What would happen if it was proved that evolution was wrong?

Question

Just suppose we wake up tomorroe morning and discover, shock horror, that some eminant scientist has finally proved evoultion to be imposible and untrue. What would we do with all those millions of incorrect text books and TV documentuaries?
You never know this could happen, after all evoulton is far from from being proved true. So who knows...

Answer 1

This will happen someday as it is not true, one day some one will prove it.

Answer 2

Well, it would throw the scientific world into an uproar, the person who disproved it would get a Nobel prize, and the scientific community would find itself in a race to come up with a new theory that explained this new piece of evidence PLUS the mountain of other evidence that is currently explained quite well by evolution. That would have to be one doozy of a theory.

But technically you are correct. A single piece of evidence can disprove a theory. What would that evidence look like? Well, a species of animal that had nothing in common with any other species ... for example, it used a form of replication completely different from the specific brand of DNA-based replication used by every other living organism on the planet. Such creature would indeed provide evidence of a species that did not evolve from any other species.

But this points out exactly why the theory of evolution is so incredibly strong! Since a *single* piece of evidence can undermine a theory ... and since no such piece of hard evidence has ever been discovered ... not a *single* piece ... this is why the theory of evolution is the reigning champ.

Until then, the text books and TV documentaries are doing what they should be doing ... teaching the theory that the vast majority of scientists believe best explains the existing evidence. There is currently no controversy within the scientific community ... they are all pretty much in agreement.

Answer 3

If evidence comes in that somehow refutes the present Theory of Natural Selection, if it was scientifically valid (i.e. the evidence was valid and verifiable beyond the shadow of a doubt or hint of human error) it would only push aside the model proposed by Darwin for a stronger, sounder model which would have an even more unshakeable scientific base, and which would drive the nail into empty religionistic sophistry even harder, quite possibly permanently this time.

Actually, I thought the scientific community had nailed Creationism permanently the /last/ time.

The point about something being called "Theory" in science is that the word is the scientific community's way of saying "proven and established," not their way of saying "not yet proven". An assertion scientists have established, but for which there is as yet no clear proof (what lay people call "theory") is known, in the scientific community, as a "hypothesis". Scientists seek to find evidence to prove Hypotheses; once proven, then they graduate from Hypotheses to Theories, and Theories are as unto Gospel to the men of science.

The evidence to support evolution is literally overwhelming, and in terms of its scientific validity it is iron clad. The validity of the evidence and its irrefutability are what make the Theory of Natural Seceltion so rock solid, not faith or mysticism.

The links below show the processes through which science tests its assertions and comes up with models of how we view the world; but history has shown that, fundamentalism notwithstanding, the only way a scientific theory has ever been knocked down was when it had to make way for an even stronger scientific theory which also explained the things the old theory explained, and also explained the new evidence.

Answer 4

If evolution was proven to be scientifically flawed then it would be modified and corrected if possible - the new theory would then be tested and would would represent a better model until that to also fails an acid test. If the failed test is a catastrophic one that completely disproves the theory then the books would still be of historic and scientific interest as a long standing and highly regarded theory until said point when it was disproved.

New theories would then be put forward (as they are now) and the strongest one that with stands tests to disprove it would emerge as the most favoured. This is the way of science.

Now ask what would happen if you woke up tomorrow and creation was disproved - or the existence of god was disproved - would anything so rational occur within the church and religious masses? Or would there be lots of angry zealots shouting and rioting? And lots of uneducated fools simply saying - "I don't care what you say and what the evidence says - you're wrong anyway and what I think is right cos it is!" ...... You decide

Answer 5

If you really wnt toknow the answer to this, buy some second hand school text books from forty or fifty years ago. You'd be amazed how much the "science" has changed. I was flicking through one of my school text books (biology) last year (oops, how come it wasn't handed in?!) and had a real shock at some of the stuff I was taught that is just codswallop. It was published in the early sixties (no, I'm not quite that old but my school was).

