Do not mention God in your answer. I’m not factoring God into the equation for my question at this moment.
Scenario
What if advanced humans landed on earth today and said their ancestors came here a billions of years ago and dropped off a bunch of people, already intelligent, to colonize and civilize the unruly group that was here on earth. The unruly group didn’t evolve, they were left here by a different group from who knows where.
What if they said they implanted their advanced DNA into us and we are nothing other than descendants of other intelligent life that’s been spread out throughout the universe. What if they told you that human intelligent life existed before earth was ever formed. Would you still believe in Evolution?
3 Questions –
1) What about the theory of Panspermia from the 5th century which existed before Darwin. Has that been totally dismissed?
2) Just because Darwin said “Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago.” We are supposed to believe it and abandon all other theories and all other research and not even consider any other possibilities as to why we are here? ( NOT referring to any God)
3) Isn’t that kind of short sighted just to believe Darwin and discount any other scientific theories, since 1850, no matter what they say or what proof they say they have, or what anybody else shows you? (NOT referring to a Bible or God)
There has to be other theories as to why we are here and why we are the way we are. Darwin cannot hold the monopoly on the whole world with his theory. Can you please tell me the other theories as to why we are here other than Darwin and why they are not being discussed.
Update:RIck L - learn how to read. I said we're not talking about God or creation or anything like that. Produce another theory or Shut Up. Follow directions.
Update 3:**Those of you who brought God or creationism or religious statements into your answers have been ignored.** You acted like the christians you criticize when your belief was challenged.
The questions were not about creationism, God, the bible or religion. If you had read the question you would see that I was asking are there any other theories other than Darwin's theory which is taught in schools. Evidentally you don't have that answer. The scenario of advanced people was just to see what you'd say if somebody said something different than what you believe no matter how wild it is.
Update 5:Thank You PPP777.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Then I would be wrong, and change my views accordingly.
As for the scenario, the advanced humans would have a lot of explaining to do as to where they came from and how they came to exist, which brings me to your question # 1...
1) Panspermia, much like the sudden appearence of advanced humans in your scenario, does not actually answer anything, nor would such information be useful. If life on earth came from another world, then it had to originate somehow on that world...what then? Would we attempt to explain it with Panspermia again? As you can see, panspermia, even if it is correct, is simply a delay towards getting an answer, not the answer itself.
2) What matters in science isn't who said what, but whether or not something is correct. To determine whether or not something is correct, you need evidence. In this regard, Darwin is irrelevant. Even if Charles Darwin had never existed, eventually the evidence would lead scientists to come to similar conclusions. Which brings me to question 3...
3) The theory of evolution has come a very long way since Darwin. The great thing about science is that it allows for new information. Evolutionary theory as it exists today, is far beyond Darwin's original, and now outdated model. Darwin was just a scientist working with the information he had at hand. His theory was heavily flawed because of this, but since then, modern scientists that have more information at their disposal, and better technology and techniques by which to obtain it, have expanded and corrected the theory to what it is today. That's because science is a self-correcting process.
1. No, it is still around. There is just absolutely no evidence to support it beyond speculation.
2. No, you are treating science like religion; that is not how it works. Nothing is true because some supposed authority figure "said so." Darwin doesn't matter. The evidence he can provide does. Hypotheses are tested and peer-reviewed to see if they merit being labeled a theory.
3. Some Joe Blow off the street with some idea about how things are is NOT a theory. His ideas must be tested and peer-reviewed as well. This has been tried and evolution has been attacked since 1850, but nothing has replaced it yet. There is probably a reason for that. I would love to hear what these other "theories" are, but it sounds like a bunch of random guessing by people who have been conditioned that evolution=bad with no real good basis for that belief.
If evolution was shown to be incorrect (and so far it hasn't been), then it would beg the question of what the next best scientific explanation was for the diversity of species. It surely wouldn't prove creationism by default, let alone prove the existence of a deity; that's not how science works.
What are you, a Raelian?
>>What if they said they implanted their advanced DNA into us
Then you'd have to answer why evolution still explains all of the other billions of species on the planet.
>>Just because Darwin said “Life on Earth originated and
>>then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately
>>3.7 billion years ago.”
Where and when did he say that? The fact that you're using quotation marks implies that this is in fact an explicit, direct quote. Give your sources. Or are you just making stuff up?
>>We are supposed to believe it
The reason we understand and accept evolution is not because of a 19th century biologist's say-so. The reason we understand and accept evolution as fact, is because of the overwhelming evidence that scientists have discovered over the past 200+ years.
>>and abandon all other theories and all other research
The problem is that the "other theories" typically turn out to be embarrassingly bad hypotheses with no evidence, with no "other research" actually being done on them. Such proposed ideas are usually from armchair theologians and other people who never even bothered to study biology in the first place, and wouldn't know the difference between DNA and RNA, for example. Or even basic middle school science stuff, like the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis".
>>There has to be other theories as to why we are here
>>and why we are the way we are.
