To wonder what repectable scientific notions of today....

[RubyGates]

will be laughed at in a hundred year's time?

Things that were believed by scientists in the past:
www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

Thank you.

Sorry - I should probably have said when I made the point that it was just a correction rather than anything else, as I'd really not like to come across as if I thought homeopathy were every going to be valid!

It just seems to me this is one of the big issues with science/education today - we don't distinguish between proof and demonstration, and that makes us vulnerable to all the snake oil out there.

I think proper scientists do amazing work, and have to be incredibly open-minded and intelligent, in order to keep working at things where you are constantly trying to refine your own ideas and trying to work towards a better understanding of the world. I sort of feel that we don't give them enough credit when we say 'science has proved', because the work is ongoing and doesn't have so many certainties.

I don't really know. I would love to get science properly, but I don't.

I once asked Patrick Moore on a phone-in How many of his theories would stand the test of time.

He said, we have the big issues right, but we may be wrong on minor issues

Genetic drift is about random events, not selection and least of all of the fittest.

I'm really sorry, I'm ignorant and I've googled - what is genetic drift?

(I mean, in relation to this thread)

LRD,

Not sure about that much open mindedness.

Isn't it true that ?a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.?

Perhaps I have a rosy-tinted view looking in from the outside.

I know a lot of scientists who're very good at calmly assessing the evidence. They're actually very good at philosophy, because they will not worry about something being implausible, but will immediately see how to apply logic to it, and then how to think about it in the real world.

Maybe I just know very nice scientists?!

I think scientists will discover that a lot of cancers are caused by viruses. They have already made inroads with cervical cancer and HPV. I reckon virus theory will explain clusters of rare cancers (unlike the Daily Mail, which usually tries to pin it on a mobile phone mast).

I suspect they will also find that having wifi signals floating about our homes is harmful in the long term.

I have met lots of different scientists.

But it's the old guard that tends to be more resistant to change, as you'd expect.

Scientists tend to be very cautious and analytical about things.
We never say "this is it", but rather, there is evidence for, it's compatible with, it agrees with, and so on.
Unfortunately, the message sometimes get diluted (eg. evolution vs creationism) or twisted (eg. by newspaper headlines).

Being cautious and analytical is a good thing, I think?

I think it is really important that there's a distinction between 'there is evidence' and 'we know', or between 'it's compatible with' and 'this proves the theory that'.

I wish I could read a paper and know what the scientists said. Because scientists tend to be very precise, and then that precision is lost the media version.

So, maybe, I think the big 'scientific notion' that will go by the wayside is this idea that most people will want to believe 'science' as it's reported or distorted in the media.

Loads of medicine related things. Pharmaceutical testing is so flawed and corrupt, we are undoubtably using lots of things which don't help - in fact they make us worse as the industry is so driven by money rather than proving what works best.

I think adding sweeteners to food as a substitute for sugar will have so worrying outcomes.

I think a lot of theories to do with dark matter will be proven wrong as they are already finding this with the Hadron Collider.

I think much of what we know about Mars and the rest of the solar system will change drastically.

I think we'll also change a lot of what we think about various natural disasters. Theres a lot of room for such about volcanoes and earthquakes to change. Certainly I think we'll find ways to predict them with a certain degree of accuracy.

Einstein said that "God does not play dice" in relation to quantum theory. I think this will be proved in the next 100 years as the so called randomness will be shown to be false.

Slightly off track, I think we'll crack fusion which will enormously aid us in the fight against the proven global warming

Dances Mutation is where it begins - and evolution cannot happen without it. From there we have various mechanisms - such as natural selection & genetic drift (and these are quite distinct from each other).

I think you are confusing natural selection with the process of genetic variation, to be honest.

Genetic drift is an explanation of speciation, not a mechanism of evolution - in other words they are methods of change within a population over time - not a species or multiple species. All the so-called mechanisms listed on wiki (I'm home now - so gene flow, genetic hijacking, genetic drift and biazed mutation) are actually the factors that effect population change over time and are still based on the concept of a random change in a gene that is passed on to future generations. Whether the advantage is by sexual selection, lack of predation, environmental change etc is irrelevant - it is still down to inherited mutation. Epigenetics - the new concept in evolution takes the mutation factor out. It is completely against what Darwin said, not an adaptation thereof - it is a real change in theory. It supports the work of Le Mark who has the laughing stock of evolutionary science for the last 150 years.

LRD Genetic drift is the removal of selection pressure by chance that changes a population's genes irreversibly. Ridiculous example - a tsunami all but wipes out a population of people on an island. Randomly, all the survivors are albinos. In a completely isolated population all future members of this population will be albino. This is clearly free of survival of the fittest.