I have photoes of the plants and trees on Mars where the temperature is a regular 27 degrees C !!

I have photoes of a human embryo with gills in it's neck (which was where Darwin came up with his theory as he thought we went through the evolution process up until birth apparently).

Since looking at that book, I find it very hard to believe any of the stuff that is spouted as fact.

Answer 6

Science would do what its always done when an existing theory is overturned, it adapts the theory to fit the new experimental data.

For example quantum physics arose from inconsistencies observed in various physical phenomenon including relativity & thermodynamics. Physicists racked their brains and came up with a new theory that as well as explaining the observations eventually pointed to new experiments that verified the theories.

The difference between science and this dive back into the middle ages that America seems to be set on is that evidential inconsistancies in an accepted theory fill scientists with glee for that way lies Noble prizes, juicy research grants, and long secure tenures.

So lets forget the overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution, albeit that certain aspects of evolutionary processes may be further refined of embellished, and instead consider the possible enthusiasm or reluctance with which each camp - Science and the American Taliban - would be filled with if they found inconsistancies in their respective viewpoint. As I said Science would immediately descend on the wounded theory like vultures eager for the kill. The American Taliban however would begin to cry and become increasingly enraged that sceintists would dare seem to call them a monkey YET AGAIN!!!

Answer 7

I have an open mind as far as evolution is concerned, proof lies in
tracing the earths movements over millions of years. Movements in location of habitable areas caused by the tectonic plates. For example Australia used to be connected to the North pole and many areas once habituated by both man and beast are now hundreds of feet beneath the sea so there will be no Chance for archaeological investigators to find out exactly what happened to the development of the human race as land has risen and dropped below the sea level since time began. The evidence for evolution is by no means complete and unlikely ever to be so. Discoveries have been made to show lost intelligence maybe greater than ours today : discoveries that baffle the minds of modern man and challenges our accepted view with regards to our progression through the ages.
Don't get me wrong I am not knocking the theory of evolution but an intelligent man must always question the evidence or lack of evidence put before him. Many evolutionist are looking for a politically correct answer nowadays rather than looking for the truth and that's where evolutionist are falling down. Lay arguments for against arguments against and then determine the truth.

Answer 8

Evolution is fact. The theory invovles the mechanisms that drive evolution, and there are mountains of evidence for this theory.

If someone came up with a theory that explained the evidence better than evolutionary theory, the person would win a Nobel Prize.

Edited to add: Some folks here seem to think that if evolutionary theory was answered, the default position would be GOD. Wrong-o. It would be the new scientific theory. Gods are supernatural and therefore outside the realm of science.

Answer 9

We'd make new ones, of course. Are you suggesting we should make text books and documentaries that reflect science we know to be false? When big changes happen in science, scientists are excited.

Right now, Evolution is the explanation that Works (with a capital W). Nothing else comes close.

However, Creationists have a different approach to knowledge; they want what we now know to be true forever and ever (so it's easy to buy creationism right away, and 'fix' the evidence afterwards). That's not how science works; we arrive at better and better approximations of a model of the universe. When you make an observation in nature that is inconsistent with your model (for instance, photons move in ways Newtons model can't explain), you have to update your model. The theory of Relativity contains Newton's model in its entirety, so it can explain everything Newton already could. Any new theory of our origin will have to contain Evolution as well. Creationism doesn't even address these issues.

Answer 10

I wish i could even imagin this possible but there are to many things that we already found proving evolution to be right that i can't see any other sort of thing happening

even if this impossible thing where to happen

what happened the toehr day when they told us pluto wasn't a planet

the world didn't come to an end, sure it sats it's a planet in text books and tv doc's but hey they proved it not 2 be one life goes on

Answer 11

If, as you suggest, a scientist where to prove it wrong then he must find some prediction that the theory makes and show that the prediction is wrong. The manner in which it failed would lead to a fresh hypothesis, this after investigation modification and further testing would become a new theory

The New Theory of Evolution (or of something else)