An alternative to evolutionary theory

[Papay]

Ok on topics like "evolution vs creationism", creationists have some points when they attack evolutionary theory but they fail miserably to propose a plausible alternative scenario that fits with current scientific data.
I will try to propose an alternative scenario but i must give two warnings.
Firstly i am not fond of religions although i believe that somehow they are correct in some important things. But i dont like how dogmatic they are and how they try to persuade that the Bible for example is 100% correct(which isnt)
Secondly we cannot prove what happened because we simply cannot go back in time.If, 10.000 ago aliens had built factories and created humans its something we will never know(and no i dont believe in aliens). This means that i cannot "prove" this scenario so certain questions like "how this happened?"i consider them rhetorical..

Now

Lets hypothesize that an unknown intelligence exists.And this intelligence wants to create thinking beings but it hasnt got the knowledge to do it. So it starts by creating microorganisms. And every time this intelligence finishes a new type of microorganism it places it on this planet were the climate is fertile for survival.And after it places the new type of microorganism it goes away for, lets say 20.000 years according to our standards, to rest or play cricket.
Then at some point it returns and sees that the structure it created survived. Since it survived it can be considered a successful experiment. So it takes some specimens and improves the already successful microorganism. After countless experiments this intelligence decides to make something more complicated. And it makes fishes.Then it decides to make land animals but here it has a problem since the land is very unfriendly to sustain life.So it creates plants and later trees that re-shape the planets atmosphere(increase dramatically the percentage of oxygen) and offer food for everyone

After that it continues by creating insects.Insects are tiny compared to us and remain like this for hundreds of million years.We make always smaller things before we make bigger ones.Then it creates reptiles and dinosaurs but for some reason he abandons this experiment and starts creating mammals. Whales and dolphins are the only sea species that have emerged relatively recently. So again, just like it did with fishes he started with sea experiments only to continue with land species. Around the end human-like creatures emerge.After creating a big variety of humanoids it succeeds in creating modern humans(human brain is quite complex). And we are the last experiment...till now..

This scenario sounds ludicrous but test it and you'll see that it matches surprisingly with current data.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

We can see that the offspring of an organism has some genes that did not come from its parents. We have never seen a God placing animals onto our planet.

[Ciabhán]

This isn't really an alternative so much as it is forcing two opposing ideas into one. It also leaves unanswered one of the most basic and important questions: If the existence of something requires a creator then who/what created the creator? Further who created whatever created the creator? Etc. Assuming existence requires intelligent creation what makes a creator entity not require it? The my god just is because he's outside creation answer isn't an answer it's dodging a question that can't be answered.

[Muizer]

This isn't really an alternative so much as it is forcing two opposing ideas into one.

If God created the life in such a way that it looked as if evolution shaped it then the theories would no longer be opposing. Problem solved.........except for those who in addition to the possible existence of a god also want to maintain the version their religion taught them. They still have as big a problem as before.

[Elfdude]

Now

Lets hypothesize that an unknown intelligence exists.And this intelligence wants to create thinking beings but it hasnt got the knowledge to do it. So it starts by creating microorganisms. And every time this intelligence finishes a new type of microorganism it places it on this planet were the climate is fertile for survival.And after it places the new type of microorganism it goes away for, lets say 20.000 years according to our standards, to rest or play cricket.

Ok. So your theory has changed a single question (where does life come from) to multiple questions. Where does this intelligence come from? How does it know how to create life? How can it place life on this planet? Why this planet? Where does it go? Considering we judge theories by the number of questions they answer and judge theories negatively by the number of questions they create you've started on a poor foot.

Then at some point it returns and sees that the structure it created survived. Since it survived it can be considered a successful experiment. So it takes some specimens and improves the already successful microorganism.

Ok, so rather than evolution through natural selection we're using evolution through artificial selection? Essentially the same thing humans did with dogs except on a grander more divine level? That's rather silly considering we don't need a selector at a planetary level because death acts as the selector. All you need is variability in the organisms for evolution to occur.

After countless experiments this intelligence decides to make something more complicated.

Wait what? Complicated than what? Are you trying to say bacteria are less complicated than eukaryotes? What about archea? Do you even know the relative complication of the organisms of which you speak?

And it makes fishes.Then it decides to make land animals but here it has a problem since the land is very unfriendly to sustain life.So it creates plants and later trees that re-shape the planets atmosphere(increase dramatically the percentage of oxygen) and offer food for everyone

Except plants appeared earlier than fishes or land animals. In fact plants appear to be the first multicellular life. Oxygen is poisonous to most single celled organisms.

After that it continues by creating insects.Insects are tiny compared to us and remain like this for hundreds of million years.We make always smaller things before we make bigger ones.Then it creates reptiles and dinosaurs but for some reason he abandons this experiment and starts creating mammals.

Seems like he didn't abandon the experiment at all judging from platypus having traits of both reptiles and mammals.

Whales and dolphins are the only sea species that have emerged relatively recently. So again, just like it did with fishes he started with sea experiments only to continue with land species. Around the end human-like creatures emerge.After creating a big variety of humanoids it succeeds in creating modern humans(human brain is quite complex). And we are the last experiment...till now..

Ok... other than the fact your timeframes and timelines are completely messed up.

This scenario sounds ludicrous but test it and you'll see that it matches surprisingly with current data.

