150 years ago a Victorian science enthusiast was tasked with a lifetime's work of slow and meticulous observations and thinking about the natural world. The result was a theory that is still at the top of the agenda of contemporary science
By Gary Stix
In 1835, when the 26-year-old Charles Darwin sailed to the Galapagos Islands on his majesty's ship "Beagle", he did not give much thought to the collection of birds that today is closely associated with his name. As a matter of fact, the naturalist was wrong and thought that some of the birds known today as "Darwin's Pharisee" were grosbeaks. After Darwin's return to England, the ornithologist and artist John Gould painted a group of mummified birds from the cargo of a "Beagle", and it was he who recognized that these were actually several species of plovers.
Based on Gould's work, Darwin, the self-taught naturalist, realized that the size of the beak of the falcons varied over the generations according to the size of the seeds or insects they fed on in each island. "He who observes the gradual change and the variety of structures in one small group of birds close to each other in this archipelago, will have no difficulty in imagining how from the few birds that were previously in the archipelago, one species was selected and adapted to different purposes," Darwin wrote in his book "Voyage of the Beagle", published in 1839. after his return.
Twenty years later, Darwin translated this understanding of the Pharisee's adaptation to the conditions on the various islands into an orderly version of evolution, which emphasizes the power of natural selection that ensures the continued passage of traits that confer an advantage from generation to generation. This theory of Darwin's, the main points of which stood up well to the meticulous criticism of scientists and religious people, is nothing but a starting point for a rich and endless series of research questions that continue to inspire scientists even today. Biologists are still looking for the results of experiments concerning the operation of natural selection from a molecular point of view and its effect on the development of new species.
Darwin's famous Pharisees continue to play a role in answering these questions. Darwin assumed that evolution progresses "across ages" at a rate too slow for a human observer to notice in a lifetime. However, the Pharisees were excellent subjects for studying evolution in real time, because they reproduce relatively quickly, are isolated on islands, and hardly ever migrate.
Since the 70s, evolutionary biologists Peter R. Grant and B. Rosemary Grant of Princeton University have been using the Galapagos Islands as one giant laboratory where they observe more than 20 porcupines. They clearly showed how the average source size changes in a new generation when "El Niño" events come and go and move the climate from rainy to hot. They were also able to document examples that may mark the emergence of new species of Pharisee.
The Grants' research group is just one of many groups engaged in the task of observing evolution, demonstrating how it sometimes progresses in accelerated bursts measured in years rather than ages, unlike Darwin's description, according to which it progresses slowly and steadily. These studies focus on tilapia fish in the great lakes of Africa, porcupine minnows in Alaska, frogs of the genus Eleutherodactylus in Central America, the South and the Caribbean, and more.
The roots of thinking about evolution, sometimes even musings about how only the fittest win, began a long time ago, even before the time of Socrates. In the 18th and 19th centuries, several controversial hypotheses were put forward regarding the evolution of life, including ideas put forward by Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802).
Evolution according to Darwin is the first theory of development that managed to withstand careful scientific criticism both in the 19th century and after. Today's researchers, equipped with cameras, computers and tools for DNA sampling, which do not resemble the cargo of a "Beagle" in any way, prove that Darwin's work is still not a miracle. The validity of the teachings of this naturalist for basic science and applied research, starting with biotechnology and ending with forensics, is the reason that this year the world celebrates the 200th anniversary of his birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his masterpiece "The origin of species by way of natural clarification, or leaving gifted races in the war of life" [Translation: Shaul Adler, Mossad Bialik, 1960 - the editors].
Darwin's theory is considered a pillar in modern science alongside the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics and several other necessary supporting structures. Just as Copernicus removed the earth from the center of the universe, so in Darwin's universe man is removed from the position of the center of the natural world. Natural selection explains what evolutionary biologist Francisco H. Ayala of the University of California at Irvine calls "planning without a planner," a term that mocks the efforts, still quite vigorous, of some theologians to downplay the theory of evolution. "Darwin completed the Copernicus revolution by outlining for biology a concept according to which nature is a system subject to the laws of matter and movement, a system that the human mind is able to explain without resorting to supernatural factors," Ayala wrote in 2007.
