Talk:Alternatives to Darwinian evolution

Introductory paragraph
"Non-Darwinian evolution" can be understood as evolutionary processes that don't follow the Darwinian model. However, "Darwinism" is a theory, not a process or set of processes. So "Non-Darwinian theories of evolution" is better here.StN (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Alternative explanations of change
Many of the entries in Evidence Against are vacuous. "Natural selection explains everything" (paraphrasing) is not evidence. The membrane example under Structuralism is self-assembly, not self-organization, which is dynamical, not static. Many self-organized phenomena in morphogenesis (and thus morphological evolution) are not products of natural selection. StN (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hugo de Vries image
Something is odd with this image, the thumb works, but the larger images appear to redirect to Common's main page. Maybe already deleted but still in the cache or such... — Paleo  Neonate  — 15:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Evidence against, or supporting evidence?
Currently reads under "Evidence against Darwin, Natural selection": "Many lines of evidence e.g. of common descent from fossil record, selection experiments, genomics, evolutionary developmental biology". If this is evidence supporting the theory, perhaps I could suggest "supporting evidence" instead of "evidence against"? Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  — 15:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously in the case of this entry, the foil of all the others, the situation is the inverse of the rest. I'll think about how to word this as compactly as possible: I might even use a background colour for the row to indicate it's a special case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok yes it seems tricky as it's a table. Thanks Face-smile.svg —  Paleo  Neonate  — 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Darwinism = Evolution?
The article at present purports to describe alternatives to Darwinism. The last entry in the table indicates that none of the other alternatives (e.g., Structuralism) are actually theories of evolution. Only Darwinism is such a theory. Not only that, Darwinism is not simply a theory of evolution, but is evolution itself. Why not just call the article "Incorrect Alternatives to Darwinism"? StN (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction
"The alternatives in question do not encompass purely religious points of view such as young or old earth creationism or intelligent design, but are limited to explanations proposed by biologists."

If this is true, the table entry "Theistic evolution" must go. Theistic evolution is not an alternative to Darwinian evolution, but rather, it is a way of saying that one can accept Darwinian evolution without being an Atheist. We can't have it both ways. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, well spotted, thank you. The phrase "theistic evolution" is used in two entirely different ways, one that you mention, and another, as used by historians of science, (the one that doesn't have a Wikipedia article), meaning a divinely-guided form of evolution, which is what is meant here. I'll add a clarification. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"Biologists"
Virtually every time the word "biologists" is used in this article, it's too general. Biologists aren't a hivemind, scientists have different opinions.

Of these theories, I know the most about theistic evolution, so these lines stuck out to me: "Discounted by biologists by 1900" / "Accordingly, by around 1900, biologists no longer saw theistic evolution as a valid theory." If biologists means "all biologists," or even "all reputable biologists," this is patently false, of course there are biologists who have done worthwhile work since 1900 who believe in a deity (there are also plenty of books about theistic evolution that have been written since 1900, it's hardly an extinct theory)

The group of biologists should either be specified or the lines should be omitted.

Sjbennington (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Theistic evolution was never a valid theory, since it contains a supernatural element and is therefore untestable. You can be aware of that and still be religious, so "there are biologists [..] who believe in a deity" is not a counter to "biologists no longer saw theistic evolution as a valid theory".
 * Also, "biologists think" never means "all biologists think". It refers to the mainstream. Theistic evolution is not part of science, it is a private matter of the people who believe in it - since it is just religion, mixed with a bit of science.
 * That is the only way it can be. Otherwise, there would be religious battles within science, between adherents of one god and adherents of other numbers of gods (such as zero), which would be crazy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"Dr. Kasra"
This addition by User:Stoepkrijtske adds a mysterious person "Dr. Kasra" as author of the publication which names only King and Jukes as authors. What is this about? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Vandalism. Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)