Honest question about "Origin of Species"

[Rubiks]

How has the theory of evolution of changed since Darwin's original published work. Is his ideas 100% consistent with modern scientific knowledge?

God Bless

 

[Subduction Zone]

How has the theory of evolution of changed since Darwin's original published work. Is his ideas 100% consistent with modern scientific knowledge?

God Bless

It has been modified and filled out. The theory is basically the same and is extremely well accepted. By scientists that understand it the rate of acceptance is over 99%. Of all scientists it is over 90%.

 

[sfs]

How has the theory of evolution of changed since Darwin's original published work. Is his ideas 100% consistent with modern scientific knowledge?

The core ideas of common ancestry (all life is descended from one or a few original life forms) and natural selection (the process by why organisms become adapted to their environment) are unchanged. Darwin didn't know anything about genetics, and his ideas about inheritance (which varied in different editions of Origin, I believe) were largely wrong. And, as SZ says, there have been lots of minor modifications and additions.

 

[whois]

How has the theory of evolution of changed since Darwin's original published work. Is his ideas 100% consistent with modern scientific knowledge?

God Bless

no.
science has yet to provide any empirical evidence that evolution is true.
there is none for life coming from non life, nor is there any for increasing genetic complexity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no.
science has yet to provide any empirical evidence that evolution is true.
there is none for life coming from non life, nor is there any for increasing genetic complexity.

Abiogenesis is a separate but related problem, it is not covered by the theory of evolution. And in the colloquial use of the word evolution has been "proven". There are literally mountains of evidence that support the theory and anyone who claims there is none has shown that they have no idea what scientific evidence is. Sadly they will also refuses to learn since that is the only way that they can keep repeating that falsehood.

 

[justlookinla]

no.
science has yet to provide any empirical evidence that evolution is true.
there is none for life coming from non life, nor is there any for increasing genetic complexity.

Depends on which brand of evolution you're speaking of. If you're speaking of the brand of evolution which teaches that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms, you're correct, there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for that particular creationist view.

On the other hand, there is evidence for micro evolution, which is a completely different animal.

 

[whois]

Depends on which brand of evolution you're speaking of. If you're speaking of the brand of evolution which teaches that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms, you're correct, there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for that particular creationist view.

there is absolutely NOTHING "creationist" about my post.
it's a pure and simple fact.

On the other hand, there is evidence for micro evolution, which is a completely different animal.

correct, it is indeed entirely different.
this type of "evolution" is variation about a mean and does not explain the increasing genetic complexity of the record.

 

[The Cadet]

How has the theory of evolution of changed since Darwin's original published work. Is his ideas 100% consistent with modern scientific knowledge?

God Bless

There are some significant differences.

For example, Darwin espoused a highly gradualistic approach to evolution. We know this is not true now. Changes take place over many generations, but selection pressures tend to be concentrated in certain time spans - the well dried out and now the hunting ground is going bare; a meteor struck and everything is changing; a new predator is encroaching on your territory... A creature well-adapted to its environment will essentially be selected for "more of the same", so what we should observe is long spans of creatures remaining more or less the same (at equilibrium), punctuated by periods of rapid growth. Or, in other words, the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Another place where Darwin was clearly wrong was in the placement of a single common ancestor. Darwin knew nothing of (and indeed could know nothing about - both the organisms responsible and the evidence for it would not be discovered until long after his death) horizontal gene transfer, and the role it played at the base of the tree of life. Ever hear about that asinine New Scientist issue about "DARWIN WAS WRONG"? Yeah, that's what they're talking about, and once you get past the hype and the countless creationists quote-mining the article for all it's worth, there's actually a pretty interesting story in there.

I'm sure you could find more. Darwin lived before much of the fossil evidence we know of today was found. He lived before the field of genetics was founded. He lived before the discovery of DNA. He lived before we even had any knowledge of bacteria and viruses. That said, for all the things Darwin got wrong, the amount of stuff he got right, even in the absence of any knowledge of genetics, is astounding. It's actually a testament to how strong the theory is that you can read through Origins today, then read through a modern biology textbook, and see so many significant similarities.

 

[justlookinla]

there is absolutely NOTHING "creationist" about my post.
it's a pure and simple fact.

By creationist, I'm simply pointing out that humanity was created by something.

correct, it is indeed entirely different.
this type of "evolution" is variation about a mean and does not explain the increasing genetic complexity of the record.

Right, I agree.

 

[Winken]

How has the theory of evolution of changed since Darwin's original published work. Is his ideas 100% consistent with modern scientific knowledge?