In this jubilee year, the vast amount of research and theory stemming from Darwin's writings can be seen as his greatest legacy. These writings also serve to emphasize the radical changes that have taken place in the theory of evolution itself in the past 150 years: the original theory merged with the science of genes, of which Darwin's understanding was as poor as that of the ancient thinkers.
This special issue of Scientific American Israel presents some of the questions that are still being resolved: How common is natural selection? To what extent does natural selection take place, in practice, at the molecular level, at the level of the gene? What is the origin of the genetic variation on which natural selection operates? Does it test the fitness of each and every gene, single organisms, or even entire groups of animals, plants or bacteria? Does it still apply to humans, who actually control their environment and even their biological properties with a high hand?
Naturalist by nature
Like Albert Einstein and others gifted with genius, Darwin followed his own path. In his early days he showed no signs of great promise in the academic field. Darwin was born into a wealthy family in a rural area of England, and in his youth was a decidedly mediocre student who hated the dictates of the curriculum, which focused on classical studies. (Einstein was a rebellious boy and an exceptional student.) As his father wanted, Darwin began studying medicine, but cutting up corpses disgusted him and he did not graduate. Nevertheless, he had no difficulty in killing birds and small animals in the hunt, which was one of the tasks he set for himself when he went out to observe wild animals and collect specimens.
Robert Darwin, who despaired of the hope that his second son would achieve anything in his life, ordered him to apply to the University of Cambridge to obtain a degree that would allow him to join the ranks of the clergy. The man whose ideas are considered by some of the clergy to be the deepest insult to religious faith graduated (barely) and received a degree in theology.
Although his father tried to dissuade him from this, Darwin jumped at the offer to serve as a naturalist on the research ship "Beagle", an experience that he would later say was "the first real training or education that my mind received". The journey around the world, which lasted about five years, exposed him to the natural world and provided him with more than enough time to reflect and observe, and these shaped his thinking later.
Among the important landmarks on his way were learning about the great variety of species in the tropical regions of Brazil and the discovery of fossils, including a giant sloth found about 640 km south of Buenos Aires, which made him wonder how these creatures became extinct; Stories told by cowboys, gauchos, in the grass prairies of Argentina about the killings done by the natives, which taught Darwin about the primal territorial drive of the animal called man; And of course the relatively short stay, five weeks, in the "hot cauldron" of the Galapagos Islands, where he was allowed to reflect on the fact that on nearby islands live related species of turtles and mockingbirds, and this has the effect of hinting at a common origin.
During the voyages, Darwin eagerly read two volumes of "Principles of Geology" by Charles Lyell, who sided with the principle of uniformity, or uniformitarianism, according to which the processes of drift, sedimentation and volcanic activity occurred in the past at approximately the same speed as they occur today. Lyle rejected the catastrophism prevalent at the time, according to which sudden and violent events driven by supernatural forces shape the landscape.
A hike in the Andes Mountains, where the researchers found an ancient marine deposit raised to a height of about 2,000 meters above sea level, illustrated Lyle's ideas in vivid colors.
Darwin had no idea that he was embarking on a journey that would change the face of biology forever. This journey, which lasted 57 months, did not produce a single moment of sudden insight, like Einstein's "Year of Wonders", 1905, in which he published, among other things, articles on special relativity and the Brownian motion of particles. The treasure trove of this journey is what we would call today a huge database: a collection of 368 pages of notes on zoology, 1,383 pages of notes on geology, 770 journal pages, 1,529 samples in alcohol bottles, 3,907 dried samples and in addition to all of these - the live tortoise captured in the Galapagos.
In October 1836, when "Beagle" returned to England, Darwin's letters and some of his samples had already been distributed among British scientists and secured his place among them. This recognition ensured that his father's ambition for his son to join the ranks of the clergy would not come true. After a few years, Darwin married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood, and moved to a country estate, whose gardens and greenhouses served as a living laboratory for him until the day he died. This way of life was made possible thanks to the superior of the family. An unknown illness whose symptoms were headaches, heart palpitations, muscle spasms and more attacked Darwin from the time he returned with the expedition until his death in 1882, preventing any intention of going on the journey again.
Origin of the theory
Darwin began formulating his theories in the late 30s, but waited 19 years for Pressman (and even then did so only because he was afraid that his rival, Alfred Russel Wells, would preempt him.) because he wanted to make sure that the facts on which he was basing his arguments were sound before any appeal.
