or the camel’s hump. If such explanations could even be possible,” Brian Charlesworth told me. Instead, he said, evolutionary theory should be universal, focusing on the small number of factors that apply to how every living thing develops. “It’s easy to get hung up on ‘you haven’t explained why a particular system works the way it does’. But we don’t need to know,” Deborah told me. It’s not that the exceptions are uninteresting; it’s just that they aren’t all that important.

I think explaining how distinct complex traits emerge is central to the credibility of evolutionary theory.

Dawkins wrote:"The following is hypothetical but entirely typical. A creationist speaking: 'The elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog is irreducibly complex. No part of it would do any good at all until the whole was assembled. Bet you can't think of a way in which the weasel frog's elbow could have evolved by slow gradual degrees.' If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, the creationist draws a default conclusion: 'Right then, the alternative theory, "intelligent design," wins by default.'"

Spearthrower wrote:
Meanwhile, science has and never will have any interest in anything you've got to say because you're not involved in doing science. That's the thing about science - you can sit there incomprehendingly shaking your fist at it all you like, and it achieves bugger all. Science just continues on, unaware of the self-important gnat.

Evo-devo seeks to decipher how genomic tinkering has resulted in anatomical alterations via developmental reprogramming.

Wortfish wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Meanwhile, science has and never will have any interest in anything you've got to say because you're not involved in doing science. That's the thing about science - you can sit there incomprehendingly shaking your fist at it all you like, and it achieves bugger all. Science just continues on, unaware of the self-important gnat.

EVO-DEVO tries to explain the diversity of biological form: https://www.sdbonline.org/sites/fly/lew ... uzzleq.htm

Evo-devo seeks to decipher how genomic tinkering has resulted in anatomical alterations via developmental reprogramming.

Spearthrower wrote:

Just-so

...

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

The Link I Cited And You Ignored wrote:In science and philosophy, a just-so story is an untestable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The pejorative[1] nature of the expression is an implicit criticism that reminds the listener of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore genres like mythology (where they are known as etiological myths – see etiology).

...

It has been used to criticize evolutionary explanations of traits that have been proposed to be adaptations, particularly in the evolution–creation debates[4] and in debates regarding research methods in sociobiology[2] and evolutionary psychology.

THWOTH wrote:I respect the rights of creationists to believe whatever they want. It is regrettable that they generally do not extend that simple courtesy to people who believe they're misguided, misinformed, or just factually incorrect.

Wortfish wrote:

THWOTH wrote:I respect the rights of creationists to believe whatever they want. It is regrettable that they generally do not extend that simple courtesy to people who believe they're misguided, misinformed, or just factually incorrect.

Unless evolutionists can demonstrate how the ancestors of elephants evolved trunks, and camels their humps, or cetaceans evolved flukes, then their theory becomes limited to the study of small biological changes that creationists do not dispute.

Wortfish wrote:

THWOTH wrote:I respect the rights of creationists to believe whatever they want. It is regrettable that they generally do not extend that simple courtesy to people who believe they're misguided, misinformed, or just factually incorrect.

Unless evolutionists can demonstrate how the ancestors of elephants evolved trunks, and camels their humps, or cetaceans evolved flukes, then their theory becomes limited to the study of small biological changes that creationists do not dispute.

Spearthrower wrote:That's the thing about science - you can sit there uncomprehendingly shaking your fist at it all you like, and it achieves bugger all. Science just continues on, unaware of the self-important gnat.

Wortfish wrote:

THWOTH wrote:I respect the rights of creationists to believe whatever they want. It is regrettable that they generally do not extend that simple courtesy to people who believe they're misguided, misinformed, or just factually incorrect.

Unless evolutionists can demonstrate how the ancestors of elephants evolved trunks, and camels their humps, or cetaceans evolved flukes, then their theory becomes limited to the study of small biological changes that creationists do not dispute.

Description: Requiring the truth of the something that you are simultaneously trying to disprove.

Person 1 is attempting to disprove X.
X is required to disprove X.