3 ms·

That's not quite right. Yes, on the one hand his discovery wasn't from nowhere. But it was still a breakthrough - there were multiple theories of evolution in c

by azakai 10y ago

That's not quite right. Yes, on the one hand his discovery wasn't from nowhere. But it was still a breakthrough - there were multiple theories of evolution in circulation, but most we now know were simply wrong (e.g. Lamarck's theory of evolution). Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection was not only the sole survivor of those times, but also has stood up til today. It's important we realize that scientific discovery always depends on the work of others ("the shoulders of giants" as the saying goes), but we also have to recognize true breakthroughs as well, and not just say Darwin "collected evidence for a popular theory".

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
>> but most we now know were simply wrong (e.g. Lamarck's theory of evolution) actually, Lamarck's ideas have made quite a bit of a comeback - epigenetic studies being the prime example. essentially what that's all about is there are DNA-affecting "things" (introduced by things like stress for example) that don't alter the DNA itself but affects how the DNA gets passed on to the offspring. also (even though the scientific community gets all passive aggressive when this subject is brought up) - the truth of the matter is that while adaptation driven by natural selection is definitely "a thing" proven by experiments and observed in nature, the actual speciation driven by natural selection - not so much.
- azakai 10y ago
  Yes, some other ideas have been shown valid too, in some specific cases, including aspects of Lamarck's thinking. But I think it's worth stressing that the primary force that drives evolution is still very clearly natural selection. Not epigenetics, not genetic drift, not randomness, not "spanners" and other structural mechanisms, etc. It's remarkable that Darwin's idea has stood the test of time for so long. He just got it right. Where other influences exist, they tend to be interesting corner cases. Also worth noting that the main exception to natural selection is sexual selection, which was also introduced by Darwin. We shouldn't over-idolize scientific figures, but Darwin was truly remarkable.
  - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
    >> But I think it's worth stressing that the primary force that drives evolution is still very clearly natural selection. what makes you so sure of that?
    - azakai 10y ago
      Well, it's the universal view in evolutionary biology, in everything I've read and people I've talked to. It's also clearly stated in the opening paragraphs of the wikipedia entry for example [1]. Or were you asking why biologists are so sure? I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that the evidence for natural selection is simply overwhelming on all levels (archeological, experimental, theoretical, simulations, etc.). Other evolutionary processes have interesting work behind them, but the burden of proof to show they matter as much as natural selection has just not been hit yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
      - lawpoop 10y ago
        A nitpick: archaeology is the digging up of human remains and artifacts. Paleontology is probably what you mean.
        azakai 10y ago
        Oops, thanks for the correction!
      - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
        From what I gather, the core concept of the evolution which is speciation has not been demonstrated to be caused by natural selection. Everything I've read about so far is merely demonstrating adaptation of the species as opposed to a new species emerging.
        azakai 10y ago
        There isn't much debate on this anymore in biology - practically every important evolutionary biologist accepts that speciation is driven by natural selection. Of course other factors matter too, like goegraphic separation, and so forth; they can provide an opportunity for natural selection to drive changes between groups, that when they grow large enough become a difference in species. But it is natural selection that creates those differences. There is a small minority that think otherwise.

by azakai 10y ago

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago

>> but most we now know were simply wrong (e.g. Lamarck's theory of evolution) actually, Lamarck's ideas have made quite a bit of a comeback - epigenetic studies being the prime example. essentially what that's all about is there are DNA-affecting "things" (introduced by things like stress for example) that don't alter the DNA itself but affects how the DNA gets passed on to the offspring. also (even though the scientific community gets all passive aggressive when this subject is brought up) - the truth of the matter is that while adaptation driven by natural selection is definitely "a thing" proven by experiments and observed in nature, the actual speciation driven by natural selection - not so much.

azakai 10y ago
Yes, some other ideas have been shown valid too, in some specific cases, including aspects of Lamarck's thinking. But I think it's worth stressing that the primary force that drives evolution is still very clearly natural selection. Not epigenetics, not genetic drift, not randomness, not "spanners" and other structural mechanisms, etc. It's remarkable that Darwin's idea has stood the test of time for so long. He just got it right. Where other influences exist, they tend to be interesting corner cases. Also worth noting that the main exception to natural selection is sexual selection, which was also introduced by Darwin. We shouldn't over-idolize scientific figures, but Darwin was truly remarkable.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  >> But I think it's worth stressing that the primary force that drives evolution is still very clearly natural selection. what makes you so sure of that?
  - azakai 10y ago
    Well, it's the universal view in evolutionary biology, in everything I've read and people I've talked to. It's also clearly stated in the opening paragraphs of the wikipedia entry for example [1]. Or were you asking why biologists are so sure? I'm not a biologist, but my understanding is that the evidence for natural selection is simply overwhelming on all levels (archeological, experimental, theoretical, simulations, etc.). Other evolutionary processes have interesting work behind them, but the burden of proof to show they matter as much as natural selection has just not been hit yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
    - lawpoop 10y ago
      A nitpick: archaeology is the digging up of human remains and artifacts. Paleontology is probably what you mean.
      - azakai 10y ago
        Oops, thanks for the correction!
    - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
      From what I gather, the core concept of the evolution which is speciation has not been demonstrated to be caused by natural selection. Everything I've read about so far is merely demonstrating adaptation of the species as opposed to a new species emerging.
      - azakai 10y ago
        There isn't much debate on this anymore in biology - practically every important evolutionary biologist accepts that speciation is driven by natural selection. Of course other factors matter too, like goegraphic separation, and so forth; they can provide an opportunity for natural selection to drive changes between groups, that when they grow large enough become a difference in species. But it is natural selection that creates those differences. There is a small minority that think otherwise.