The process of building the Torah dragged along for him at an almost glacial pace. From his reading of Lyle's writings, Darwin adopted the idea of gradual change in the geological landscape and thought that it must also apply to biological organisms: species must be born of species. In those days there were also other thinkers in the field of evolution who recognized the motility, the ability of constant change, of the animal world, but according to their perception it was a "scala naturae" - an ascending ladder in which all lineages of plants and animals sprung of their own accord from the inanimate matter and from there progressed in only one direction: towards greater complexity and completeness.
Darwin denied this linear progression and preferred what is today called branching evolution, in which several species diverge from a common ancestor along different paths. His view was contrary to the view that prevailed in those days according to which there is a certain and fixed limit to the degree of difference that can exist between a new species and the species from which it was born. Darwin remembered that three species of mimic birds that he saw in the Galapagos Islands could be attributed to a related species that he saw in Latin America. The branching "tree of life" that he drew is the only illustration in "The Origin of Species".
The idea that the development of life is likened to a tree still answers the "how": how does evolution happen. It was this gap that brought about Darwin's most revolutionary idea, the idea of natural selection. Darwin, who had read the works of Thomas Malthus, learned that populations usually grow quickly, thus putting a strain on the limited resources they have. He was also very interested in animal and plant breeding. Darwin would frequent the agricultural markets and collect catalogs of plants.
In 1838, the understanding was forged in his mind (which he initially told only a handful of friends) that the natural world does not deliberately select desirable traits as cattle breeders do, but deals in its own way with the overpopulation that threatens to exploit every ecological niche to its fullest. From the wide hereditary diversity of a given species, natural selection blindly selects the individuals with the least successful traits, and basically this is the succinct "planning without a planner" coined by Ayala. Furthermore, if two populations of individuals of the same species separate and move away from each other, for example one in the desert and the other in the mountains, it is possible that after a long time they will develop and become completely different species, and again they will not be able to breed with each other.
"The Origin of Species" was rushed to publication in 1859 because Waltz had a manuscript with almost identical conclusions. The first 1,250 copies of the 155,000-word "abstract" were all sold immediately. The clarity and accessibility of Darwin's argument stood out in him. Here there were no stings like those that accompanied Einstein's theories, according to which in the entire world only three other people besides him understand his work.
Darwin spent the rest of his life studying natural selection in orchids and other plants at his estate in the village of Down, about 25 miles from London. He left the defense of his work to others. The publication sparked controversy that continues to this day, for example in ongoing creationist debates in public school boards in the United States. In an article published in Scientific American on August 11, 1860, a meeting of the British Academy of Sciences is described in which "Sir B. Brodie" dismissed Darwin's hypothesis by saying: "Man has self-consciousness, a principle different from all things in the material world, and it is impossible to see how this arises from the inferior organisms. This awareness of man is divine intelligence itself." But even then Darwin was defended by many important scientists. At the same conference, the journal reported, the renowned Joseph Hawker told the Bishop of Oxford, one of the critics present, that the clergyman simply did not understand what Darwin wrote.
In "The Origin of Species" Darwin avoided discussing the evolution of humans, but in his books "The Descent of Man" and "Selection in Relation to Species" he attributes the beginning of the human race to a group of monkey species, known as the "Old World Monkeys". Many were offended by this nickname, and cartoons appeared in newspapers that presented Darwin as half-man-half-monkey. Back in 1860, Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, and others complained that modern society protects its "unfit" from natural selection. The distortion and misunderstanding of Darwin's theory, whether in the Nazi ideology, whether by neoliberal economists or whether in popular culture, has not yet disappeared from the world. The American writer Kurt Vonnegut once remarked that Darwin "taught that the dead were meant to die, that wrongs are for improvement."
The concept of evolution as a lineage branching off from a common ancestor was accepted relatively quickly, but getting used to the idea of natural selection was much slower, even in the scientific community. The hesitation was justified. In his work, Darwin did not describe the mechanism of heredity, but only attributed it to tiny, approximate "tubules", which are secreted from all tissues and move to the genitals, where they are copied and passed on to future generations. Only in the 30s and 40s was the idea of natural selection widely accepted.
