The evolution of evolution

[Doveaman]

I consider myself a devout Christian who believe in evolution, but it is not the evolution of biological species, it is the evolution of the evolutionary theory itself, since the evolutionary theory thought by today's "scientists" is a modification of the evolutionary theory thought by Darwin himself.

It seems as though Darwin’s evolutionary theory was not fit enough to survive to our present day, so it evolved into a newer modern theory that is, in many ways, different from the evolutionary theory thought by Darwin himself, a modern theory that would leave even Darwin confused. I guess that’s the problem with evolution, it always has to be modified to make sense, but never does.

 

[Drekkan85]

I consider myself a devout Christian who believe in evolution, but it is not the evolution of biological species, it is the evolution of the evolutionary theory itself, since the evolutionary theory thought by today's "scientists" is a modification of the evolutionary theory thought by Darwin himself.

It seems as though Darwin’s evolutionary theory was not fit enough to survive to our present day, so it evolved into a newer modern theory that is, in many way, different from the evolutionary theory thought by Darwin himself, a modern theory that would leave even Darwin confused. I guess that’s the problem with evolution, it always has to be modified to make sense, but never does.

Your outstanding quantity of scientific evidence on a scientific issue is mind-boggling...

Jeez, I gotta start going with something other than sarcasm. Yes, evolutionary theory changes. It accommodates new information into it; instead of rejecting that this information exists. That's what science does; it's why science isn't a religion.

 

[sfs]

I consider myself a devout Christian who believe in evolution, but it is not the evolution of biological species, it is the evolution of the evolutionary theory itself, since the evolutionary theory thought by today's "scientists" is a modification of the evolutionary theory thought by Darwin himself.

It seems as though Darwin’s evolutionary theory was not fit enough to survive to our present day, so it evolved into a newer modern theory that is, in many way, different from the evolutionary theory thought by Darwin himself, a modern theory that would leave even Darwin confused. I guess that’s the problem with evolution, it always has to be modified to make sense, but never does.

Of course Darwin's theory couldn't survive unchanged. He knew nothing about genetics, for example, and any modern theory of evolution is going to have to be formulated in terms of genetics. Nonetheless, Darwin's core insights remain central to the theory of evolution as it has developed; he was a very smart guy, and most of his ideas and sometimes even his guesses have held up very well. If Darwin were alive today, he would likely have little trouble understanding or accepting the modern theory, once he'd had time to digest the necessary molecular biology and genetics.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Like any good scientific theory from astrophysics to biology, evolution has adapted to incorporate new ideas. As stated above, with new insights new ideas are incorporated into the theory of evolution (most notably the entire idea of genetics. Darwin and his contemporaries had absolutely no knowledge of DNA etc.).

In the same way that other scientific theories have changed, evolution has 'evolved' as well.In fact, far from showing a weakness to the theory of evolution, the fact that it can adequately adapt and accept new scientific insights is one of the ways that we know that it has very good staying power.

 

[juvenissun]

Of course Darwin's theory couldn't survive unchanged. He knew nothing about genetics, for example, and any modern theory of evolution is going to have to be formulated in terms of genetics. Nonetheless, Darwin's core insights remain central to the theory of evolution as it has developed; he was a very smart guy, and most of his ideas and sometimes even his guesses have held up very well. If Darwin were alive today, he would likely have little trouble understanding or accepting the modern theory, once he'd had time to digest the necessary molecular biology and genetics.

One question which I could not find any answer yet. May be you can help.

I feel strongly that there is a HUGE gap between the new theory of evolution and the old one. To me, they are two domains with NO connection. So, if one is called evolution, then the other one should not. I can selectively accept the new one. But until the connection is clearly established, I will flatly reject the old one.

 

[gluadys]

One question which I could not find any answer yet. May be you can help.

I feel strongly that there is a HUGE gap between the new theory of evolution and the old one. To me, they are two domains with NO connection. So, if one is called evolution, then the other one should not. I can selectively accept the new one. But until the connection is clearly established, I will flatly reject the old one.