However, it only explains the sudden increase of albinos in one isolated population. It explains why these genes are so frequent on this island compared to the rest of the world - in other words population genetics. However - even if this sort of chance scenario were to somehow take place to an entire species worldwide - so every single human was an albino - the species would still be subjected to regular population pressures in the future, over hundreds of thousands of years, and this weak gene would result in huge drops in the population and ultimately the extinction of the species as it is an unfavourable gene - so back to natural selection.

LRD

Natural selection is when a particular advantage is "selected" for - an organism is more likely to survive if it has a particular genetic mutation so therefore passes on the advantage and over gazillions of years we see change. (I know you know this, but just for clarity....)

Genetic drift is when a difference has no particular advantage so is not "selected" for, but it occurs (entirely randomly) often enough that it has an evolutionary effect.

I'm not with you, Dances.

Natural selection is also a mechanism that "effects population changes over time". That is what evolution is - change over time.

Mutations happen - then various factors get to work to make things change. Or not, as the case may be.

If you're saying that there's emerging evidence that takes out the mutation stage, OK. But your initial statement that scientists have been saying that natural selection is the only thing driving evolution is simply not true. They haven't.

Thanks ellie.

(Sorry: and thanks dances).

Oh - Lamarck. Sorry, not being snippy, but I wasn't sure who Le Mark was meant to be. I have heard of Lamarckism.

Yes, the issue of inheriting acquired traits in interesting - and HAS been studied quite a lot.

You're still wrong to say that science has only ever suggested natural selection as a mechanism.

Epigenetics - the new concept in evolution takes the mutation factor out. It is completely against what Darwin said, not an adaptation thereof - it is a real change in theory.

Not an expert in this field, but surely the recognition that epigenetics is important in no way 'takes the mutation factor out' - it means there is more than one mechanism for change. Lamarckian epigenetic modification is in addition to Darwinian/Mendelian evolution - not a complete alternative theory.

Ellie - there are three types of evolution - individual evolution, which is change in an individual in their lifetime and not relevant to this discussion; population evolution - the change within a specific population over time - this is where genetic drift and gene flow are mechanism; and then there is species evolution - change in whole species over time. The only time population evolution effects species evolution is if that population is the only population of that species or if it causes speciation, which is rare.

If you go back to what I originally wrote it was The theory of evolution by natural selection only is definitely on trouble. Le Marc Is suddenly not being laughed at any more. and if you go and look on Wiki at Neo-Darwinism as well as natural selection you will see it is described as the key mechanism of evolution. This is the assertion that is being challenged by modern science. At no point has any evolutionary scientist suggested that the change that occurs over time is by genetic drift or gene flow INSTEAD of mutation and natural selection.

I'm not altogether sure what we are all getting on our high horses about here. This thread is about scientific notions of today will be challenged in the future. I stand by my statement that evolution by natural selection is under threat. It is most certainly considered the key mechanism of evolution as a whole - you are faffing about in semantics of a tiny side branch of population genetics. The evolution of hominids to hominoids over 100 000 years had bugger all to do with genetic drift or gene flow. All theories of hominid evolution discuss natural selection exclusively, and are they same for any other major genus or family.

And now we are getting worked up about whether the infant science of epigenetics can sit next to the grandfather theory of Darwinian evolution or if one replaces the other? Is this really the point? Its a radical break away, which is my point.

Lastly Ellie - thanks for mocking my dyslexia. What a lovely poster you. I hope you haven't been blessed with kids with SEN.

Ahem, Dances, the tsunami example you gave is actually of a bottleneck that resulted in immediate fixation of a given allele.

Genetic drift is more what happens after a bottle neck (or a founder effect), when the number of individuals is reduced (and genetic diversity is usually reduced too). As the number of individuals is smaller, alleles tend to become fixed (the only ones) in the population after a number of generations.

It is completely against what Darwin said, not an adaptation thereof - it is a real change in theory. It supports the work of Le Mark who has the laughing stock of evolutionary science for the last 150 years.

Still is a laughing stock. Complex adaptations (such as long-necked giraffes) are not 'built' by a whole collection of epigenic mutations. THis is natural selection acting on genetic differences. Scientists with genetic breeding backgrounds are those most taken by the role of epigenetics and other genome features (transposons etc) ime.

Adaptations are explained by the process of natural selection (or sexual selection). This should be viewed differently from creation of new species. These can be created where populations develop different adaptations OR where populations are simply separated and genetic differences build up over time (not neccessarily adaptive genetic differences).

I DIDN'T MOCK YOUR DYSLEXIA, for fuck's sake, and you have no reason to say that I did. I specifically said "Sorry, not being snippy" - but I just didn't know who Le Mark was. Why should I?

And, since we're going for honesty, several things you've said in your post lead me to conclude that, whatever branch of biology you are an expert in, it's not evolutionary.