In those years, the "modern evolutionary synthesis" emerged, a vast framework that combined Darwin's natural selection and genetics, through which Gregor Mendel broke through. In 1959, about 100 years after "The Origin of Species" was published, it already seemed that the status of natural selection was secure.
But after that, the field of evolutionary biology had to expand even more and also deal with questions such as does evolution progress in leaps and breaks, that is, in bursts of change and in between long times of freezing the yeast? Is the phenomenon of random mutations passing from generation to generation common or do they usually disappear without improving fitness or impairing it, i.e. "genetic drift" occurs? Is every biological trait an evolutionary adaptation, or are some traits random by-products of physical traits that have a survival advantage?
This field is also forced to re-examine the idea that the natural selection of entire groups can explain altruistic, altruistic behavior. And as for the origin of species, what role does genetic drift play? Furthermore, doesn't the fact that single-celled individuals often exchange entire sets of genes between them undermine the very concept of species, which is defined by the group's ability to produce offspring with individuals from other groups? These struggles, which have not yet subsided, show that evolutionary biology is alive and well, and they are living evidence that Darwin's legacy of life is still alive.
And more on the subject
What evolution is. Ernst Mayr. Basic Books, 2002
The Cambridge Companion to Darwin. Edited by Jonathan Hodge and Gregory Radick. Cambridge University Press, 2003
On the Origin of Species: the Illustrated edition. Charles Darwin. Edited by David Quammen. Sterling, 2008
The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online can be accessed at
29 תגובות
Nimrod:
You understood correctly and in my opinion it is really impossible not to accept this theory.
People who reject the theory do so for religious reasons.
They are simply unable to admit that the claims of religion are a lie (even though secretly in their hearts they know it) and therefore they try to stick sticks in the wheels of scientific progress.
The article is excellent and so are the comments. I am not a naturalist (yet) and just interested in this magical subject of life sciences. Hence my questions may be trivial to others. And we will continue with my question:
From the article and from the responses as well as from my previous studies I was able to understand the principle of evolution, and correct me if I'm wrong: a species of a certain animal that survives from the environment has certain genetic traits that are adapted to the environment in which it lives. As soon as the environment changes (say years when there is an El Nino and the insects are deeper in the soil, or there is some kind of effect on the grains and various foods of the Pharisees) the so-called "natural selection" kicks into gear. According to what I understood, from generation to generation there are various mutations that cause genetic changes in the organism. Certain changes give advantages to certain individuals and if this change is suitable for the changing environment, this individual will thrive, bring more offspring and hence more individuals will develop with the genetic change that gave the advantage at the expense of individuals that experienced a genetic change that did not benefit them or that did not undergo a genetic change at all.
The thing I couldn't understand is what is the argument here? After all, this theory is logical and tested, etc., hence what alternative theory can replace it? In which direction of thinking can another theory be given?
Pine:
The short periods of time that Barel talks about are those in which the average length of the source changes in El Niño cycles (by the way - I did not see that it was said in the article that the length of the source increases from generation to generation).
I interpret what is said in the article as a cyclical lengthening and shortening of the average source.
Michael, an unsurprising coincidence. I just wrote about the same point you made..
It's amazing how blind other people can be when they really want to be.
The last anonymous user was me
Barel,
There is a direct relationship between the length of the beak and survival and therefore a direct relationship to their reproductive capacity.
As the length of the beak increases and with it better nutrition and health, then the same bird obtains more females, lives longer and thus produces more offspring, not to mention that when there is a struggle for food, those with the long beak can enjoy a greater abundance of food sources and survive where others cannot.
And where did you get that the evolution is within two years?
In the article it is noted that in each generation it can be seen that the next generation has a longer origin on average. And that ferrets have an especially high reproduction rate, and therefore a difference in longevity and health between a long beak and a short one is a significant advantage here - the growth rate of the population with the long beak at the expense of the short one in a distinct way.
Plus if you watch over 50 years then you can see the huge difference.
Brael:
Again - regardless of the facts - it is quite clear that a priest who lives less because his life is more difficult produces fewer offspring.
It is also clear that a parochial who spends more time finding food spends less time courting and procreating (the parochial lives a celibate life) and if he gets confused and decides that courting is better, his chances of dying and not raising another generation increase.
