Darwinism and His Theory of Evolution - Coursework Example

?Introduction On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was originally published in1859. In this study Darwin argued that life forms are not the result of creative activity of the rational Creator but of variation, inheritance and natural selection. With the appearance of the Theory of Evolution, the lacuna, which was previously filled with a belief in the Creator, could be filled with scientific explanations. The widely debatable Theory of Evolution swayed the minds of many scientists, who began to apply it to all branches of knowledge up to history (Marx) and psychology (Freud). More than one and a half century has passed after the Theory of Evolution publication date and all this time the debate over it was evolving, adapting, changing, but did not stop for a day even. As any science, Darwin’s Theory has far more questions than answers. The same situation is with the modern theories. The current Synthetic Theory of Evolution, combining achievements of genetics and classical Darwinism, was established 80 years ago. It’s now evident for all evolutionary biologists that it is outdated and many facts do not find any explanation in it. Scientists talk about the need for a new synthesis, which would unite the achievement of present-day paleontology, embryology, animal psychology and other fields of biology, which were not considered fully by the modern evolutionary theory. But even if the third synthesis occurs (Darwin’s theory is the first synthesis, as the historians of biology state), it will not, obviously, solve all the problems. But it will certainly put some new questions - such is the specificity of science. Overview of the Issue. Pros and Cons Scientists can debate certain statements and facts of the Theory of Natural Selection, but they have to admit that it, as a whole, is logically simple, clear and is confirmed by so many facts, testable in experiments, that can not simply be erroneous. Most biologists understand it. Another thing is that life is a very complex phenomenon and the Theory of Evolution gives only a very simplified presentation. This paves the way for further development of the theory in terms of constructive criticism. The essence of the Darwinian concept of evolution is reduced to a number of statements, recognized by most scientists: Within each species of living organisms there is a huge range of individual genetic variations in morphological, physiological, behavioral and any other character. This variability can have a continuous, quantitative or intermittent qualitative nature, but it exists always. All living organisms propagate their kind in a geometric progression. Resources for all types of living organisms are limited and, therefore, the struggle for existence must appear between individuals of one species or between individuals of different species or between species and natural conditions.  In the struggle for existence only the fittest individuals survive; individuals with abnormalities that happened to be adaptive to certain environmental conditions. This is a fundamentally important point in the arguments of Darwin. Deviations appear not as environmental variations, but happen by chance. Few of them become useful under specific conditions. Descendants of such survivors inherit useful deviations, which allowed their ancestors to survive, and are more adapted to the environment than the other members of population. Survival and reproduction of the fittest individuals was called “natural selection.” Natural selection of separate isolated species in different conditions of existence gradually leads to a divergence of characteristics of these species and, ultimately, to speciation. On these postulates, once again, perfect in terms of logic and supported by a huge number of facts, the modern Theory of Evolution has been established. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact (Quammen, NG). But the experimental data from the recent decades and results of archaeological excavations abound in the mass of facts that differ somewhat from the basic postulates of Darwin’s theory. Nobody has debunked the Theory so far, but there are a lot of talks on the issue, as it contains too much contradictions and exaggerations of the processes that have an insignificant nature in reality. The protesting scientists believe that estimation of natural selection in the process of evolution is false. Minor “cumulative changes in species”, on which the Theory relies on, practically do not occur in nature. Besides, scientists did not manage to breed new types of animals, experimenting with ionizing radiation and mutations. In several generations a species becomes free from the serious genetic changes caused artificially. And archaeologists were not able, for more than a century and a half, to discover bones of animals’ transitional forms. Many bones of ape-like human ancestors appeared to be, in practice, just clever fakes. In the course of evolution the very complex processes proceeded, influencing the origin of new species. Darwin understood them in a very simplified form. It is clear now that evolution can not be reduced to natural selection only. Nevertheless, Darwin’s theory is the most scientific of all, currently. But it can not make without serious corrections, it seems. From the perspective of 2009, Darwin’s principal ideas are substantially correct. He did not get everything right. Because he didn’t know about plate tectonics, Darwin’s comments on the distribution of species are not very useful. His theory of inheritance, since he had no knowledge of genes or DNA, is beside the point. But his central concepts of natural selection and sexual selection were correct (Wade, The NY Times) The Theory of the Origin of Species was based originally on a single factor - natural selection. And this is the main conceptual weakness of Darwin’s theory. The statement is supported by the fact that the author himself, at the end of life, brought into question his theory’s basis, realizing the insufficiency of mere natural selection to explain the initial stages of development of a specific organ. This critical argument was put forward by the British biologist George Mivart. Mivart supported the general concept of evolution, but considered that the driving force of evolution is not so much in natural selection as in the inner “plastic power” of organisms (Lamarckism). In the 6th edition of his book, Darwin admitted the correctness of criticism, saying that he, as an experienced naturalist, researched enough cases, carefully selected by him, to prove that natural selection can not explain the initial stages of useful structures (i.e. new organs and systems…). Such is the sum of the several chief objections and difficulties which may justly be urged against my theory… I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight (qtd. in Yahyan, Articles Base). Whatever the opponents say, Darwin, at least, had courage to face the difficulties he recognized. His main achievement is that he deduced a reasonable mechanism of evolution, which explains a variety of living beings, as well as their wonderful appropriateness, fitness to conditions of existence. This mechanism is a gradual natural selection of undirected random hereditary changes. Many modern scientists criticize Darwin, but can’t suggest a theory which can fully supersede or reconsider totally his findings. Conclusions A huge group of scientists criticized and continues to criticize consistently the Theory of Natural Selection. Such criticism is quite constructive and useful. The only problem is that, as a rule, these scholars offer their alternative theories, which, in terms of methodology, are much weaker than Darwin’s theory of evolution or do not meet the criteria of scientific character at all and are viewed as fiction, not science. A recent survey, conducted by the scientists of Michigan State University, showed that only every sixth person in the United States recognizes that Darwin’s theory is correct. For comparison: in Japan, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France the number of those, who accepted the concept of evolution is about 80%. Darwin’s theory is categorically rejected by about 30% of Americans, while only 10% of Europeans consider it groundless. In this paper I tried to highlight the positions of supporters (to whom I belong) and opponents of the Theory. But the truth, I do think, is in the middle, in this case. Darwin’s theory is basically, inherently correct. Now, there is no rational refutation that can supersede it. I do believe that the Synthetic Theory of Evolution, anyhow based on Darwin’s, must be taken as the fundamental and needs to be supplemented with all possible contemporary knowledge from the fields of archeology, genetics, different branches of biology, etc. References Okasha, S. (2006). Evolution and the Levels of Selection. London: Clarendon Press. National Geographic Magazine. (2004, November). David Quammen on The work of the 19th-century English naturalist shocked society and revolutionized science. How well has it withstood the test of time? Retrieved from: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/ Articles Base. (2008, January 15). Harun Yahyan on National Geographic’s Darwin Error. Retrieved from: http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/national-geographics-darwin-error-305246.html The New York Times. (2009, Februaty 9). Nicholas Wade on Darwin, Ahead of His Time, Is Still Influential. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10evolution.html?ref=sciencespecial2 Read More