This scenario sounds like evolution, you've transposed the natural selection part of evolution and supposed a creator. Instead of inherent genetic mutations (which we know exists) you've supposed a creator's inventiveness (which we don't know exists). I mean, don't get me wrong it's always interesting to watch a creationist learn more and more and see their ideals turn more and more towards evolution. Two years ago you wouldn't be caught dead saying something this similar to evolution so I count it as major progress but all you've done is illustrated how little you know about earth. Now if we look at the DNA which has a standard mutation rate we can compare something all animals have in common. A good comparison tool might be ribosomes, despite the billions of organisms all have ribosomes. Those ribosomes rarely mutate because not only are they made from particularly hearty genes with built in controls when mutations in them do occur they must be neutral or positive or the organisms simply can't exist.

If we do that this relationship appears showing us which organisms arose the earliest to which arose the latest.



Amazing. So either the creator had a lot of experiments he used to base new experiments on or evolution was occuring without a creator. I'm so glad you agree those are the only two possible options. Now my option can happen either way. Your option requires a creator which we have no evidence of. I wonder which scenario is more likely?

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

I wish i could add something to this conversation but after being exposed to such stupidity in many a debate with creationist i am instantly enraged when people raise doubts about evolution

[basics]

" I wish i could add something to this conversation but after being exposed to such stupidity in many a debate with creationist i am instantly enraged when people raise doubts about evolution."

rijul 2222,

Perhaps I can enrage you some more by asking why it is that in this wonderful natural selection of yours that nothing can make something by itself?

[Biggieboy]

" I wish i could add something to this conversation but after being exposed to such stupidity in many a debate with creationist i am instantly enraged when people raise doubts about evolution."

rijul 2222,

Perhaps I can enrage you some more by asking why it is that in this wonderful natural selection of yours that nothing can make something by itself?

because that is not natural selection, that's abiogenesis, two different things.

[Himster]

Perhaps I can enrage you some more by asking why it is that in this wonderful natural selection of yours that nothing can make something by itself?

Abiogenesis is totally separate from evolution.

[basics]

" Abiogenesis is totally separate from evolution. "

Himster,

Big bang, evolution, abiogenesis, whatever, nothing cannot make something by itself if nothing existed before it.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Big bang, evolution, abiogenesis, whatever, nothing cannot make something by itself if nothing existed before it.

In abiogenesis, something is not made from nothing. Something is made from something else. Molecules arrange themselves into self replicating organisms.

[Blau&Gruen]

... that nothing can make something by itself?

anorganic chemistry -> organic chemistry -> macro molecular chemistry -> bio chemistry -> biology

<- our part in this line up

[Dr Zoidberg]

" I wish i could add something to this conversation but after being exposed to such stupidity in many a debate with creationist i am instantly enraged when people raise doubts about evolution."

rijul 2222,

Perhaps I can enrage you some more by asking why it is that in this wonderful natural selection of yours that nothing can make something by itself?

Basics, you've always struck me as a relatively smart guy - misguided and placing far too much faith in, well... faith - but you're certainly no dummy.

So how is it, after all these years and discussions, you still don't get the difference between Abiogenesis and Evoluton?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Basics, you've always struck me as a relatively smart guy - misguided and placing far too much faith in, well... faith - but you're certainly no dummy.

So how is it, after all these years and discussions, you still don't get the difference between Abiogenesis and Evoluton?

By not being smart. If one is unable to reason, they're not smart in my book.

[Irishman]

Evolution is one of the most important, most supported theories in modern science. There is no reason to propose an alternative, especially one which will have LESS explanatory and predictive value.

This scenario sounds ludicrous but test it and you'll see that it matches surprisingly with current data.

There are an infinite number of explanations consistent with current data. That is why we use simplicity, elegance etc in deciding between theories, but also predictive value. Your theory doesn't offer any PREDICTIVE value while evolution does.

[Claudius Gothicus]

OP: We can prove what happened thousands of years ago... the fact that you aren't aware of the mechanisms that allow for said process to take place does nothing to change the possibilities of knowing the past(human, physical, geographic, biologic, etc.).

[Lazarus]

I appreciate your theory and what you're trying to do, but it's important to remember that things evolve from evolutionary pressures - it wouldn't make sense that a God would make a species and then put it somewhere it would struggle to survive. It also wouldn't account for all the negative mutations that actually hurt a creatures chance of survival/reproduction.

[Himster]

If god exists I find it extremely hard to believe he could be an interventionist god. The only god that makes sense would be the various forms of deistic gods, yes he could have caused evolution, but not in an interfering way, the only reasonable way to look at it is like a designer god set up an incredibly complex pattern of dominoes and then just flicked the first one with the big-bang.

[Valden]

If god exists I find it extremely hard to believe he could be an (1)interventionist god. The only god that makes sense would be the various forms of deistic gods, yes he could have caused evolution, but not in an interfering way, the only reasonable way to look at it is like a designer god set up an (2)incredibly complex pattern of dominoes and then just flicked the first one with the big-bang.

1. God 'intervening' does not have to mean radiant angels flying down from heaven blowing divine trumpets, it could be something as mundane as just catching a bus that will then miss your stop, forcing you to get off at the next one and 'accidentally' meet the love of your life, or a victim at Auschwitz 'happening' to meet another through whom he/she finds God before the end. God could be intervening every day, we are just too caught up in ourselves to notice.

2. God is immaterial and so has no composite parts, complexity is therefore not a word to be associated with him! I feel you are being inconsistent with your own position here Himster; you have previously made it clear that you personally doubt our knowledge/ principle of causation can apply to a realm we have no experience of, so how can you be so comfortable applying our concept of complexity to what could be transcendent motivation, a supernatural process we know nothing of, other than an inclination that it happens?

Anyway, not spoken to you for a while so hi

[Blau&Gruen]

supernatural

means something conflicts with natural laws or common sense

e.g. Château en Espagne (castle in Spain)