There is also the possibility that the Pharisees (both males and females) tend to choose mates who excel at finding food.
There is also a chance that the victims of the ineffectiveness of the birds with the inappropriate beak length are actually their offspring who, while they are in the nest, often die of starvation because their parents failed to bring them food.
In short - there are many things that can explain this and I do not intend to turn now to research on the Pharisees. I have more important things to do.
If you find anything interesting in your search on the subject of the Pharisees I'd love to hear, of course, but I have no doubt that you won't find anything out of the ordinary there that disproves anything in the idea of evolution.
I didn't say that I don't understand why it is useful, I just said that a reduced ability of the "short-beaked" to collect insects or sperm due to changing environmental conditions does not directly affect their reproductive capacity and the ability to pass on "short-beaked" genes to their offspring, and it is not critical to such an extent that any The short-origin species become extinct within a generation or two, so on the face of it it seems that the process was supposed to take place over much longer periods of time than a few generations.
Many speculations can be made, but the question is whether they correspond to reality. In any case, it seems that both you and I need to learn a little more in depth what exactly happened there. I will try to find out.
Brael:
Be careful how you change the subject.
First you attacked the idea of mutations because you claimed that this is what is happening there and that it cannot be random.
Your point of departure was that it is beneficial and that the mutations should therefore be aimed at this benefit.
Then - when I explained to you that this is not about mutations at all but only natural selection, you decided that you actually don't understand why it is useful.
This is what is called "resistance at all costs".
As for the question itself (the second, which, as mentioned, is different from the first and even contradicts its assumptions) - this is not something that can be clarified by logic alone and a lot of information is needed about the facts relevant to the life of the Pharisees.
I don't currently have this knowledge and I don't know if anyone has ever bothered to find out.
Maybe yes and maybe not.
It is not difficult to speculate about it.
Here, for example, is one speculation:
During the winter seasons the surface of the soil is drier and therefore the insects - which need moisture - are usually found deeper in the soil. A long beak is useful in hunting these insects and allows its owner to live longer and produce more offspring.
However - the long beak is also burdensome - growing it consumes energy and flying with it is impaired due to its weight. Therefore, in wet seasons, those with short beaks have an advantage.
This is - as mentioned - a speculation intended to show you that there is no problem in raising speculations but - as mentioned - I do not have any information about the lives of the Pharisees and in particular I do not even know if they feed on insects.
What I am claiming is that even your power of reasoning could have raised such a speculation if it had not been limited by extraneous motives.
And regarding the difference between the case of the moth and the case of the spreader - that is clear.
Because of the importance of the trait that can be detected in the moths, only the black ones among them were detected and very quickly there was no male left for the whites, while in the Pharisee only the average length of the beak changes and there still remain both those with longer than average beaks and those with shorter than average beaks.
Michael
With all my meager powers of reasoning, I fail to understand how natural selection would work directly for the more successful propagation of the long-beaked. After all, the long beak is not in itself a reason for "more successful reproduction", just as a short beak does not cause a decrease in reproductive capacity. The longer beak only results in a higher ability to survive, which leads in a long process (I imagine) to the gradual extinction of the owners of the short beak, and therefore indirectly (and emphasized: indirectly) to the control of the descendants of the owners of the long beak.
All of this, of course, assuming that the long origin existed even before in some of the details - as in the case of the English moth that changed its color. But in the case of the English moth, the mutation was critical for survival - and accordingly the results were immediate (almost all those with the "wrong" color were eaten by the birds). This is not the case with the Pharisees, as I said, where the advantage of the long source is marginal and its lack does not cause the immediate extinction of the details lacking it, so the question of the short time in which the changes were observed remains.
Brael:
There are two failures in your responses.
One is to argue that scientists are wrong when they take a political approach when they refer to evolution or even that they have some bias.
They have no bias and as soon as you propose another logical mechanism or demonstrate its existence it will be welcomed.
You have neither a logical explanation for another mechanism nor an example of its operation.
The second fallacy is that you think that the story of the Pharisees is an example and you base your words on the wrong assumption that in order to change the average length of the beak some kind of mutation is necessary when it is clear that this only requires natural selection which will result in a more successful reproduction of those with longer or shorter beaks according to the season.
