How does the idea that adaptation is the alternate hypothesi

How does the idea that adaptation is the \"alternate hypothesis\" or \"innocent until proven guilty\" differ from the idea that natural selection is the main force of evolution?

I dont understand this question at all. Can someone answer this in a clean simplified version?

Solution

Alternate hypothesis suggests that an approved theory which is set as default can be change by a new theory. For this, scientists or researchers make new hypothesis and try to prove them. The results from their researches have the right to change the predefined theory. For example, if a test reveals that a cross between individuals does not follow the law of independent assortment in a significant amount. Then it can disprove the null hypothesis; the hypothesis which is set as default. In addition, that new hypothesis will be as an alternate hypothesis. The other name innocent until proven guilty is use as that because there is no theory can accept until it does not provide significant results and the hypothesis will be keep as no theory. The natural selection is set as default that it follows law of mutation, independent assortment, and homologous recombination. Therefore, the natural selection has limitations. The mutation plays little role in variations, because of long time it takes. Independent assortment has no changes for any cross. The homologous recombination plays important role to bring variations, but these entire have very little effect. If a test can bring a significant difference from natural, then it will proof as alternative theory. However, there is no such theory which can replace the null hypothesis completely, that can change for a particular organism or for a population but not for all populations. Therefore, the natural selection has always superiority and call as main force of evolution.