You can dream up whatever hypotheses you like. Hell, you can claim that humans were thought into existence by a magical blue dragon. But until you actually show evidence for your claims, offer a potential way to disprove it, and show that it withstands the scrutiny of the scientific method, then it's completely unfounded and certainly not worth time in a science classroom.
>>Darwin cannot hold the monopoly on the whole world
>>with his theory.
Evolution as a science didn't begin and end with Darwin. You've shown that you're quite clueless on this topic.
Scientific evidence has shown evolution to be a fact. This is not based solely upon Darwin's work; in fact, much of his theory about the processes has proven to be inaccurate, but provided a useful starting point for research.
There have been no other significant theories that held up under scientific scrutiny. There have been some theories about the processes that affect evolution, and some have proven to have merit, but they were still within the arena of evolution.
It's almost entirely inconceivable that evolution would prove to be non-existent. It would not be shocking, however, to find that there are other, non-evolutionary processes involved, as well.
Your statements demonstrate that you believe all knowledge of evolution is based upon Darwin's work. That is far from the case, and alternate theories have been examined. That's the difference between science and religion: religion rejects different ideas out of hand, while science embraces them and examines them to determine their accuracy, making changes to fit any new facts uncovered.
Darwin could have been wrong... and Evolution still be right. YOu do realize that he wasn't the first, nor the last, to write about it. The ancient Greeks wrote about what they observed and a lot of it backs up Evolution.
Darwin doesn't give any purpose as to WHY we are here. And no one told you to abandon any other SCIENTIFIC theories.
No, what's short sighted is the fact that you think only Darwin ever did any research like this. He just happened to be the first one to put out a book TO THE PUBLIC.
There are a ton of philosophical theories as to why we are here... none of which Darwin even wrote about. All Darwin wrote about was his observations of nature.... Survival of the Fittest... to show what and how certain dominant genes get passed on. The weak and slow animals didn't get to reproduce (unlike in humans, where almost everyone has a chance to reproduce)... Really all you have to do is watch wolves.... the alpha males get the alpha females.... because they are both strong, smart leaders of their pack. That's what Darwin was talking about... he didn't really write about any purpose as to WHY we are here....
As for your advanced human theory - that doesn't leave out evolution at all.... in fact, it would back it up. And I do not know about Panspermia, sorry... so I can't comment on it.
Considering the vast overwhelming amount of evidence, I doubt this would happen. But assuming it did, then there would be new evidence to support some new theory.
1) Not totally dismissed, but incredibly unlikely. And it doesn't explain where life came from, only how it got here.
2) No. But there have been numerous studies and scientists have amassed an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence in favor of evolution.
3) We don't immediately discard other theories. We evaluate them on their own merit. However, as I've mentioned several times, Evolution has an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence supporting it. Any new theory would have to simultaneously prove Evolution false while providing even more evidence than Evolution currently has.
Also, false premise. There ARE no real other theories on the origin of species. That's what made Darwin's theory such a breakthrough! It was the first real theory that didn't say "God did it"
This question is pointless. I believe in evolution because it has been proven, so if it wasn't true and something else was true I would obviously accept and believe that in which has been proven. So nothing would change.
1) There is no valid evidence of that theory
2) No we accept the theory of evolution (which does NOT include origination of life. Accepting evolution doesn't mean accepting everything Darwin said) because it has been proven.
3) No because again, proof.
There are plenty of theories on the origination of life, however that again is a completely different issue than evolution. Evolution states that living organisms adapt and change over time, it has nothing to do with were life began or where life came from.
Your understanding of the theory of evolution is incorrect.
-Connor
"Evolutionists what would you do if you found out that evolution wasn’t true and Darwin was 100% wrong"
Get on with my life and watch the exciting developments in biology.
1. no, but it's less a theory and more a hypothesis. But life from elsewhere still had to originate somewhere by a process. Note that abiogenesis (start of 'life') is NOT evolution.
2. Well, genetics pretty much sealed the deal on evolution. Any competing theory would have a lot to account for and by virtue of the available facts (fossil record, genetics) end up looking a lot like it.
3. There are no competing scientific theories for evolution at this time.
As the mountain of evidence that supports evolution is so huge, and so well tested, that such fctless hypotheticals are not worth a second's considration.
So: 1) Total BS; There was NO such 'theory'.
2) Common ancestry of life on Earth is properly accepted because the evidence shows it to be correct. Any fool trying to claim that that view is accepted 'just beause Darwin said' is so willfully ignorant as to be beneath contempt.
3) Evolution is a fact and a (scientific) theory. Because the facts support it. Period. If you have a problem with any of that, then the problem is in your willful ignorance.
There are no other theories. Moreover, in science, the word -theory- means something that is well supported by tested evidence. Deal with it.
"Can you please tell me the other theories as to why we are here other than Darwin and why they are not being discussed?"
In the beginning, our Lord- The Flying Spaghetti Monster- created trees, a mountain, and a midget.
Other "theories" (completely abusing the scientific usage of the word) than evolution are not discussed because they are inconsistent with the evidence. Evolution is the most fundamental theory to our understanding of biology. If you'd like to look at some of the evidences, search "Evolution" using Pubmed, a database of scientific research papers.