Barel, science does not work according to how things appear to one or another reader, because otherwise we would have to dismiss quantum mechanics unless the subject has been tested and passed all the experiments.
To my father Blizovsky
I did not claim that natural selection is random. I claimed that the process on which it is supposed to be based is random - which, as far as I understand, is what you are also claiming.
In my opinion, even the average creationist does not take more than two minutes (and that too in cases of structured thinking slowness) to understand the principle of natural selection. The problem is not in explaining the operation of natural selection, but in the exclusive role that is granted to it in the evolutionary process, that is, assuming that the element that drives the entire process is a deficient process, regressive in essence (extinction), and completely passive. From reading articles on the subject, one gets the impression as if there really existed such an essence or entity called "natural selection", and it seems that even the advocates of this approach sometimes forget that this is a completely ethereal concept, similar to "psychology" or "Marxism". In principle, there is a certain problem in attributing such a distinct active activity as driving the development of life in the universe to an abstract concept that expresses a completely passive process, and even more so when it comes to the most essential question we know (after the Big Bang question) - how did the whole thing begin.
According to Dawkins' initial successful case hypothesis of the accidental formation of the primordial replicator, one can conclude that all our troubles started because of some damned atom that happened to create a DNA molecule. . It seems to me that it is a bit superficial, and there is not a certain absurd element missing.
Barel, where exactly do you get the claim that natural selection is a random process. She is absolutely not. It works on given changes in each generation and makes sure to preserve those that fit the environmental conditions at that moment (not necessarily XNUMX percent, it's enough that they fit a little better than others for a specific selective pressure). Over a small number of generations, you see genetic drift - that is, a change in the frequency of a certain gene in the population. This is the definition of evolution according to the process of natural selection.
It is certainly not a process that has purpose, direction or randomness. The randomness is in a completely different place in the process - the variation in the traits that the next generation inherits from its parents. There are always those who inherit bad traits, but sometimes it happens that this bad trait suddenly became important and saved the bearer from starvation. The process of natural selection is the exact opposite of random and it doesn't matter how many times converts, imams, Catholic priests or Protestant preachers shout it.
Just for the sake of demonstration, the very process described in the article itself of the lengthening of the source of the Pharisees casts great doubt on the matter of randomness. Even if the rate of reproduction of the Pharisees was ten generations per season, still the chance that within two or three (or ten) years the "correct" mutation will occur, and then the long process of natural selection, is simply imaginary. The problem becomes even more acute when you take into account that a factor such as the length of the origin, whose survival advantage is marginal and not critical, requires a long time of natural selection, because many individuals will still survive despite the shorter origin (this is in contrast, for example, to a mutation whose survival equivalent is critical and immediate, such as for example the ability survival at low temperature in changing conditions of extremely cold years).
As said here, one has to be blind and deaf to deny the existence of evolution, and indeed there are very few who deny it. The debate is only about the interpretation of the evolutionary process as a procedure based on randomness and statistical probability, and placing natural selection as the sole factor driving the process. This interpretation is ideological, and even political, just as the religious interpretation is ideological (and political).
Dawkins' arguments about "proving the existence of evolution with the same level of certainty as the existence of gravity" are a smoke screen, because Dawkins implicitly tries to convince us that the proof of the existence of evolution constitutes in itself the proof of his ideological interpretation of this process, and not her. The same goes forRoey Tsezana's repeated argument about the practical utility of the theory of evolution. The utility is enormous and tremendous, but the credit does not belong to the interpretive theory of "evolution" at all, but to molecular biology, whose findings no one disputes.
For four sons, Dawkins answers your question in a wonderful way - why are a lot of people not ready to accept the theory of evolution even though you are not ready to accept the theory of gravity, which is proven with the same level of certainty?
Anyone who doesn't accept evolution and tries to find alternatives to it that don't exist is welcome to try and jump off Azrieli's roof and on the way down formulate for him alternative theories full of flight and imagination as to why he won't fall...
Gentlemen, much of the success of those who attack evolution lies in the following
Referring to the theory, there are various theories that explain evolution, the most successful of which to date is Darwin's, but evolution is a fact
or a process that can be explained in different ways but as a fact or a process
Arguing about its existence is a pointless discussion
To Avi Blizovsky:
Thanks for the article, which includes a number of clarifications and comments on the developmental theory in modern Gilgola.