Darwin got it wrong, and science has been muddled ever since.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends on which brand of evolution you're speaking of. If you're speaking of the brand of evolution which teaches that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms, you're correct, there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for that particular creationist view.

On the other hand, there is evidence for micro evolution, which is a completely different animal.

Wrong as usual on this topic. I would be glad to help you learn what evidence is so that you will not keep repeating this falsehood of yours. Your ignorance defense is not very credible. And why do you keep trying to insult science by attempting to drag it down to your level? You do that that is an admission that your own beliefs are inferior, don't you?

When you call science a religion when it is clearly not you are merely implying that since your religion is inferior to science the only way you can fight against science is to try to give it an inferior name. There are Christians that have no problem with reality. They do not have to attempt to drag science down. They can both accept Jesus and the fact that life evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwin got it wrong, and science has been muddled ever since.

Hardly. It seems some Christians have a hard time facing reality. Much of Genesis was known to be wrong long before Darwin came along. He just put the final nails in the coffin. But cheer up, the mere fact that Genesis is wrong does not mean that the entire Bible is wrong.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Darwin got it wrong, and science has been muddled ever since.

If you are going to make a claim, be prepared to back it up. Empty claims hold no weight here.

 

[sfs]

no.
science has yet to provide any empirical evidence that evolution is true.

I provided you with evidence that evolution is true. Despite my repeated requests, you have yet to refute that evidence, or to provide a non-evolutionary explanation for it.

 

[whois]

I provided you with evidence that evolution is true. Despite my repeated requests, you have yet to refute that evidence, or to provide a non-evolutionary explanation for it.

i believe you provided statistical evidence for speciation.
i also asked you what type of analysis you done, what was the name of the type of analysis.
no one has provided ANY empirical evidence of increasing genetic complexity.
this type of transition (increasing genetic complexity) is a major one, and not the result of an "accumulating" type of change.

according to the following article, your analysis could very well be flawed:
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_major_evolutionary_transitions

 

[Subduction Zone]

i believe you provided statistical evidence for speciation.
i also asked you what type of analysis you done, what was the name of the type of analysis.
no one has provided ANY empirical evidence of increasing genetic complexity.
this type of transition is a major one, and not the result of an "accumulating" type of change.

Since you can't even properly define "complexity" he can't answer your request. We can show how new traits are added.

 

[sfs]

i believe you provided statistical evidence for speciation.

Your belief is mistaken. I provided visual evidence, not statistical evidence, because I plotted the data for you.

i also asked you what type of analysis you done, what was the name of the type of analysis.

The name of the analysis was, "Here, I plotted the data for you. Explain it."

no one has provided ANY empirical evidence of increasing genetic complexity.

I provided you with empirical evidence that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. Why don't you address the evidence you've been given, rather than saying that there isn't any evidence?

this type of transition is a major one, and not the result of an "accumulating" type of change.

Then you should have no problem explaining why the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look exactly like a bunch of accumulated small changes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i believe you provided statistical evidence for speciation.
i also asked you what type of analysis you done, what was the name of the type of analysis.
no one has provided ANY empirical evidence of increasing genetic complexity.
this type of transition (increasing genetic complexity) is a major one, and not the result of an "accumulating" type of change.

according to the following article, your analysis could very well be flawed:
www.researchgate.net/publication/15314671_The_major_evolutionary_transitions

well, can it be in any animal?

 

[whois]

Your belief is mistaken. I provided visual evidence, not statistical evidence, because I plotted the data for you.

doing a statistacal analysis and then plotting the data is not empirical evidence.

The name of the analysis was, "Here, I plotted the data for you. Explain it."

which convinces me more that you used an invalid method of obtaining your data.
i'm not going to argue this point with you.
i provided a source that says these transitions do not have empirical evidence for them.
frankly i'll believe the source i posted, thank you.

 

[Gene2memE]

How has the theory of evolution of changed since Darwin's original published work. Is his ideas 100% consistent with modern scientific knowledge?

Darwin's core idea of descent with modification from a common ancestor has withstood the test of time and remains consistent within the current scientific model of the theory of evolution. As new evidence has come to light, certain segments of evolutionary theory have themselves been modified, to better account for the evidence.

Darwin, if he was alive today, would instantly be able to recognise his theory, even though it is 150 years since the publication of 'On the Origin of Species'. Many of the details are different, but this is like clothing on a person. You still recognise someone you know even if they're wearing something different from the last time you saw them.

If you're really interested, there is a book called 'Evolution Since Darwin' which provides an overview of the current state of evolutionary biology and the progress in major areas of research since Darwin.