If scientists disagree about evolutionary backgrounds, can theories or hypothesis about these issues be thrown

Question

If 2 scientists disagree about the relatedness of species or their evolutionary background, does it mean that entire theories or hypothesis about these issues should be thrown out? Why or Why not?

Answer 1

Of course not.

It is extremely common that scientists will disagree over details. But that does not mean you throw out the entire foundation on which they *agree*.

In evolutionary biology, 2 scientists may disagree over whether species A is more closely related to species B or to species C. But they will both agree that A is related to both B and C, and they are disagreeing only on which is *closer*. And both will consider it absurd that evolution itself did not occur at all for A, B, C or any other species.

In fact, it is that process of disagreement that gives science its *strength*. Scientists are not some cabal or secret society. They make *lousy* conspirators. They are *extremely* critical of each other. They *love* to debate things. They *love* to point out each others mistakes. And they love to do this in *public* ... in books, in articles, in papers, in conferences in front of hundreds of other people. They get jobs, raises, book deals, prizes, monetary awards, glory, etc. for disagreeing with somebody and then being shown to be right. And it ALWAYS comes down to evidence.

It is because of this willingness to disagree, that on those issues where they DO agree, then those issues have a LOT of credibility. And scientists are almost unanimous on the issue of evolution.

Answer 2

No, the theory of evolution is one of the more robust and elegant theories ever devised. It has the support of the vast majority of scientists. The disagreements which arise are minor - the greater parts of the theory are not disputed by scientists, just by religious people. The arguments against evolution are faith based, not scientific. The two scientists in dispute will put forward their differing views and let other scientists debate it, give their own views etc, until the weight of evidence, say from DNA, taxonomy, fossil evidence etc, and experiment, favours one or the other. They can then change their views or explain why their opinion goes against the evidence. Science is flexible like that.

By the same analogy you use, if two religious leaders disagree about dogma, does that negate the whole religion? Also, since there are hundreds of different religions on Earth, does that mean that they are all wrong?

Answer 3

Most scientists agree on the principles of evolution, but like anything else sometimes a few individuals are wrong. That does not make the theory of evolution wrong.

That does not mean that sometimes scientists will disagree on something like how two species are related, for valid reasons. Usually they are just looking at different traits or aspects of the species.

In any case it would appear that you are questioning the validity of evolution based on religous teachings. I assume you would be offended If I wrongly claimed that all religion is wrong because all religous people can not agree on which religion is "right".

If you are a zelot you would just say that people of different religion are wrong, if a moderate you would just call it a difference of opinion. In either case it would not hurt your beliefs.

Science is the same way sometimes individual scientists make mistakes and sometimes they differ in opinions.

Answer 4

No, because scientists are not infallible. One may be wrong, or the other might be wrong, or they might both be right (stranger things have happened).

It used to be thought that atoms were like pudding - a gelatinous mass of protons, neutrons, and electrons (called, appropriately enough, the plum pudding model). Now we know that Niehls Bohr's model of the atom, with electrons circling a tightly-packed proton/neutron nucleus, is correct.

Because Bohr disagreed with someone else didn't mean that all science or research into the structure of the atom was worthless and could be ignored. It just meant that there was still studying to be done until one could be proven right based on study of the facts.

Answer 5

Actually, the entire evolutionary theory should be thrown out on logical grounds. Of course, the religious grounds go without saying. The historical grounds are awe-inspiring. No one ever took such a preposterous idea seriously until the mid-19th century, when it was put forth as a hair-brained idea (that was NEVER proven, and by the nature of it CANNOT EVER BE OBSERVED BY ANYONE). Darwin himself stated that if proof does not appear in a reasonable time, then it is all nonsense. One hundred years have now passed. Is it still a "theory"? ha ha

Answer 6

hypotheses are not tossed out based on opinions or disagreements but on evidence. Theories are hypotheses that best explain a set of evidence, and have been given lots of opportunities to be proven wrong.

Answer 7

So, since we don't know everything about plate tectonics does that mean that we throw the whole thing away? Even though we have measured the drift? Same thing with evolution.