Darwin's personal and research writing is undoubtedly interesting, but in my opinion, the emphasis should be on the theory itself in its modern incarnation.
In this context, I believe that not only the theoretical strengths of the theory should be highlighted, but also the sides of its incompleteness.
The main part of the article deals with what can be understood as 'open questions' (mainly - the issue of genetic drift and the issue of explaining the phenomenon of alien behavior). Of course, such questions (and others) may/may be worded a little more bluntly and perhaps also a little more correctly in terms of intellectual honesty - to be used as appeals to the very validity of the theory (as opposed to the mere recognition of the existence of a developmental phenomenon on some scale!), in particular when trying to examine the issues from a perspective of probabilistic feasibility and if you try to beat the assumed processes by building algorithms are acceptable. Such appeals, apparently, distill an explanation that is complementary or even different from the principle of 'natural selection', and illuminates in some satisfactory light the unlimited confidence of some of us in the truth of the theory as it is formulated today, in particular the same confidence required for ideological needs.
For the sake of balance and completeness, I would like to see more references to these less popular aspects of developmental theory on the site. Thanks in advance for that!
To Roy Cezana:
1. Of course, the evolutionary phenomenon is factually proven over and over again, on a certain scale. But it is not clear to me how the theory as a whole (and this also includes the explanatory hypotheses it contains) 'proves' 'itself' 'again and again'. can you explain
2. Unfortunately, I don't have a better theory in my (minor) hands, nor in the hands of others (for now). In the meantime, a certain evolutionary theory has emerged whose status is not the same as that of other successful central theories (extended relativity, quantum theory - for example) and there are doubts and claims in connection with it, which scientific research will deal with in the future - and it is hoped that indoctrinations
And the forces of self-interested establishments (ideological, religious, political, media and scientific) will not thwart this pursuit.
In any case, I do not understand why you believe that it is not expected that the theory of evolution will become the property of history only, in the future. Is this an absolute scientific truth? Why? And what makes it something superior over - let's say - the physics of the 19th century which was apparently so successful (apart from the unpleasant incident of the result of the Michelson Morley experiment - with all the firm hope that prevailed at the time that a satisfactory explanation within the limits of the theory would surely be found)? And I remind you of Lord Calvin's lofty and confident words regarding that theory!
3. Regarding your blog - a nice initiative. Good luck.
the four boys
You have clarified your opinion on the theory of evolution, as an old, outdated theory that has no flight.
Since the science website is intended, among other things, to expand the knowledge of its readers, please kindly share with us more modern theories, many of which explain the origin of species in a better way ** in your opinion **.
This is a sincere request!
My friend, theories are tested by the test of reality and correctness, and not by their 'flight', or their age.
Meanwhile, the theory of evolution proves itself again and again, and there has yet to be a theory capable of explaining modern biology the way evolution does.
If and when a new theory arises, and its correctness is proven by many, then the theory of evolution will become the property of history. But since it hasn't happened yet (and isn't likely to happen), for now the theory of evolution is the most reliable theory we have.
------
my new blog - Another science
Out of diligence there is a tendency to go back on old and useless theories like evolution. Enjoy. It's true it's not broken it's ancient and well preserved in a glass container in the antiquities museum.
Also Hammurabi's laws and ancient Egyptian cuneiform.
Moreover, what is wrong with a 150-year-old theory as well as okay with a 2,500-year-old theory?
If a 150-year-old theory is old, then all the more the alternative theory is older.
The theory of evolution has undergone many changes throughout the hundred and fifty years since Darwin, and there have been many developments in the field. It is not for nothing that today there is an entire field of science called 'evolutionary biology'.
The only aspect that has not changed in the theory is the fact of evolution - the change of organisms over the generations. All the evidence supports this issue, so there is no alternative theory to evolution.
Why fix what isn't broken?
------
my new blog - Another science
The fact that the theory still stars is a testament to the decline of modern thinking.
After one hundred and fifty years one would have expected a new and fresh creative imagination, apparently this is not really the case
Challenging anyone to create an alternative theory to these ancient concepts, the laziness of the spirit and the imagination
My late grandmother used to say:
There is no God, but why upset him...
exactly like that! (God will punish them)
All disbelievers in evolution end up in hell.