We need to distinguish between the fact of evolution and Darwin and Wallace's nineteenth-century explanations of the underlying mechanism. Virtually no biologists today doubt the fact that biological evolution took place over the last billion years, since it is the whole basis of modern biology without which the science loses its coherence. Darwin and Wallace's theory, that natural selection is the main mechanism underlying biological evolution, has been fundamentally and extensively confirmed by a vast array of subsequent findings in different fields of geology, chemistry and biology. Of course Darwin and Wallace were not able to provide a full explanation, since in those times genetics as a field did not exist - which actually makes their insight more remarkable. This means that there is now open and legitimate discussion of the details of the mechanisms of natural selection, sexual selection, genetics, etc. None of this discussion, however, puts the fundamental correctness of the theory in doubt and the fact of evolution is as reliable as any other profound set of ideas in any field of science.
The theory has two main points: "all life on Earth is connected and related to each other," and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection, where some traits were favored in and environment over others"
I am afraid that after some time because of mass using of artificial feeding of babies may cause a great changes in woman organism if we follow Darvin's theory... But it is very funny, men still have not been unable get rid of non-working organ from ancient time in their chest...
Yes, his theory on natural selection is largely correct. However, as we've come to realize in more recent times, there are several other mechanisms that drive evolutionary changes in populations. Drift, for example, is far more common and important than Darwin could have ever imagined, but that doesn't negate his breakthrough findings regarding selection.
To Nodirali S. Normakhamatov, your statement about male nipples implies a fundamental misunderstanding about evolution. Evolution does not follow the soft inheritance model, which is the "use it or lose" proposal. Just because males don't use their nipples doesn't mean they are subject to deletion. Males retain their nipples because both males and females start off as similar zygotes during early development before further gene expression differentiates the sexes.
Dear Jay Y.S. Hodgson , of course it was a joke my example about nipples. Does it follow the "soft" or "hard" inheritance (relative concepts), it is fact that the evolution is based on unreliable evidence(naked theory).
Although the theory of Darwin (and Wallace!) Is to be considered largely valid, I think we still have to reflect on at least one key point. Darwin is not clear on the differences - using modern terms - between anagenesis and cladogenesis. Anagenesis does not necessarily produce cladogenesis, just as cladogenesis does not necessarily produce diversity, but in the first instance at least produces alterity
Unreliable evidence? I don’t think so. The evidence is overwhelming.
Yes!
The "Natural Selection" proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace was corroborated by genetics, ecology, paleontology and other areas of science, as one of the mechanisms that gives the evolution of life on earth. Later, other mechanisms of evolution were discovered; mutation, genetic drift and coevolution, which reinforce the theory.
For those who study biology, evolutionary theory is the basis for understanding biological processes. Is exactly as T. Dobzhansky said; "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of Evolution."
In this way, we have reached the point where it is not possible to conceive of other theories that replace it, or that better explain life on earth without appealing to mystical explanations that are not testable, and therefore, are not scientific hypotheses.
@José Saraiva :
José, what you write is true. However, I insist, if the anagenetic evolution is necessarily driven more or less strongly by the variation / selection mechanism, the process of speciation is not necessarily due to divergent selection, but often only to genetic "lack of communication" between fragments of a complex of populations previously inter-communicating.
I find the constructal law is the unification law of evolution for inanimate, animate, philosophy, science, technology and social, etc.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2016.1172159 .
We need to distinguish between the fact of evolution and Darwin and Wallace's nineteenth-century explanations of the underlying mechanism. Virtually no biologists today doubt the fact that biological evolution took place over the last billion years, since it is the whole basis of modern biology without which the science loses its coherence. Darwin and Wallace's theory, that natural selection is the main mechanism underlying biological evolution, has been fundamentally and extensively confirmed by a vast array of subsequent findings in different fields of geology, chemistry and biology. Of course Darwin and Wallace were not able to provide a full explanation, since in those times genetics as a field did not exist - which actually makes their insight more remarkable. This means that there is now open and legitimate discussion of the details of the mechanisms of natural selection, sexual selection, genetics, etc. None of this discussion, however, puts the fundamental correctness of the theory in doubt and the fact of evolution is as reliable as any other profound set of ideas in any field of science.
Yes, his hypothesis was submitted as theis with unimaginable expanding comprehensive research of that contemporary period. It can be linked to universal behaviour too, as a unit representation.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking