|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Discredited evolutionary theories
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Why the "question of evolution"? 
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- 'Cause that was marginally better than the horrible title that was here before. Feel free to come up with something more artful. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 19:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Mistaken evolutionary theories" is better, I don't like the current verbosity. And it reminds me of Question Evolution, which I'm sure wasn't the plan. Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, that's better. Or perhaps Discredited evolutionary theories? I'm not an expert on the terminology here.
Генгисevolving 21:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- let's go with discredited. Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed with "discredited". Either that or something interesting, but still slightly awkward "Alternative modes of evolution". Because many of these theories are possible so will exhibit evolution if you build a system that runs by such rules, they're just not reflected in biology.
d hominem 22:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed with "discredited". Either that or something interesting, but still slightly awkward "Alternative modes of evolution". Because many of these theories are possible so will exhibit evolution if you build a system that runs by such rules, they're just not reflected in biology.
- let's go with discredited. Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK, that's better. Or perhaps Discredited evolutionary theories? I'm not an expert on the terminology here.
- "Mistaken evolutionary theories" is better, I don't like the current verbosity. And it reminds me of Question Evolution, which I'm sure wasn't the plan. Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest the book "Non-Darwinian evolution" by Peter Bowler it lists many of the alternative evolutionary theories. Il get round to adding them at some point. Not of all these ideas such as saltation have been discredited though. DinoCrisis (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
what abut that one guy who had a theory on prenatal evolution?[edit]
Wasn't there a guy who had a theory that the embryo and fetus grow first as a fish, then an amphibin, then a reptile, then a mammal, etc?Skadooshbag (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- DISCLAIMER: Because of the widespread misinformation creationists of been using since this idea was first published it is dificult for me to get to the truth of the matter. As such my summery may be incorrect in certain areas. Sorry.
- @Skadooshbag That is... complicated. As far as I've been able to ascertain Haeckel posited that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (his summery, not mine) and that yes, younger species go through the evolutionary process in microcosm. However, though the idea is discredited his illustrations, when compared to prenatal scans, demonstrate that vestigial traits developed and are then absorbed by the growing fetus. For example, prenatal gills in humans develope into our vocal cords, among a few other things.
- EDIT: Wikipedia has the surviving ideas in modern scientific theory
. Including this educational illustration. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm looking for the specific rationalwiki article on the idea because a creationist I'm talking too mentioned it to me; I know we have one, I've seen it before, I just couldn't remember the name. and I still can't find it via the search box. btw, The theory in question was that evolution occured by tackign additional adult stages onto the end of the devlopmental process and shoving the outdated ones into the prenatal phase.Skadooshbag (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