What do you see as the chief differences between the "new" and the "old" theory of evolution, and why do you see them as unconnected?

 

[The Barbarian]

I feel strongly that there is a HUGE gap between the new theory of evolution and the old one. To me, they are two domains with NO connection. So, if one is called evolution, then the other one should not. I can selectively accept the new one. But until the connection is clearly established, I will flatly reject the old one.

The core of Darwin's theory was:

1. More are born than can survive.
2. Every organism is slightly different than its parents.
3. Some of these differences make a difference in survival long enough to reproduce.
4. These differences are selectively preserved, and over time, account for the diversity of life.

These core ideas remain as true as ever. But to them have been added:

1. Genetics in the Modern Synthesis.
2. Neutralist theories
3. Punctuated Equilibrium

None of which contradict Darwin's core ideas. He was wrong about some details, but his theory remains the heart of evolutionary theory.

 

[sfs]

The core of Darwin's theory was:

1. More are born than can survive.
2. Every organism is slightly different than its parents.
3. Some of these differences make a difference in survival long enough to reproduce.
4. These differences are selectively preserved, and over time, account for the diversity of life.

These core ideas remain as true as ever. But to them have been added:

1. Genetics in the Modern Synthesis.
2. Neutralist theories
3. Punctuated Equilibrium

None of which contradict Darwin's core ideas. He was wrong about some details, but his theory remains the heart of evolutionary theory.

Even the germ of punctuated equilibrium can be found in Darwin, who suggested that rates of evolution might vary greatly over time.

 

[The Barbarian]

Even the germ of punctuated equilibrium can be found in Darwin, who suggested that rates of evolution might vary greatly over time.

Yes. He tended to be in favor of gradualism, something on which he and Huxley disagreed, but he did admit that saltation was possible.

Huxley was a rather convinced saltationist, although he later modified his ideas a bit.

 

[juvenissun]

What do you see as the chief differences between the "new" and the "old" theory of evolution, and why do you see them as unconnected?

I know (I really don't) mutation. Then I am lost.
For example, I don't see the mutation of us (or cat, or dog) can lead to a new species. So I don't believe the mutation of apes could lead to us. In other words, what we learned in lab does not apply to the old theory of evolution. Yes, you have told me that many conditions have to be met so a new species could emerge from mutation and adaptation process. I assume it could true. But I don't see any example yet.

May be sfs likes to say: not yet.
Yes, not yet. That is what I meant.

 

[gluadys]

I know (I really don't) mutation. Then I am lost.
For example, I don't see the mutation of us (or cat, or dog) can lead to a new species. So I don't believe the mutation of apes could lead to us. In other words, what we learned in lab does not apply to the old theory of evolution. Yes, you have told me that many conditions have to be met so a new species could emerge from mutation and adaptation process. I assume it could true. But I don't see any example yet.

May be sfs likes to say: not yet.
Yes, not yet. That is what I meant.

That is strange, because you said you flatly rejected the old theory, but could tentatively accept the new one.

Mutations are part of the "new" theory.

In the "old" theory, we have species changing over time because certain variations are preserved by natural selection. This has not changed in the "new" theory. But the "old" theory did not tell us where variations come from. Now we know that variations (phenotypic differences) come from recombinations and from mutations (genotypic differences).

So perhaps your problem is not with mutations but with variations. Is this what you really want to know?

"How does natural selection, by favoring certain variations, allow new species to emerge?"

 

[crawfish]

Creationism itself has "evolved" over the years. Most creationists believe things that, 20 years ago, would've been considered heresy. Heck, I read some creationists who were working whale evolution into their theories not long ago.

Change is a sign of strength, not weakness, btw. It means that the theory is progressing, and has not been falsified.

 

[Drekkan85]

I also get confused when we talk micro-macro that some people think there's a difference between the two.

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution+time. To buy into micro, but not macro, is like saying that I can take 1000 steps of 1 meter, but never walk a kilometer. All macro is is the accumulation of micro changes to the point at which a new speciation event occurs.

As for new species - it's a little late for rejecting speciation. We've seen speciation and creation of new traits/organs already (and this is in lab testing). From an observational standpoint the case gets even stronger with ever greater numbers of species and linkages. That's why many creationists keep moving the goal posts away from what it used to be - where each "kind" was a species. It's also why they refuse to give a firm definition of kind; if they did and something was shown to move past it they'd be sunk.

 

[juvenissun]

That is strange, because you said you flatly rejected the old theory, but could tentatively accept the new one.

Mutations are part of the "new" theory.

In the "old" theory, we have species changing over time because certain variations are preserved by natural selection. This has not changed in the "new" theory. But the "old" theory did not tell us where variations come from. Now we know that variations (phenotypic differences) come from recombinations and from mutations (genotypic differences).

So perhaps your problem is not with mutations but with variations. Is this what you really want to know?

"How does natural selection, by favoring certain variations, allow new species to emerge?"

No. That is not my question.

My question is: we observe mutation in the lab. Then what? That is it. No more. The rest is theoretical.

By the way, what is "variation"? How is it related to mutation?

 

[juvenissun]

I also get confused when we talk micro-macro that some people think there's a difference between the two.

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution+time. To buy into micro, but not macro, is like saying that I can take 1000 steps of 1 meter, but never walk a kilometer. All macro is is the accumulation of micro changes to the point at which a new speciation event occurs.

In your example, you (we) have only taken at most two steps. We can never see the completion of the walk. We only assume the rest of the 998 steps will go the same way.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I consider myself a devout Christian who believe in evolution, but it is not the evolution of biological species, it is the evolution of the evolutionary theory itself, since the evolutionary theory thought by today's "scientists" is a modification of the evolutionary theory thought by Darwin himself.

It seems as though Darwin’s evolutionary theory was not fit enough to survive to our present day, so it evolved into a newer modern theory that is, in many ways, different from the evolutionary theory thought by Darwin himself, a modern theory that would leave even Darwin confused. I guess that’s the problem with evolution, it always has to be modified to make sense, but never does.

Kinda like all science, especially when it starts to use multivariable calculus.

 

[Drekkan85]

In your example, you (we) have only taken at most two steps. We can never see the completion of the walk. We only assume the rest of the 998 steps will go the same way.

Except we've observed speciation. So where's the line? Species? Genus? Family? Order? Class? Phylum? Domain?

Where's the line between micro and macro for you?

 

[Skaloop]

Except we've observed speciation. So where's the line? Species? Genus? Family? Order? Class? Phylum? Domain?

Where's the line between micro and macro for you?

The line is just beyond what science has accomplished at the time the claim is made.

It's one of the few areas where Creationism is like science, in that it changes to account for new discoveries.

 

[juvenissun]

Except we've observed speciation. So where's the line? Species? Genus? Family? Order? Class? Phylum? Domain?

Where's the line between micro and macro for you?

I don't know. As I said, I don't know how would evolution continue beyond mutation.

 

[gluadys]

No. That is not my question.

My question is: we observe mutation in the lab. Then what? That is it. No more. The rest is theoretical.

By the way, what is "variation"? How is it related to mutation?

We observe mutation. We observe the effect of mutations on character traits (i.e. variation). We observe the impact of natural selection on organisms in relation to their combination of character traits. And we observe speciation. So none of this is theoretical.

Variations are individual differences in character traits. For example, when Mendel did his early work on pea plants, he recorded the results in terms of the frequency of character traits (yellow or green seed, smooth or wrinkled seed, tall or dwarf plants, white or purple flowers, etc.) Darwin also pointed to the diversity of individual differences in various character traits.

Mendel theorized the existence of "units of heredity" which he called "genes" to explain his results. We now know that variations are due to genetic differences.

Mutations change genes, introducing new genetic differences. And new genetic differences may be expressed as a new variation in the population. Alternatively, mutations can change transcription factors which change how a gene is expressed (whether it is turned off or on and for how long) and this too may produce a new variation in the population.